randomv

Hi again I agree that outside eyes can really help you to see what the problem really is (and yes it may well be you!!). After months of blaming teething, colds, hunger, developmental changes etc we had a baby who slept 12 hours a night so what we learned was that our LO was crying because he was tired and wanted to sleep, not because he wanted anything, including comfort from us (which made it worse). Sounds to me like your LO needs some gentle teaching on how to self settle, since you say she has never been a great sleeper. In an ideal world we can all wait until our children naturally teach themselves to sleep unaided for 12 hours a night but in the real world many of us have to go back to work, look after other children etc etc. and broken sleep for a year or more is just not an option. Good luck!

Hi There Haven't used them myself but have heard/read good things about Night Nannies http://www.nightnannies.com/ Prices are on the website. I don't think you can expect an overnight miracle but they will spend time with you and get the ball rolling - then it's down to you to follow their instructions! I thought about calling them many times when my little boy stopped sleeping well at around 4 months of age. In the end I went down the Controlled Crying route at 8 months (after having discounted hunger etc as a cause of waking) by which time he was waking every 90 mins. We were lucky - it took one evening of 30 mins crying (with regular comforting from us) to turn his sleeping around and I can count on one hand the number of times he has woken in the 6 months since then. However, if your LO has never been a good sleeper, there is no guarantee that it would work so quickly and painlessly for the two of you so you may well benefit from some professional help. Good luck with whatever you decide - having been there I know how tough it is to be constantly exhuasted.

josiebee Wrote: > > I think all I would ask for is a slightly more > open minded approach toward the question of > immunisation so that medical progress and advances > can continue. Putting people who dare question the > orthodoxy on immunisation into the same bracket as > holocaust deniers sort of sums things up. Josiebee - I am putting the analytical skills of those who deny the efficacy or safety of immunisation in the same bracket as holocaust deniers. Per Helena Handbasket, I can see nothing on the Informed Parents website to make me believe they are SELLING anything other than emotional and anecdotal mumbo-jumbo. I noted with interest though a linked page from their site entitled "What Has The HPV Cancer Vaccine Done To Our Girls?" which makes repeated references to the tragic case of a girl who died recently due to a previously undetected heart tumour. This is the kind of irresponsible reporting that leads to so many fears for parents who, at the end of the day, all want to do the best for their children.

Oh dearie me. I am really trying not to post further on this thread since it is getting ridiculous but seriously some of these posts are highly irresponsible. Is the best the anti-vaccine brigade can do to post some random links to websites that list a series of unsubstantiated claims? Incidentally, notice how many of these websites charge you for their apparently indispensible information..methinks that greed is not limited to the pharmaceuticals.. Open your eyes people!! If I put up a website claiming that a fork is a spoon, a cat is a tree and a car is a book it doesn't make it fact!! Let's see some real evidence for what you are saying - not a website put up by AN Other. Facts are deduced by careful analysis of a range of information, also taking into account any flaws there may be in the study, average incidence of certain outcomes etc etc. Antijen et al, are not speaking out. I have taken the time to read your links, even to look further into them (with worrying consequences) whereas I can only assume you have not done the same with my evidence. So who is narrow-minded? I would really urge anybody who is in any doubt to resist from making very serious decisions with regards their childs health from the information provided by holocaust deniers (did I mention the Aids deniers also on that site?) Isn't holocaust denial a criminal act?

antijen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.emotionalhealthcentre.com/Design/Assets > /archive/Essential%20Focus%20Newsletter%20Issue%20 > 13b.pdf > > Mumbo Jumbo?? YES!!! that is just a series of claims with no referenced information to back itself up!! Here is what I found on the large Danish study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124634/ Since you are obviously not going to read the article let me share this sentance with you: "In a commentary accompanying the study, which was published in the , Dr Edward Campion, senior deputy editor, wrote, ?This careful and convincing study shows that there is no association between autism and MMR vaccination.? Antijen, I'm interested to know why the best you can do to back up your claims is to google and post links to random sites? More intersted to wonder why anyone should believe anything a bunch of holocaust deniers have to say? Clearly these are people who are incapable of taking ANY form of evidence and reaching any sort of sensible conclusion. I believe I have posted useful, referenced and reviewed information that I hope will be of use to the OP in their decision. I don't think it's appropriate to turn this into some sort of anti-government debate so I'm out of this thread.

Antijen - that's a great link you posted. A quick look on the index page led me to this page on the same site: http://www.whale.to/b/holocaust_revisionism.html I'd rather make my child healthcare decisons based on scientific fact than the opinions of holocaust deniers.. HeidiHi, the difference between the US and the UK is that they pay their healthcare provider so they will get what they want, irrespective of whether it is the best or most effective treatment. In fact, the hospital probably makes more money from 5 separate shots so it's in their interests to give parents that choice. It does seem that you have a particular concern with regards to immune system but have you found any evidence that traditional vaccinations, including MMR pose a risk? Every time we take our children to the doctor's surgery we are exposing them to the risk of catching something (including some of the illnesses we can vaccinate against). So if one accepts that vaccines have been subject to rigorous and sustained testing programs and that they have been scientifically proven to be safe, then surely one must also accept that in opting for 5 separate injections that one is actually putting their child at a greater risk of contracting an illness? Interesting that because someone has assessed the hard evidence to be conclusive on either side of the debate that they are deemed narrow minded? As it happens I am someone who is very much open to many forms of alternative therapy. It just so happens that in the case of homeopathy there is no evidence to support any of it's claims and that in the case of MMR and other vaccinations there is a heap of evidence to suggest that they are effective and safe. Yes elements of the pharmaceutical industry are greedy scum, but it is among the most tightly regulated industries in the world. At the end of the day, you can research the methods, means, results, flaws etc of all published medical testing whereas homeopathy for example is shrouded in secrecy.

antijen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content > &view=article&id=679%3Aevent-uk-protest-against-ma > ndatory-vaccination-on-october-3rd-&catid=41%3Ahig > hlighted-news&Itemid=105&lang=en > > Heidi HI The options and choice may be taken away. I'm sorry antijen but this is precisely the kind of misreporting that leads to unfounded fears. http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/JCVI_biennialreport_2007-8.pdf Appendix B shows a list of members and all of their personal interests and fee paying consultancy. Again 100% transparent. This is an advisory agency, reporting into the Department of Health.

Thank you ????, that was precisely my point. I think it is fairly obvious from what I am saying that I do not read the Daily Mail or take my science facts from the mainstream media. It is from the research I have done since having my own child that I struggle to understand why anyone would consider using the likes of homeopathy on their child. Let's be clear: despite the conspiracy theories, homeopathy has never been subjected to anything like the rigorous, scientific and sustained global testing programs that 'traditional' medicines have. I've shown you my evidence for this (available free of charge incidentally, despite the author having a book available to buy) and all of the claims here are clearly referenced in terms of the research, i.e. 100% transparent. I'm open minded so am interested to consider any similarly scientific and transparent evidence to support homeopathic innoculations. My own research has thus far failed to uncover any (and I'm not prepared to pay for that book that was linked to read all about anecdotal evidence) Per my first post, there is some evidence to suggest that homeopathy can be as effective as a placebo (as is the case with some anti-depressants incidentally) which is all well and good and does have it's place in treatment of some conditions, but that is not appropriate for use in infants (who cannot be subject to a placebo effect!) Finally, with regards to parents wanting options, of course we do - we live in an age of choice, however we also have to understand that sometimes there isn't a 'third way' and we can't create one to suit our purposes if it doesn't exist.

antijen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.healthtreasures.com/vaccinations-parent > s-guide.html > > Hi Skip, there are other alternatives to vaccines > along with homeopathy, link above to one book, > which I've got to say I haven't read. I think its > important to make your own choice, soon we may not > have that choice, there have been many protests > worldwide recently against mandatory vaccines. I > absolutely believe people should accept others > decisions instead of trying to turn it into a > public issue rather than what it is, a personal > decision. Really? Thanks to a sustained anti-MMR campaign led by the likes of the Daily Mail, based on no scientific evidence incidentally, MMR take-up has dropped to a low enough level that measles has sprung up again in this area. Measles is not the cuddly child-friendly illness that the same media organisations may lead you to believe - it can kill or lead to permanant brain damage in very young children. That could be any one of our pre-MMR age children exposed to this disease. Of course it is a public issue!

Here Here ???? See these articles: http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/ http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/ even the claim that homeopathic remedies can be as effective as placebo are of no use when treating/immunising infants! With respect to the original poster, I think that if you are asking for advice/opinions of people who have gone down the homeopathic route, you are essentially requesting pro-homeopathic dogma! It may well be that what you view as pro-immunisation dogma is actually the result of concerned parents having done their research!! HTH

FYI cos I know that Breastflow bottles are not that cheap, I keep seeing them in TK Maxx so if you do find your LO takes them and you need to stock up you could do worse than take a look in there. My LO was another bottle refuser and we did have some success with the breastflow. My advice would be to choose your weapon and stick to it, he's very young still so I'm sure he'll take it eventually, it's just a case of how determined you are (and if you want to be that determined!) Make the milk good and hot, warm the teat, and yes, persevere. Good luck!

BellendenBear Wrote: > BLW seems to have a hint of doing something > different for the sake of it. Surely babies > brought up with this method are going to have a > healthy attitude to food and eating because their > parents have thought about food and feeding > habits. Are the 2 things not parallel rather than > being cause and effect? Totally agree. I think the term BLW is misleading though: what could be more baby led than feeding puree to a baby who clearly needs more than milk but doesn't yet have the skills or mental capacity to pick up the food he needs? In the case of my LO, he gradually showed that wanted to be more involved - there is no way he would have allowed me to force feed him puree - so he would feed himself bits of veg etc while I fed him the puree/mash. Now we are at the stage where he almost totally self-feeds, either with hands or spoon and I no longer mush or chop anything up for him.

Mellors Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If you can bear with it though, tne benefit of BLW > weaning is that I took the little one to Wagamama > at lunch today (age 13 months) where she merrily > chomped down Duck Gyosa and a mini portion of > Chicken Ramen with no help (although I am glad > they were cleaning the floor not me). No messing > about with baby food. Just wanted to point out that my 13 month old was weaned from 5 months, first with purees only and then puree/mashed food and finger food and he is also quite capable of eating what we eat without having it chopped or mashed up for him. I cook one meal per day which we have at night and he has for lunch the next day, and we regularly take him out to restaurants without having to take baby food with us, so if your LO is more suited to purees and the more traditional route at the moment, please don't think that means you'll be stuck on baby food for longer - it isn't necessarily the case.

No way! We took the exams at your school and quite a few of the girls in our class went there - will pm you!

Wow! In my day (20 years ago) the Italian Government funded "Italian School" for the UK born children of Italian citizens. Similar to this it ran in state schools but in the evening and was set up wherever there was a large Italian population - I went to the one in Slough where I did my O and A levels in the subject. The last I heard they had scrapped the scheme to save money but they've obviously had a change of heart and are widening the net - fantastic news! Vicky