Has anyone had placenta capsules made?

[Yuuna]

Where did I write it was not 'your own organ'? Nowhere. If one ate their own hand that would still be anphropophagy - my preferred term due to the negative connotations of the origin of the world 'cannibal' (deriving from the term for the Caribbean native people such as the Kalinago people). I wrote cannibal to clarify believing some people may not be familiar with with the term anphropophagy.

It was good of you to take the time to promote your business - or would you prefer charity? There is a market and you have a business - you even advertised for it. How is that not chasing a (growing) market? You 'work' with placentas - does it not have an official job title yet? If I may, what are your medical or scientific qualifications? You made numerous claims yet I see no evidence for them. You have 'cleared up' nothing, merely bloodied the waters. Writing 'most likely' is a marketing ploy - you're not in a position to give guarantees. All you have is anecdotal evidence. It may as well be holistic. You aimed to clear up some points (most of which were patronizing at best - are we children?) and happened to end with a 10% discount. Smooth, almost like a baby's bottom...

I already wrote it is their body so they may do as they wish. I simply don't think people should be bought by new trends sparked by pseudo science. So yes, yawn indeed - that old chestnut.

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to spread your message. I'm sure business is booming.

xoxo

I wish to be clear whilst I find eating your (see I recognise it is theirs) placenta unnessary - it's your body! Just be realistic. Don't be bought by 'most likely'. Do YOUR OWN research and DON'T accept/rely on 'research' submitted by a company - whatever their cause/product; they are there to make money. It is in their interests (?$?) to make what they sell look good regardless of the scant substantial supporting evidence. ALWAYS question the source. Don't rely on their 'inherent good nature', even if they are women. Please remember; in this world money and integrity don't go hand in hand.

Just be careful and don't get your hopes up. Please bare in mind the placebo effect.

Homily over.

Yuuna

[Strawbs]

Yuuna - I think you have made your point! We on this thread are all intelligent enough to make a sensible decision so why don't you just let us get on with it as I am not sure what else there is left for you to add here. Thanks!

[sillywoman]

Homily indeed. Straws sums up my feelings nicely. Thanks S.

[Saffron]

Yuuna Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, there are animals that eat their placenta -

> that doesn't mean we should.

Actually, if you take the time to read the Kristal et al article, they discuss this issue very eloquently from multiple points of view, and both as scientific and cultural discussions.

>

> I simply find the practice unnessary. It has

> become a trend in the West it seems. There is no

> cultural basis for it here. People are setting up

> businesses to cater for this 'new market'. No

> research is going to convince me that eating

> placenta is 'healthy'.

Well that says it all, I guess. If your mind is made up, and no independent evidence-based research is going to sway you, then don't waste your time reading any scientific journal articles.

However, for anyone else who might be interested, I strongly encourage you read the Kristal et al article, which is an excellent, non-biased review of the available scientific research and current anthropological understanding of the practice of placentophagy in mammals including humans.

Yuuna, I don't disagree with you that there is a marketing strategy now behind the sale of placenta capsules, and that many of the claims for its benefits are unsupported/overstated. However, we'll have to part ways when it comes to any discussion of the evidence, no? Because as you yourself say, no research will convince you that this practice might have health benefits. Whereas, judging by the paucity of available high-quality publications available on this topic, I think this is an area of research that is under-investigated and poorly understood in humans. If any health benefits could be conclusively demonstrated from the consumption of placenta by postpartum mothers, then I think that government health officials should further investigate this topic. Improving postpartum health would alleviate a significant burden on healthcare systems. Placentophagy might be cheap effective way to achieve this.

[StraferJack]

Is this from the same Kristal?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-b-kristal/placenta-to-eat-or-not-to_b_1865446.html

[Saffron]

Mark B. Kristal, Jean M. DiPirro & Alexis C. Thompson (2012) Placentophagia in Humans and Nonhuman Mammals: Causes and Consequences. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 51(3) 177-197.

PLACENTOPHAGIA IN HUMANS

The Questionable Phenomenon of Human Placentophagia

We should begin with the premise that someone in the past, present, or

future, has done, is doing, or will do, anything conceivable to the human

mind. Given that premise, it is necessary to separate the rules from the

exceptions. As a species, modern Homo sapiens does not routinely practice

placentophagia (Kristal 1980; Young and Benyshek 2010). Whether it is done

in some remote cultures, or was done in the past by various cultures, has yet

to be determined....However, we must bear in mind, that, as William Cowper is

said to have observed in the18thcentury:?absence of proof is not proof of absence.?

The 1980 search revealed that there were many cultures with taboos against

placentophagia that seemed to express the attitude that ?animals do that, we are

not animals, therefore we should not do that,? and that placentophagia was essentially

a form of cannibalism. Taboos are generally formed against likely behaviors

or those that are recognized as possible; not against behaviors that

are exceedingly unlikely (e.g., a taboo against eating rocks is unnecessary).

There were also many cultures in which there was symbolic ingestion: the

afterbirth would be buried at the roots of a tree or bush, and in the next season,

a ceremony would occur in which the fruit of the tree or bush was eaten

or tea was brewed from the leaves....

Among the problems that confronted early anthropologists, and that

may have influenced the data gathered on birth practices, were modesty

(on the part of either the culture members or the anthropologists); secretiveness

(on the part of the culture members); culture members telling

the anthropologists what they thought the anthropologists wanted to hear

(Freeman 1983); and the casting of aspersions (e.g., one tribe saying that

they do not engage in the taboo behavior, but they know a nearby enemy

tribe that does?often used with cannibalism). It is interesting to note that

the fate of amniotic fluid, a colorless, innocuous liquid, is never mentioned.

Our research has shown that amniotic fluid ingestion is probably as important

for the effects we study (Kristal 1991) as is placenta ingestion, because

amniotic fluid is available before the infant is expelled, and placenta only

afterward.

CONCLUSIONS: WHY ISN?T PLACENTOPHAGIA

COMMON AMONG HUMANS?

The complementary question to ?Why do mammals eat placenta at parturition??

is ?Why don?t humans eat placenta at parturition?? Strictly speaking,

if placentophagia is not a biologically determined behavior in humans, we

should assume that there must be a good adaptive reason for its elimination.

Evolutionarily, Homo sapiens, as a species, has very few advantages

other than an extraordinary brain and a complex, tightly knit social structure

that enables humans to participate in group activities and facilitates the

transmission or collection of shared information. Morris has emphasized the

importance of solidifying social bonds, in The Naked Ape, as an explanation

of the prevalence of (and necessity for) nonprocreative sex in humans

(Morris 1967). The same may be true for placentophagia. If a principal benefit

of placentophagia, to humans, were the enhancement of opioid-mediated

pain relief at delivery, then perhaps the absence of such an enhancement,

and consequently a higher level of pain, is adaptive. A level of pain that

is tempered by endogenous opioids, but that is not further reduced by

opioid enhancers in ingested afterbirth, might necessitate greater help by

others during delivery. Participation by others, particularly women, would

have a significant effect on the strengthening of social bonds in the group;

would facilitate the transmission of birth information from older, experienced

women to younger, inexperienced women; and would facilitate care

and survival of the neonate and the mother. In this way, we might view

the suppression of placentophagia in humans as being more adaptive than

the practice. An additional source of evolutionary pressure for the socialization

of delivery is increased difficulty of birth resulting from the change in

birthing position of the young necessitated by the emergence of bipedalism,

and the relatively large head size of the fetus: Assistance increases infant

survival rate (Rosenberg and Trevathan 2002). This need for greater sociality

during delivery then, in combination with the consequent pressure to

conform to cultural norms, led to a strengthening of socials bonds and a

reduction in the likelihood of placentophagia.

An alternative to that scenario, just to cover all the bases, is the possibility

that amniotic fluid ingestion is at least as important as placenta ingestion,

but goes unnoticed because our attention is focused on placenta, which is

so obvious and obtrusive, and the expulsion of which is a medical necessity.

It is certainly possible that until recently (200?300 years in Western cultures),

delivering mothers routinely, but inadvertently, ingested small amounts of

amniotic fluid that got on their hands or on the infant, through the process

of licking or kissing.

A second alternative is the possibility that for humans, raw placenta

and amniotic fluid are, or at some point became, harmful to ingest.

Because the placenta contains enzymes that perform all of the major processes

of metabolism (oxidation, reduction, hydrolysis and conjugation;

Sastry 1995) and operates as a filtering mechanism as well, environmental

toxins directly (filtered) or indirectly (induction of the formation of

molecules by the placenta) may render ingested raw afterbirth tissue a

toxicological, endocrinological, or immunological threat to some women

(Clark et al. 1995; Kristal 1980; Morgan 1979; Young, Benyshek, and Lienard

2012). It is conceivable that differences in placental histology and cytology

between humans and other mammals make this a more serious problem in

humans. Cultural transmission of the knowledge of problems arising from

placentophagia would be expected to spread more quickly than suppression

of the behavior by natural selection.

Nevertheless, the quest for medicinal or behavioral benefits of components

of afterbirth is important, for the same reasons that the quest for

plant-based medicinal substances is important. The outcome of such a quest

need not be an exhortation for women to eat afterbirth, but for scientists

to isolate and identify the molecule or molecules that produce the beneficial

effect and use it to design pharmacological tools. In the case of POEF

and enhanced opioid-mediated analgesia, we have determined that not only

is the effect nonspecific in regard to species, but it is also nonspecific in

regard to sex (Abbott et al. 1991). That means that although males, which

in all probability do not make the molecule, have the ability to respond

to it. However, we do not raise this to suggest that both men and women

eat placenta, but instead to point out that scientific efforts should focus on

the characterization and either extraction or synthesis of the POEF molecule

so that it can be used for pharmacological pain management in both sexes.

The same logic would apply to whatever other afterbirth constituent affected

health or behavior.

[Saffron]

In the Huffpost editorial, Kristal is quoted as saying, "chacun ? son gout". And I don't disagree. He also writes from the perspective of someone with a fair amount of scepticism, and I don't disagree with that either. However, a healthy heaping of scepticism is not the same thing as a closed mind. xx

[hellosailor]

Really interesting article, thanks for posting Saffron

xx

[Kes]

Been trying to resist the urge to post on here. If people want to do this, can afford it and think it helps them then that's up to them. I also believe that LauraMcdora genuinely went into business because she wanted to help people and not for profit. But the links to her "scientific evidence" for consuming your placenta just aren't very convincing.

Scientific evidence for a medical treatments should be properly conducted trials published in peer reviewed journals. Other people writing articles or websites saying that something is true doesn't make it true, even if they have a medical title. Self reported experiences are likely to be very biased and research showing that there are lots of nutrients or stem cells in the placenta doesn't mean that those things would do any good when eaten etc etc

It seems to me that this is actually one of the few cases where a randomised controlled trial could be done to answer a pregnancy related question. Get a whole lot of women (who don't mind doing it, that could be the tricky part) give half of them their own placenta genuinely encapsulated, the other half get fake placebo capsules, question them all later about their recovery, maybe do blood tests to check iron levels etc.

Perhaps Lauramcdora and others who run these services could work with a hospital on this to actually get some really convincing data together and publish it in a proper journal. I'm sceptical about eating your placenta (as you'll have guessed) but I'm entirely prepared to endorse it if there really was good evidence. Hopefully hospitals would too if it really lived up to all the claims, then maybe it would be made available to everyone, not just those who can afford it.

K

[shaunag]

This is all very new to me- thought the thread was a wind up to begin with but am a bit shocked to discover its not! Would be far too queasy to contemplate participating and the main off putting factor is what the placenta is- it comes from half of the fertilised egg and is genetically identical to your baby to begin with. It just so happens that half becomes placenta and not baby. I'm totally weirded out at the thought of eating something that could have become my baby but chance dictated it to be placenta. I'm a bit of a funny fish that way though (won't do kidneys cos they are essentially filters and that grosses me out)! I imagine eating it raw (preferably while still at its freshest ie warm) can only be good for you (haven't read the literature) but I'm not sure id want/be comfortable with sending it off to be processed by an unregulated industry- human blood is too dodgy not to be 100% confident that what you get back is not 100% your own uncontaminated placenta. Hats off to any woman with the stomach to chow down but wouldn't be for me!

[Yuuna]

Yes, I agree. I wonder if there really is any benefit to eating the capsules - could we be sure the nutrients/vitamins are still active? I think if there were health benefits it would be in the raw product. I actually have a friend (she kept this quiet) who ate her placenta, cooked, yet finds the idea of drinking her own milk revolting! It's funny how conditioning regarding bodily functions/organs work. (I wouldn't eat my placenta because in my culture we burn/cremate it, I suppose as if it were a person; in a sense perhaps we do see it that way. Don't get me wrong I don't find the placenta disgusting - we mothersare expected to handle the placenta and lead the rite. I admit I was VERY squeamish the first time).

I don't think you're funny for being uncomfortable with eating it - I think it's natural to feel that way. I imagine in ancient times our ancestors regarded the afterbirth as a being (hence in mine and similar cultures the funeral rites being conducted). Of course, I also believe our ancestors also ate them at times. This world is so diverse.

[sillywoman]

Yes Kes, an RCT would work well if you could find a big enough cohort to make it valid, but it's important to keep in mind that just because something hasn't been officially tested, and published in a peer review journal doesn't mean that it lacks validity. There's more out there than our narrow technocratic medical model currently encompasses. It's good to keep on open mind - even on stuff that might initially make us think "Eeeewww" :)

SW x

[Kes]

SW - I completely agree that not having any data on something doesn't mean it doesn't work. There doesn't seem to have been any real studies done on this so we can't tell either way.

That wasn't my point though. I don't think companies should claim to have scientific evidence for their product if they don't. Even if profit isn't a major motivation they are still charging people (quite a lot) of money for a product/service. They should give accurate information about it so customers can make an informed choice.

It would be fine to say that the seller believes it's very helpful, that it could have x y z benefits and here's a link to loads of other people who think the same thing and who've tried it and thought it worked. But that shouldn't be dressed up as "scientific evidence".

I also think that anyone selling these sorts of things should be trying to prove they work and not just because they make money from it. If they really do work then they should be made available to everyone, not just those who can afford an extra significant expense at an already expensive time. With proper evidence there would be increased demand, the process could be scaled up and made cheaper, maybe it would even be offered on the NHS. If you really think something is that beneficial, do you not have a moral duty to prove it?

Oh and I'm not the least bit eeewww. after my last baby was born the midwife brought me the placenta and we had a jolly good look at it. It was interesting, although not terribly appetising. I opted for a nice steak and some multivitamins instead, it was lot cheaper.

[david_carnell]

sillywoman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's more out there

> than our narrow technocratic medical model

> currently encompasses.

Would you care to explain this? Or provide examples? That's quite a statement.

[Otta]

I'm male, but I'm pretty sure if I was a woman I'd still need to see some pretty solid proof of MAJOR benefits before I'd eat something that came from inside me.

[sillywoman]

I get that Kes, and mostly agree. But whilst I agree with the theory I think the reality for most people doing placenta encapsulation is that they don't make a great deal of money, are usually juggling this job with another, and/or children and don't have the resources to fund to organise proper testing into it's efficacy. That's not to say that I don't think it should happen, I do, just that I can see why it hasn't happened yet.

Delayed cord clamping is a prime example of this (dave_carnell might this meet your request for an example?). For years this was something of an underground 'alternative' practice, as it became more widespread and the claims of benefits to the baby became something that could no longer be ignored, finally research was done, and on the back of it, In 2011 the RCOG announced that their recommendation was for all women who had straightforward physiological births to be offered DCC. It's taking a while to filter through the system, but would have been unthinkable in the medicalised NHS maternity service of 20-30 years ago. The use of water in labour and birth is the same.

@dave_carnell: I was thinking specifically of all the myriad of techniques and tricks that traditional birth attendants use in environments where western medicine isn't available. These techniques (herbalism, accupressure, acupuncture, aromatherapy, massage, positioning, rebozo use) often get lost as the western medical model for healthcare moves in, sometimes we throw the baby out with the bathwater though (if you'll excuse the pun).

I like to think I carry a healthy dose of scepticism with me, but I'm also unwilling to dismiss something solely because it hasn't yet matched our 21st century criteria of 'proof' - who's to say what will be proved or disproved in the future? As Saffron says "a healthy heaping of scepticism is not the same thing as a closed mind".

[Undiscovered]

Kes your post re looking at yore placenta post birth brought back memories! On my last birth my amazing midwife practically dragged my husband over to explain to him in detail about her placenta examination for about 10 minutes (all whilst I was establishing feeding). I think he'd have happily eaten it there and then than have to look at it for another second! And he thought his eye opening experiences ended with cutting the cord... :0)

[jollybaby]

For some reason I photographed my sister's placenta for her.. .

[Saffron]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm male, but I'm pretty sure if I was a woman I'd

> still need to see some pretty solid proof of MAJOR

> benefits before I'd eat something that came from

> inside me.

You've never eaten a bogey? Not even when you were a kid???

Hmmm. You don't have to answer that of course. ;-)

Point being that almost everyone has at some point eaten something that once came from inside them, whether or not they admit it... And yes, some people think eating bogies is 'healthy'!

A few more examples?

Ever chewed a bit of earwax to find what it tasted like? Ever licked a teardrop, or nibbled that bit of crust from your eye in the morning? Ever chewed a fingernail, or that bit of dried skin your lips? I think children do these things fairly naturally, instinctively. Until we tell them that 'society' thinks it's 'gross'.

We even spread our bodily fluids all around us. Ever burnt your finger or scraped a knuckle, and put it in your mouth to soothe it? Ever lick your finger to rub something out of your eye? Ever lick your finger and use it to rub something out of your child's eye? Or the near ubiquitous 'spit on a hankie' and rub it on your kid's face?

Probably not everyone does all of these. But I'm willing to bet that at some point in their lives, everyone will have done at least one of these!

[buggie]

Sorry Saffron but don't think any of those analogies quite match up to something which is for 9mths an internal organ!

I wouldn't be tempted to suck on any sanitary protection I used & similarly, while curious to have a peek at the placenta (can I call you for placental photography jollybaby? ;-) ). I'll be happy for that to be the last I see of it.

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm male, but I'm pretty sure if I was a woman

> I'd

> > still need to see some pretty solid proof of

> MAJOR

> > benefits before I'd eat something that came

> from

> > inside me.

>

>

> You've never eaten a bogey? Not even when you

> were a kid???

>

> Hmmm. You don't have to answer that of course.

> ;-)

>

> Point being that almost everyone has at some point

> eaten something that once came from inside them,

> whether or not they admit it... And yes, some

> people think eating bogies is 'healthy'!

>

> A few more examples?

>

> Ever chewed a bit of earwax to find what it tasted

> like? Ever licked a teardrop, or nibbled that bit

> of crust from your eye in the morning? Ever

> chewed a fingernail, or that bit of dried skin

> your lips? I think children do these things

> fairly naturally, instinctively. Until we tell

> them that 'society' thinks it's 'gross'.

>

> We even spread our bodily fluids all around us.

> Ever burnt your finger or scraped a knuckle, and

> put it in your mouth to soothe it? Ever lick your

> finger to rub something out of your eye? Ever

> lick your finger and use it to rub something out

> of your child's eye? Or the near ubiquitous 'spit

> on a hankie' and rub it on your kid's face?

>

> Probably not everyone does all of these. But I'm

> willing to bet that at some point in their lives,

> everyone will have done at least one of these!

[Saffron]

buggie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry Saffron but don't think any of those

> analogies quite match up to something which is for

> 9mths an internal organ!

>

>

No, that wasn't really the point. I'll elaborate. What we see as gross can often be cultural, and even differ widely within the same society and among different age groups. We don't even give a second thought to 'acceptable' modes of interacting with our bodies and their various exudations. Our bodies are not disgusting. They're just our bodies.

[Saffron]

buggie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I wouldn't be tempted to suck on any sanitary

> protection I used ...>

>

>

Actually come to think of it, I've heard of women who regularly taste their own vaginal secretions particularly if they're prone to thrush or vaginitis, eg a change in taste being an early sign of disrupted vaginal ecology before full blown symptoms develop. The taste and general appearance can also be a good guide to best fertile days for some women. So although it may not appeal personally, it's certainly not unheard of.

[sillywoman]

buggie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry Saffron but don't think any of those

> analogies quite match up to something which is for

> 9mths an internal organ!

And yet most people will happily chow down on another mammals internal organs - regardless of how many months they've been in there - when presented in a fashion considered palatable (i.e. cooked & on a plate), and not consider it gross in any way. I do wonder what we think makes us so special? I know each person draws their own line, mine just seems to get broader and broader the more I think about & question stuff.

Don't know if I'd eat placenta or not, but if I was a sufferer of, or at risk of PND in any form, or lived in a place where I had little or no access to iron replacements I know I'd seriously consider it.

[Scribble]

I'm at risk of PND, if the last time predicts the next, but this isn't something I'd consider, primarily because (as already alluded to in earlier posts):

- There is little robust evidence on probable efficacy

- There is little evidence of any kind on risks and unwanted effects

- Taking these together, there is no convincing evidence on when, on average, eating your placenta might be beneficial, when it might have no effect, and when it might be harmful - and for whom.

For example, Saffron asked whether chemical intervention at birth might compromise / worsen the qualities of the placental meat (if unwanted hormones enter the placenta and are consumed). We just don't know whether this may be the case. If you are induced, or under certain other conditions, eating the placenta might make things worse, rather than better.

Not every intervention is effective or neutral; there is also the possibility of harm - and the lack of systematic research into this one means we don't know when each possibility may be the case. Agree with Kes that this is actually one of the few areas where a series of RCTs would be relatively easy to conduct, and that this would be very useful. Also agree with Yuuna that we should be very sceptical of claims that are made in the context of marketing, however they are framed (and more so if they come draped in a cloak of altruism).

[Otta]

sillywoman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> buggie Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Sorry Saffron but don't think any of those

> > analogies quite match up to something which is

> for

> > 9mths an internal organ!

>

> And yet most people will happily chow down on

> another mammals internal organs - regardless of

> how many months they've been in there - when

> presented in a fashion considered palatable (i.e.

> cooked & on a plate), and not consider it gross in

> any way.

Personally I don't understand people eating offal, I find it disgusting. I'm all about the flesh.

Wouldn't fancy a rump steak sliced from my fat arse though ;-)

Going to the point about other mammals eating their placenta, I thought they did that to get rid if the scent of it so as not to attract predators.

Don't think there are many predators in the birth unit at King's.