Has anyone had placenta capsules made?

[david_carnell]

Also, comparisons to animal behaviour aren't really valid.

Horses go off and give birth in solitude away from other equine contact. No one suggests humans should do the same since having family/doctors/midwives present makes birth safer.

Just because an animal does something "natural" doesn't make it the correct thing for humans to do.

Scribble nails it for me - given how untested and unproven this is, it would seem at best ineffective and at worst possibly dangerous.

[LondonMix]

I think each to their own but I very strongly agree that treatments that have not been tested scientifically should not be presented as if there was scientific proof regarding safety and efficacy.

I also tend to agree that some people seem to romanticise what is ?natural? by analogy to what animals do or how humans lived in pre-modern times. I really struggle with this. Something having provided a survival benefit through natural pressures at one point in human history does not immediately equate with it being best or appropriate today in my view.

Natural pressures / evolution in and of themselves do not always lead to the best human outcomes. Anything that increases your chances of living to an age when you procreate will become adaptive, even if that adaptation is debilitating and ultimately shortens your overall lifespan.

The best example of this is sickle cell anaemia which is a mutation that can occur in any race but is particularly prevalent amongst people of African descent. This is because eventhough sickle cell anaemia is debilitating and often results in a shorter lifespan, it provides protection against malaria because of the mutated shape of suffers? blood cells. In areas of Africa where children died of malaria very young, having sickle cell actually provided an advantage as you had a greater chance of surviving to at least reproductive age (though you would die young all the same). In areas of Africa with malaria, the mutation became very prevalent amongst the population via natural selection. The decedents of Africans living in Europe and the US still suffer from this genetic disorder at a much higher rate than other ethnicities.

My point is, nature / what happens naturally, what people did to survive in pre-modern times and what animals do is by no means a rational guide to best practice for modern human health. I am sure there is a lot that modern medicine can learn from some of these abandoned practices and this should be properly researched and explored. However, how so many people automatically assume that if it worked for animals or people in a completely different historical context, it means we should do it now boggles my mind.

[Otta]

Well said.

[canela]

I agree LondonMix. Well said.

Yet I also think that just because something is classified as an "animal behaviour" doesn't mean we should reject it outhand. David, you said

"Horses go off and give birth in solitude away from other equine contact. No one suggests humans should do the same since having family/doctors/midwives present makes birth safer."

Actually there are a number of books written on this, by doctors, regarding home births and how medical staff should intervene. Many midwives will let the labouring woman be on her own in a separate room in the house, as they say this allows labour to progress easier.

[reeko]

Great post london mix.

There are no randomised controlled studies looking at the effects (benefits or harms) of consumption of placenta post birth. Any of the proposed 'benefits' are at best anecdotal and at worst misleading. Silly woman - the lack of this evidence is precisely why this practice lacks validity. It may be effective, but there is no proof, therefore any claims of benefit cannot be valid when trying to promote this practice or, more importantly, sell the services associated with it.

Laura McDora, you say that "cooking doea not kill off the nutrients"

Hormones and growth factors are proteins or peptides. Proteins tend to denature in an acidic environment causing them to become inactive. The Ph of stomach acid is between 1-2. Is there any evidence that the hormones and growth factors remain active post being cooked, dessicated, encapsulated and put through the human digestive system?

There are many other practices in maternal and foetal health where there is evidence of benefit yet they are not available on the NHS (e.g. blood test instead of scans for detection of chromosomal abnormalities http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12160618). There are also huge variations up and down the coutnry in the adoption of NICE guidelines. If passionate about maternal and foetal healthcare, I would start here long before chowing down on placenta.

[greenwater]

Knowing how hard the postpartum period can be (suffered PND with my first as well as complete exhaustion from significant blood loss at birth), I'm willing to give it a go even for the smallest of uplifts. At worst I will be a couple of hundred pounds worse off.

I'm very happy to go on the anecdotal evidence of mums who have been there (not just on this site but global pregnancy forums). Would be worth every penny to avoid the hideous lows of last time.

Each to their own of course...

[reeko]

Hi Greenwater,

indeed each to their own - as long as the NHS is not expected to introduce and pay for treatments and procedures for which there is no evidence of benefit and lack of harm.

It is also worth noting that people who have suffered, like it sounds you have, may be particularly vulnerable to being ripped off by misleading sales pitches and over-blown anecdotal claims. I work in cancer and the number of snake oil sales men out there is shocking. I have met several of them, and they are incredibly plausible. Some may believe what they claim but others are clearly only in it for profit and will say and do whatever they can to get vulnerable cancer patients to part with their cash. Some patients can afford it, but many cannot and their families end up paying the cost, sometimes tens of thousands of pounds.

I really hope you manage to avoid PND next time round, but as well as placenta capsules I would encourage you to look at the proven treatments and techniques to help manage depression (I am guessing you already have). I have no experience of PND, but I know exercise has proven to help in managing 'regular' depression - it is less convenient than a pill, especially with a new born, but at least there is proof it works.

All the best

reeko

[sillywoman]

reeko Wrote:

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

> Great post london mix.

>

>

> There are no randomised controlled studies looking

> at the effects (benefits or harms) of consumption

> of placenta post birth. Any of the proposed

> 'benefits' are at best anecdotal and at worst

> misleading. Silly woman - the lack of this

> evidence is precisely why this practice lacks

> validity. It may be effective, but there is no

> proof, therefore any claims of benefit cannot be

> valid when trying to promote this practice or,

> more importantly, sell the services associated

> with it.

>

> With respect I will have to disagree reeko: that there are no RCT's that look at the effects of eating placenta for postnatal women just means that there are no trials - only that. It doesn't mean the claim of benefit lacks validity, just that it may be valid or it may not - we don't yet know. To say the claim lacks validity suggests you have proof to the contrary. If you do please publish it, the medical/midwifery world awaits your work. Meantime, I'll keep an open mind on it all Thanks.

[LondonMix]

Just to be clear, I'm certainly not suggesting that women shouldn't eat their placentas if that's what they want to do. We are all adults and we can make our own choices with the information we have.

I just don't feel comfortable with anyone suggesting the safety and efficacy of doing so has already been scientifically proven.

The other thing that concerns me is that there appears to be a trend in thinking that seemingly "Natural" practices automatically equate to something being better/ optimal or safer. Natural (in the broadest sense of its use including evolutionary adaptations, pre-modern behaviours, animals behaviour etc) just means natural, nothing more, nothing less. It could be great but equally could be dangerous in a contemporary context.

In the absence of scientific evidence, I worry that the Cult of the Natural that pervades certain social circles and marketing information unduly influences people when weighing up the risks they might be exposing themselves to.

That said, in some form or another, our personal belief systems always influence or choices and that's not unique to health matters. Who realistically makes all of their life choices based on a dispassionate weighing up of the available evidence :)?

[Otta]

SW lacking validity doesn't mean it's definitely wrong, it just means it's yet to be validated. Which surely it is?

[reeko]

I think it is all down to definitions. To me to say a claim is valid, it would have to be validated. The accepted method of validation for medical claims is testing by randomised controlled trials. Without a well designed study any claim, no matter how sensible or outlandish, could potentially be valid. To avoid confusion and potential exploitation of vulnerable patients it would seem to me very prudent to describe only claims of benefit that have been proven in a trial setting as valid.

[sillywoman]

Otta Wrote:

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

> SW lacking validity doesn't mean it's definitely

> wrong, it just means it's yet to be validated.

> Which surely it is?

Yes Otta, that's what I meant - maybe I'm not saying it well though?

Reeko, yes - we do seem to be boiling the debate down to semantics. We will have to agree to disagree though, as whilst I do see your point of view I cannot help but feel that to hedge myself in with so may caveats before I would consider whether something might be useful to me might severely restrict my choices and lead me to miss a lot of useful stuff that the world has to offer? But I completely support your right to defend your need for validity - just your way isn't my way & vice versa. :)

[hellosailor]

hmmm.. the question I posed when I started this thread months ago (not sure why it attracted so much more attention after being resurrected recently than it did back then when it barely raised an eyebrow seemingly!) was 'has anyone had placenta capsules made?.and if so do you feel they helped?'

?.Not 'has anyone who has never had placenta capsules made got an opinion on whether they'd help?'

It was the feedback of mums who had done this that I sought, not a debate between people who have no experience of taking the pills? just sayin'..

[Otta]

It's an open internet forum, of course people are going to pipe in. And what's the harm in a bit of discussion.

Besides, how does a mum who has used them really KNOW that they've made any difference? (serious question)

[Kes]

SW - I found your last comment really interesting. You think that limiting yourself to things that have been scientifically proven would "severely restrict my choices and lead me to miss a lot of useful stuff that the world has to offer"

My feeling is that the world has a lot of offer, but that I have only very limited time and money so I would rather use it on something that has been proven to be safe and effective. While there could well be things out there that work, there are also quite a few that have been shown not to but are still marketed and I just don't have the time to fully research everything for myself.

[reeko]

I think I am with you on this one Kes, and something that is often forgotten, trials don't just prove benefit - or not - they also highlight harms. It is often quite tempting to assume something natural is not harmful, but there are multiple cases in cancer research where 'natural' products have been demonstrated through trials to be harmful to patient outcomes, this includes taking excess of some vitamins! St John's wort is another great example where trials which originally set out with a hypothesis of potential benefit, showed just how damaging it can be - hence its withdrawal as an over the counter supplement in this country. There are many areas in my life where I would not take an evidence based approach (e.g. I bought my phone cos it looked pretty, I bought my flat because I had a gut feeling I would be happy there) - healthcare is just not one of those areas. For me, though far from perfect, the evidence based approach is the most effective way to avoid harm and exploitation by quacks and well meaning but misguided people. But as you say each to their own, and I suspect my experience makes me more critical than most when it comes to assessing healthcare claims.

[TE44]

Link to an interesting article on safety of drugs approved by FDA.

There is no doubt that alternative therapies should be used with care, and thought for interactions.

http://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltesting/dangerous-medicine-examples-of-animal-based-tests

it has been shown time and time again that medicines approved to be safe by FDA does not guarantee safety.

I find this article interesting as it is lookin at animals being used to decide safety.

Animals natural instincts have been mentioned on this thread, and yet most of tbe approved drugs involves looking

at animals reaction, in an unnatural enviroment.

I believe like others on here, each to there own.

[hellosailor]

>

> Besides, how does a mum who has used them really

> KNOW that they've made any difference? (serious

> question)

This is very true, and I will never know whether it was the pills that helped me not get depression and have more energy and resources this time round, and when I'm asked by pregnant mum friends whether they helped I always point out that it can't be proved either way. For me it was worth a shot but I know it's a very unpalatable (excuse the pun!) idea for a lot of people.

xx

[david_carnell]

TE44 Wrote:

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

> Link to an interesting article on safety of drugs

> approved by FDA.

> There is no doubt that alternative therapies

> should be used with care, and thought for

> interactions.

>

> http://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animal

> testing/dangerous-medicine-examples-of-animal-base

> d-tests

>

> it has been shown time and time again that

> medicines approved to be safe by FDA does not

> guarantee safety.

>

> I find this article interesting as it is lookin at

> animals being used to decide safety.

> Animals natural instincts have been mentioned on

> this thread, and yet most of tbe approved drugs

> involves looking

> at animals reaction, in an unnatural enviroment.

>

> I believe like others on here, each to there own.

I think that article is a both ludicrous and willful distortion of facts to suit an anti-animal testing agenda. Highlighting a handful of examples where modern medicine and drug trials have failed or had damaging consequences undermines the fact the thousands of successful drug treatments developed and the millions of patients cured by them every year.

Believing in science and blind trials/animal experiments etc does not make someone or the 'industry' closed-minded. In fact the opposite. Show me something works, genuinely prove that it does and I'll happily accept it. I'll believe that water has memory, that copper cures arthritis or that placenta capsules help with PND as soon as anyone shows me some evidence.

What is close minded is believing in something despite no evidence supporting it because it is "natural", because anecdotes say it is or because of snake-oil marketing campaigns that prey on the desperate.

[Yuuna]

Let's not forget the many scientists involved in trials approved by the FDA that have direct links to the drug companies/manufacturers. The FDA's stance is often as clear as mud.

[david_carnell]

Baby. Bathwater. Both gone.

[TE44]

It is no big secret thAt lives have been put at risk in the marketing of drugs. If expressing this takes away the

good that is done, does that mean by ignoring it that takes away the bad.

Here is Dr Deborah Cohens view, "Drug Study Secrecy Puts Life At Risks".

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/11/science-medicine-secrecy-drug-studies-lives-risk/

This is not a handful of examples.

I put the animal link up (which seems to be redirected) in relation to views where the vadilty of animals

were not valid. I just thought it strange the same reasoning would not come with approved medicine.

[LondonMix]

I think David Carnell's point is that the occasional scandal makes the case that testing and oversight should be even more rigorous to prevent any such events (rare as they might be) from occurring.

It is not an argument against testing the safety and efficacy of medicine (which might be how some people reading the post) nor should it be an argument suggesting that in general tested drugs pose the same risks as untested alternative treatments.

[TE44]

I replied after reading others posts regarding validation on safety of whatever treatment they decide to take.

As I have said above.

This is not an argument, I merely replied to posts regarding the moral duty to prove safety especially when so much

money is being made. Yes it may have went off topic but for me it is connected.

I did not eat my placenta, i put my 1st in the fridge intending to bury it and plant some herbs, my mum came

the day after so it was put in the attic as she would have been horrified. When my husband took it down after she left was crawling with maggots so we buried it on spare ground across from where we lived then.a few month later a bootsale opened.we had a laugh over this but unfortunetly the road was to polluted to pick the herbs that grew there.

I have friends that believe by eating the placenta it helped there recovery, I see no reason not to believe them.

Its an individual choice.

When marketing and safety becomes part of the discussion I cannot help but look at what that means.

[Otta]

I just think that as every woman is different, and one post birth experience will be different from another (for the same woman), no woman can say with any certainty that it made any difference to them because they don't know how they'd have felt without it.

Does that make sense?

Anyway, each to their own, chow down.