| Author |
 Topic  |
|
katesm
Starting Member
45 Posts |
 Posted - 06/02/2005 : 4:25:20 PM
|
I just recently talked with Dr. Thomas Brewer about his diet plan for preventing pe. Has anyone had success with this diet? His theories do make sense. I really want to have another baby but I am so scared that I may get pe again.
Mom to Katie born 26 weeks due to severe pe |
|
|
Denise
Forum Administrator Emeritus
USA
6016 Posts |
|
|
jillmushet
Advanced Member
928 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 5:38:32 PM
|
We had a member here in Arizona who followed the Brewer Diet to prevent pe. It did not work. She experienced pe and HELLP.
Take care and let us know how you are doing.
Jill
Claire, 34wks, 3lbs 3ozs
3/3/00, PE & HELLP |
 |
|
|
Caryn
Ask the Experienced Moderator
USA
8780 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 01:07:47 AM
|
Yep, that member in Arizona was me -- I was on the Brewer diet from before conception, and delivered at 34 weeks with a bp of 220/116 *while on IV labetelol* and what my doc said was the highest protein count he'd ever seen. I believe the founder of the PF, Anne, also tried the diet during her third pregnancy, the one in which she developed HELLP and almost died.
So anecdotally, I'd say it doesn't work. A lot of people who endorse it seem to say, hey, I was on the Brewer diet and I didn't get PE, therefore it works. But most pregnant women do not develop this complication. A lot of other endorsers seem to say, hey, I got PE the first time, so I followed this diet the second time, and didn't get it. But most women do not get PE in subsequent pregnancies. Some women say, well, I had swelling, so I ate like this and it went away. But swelling is not PE. No studies have ever been conducted on *that* diet per se, but a number of other studies have investigated and have found minimal at best benefit from supplementing nutrition in various ways, including vitamin supplementation and protein/calorie supplementation.
Our understanding of the physiologic process of preeclampsia has advanced dramatically since early 2003, when a new study described a protein (not a dietary protein, but essentially a hormone, a cytokine, produced by the placenta among other parts of the body) which could be responsible for the majority of symptoms in PE, in that it can both damage blood vessels and block the growth of the placenta. Subsequent studies found dramatically elevated levels of that protein during the first trimester in women who went on to develop PE later in their pregnancies. Several other studies published at around that time seem to implicate early immune system involvement as well, namely that the maternal immune system recognizes the placenta as a foreign entity and tries to reject it, compromising its implantation into the uterus. If you want to find those studies, you can search the PF or PubMed for "sflt-1". Susan Fisher at UCSF is one author who has published rather a lot about the evidence for early immune system involvement, so you might be able to find that by searching on her name and words like "embryonic". Or you could email me; I've got them bookmarked.
This new research significantly contradicts Dr. Brewer's proposed mechanisms for development of the disease.
But I cannot say for certain that the Brewer diet doesn't help some people. I can only say that there are competing theories with much stronger empirical support. :-)
I *so* hear you on the wanting another baby and being terrified thing. :-) I'm there with you. It would be really nice if there were a magic bullet like the diet, but, well...
Caryn
DS Oscar born 10/20/02 at 34 weeks, rapid-onset severe PE |
|
|
|
annegarrett
Founder
USA
3280 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 11:32:43 AM
|
Well said Caryn...what I will say--is that we agree with Brewer that a good diet is very important to a pregnant woman. In a woman where "that" is the thing that tips her over the edge--maybe following such a diet makes a difference. The current thinking is that preeclampsia develops in different women for different reasons--and is more of a syndrome than a disease. I tend towards Caryn's theory--at least in my case--because I have subsequently been diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder (sarcoidosis) which causes an inflammatory response in my body. I know Bonnie struggles with Rheumatoid Arthritis and others have other issues. If your issue is that you are overweight--then the best thing you can do before trying to get pregnant again is to start taking folic acid, reduce your weight in a sensible manner (healthy diet and regular exercise like walking), get any blood pressure problems under control, get tested for any underlying issue like thrombophilias, kidney disease, etc...and reduce your stress. I had a pretty dire experience when I tried the Brewer diet--so cannot in good conscience recommend it but I am just one person. You have to talk to your husband and your doctor and make the best decision for you. I know people who swear that the diet made all the difference. How's that for unhelpful?!
Do take care--being educated and proactive is the best weapon against this disease.
Anne Garrett
Founder/Spokeswoman
Preeclampsia Foundation |
|
|
|
Kelly W
Senior Member
USA
1122 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 1:02:54 PM
|
I was very angry with Dr. Brewer after my second baby. [:D]
I had PIH with my first baby, and I was determined not to get it with my second baby. I researched and researched and found Dr. Brewer's "blueribbonbaby" site. During that pregnancy I very carefully followed his diet and I was *convinced* I wouldn't get PIH again [since he promises on the site that you won't....]. I had planned a home water birth and everything.
Well, guess what? After all of that, I developed PIH with my second pregnancy [which ended in an early hospital induction for very high BP]. I was so dissappointed and frustrated. I really felt like he had misled me. [:)]
In the years since my second birth, I have met several women who tried his diet to prevent a recurrence of PIH or Pre-Eclampsia and I never yet met anyone it worked for. I'm not saying it won't work for some people, but my *totally personal* opinion is that it is pretty much a waste of time.
I also don't thank him for his attitude either. Because of what he writes and says on his website, I have been told over and over by people that getting PIH is *my fault* for not eating right [or the nicer version "did you know if you eat a high protein diet you won't get PIH?"]. Its very frustrating and feels very much like "blaming the victim" to me.
Anyway, remember that the majority of women who had PIH/Pre-E/Eclampsia in their first pregnancy don't get it in subsequent pregnancies, so the odds are still on your side; though there are of course no guarantees.
Kelly
Mommy to
Samantha 1998 [induced 38 weeks w/ PIH]
Gabriel 2001 [induced 38 weeks w/ PIH]
Isabella 2003 [induced 38 weeks w/ PIH]
Gianna 4/15/2005 [induced 36 weeks w/ PIH] |
|
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 11:44:01 AM
|
I realize that this is an old thread, but it does still come up on searches, so I would like to add a thought to it.
I am sad that so many of you have had a bad experience with the Brewer Diet.
I am also sad that some of you felt that Dr. Brewer was blaming the mother for her symptoms. I was in contact with him, on and off for around 27 years, and I can assure you that that was never a part of his thinking, not in the slightest. His major frustration, which was a HUGE one, was with the medical establishment which continued to treat these symptoms in unhelpful ways--not with the mothers.
I am also sad that some of you tried the Brewer Diet and had trouble anyway. I would like to encourage others who might find themselves in that situation to seek out a professional who is more experienced with the Brewer Diet, and see if there is some way you can tweak the diet to your advantage, so that it might work better for you.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions. My email address is on my website.
Best wishes,
Joy
xxxxxxxxxxx |
|
|
|
onesock
Senior Member
1605 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 1:17:03 PM
|
Joy, I think that the frustration of "blaming the mother for her symptoms" comes from the fact that it says that the increase in bp comes from the lack of proper nutrition, or from your website, "the basic cause of the elevated blood pressure in pregnancy is the lack of enough of the right kinds of food." These statements insinuate that the mother is not eating properly, therefore, had she eaten the "right" foods, her BP would not have become elevated. I don't agree...PE and PIH cannot be prevented, in my opinion, by eating differently...I wish that was the case! Just my thoughts...everyone is entitled to an opinion, this is just mine.
Respectfully,
Wendy |
Wendy 36
Tony 37
Tameron 4/99 PE 34wks 3lbs 13oz
Bennett 10/01 PIH/PPHBP 37wks 5lbs
"one sock...somehow both of my boys always started with a pair and ended up with only one" :) |
|
|
|
Fiona
Forum Administrator
Canada
5862 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 1:21:39 PM
|
Joy,
thank you for your interest. This subject has been discussed ad nauseum on this site for many years - you pulled up a very old thread - and there has yet to be any peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support it. In fact, it shows very little basic understanding of the science of preeclampsia.
Let me refer you to an article in the New Yorker that expands on Caryn's post above:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060724fa_fact
I'm sure you will welcome the opportunity to review the latest thinking on the mechanism of this disease.
|
Fiona
Nate 12/8/97 - 14/8/97 26 wks - 1lb - severe pe
Jay 11/98 30 wks - 3lb 11oz - severe pe; Sacha 5/05 36 wks 3 days - 7lb 9oz - PIH
|
|
|
|
mom29
Senior Member
USA
1248 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 2:04:06 PM
|
Another thing that puzzles me is that a high protein diet isn't suggested for people with chronic hypertension. I have chronic hypertension (not significantly overweight) and have done a lot of reading about it and have not come across a suggestion that a high protein diet will help. I'm not certain why it would help in a pregnancy, but not cure chronic hypertension.
Also, if you read more threads at this website you will see many many more stories of women who have tried the diet,followed it religiously, and still got severe preeclampsia. I think all of us here believe a good diet plays an important role in our pregnancies, but the diet you suggest is not the 100% cure all for preeclampsia.
Sincerely,
mom29 |
|
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 03:47:09 AM
|
I've come to understand that the Brewer Diet is an unpopular topic on this board. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to answer that question. Plus, I am sensitive to the fact that this is an old thread, after all. I did not intend to raise a ruckus when I posted. When I find out whether it's ok, I will answer your question.
Perhaps it would be better for those with questions to email me?
Peace,
Joy |
|
|
|
Laura
Administrator Emeritus
USA
6187 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 09:44:39 AM
|
Hi Joy,
Of course you're allowed to answer questions! The only rule that applies here is that we don't permit direct linking to the sites referencing the diet or book; there are folks out there who are selling 'cures' for preeclampsia, and we don't ever permit linking to sites that advertise commercial 'cures' that purport to treat, cure, or otherwise mitigate the signs or symptoms of preeclampsia. If it costs money, we don't link to it! The survivors of this disease have endured enough without having their money taken, lol! [:)]
Earnest discussion is permitted-- but please be aware that this is a very emotional topic, particularly to those who feel betrayed that the 'cure' they tried didn't work for them. For this reason, we also ask that if you participate on our boards, that you have or have had preeclampsia; or are the 'support' person for someone with the disease, like a friend or family member. |
Alicia (severe PE) 5/98 ~ Camille (htn, oligo) 4/03~ Alexander (htn, oligo) 6/07
PCOS/Chronic htn/homozygous MTHFR |
|
|
|
Caryn
Ask the Experienced Moderator
USA
8780 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 12:03:35 PM
|
Because I'm actually on a 24-hour vacation with my ILs at the moment the original portions of this post will be brief and then I will cut and paste from older posts, but:
Brewer claims that preeclamptic women aren't eating enough protein to grow a baby. Specifically, he claims that a shortage of dietary protein causes insufficient albumin in the bloodstream, leading to leaky vessels, leading to the downstream symptoms of preeclampsia. He is quite explicit about this as the causal mechanism.
But we have no peer-reviewed data which supports this as the mechanism, and a very, very large amount of data supporting a different mechanism.
The current Cochrane Review on this subject found no change in preeclampsia rates when women were advised to increase their protein and calorie intake, and no change in preeclampsia rates when women were advised to a high-protein diet. It did, however, find an increase in SGA births in the high-protein diet group. It concludes: "Dietary advice appears effective in increasing pregnant women's energy and protein intakes but is unlikely to confer major benefits on infant or maternal health."
Here's a link or two to the abstract: http://www.update-software.com/abstracts/AB000032.htm
http://tinyurl.com/3837ht
In addition, you may be aware of the results of two recent large studies: one examined supplementation with the antioxidants C and E, and found that they did not reduce risk, and the other examined supplementation with calcium, and found that it did not reduce risk of occurrence of preeclampsia, but did reduce the frequency of severe outcomes like eclampsia.
Here's a link to the PubMed abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16641396&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum
Another recent large study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology analyzed almost 30 nutritional factors and found no relation between intake and the development of the hypertensive diseases of pregnancy.
Here's a link to the PubMed abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11262466&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_DocSum
The current model for the development of these diseases implicates immune system involvement during initial placental implantation which results in a poorly implanted placenta with inadequately remodeled spiral arteries, and the release of two proteins (sFlt-1, a VEGF antagonist, and sEng, which improves the invasive capability of trophoblastic cells by compromising the maternal immune system) by the placenta.
The entire syndrome is thought to be driven by maternal-fetal conflict. Human babies have large heads and pack on a lot of subcutaneous fat to fuel brain growth; human mothers have small pelvises because they walk upright. The maternal immune system negotiates with the placenta throughout pregnancy to grow a baby the right size to a) thrive and b) fit out. The best evidence we have suggests that when the mother's body has to shut down the placenta before the placenta is interested in triggering labor, a process very similar to graft rejection happens.
Graft rejection is when a foreign organ (and the placenta is foreign; the father's genes shut off the mother's genes via epigenetic imprinting) is rejected by the immune system of the host.
No one would seriously suggest to a patient undergoing kidney transplant failure that the problem was that they were eating insufficient protein.
Here are links to the publicly available paper on this from the Journal of Clinical Investigation:
http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/111/5/649
and a PubMed abstract of a Nature Medicine article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16751767&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum
In addition, an article appeared in the New Yorker last year discussing this research further:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060724fa_fact
The maternal-fetal conflict papers are also available in PubMed -- search on David Haig (at Harvard.) I don't have time to do that right now; I have to check out of the hotel. I can do it later if necessary.
I would be very interested to hear of any recent peer-reviewed research showing a causal link between nutrition and hypertensive outcomes, and would welcome any information supporting such a link. And actually, these discussions are quite popular -- in that they attract a lot of viewings and postings. It's just that there's no reason to think a high-protein diet can actually affect hypertensive pregnancies positively, so we don't tend to see much positive comment about this particular diet. |
Science is getting us closer to finding a cause, and even a cure. The articles you don't want to miss:
The Preeclampsia Puzzle (New Yorker) and Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy (New York Times)
Looking for recent articles and studies? Lectures from researchers? A chance to participate in research?
Caryn, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE |
|
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 4:28:04 PM
|
Thank you for the clarification of what's allowed here.
I do have an answer for the question of how chronic hypertension is different from the hypertension of pregnancy.
I also would like to clarify a bit of an inaccuracy in the definition of the Brewer philosophy as it's been presented here.
But I have never had pre-eclampsia, and I don't have any relatives with pre-eclampsia. I have had a couple of clients out of my 600-800 that I have helped get out of pre-eclampsia. So I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post here.
Joy |
|
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 4:44:59 PM
|
I'm also feeling very cautious about posting freely here because of the general feeling of having been "blamed", that I've heard from several mothers here.
If I am cleared for responding, in spite of the fact that I've never had PE, I would like to see if we can put aside the "blame" issue.
I have a lot of regrets in my life. In spite of the fact that I had been in the homebirth field for 6 years before my first son was born, I had a very traumatic hospital birth, contributed by choices that I made along the way. My sons are now 26 and 22, and I have many regrets about choices I made along the way, as we raised them. But I choose to not blame myself about that. I choose to understand that I did the best that I could with the information that I had at the time, and with the resources that I had at the time. And I choose to take that information about my past and learn from it what I can and use it to enlighten the rest of my life and that of others that I come in contact with (whenever it's appropriate).
And I believe that the focus of all teachers and healers ideally is to teach and to heal, not to blame. As nurses, and probably other healers as well, our first thought is to help the person coming to us get to a place of better health, not to blame them for any part of their dis-health.
However, I can hear the pain of those who felt blamed, regardless of what the intent was of the person they felt blamed by. And I want to try to be sensitive to that pain.
At the same time, I am concerned that I won't be able to respond freely and openly about how the Brewer Diet works, no matter how thoughtful and careful I try to be with my words, without someone here feeling blamed by what I say, no matter how often I say that I'm not doing that.
So if I hear that it's ok for me to post, can we find a way to set the "blame" issue aside for the time being?
Joy |
|
|
|
Caryn
Ask the Experienced Moderator
USA
8780 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 4:54:13 PM
|
Speaking for myself only: I'll accept that you're not blaming the women who developed preeclampsia for failing to eat enough protein as soon as you show me peer-reviewed studies showing a causal relationship between protein intake and hypertensive pregnancy.
I ate plenty of protein and calories (and my direct-entry midwife with more experience than you agreed with me!) My blood volume would have been plenty expanded if that had been the causal mechanism.
But it isn't. Or, at least, there is no reason whatsoever to think that it is. If you can come back with peer-reviewed data showing a relationship, then we can chat some more. |
Science is getting us closer to finding a cause, and even a cure. The articles you don't want to miss:
The Preeclampsia Puzzle (New Yorker) and Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy (New York Times)
Looking for recent articles and studies? Lectures from researchers? A chance to participate in research?
Caryn, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE |
|
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 4:59:24 PM
|
I am willing to answer questions.
I have not been in close enough contact with Gail Brewer lately to give you chapter and verse on peer-reviewed studies. I do know that many doctors have enthusiastically supported Dr. Brewer over the years.
I prefer to not compete with you, but I am willing to answer questions, which I am qualified to do.
I may need to leave home for a couple of hours now, so if I take awhile to respond it does not signify any rudeness on my part.
Joy |
|
|
|
Caryn
Ask the Experienced Moderator
USA
8780 Posts |
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 5:04:00 PM
|
Would you like me to answer the questions?
Joy |
|
|
|
Caryn
Ask the Experienced Moderator
USA
8780 Posts |
|
|
Caryn
Ask the Experienced Moderator
USA
8780 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 5:19:50 PM
|
To make that more explicit:
The answers you would provide to the questions above are only relevant if there is some reason to think diet affects hypertensive pregnancy outcomes.
But there is no evidence whatsoever to support this. (ETA: and please, don't say that it's just intuitively obvious that you have to feed the mother enough to grow a baby. Quantum mechanics isn't intuitively obvious, but it's true, and it's confirmed every day in computers and cell phones and particle accelerators. I'd like to see some actual, peer-reviewed evidence.)
We would have no reason to expect the answers to be true. They might be logically consistent with Brewer's argument, but there seems to be no evidence to support Brewer's argument, and a lot of recent and well-supported evidence to reject it.
I don't want to know how Brewer would work, if it did. I want to know why I should think that Brewer would work. |
Science is getting us closer to finding a cause, and even a cure. The articles you don't want to miss:
The Preeclampsia Puzzle (New Yorker) and Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy (New York Times)
Looking for recent articles and studies? Lectures from researchers? A chance to participate in research?
Caryn, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE |
|
|
|
celticepona
Senior Member
USA
1186 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 7:28:41 PM
|
Hello Joy,
May I ask who you are? |
Amy.
DH Rich and DD Emily born 4-01-04 at 37 weeks, 5 lbs 15 oz due to severe PE/borderline eclampsia/post partum preeclamsia. Strict left side bedrest for two weeks and three weeks postpartum.
DD Isabelle (Izzy) Born 4/19/08 at 37 weeks, 6 lbs 9 oz, sudden PE. Postpartum hypertension again and on aldomet, altace. (no bedrest this time:) |
|
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 8:58:51 PM
|
1) I do not know if there are any peer-reviewed articles or research regarding the Brewer Diet. That does not mean that they do not exist--only that I am not privy to all of their files.
2) I talked with my husband on the subject of peer-review. My husband has been a college professor for about 27 years, and the chair of the Audio Arts and Acoustics Department for maybe 10 years. He said that the peer-review system has two sides to it. On the one hand it does succeed at eliminating quacks. On the other hand, it also succeeds at suppressing any point of view that happens to be unpopular, because any unpopular view will not get a fair chance for review.
The old story of Dr. Semmelweis would seem to be a classic example of this unfair suppression of an unpopular medical view, a suppression which was unrelated to how valid his view was.
3) I don't have the energy to read all the threads here of all your previous discussions on the Brewer Diet, but so far in this one there have been several items stated or implied as fact which simply are not factual, and people are apparently building on those items as if they are factual, which leads to faulty conclusions. I'm simply offering to clarify those faulty beginning assumptions. It would seem unfortunate to me to allow your membership to continue to believe that the Brewer people claim things that they do not claim. But I do agree that it is the prerogative of the moderators to decide what information is allowed on their board.
4) I was not even considering replying that anything is intuitively obvious. I do believe that the answers are much more scientific than that--and consistent with what I learned about the human physiology in nursing school.
5) I can't begin to explain anything as long as you list reasons why you don't want to hear them.
6) These are some of the questions I see so far in this thread which I could answer factually, not based on intuition.
--What is the difference between chronic hypertension and the hypertension of pregnancy?
--Does Brewer actually claim that pre-eclamptic women aren't eating enough protein to grow a baby?
--Does Brewer actually claim that the deficiency of albumin in the blood causes leaky blood vessels (leading to the downstream symptoms of pre-eclampsia)?
--Can any increase of protein in the pregnant diet claim to be following the Brewer Diet, or is it more specific and precise than that?
--Can any non-Brewer-oriented physician know enough about the Brewer Diet to be able to use it or prescribe it well enough to judge whether it "works" on any of their pre-eclamptic patients?
--Does Brewer actually claim that this diet is good for any non-pregnant person with kidney disease, heart disease, or diseases of the circulatory system?
--Does Brewer actually claim that this diet is good for any pregnant woman with kidney disease, heart disease, or diseases of the circulatory system?
--There's been much confusion about what the Brewer Diet actually is. Even some midwives and childbirth educators sometimes teach the Brewer Diet incorrectly. How can any mother who feels that it didn't work for her know whether she was one of the ones who was taught incorrectly or not?
--There is a specific way to adjust the Brewer Diet for when symptoms of pre-eclampsia appear. Does any one here know what that is? If not, how do the ones whose experience was that it didn't work know whether it was applied for their situation correctly?
--Does Brewer actually say that this diet would be good for someone with kidney transplant failure?
--Is it really scientifically accurate to compare a healthy bodily function like pregnancy which has been serving us well for thousands of years to a disease-ridden, medication-ridden, surgically-altered situation like a kidney transplant failure?
7) Dr. Brewer first wrote up his research and findings and case studies in his thesis, published in 1966. Presumably every thesis gets a peer review as part of the process.
In the first edition, there are 76 articles in the bibliography, many of them from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Journal Obstetric Gynaecology British Commonwealth, and Lancet, among others. Presumably every article published in those journals got a peer review before they were allowed to be published there.
In the revised edition of his thesis, published in 1982, a detailed "New Annotated Bibliography of Scientific Studies" is added, which includes 35 articles in the category of "Clinical Observations and Research", including at least one article published in JAMA in which two other doctors (not Brewer) directly linked toxemia with low serum albumin and inadequate protein intake. This bibliography also includes 41 additional entries in the category of "Books, Reviews, and Academic, Statistical and Epidemiological Studies".
8) I do not believe that this new direction in the research on PE necessarily contradicts the Brewer view on it. It seems to me, from what I have read, that it sounds as though this researcher is just finding another symptom, not a cause. It also seems to me that what he is finding is consistent with what Brewer was saying all along--except the mother-fetus conflict.
9) It also seems to me from what I have read that the findings of this research so far are not consistent. It seems that sometimes the tests confirm the theory and sometimes not.
10) The mother-baby conflict is a belief system that one must buy into to move further with the theories based on that belief system. It is not a belief system that is universally accepted in the community of health professionals--doctors, midwives, nurses, etc. Robbie Davis-Floyd, an anthropologist, has written some very thought-provoking articles on this subject, the links for which I can provide to anyone who would email me for them, unless you prefer that I post them here. You can also find them by clicking on her name, on my list of authors.
If you decide to hear the answers to the questions that I have listed above, I will be glad to post them as soon as you give me the go-ahead.
Joy |
|
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 9:03:31 PM
|
Sorry, Amy. I did not see your question before I posted my last post.
My history and CV are listed on my "About" page of my website, which is listed in my profile.
If you cannot get there, I will copy it here, if that's ok with the moderators.
Most briefly, I am a Registered Nurse who has been working with midwives for the past 30 years.
Joy |
|
|
|
onesock
Senior Member
1605 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 9:32:08 PM
|
My concern here is that the thesis revision was done in 1982...which was a very long time ago. Even since I have had my son in 1999, there have been huge discoveries and strides towards the control (notice I did not say cure) of PE. Is there ongoing studies of the Brewer's Diet to date and is the research still ongoing or evolving?
When you say "Is it really scientifically accurate to compare a healthy bodily function like pregnancy which has been serving us well for thousands of years to a disease-ridden, medication-ridden, surgically-altered situation like a kidney transplant failure?" What you may not understand, possibly because you have not directly experienced PE, is that PE IS a disease and in most of us here, it is NOT a "healthy bodily function," which is often medication ridden, and does include kidney and/or liver failure. So, my answer to that would be YES! it is accurate to compare them. I am not sure that you fully understand the disease, which is not uncommon. We are just a community of ladies that have become very educated on this disease, because it is often our own advocacy that has saved our lives. |
Wendy 36
Tony 37
Tameron 4/99 PE 34wks 3lbs 13oz
Bennett 10/01 PIH/PPHBP 37wks 5lbs
"one sock...somehow both of my boys always started with a pair and ended up with only one" :) |
|
|
|
Fiona
Forum Administrator
Canada
5862 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 9:38:28 PM
|
Joy,
if you are ready to produce evidence, then bring it on. Thus far you have answered our questions with more questions, admitted you 'don't know' if there is any peer-reviewed data on a theory now almost 50 years old (BTW: there isn't)and have questioned the validity of the new research on preeclmapsia and its mechanics because of how it 'seems' to you.
We don't talk down to our members here. We don't deal in whats, ifs and maybes. We offer solid advice based on the best current research we can find.
We also call this disease by its proper name: preeclampsia.
You want to debate this here properly? Go ahead. But no, we will not tolerate you attempting to lure members to your site so you can promote Brewer without being forced to back up what you say with evidence. Not anecdotes. Evidence. |
Fiona
Nate 12/8/97 - 14/8/97 26 wks - 1lb - severe pe
Jay 11/98 30 wks - 3lb 11oz - severe pe; Sacha 5/05 36 wks 3 days - 7lb 9oz - PIH
|
|
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 9:44:52 PM
|
I have noticed a tone in some of your responses to me that seem rather condescending. I hope that I have responded to you with nothing less than respect, with no sarcasm or put-downs. I ask that you would do the same for me.
1) I don't know what research is still ongoing regarding the Brewer viewpoint. That does not mean that it isn't there--only that I'm not privy to all that goes on in their camp.
2) 1982 may be a long time ago, and hopefully there will be a more recent bibliography available sometime soon. Dr. Brewer and Gail Brewer Krebs were working on such a bibliography in the months before his death, I have heard. But it seems to me that there are some basic things that don't need proving over and over and over again.
3) I do understand that PE is a disease. I have been learning about and working with this disease for 30 years. But what you were saying was that the disease was TRIGGERED by an immune process similar to the immune process in a patient with kidney transplant failure. So actually your scenario would include comparing a pre-disease situation with a disease situation.
Joy |
|
|
|
Caryn
Ask the Experienced Moderator
USA
8780 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 9:50:25 PM
|
I'll take these point by point.
1) If you do not know if Brewer's argument for the mechanism underlying preeclampsia has been confirmed in peer review, why are you claiming that it is true?
Surely good evidence for it would appear in a literature search.
2) If, for some reason or other, this evidence hasn't been peer-reviewed, why not? Surely in the intervening 40 years, a decent clinical trial could be conducted and the evidence could be submitted to a medical journal. Why has this not happened?
Alternatively, do you have any evidence you could provide -- and I don't mean anecdotes -- in support of Brewer's claims? The normal standard for quality evidence is peer-reviewed research. If you have some quality evidence that isn't peer-reviewed, what is it?
3) I've linked to evidence supporting my claims. I would like to see evidence supporting yours.
4) Good. I see the claim that nutrition is just intuitively obvious far too often. I would like to see evidence.
5) I am listing reasons why I would like to see empirical evidence for Brewer's claims.
6) Frankly, I don't want to get into the minutia of Brewer's worldview without some actual data supporting his diet. As I said, it's talking about the specifics of how it would work, if it did. But we have no evidence that it works at all.
I did not say that Brewer would recommend his diet to people with kidney transplant failure. I used a kidney transplant as an analogy.
7) No followup research seems to have supported his thesis. Lots of new research has confirmed a completely different mechanism by which the preeclampsia syndrome develops. There've been 40 years of subsequent research which have failed to support his initial claim.
8) The subsequent research confirms hypoxia and likely confirms an immune system response to the foreign placenta. It does not confirm insufficient dietary protein. Upregulated sFlt-1 is not thought to be a symptom, but a cause of the downstream symptoms.
9) Please post links to the research which doesn't support the current view of the disease.
10) Maternal-fetal conflict is a well-confirmed biological theory. Do you have any evidence suggesting that another theory is a more accurate model of preeclampsia?
You may be noticing a theme here. [:)] I have heard exactly these claims from a good number of midwives, doulas, and homebirth advocates, but no one seems to have any evidence to support them, apart from vague mentions of political conspiracies against Brewer's claims and a willingness to debate the fine details of exactly how it would work, *if* it worked. But there is no evidence *that it works*.
I would like very much to see some evidence for Brewer's diet. |
Science is getting us closer to finding a cause, and even a cure. The articles you don't want to miss:
The Preeclampsia Puzzle (New Yorker) and Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy (New York Times)
Looking for recent articles and studies? Lectures from researchers? A chance to participate in research?
Caryn, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE |
|
|
|
Fiona
Forum Administrator
Canada
5862 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 9:53:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by djsnjones
But it seems to me that there are some basic things that don't need proving over and over and over again.
Would you care to elaborate on what has been proven?
|
Fiona
Nate 12/8/97 - 14/8/97 26 wks - 1lb - severe pe
Jay 11/98 30 wks - 3lb 11oz - severe pe; Sacha 5/05 36 wks 3 days - 7lb 9oz - PIH
|
|
|
|
Caryn
Ask the Experienced Moderator
USA
8780 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 10:11:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by djsnjones
But what you were saying was that the disease was TRIGGERED by an immune process similar to the immune process in a patient with kidney transplant failure.
Yes, and this is so well-established that it is now the focus of literature reviews, whereas there is still no support for dietary manipulation. See the following:
http://tinyurl.com/265jfm
Maternal-fetal (paternal) immune maladaptation is implicated in the insufficient trophoblast invasion, which leads to an imbalance of angiogenic and antiangiogenic factors at the maternal-fetal interface. This review summarizes the actual knowledge of important pathophysiological basic principles of preeclampsia.
http://tinyurl.com/yt3mnn
(1) Patients with preeclampsia and those who deliver an SGA neonate had a significantly lower serum concentration of sCD30 than normal pregnant women. (2) This finding is consistent with the view that preeclampsia and SGA are associated with a polarized Th1 immune response and, perhaps, a reduced Th2 response.
http://tinyurl.com/26v3wr
Pre-eclampsia seems to be related to the disturbance of immune tolerance regulation during pregnancy. Receptor-binding cancer antigen expressed on SiSo cells (RCAS1) decidual level alterations were concomitant with changes in immune cell number and activity in decidua. As decidual immunomodulating activity participates in the development of immune tolerance during pregnancy, we aimed to evaluate the immunoreactivity level of decidual RCAS1 with respect to the presence and activity of immune cells... RCAS1 immunoreactivity was statistically significantly higher in decidual tissue samples derived from patients with sPE tissue than in those derived from healthy patients in whom elective cesarean section at term was performed.
http://tinyurl.com/2c8bu6
The present study supports the hypothesis of altered immune response in preeclampsia and suggests that dysregulation of cytokine expression occurs in preeclampsia with increased levels of IFN gamma, IL-12p70, IL-15, IL-18 and IL-4.
http://tinyurl.com/ytzeqd
The sera from preeclamptic women significantly inhibited the immortalized trophoblastic cell proliferation in comparison with those from normal pregnancy. Among the lymphocyte fractions, monocytes significantly inhibited the immortalized trophoblastic cell proliferation. The monocytes from preeclamptic women were found to produce higher levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) in the culture supernatant than those from normal pregnant women. The coculture with the monocytes from preeclamptic women increased the frequency of TUNEL-positive TCL cells. TNF-alpha inhibited immortalized trophoblastic cell proliferation in a dose-dependent manner and induced apoptosis. CONCLUSION: The present results suggest that monocytes are activated and that cytokines, such as TNF-alpha, which is produced by monocytes, induce apoptosis and inhibit proliferation of trophoblast cells in pre-eclampsia.
http://tinyurl.com/2ap4yr
During blastocyst implantation, the maternal endometrial response to the invading semi-allograft has characteristics of an acute, aseptic inflammatory response. However, once implanted, the embryo suppresses this response and prevents rejection. Simultaneously, the mother's immune system prevents a graft VS. host reaction deriving from the fetal immune system. We have shown that embryonic trophoblast and maternal decidua cells, i.e., cells located in the interface between the fetal placenta and the maternal endometrium, produce corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) and express Fas ligand. CRH may play a crucial role in the implantation and the anti-rejection process that protects the fetus from the maternal immune system, primarily by killing activated T cells through the Fas-FasL interaction.
This is just from the first page of hits on PubMed if you type in "preeclampsia immune". Since your husband is a professor, you'll be able to pull the full-text of these papers and read them; I do. You'll notice that they come from the USA, Greece (oops, I mean Poland -- I must have skipped posting the one from Greece), Japan, Iran, Canada... and that they're from just the past few months of research into this disease. |
Science is getting us closer to finding a cause, and even a cure. The articles you don't want to miss:
The Preeclampsia Puzzle (New Yorker) and Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy (New York Times)
Looking for recent articles and studies? Lectures from researchers? A chance to participate in research?
Caryn, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE |
|
|
|
Blythe
Ask the Experienced Moderator
USA
2277 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 10:35:28 PM
|
Thank you for your good intentions, I do believe you are trying to be helpful. Also, this topic does show up in searches, so selfishly, I appreciate the chance to add more research-based information for people looking up the diet.
I also appreciate your willingness to answer any questions regarding the diet. However, even though I have had no contact with the Brewers, I have read everything I can get my hands on about this issue. So have many, many other women here. You mentioned your own pregnancy-related struggles/issues, and I am sorry to hear that you, too, did not find birth an easy experience. However, unless you have had this disease, one that has killed babies and mothers, I don't know if you can understand the passion / obsession many of us have experienced in trying to keep ourselves and our babies safe from this disease.
We know this diet. We know every research article related to it. We know every research article about every other attempt at treatment and prevention. We know the old wives' tales. We know about Ina May Gaskin and The Farm's exceptionally low PE rate. We hear about Brewer's successes so many decades ago but search in vain for the actual data. We know our friends in Bradley childbirth classes who use the diet seem to have low rates of PE, but still never see hard numbers.
Because of the anecdotal "evidence" (individual stories) many of us (me included) still fell in the "may not help but can't hurt" camp. Then this study came out this summer (sorry, no pubmed abstract yet):
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/C_hildren_amp_W_omen_33/100702262007_You_Are_What_Your_Mother_Ate.shtml
"That original study population was a group of mothers attending a maternity hospital in Motherwell, Scotland, between 1952 and 1976. These mothers had been advised to eat a high-meat, low-carbohydrate diet in an experimental attempt to prevent preeclampsia (hypertension during pregnancy). The advice was to eat 1 pound of red meat daily during pregnancy and to abstain from carbohydrate-rich foods such as bread and potatoes. Subsequent studies showed that the adult offspring of mothers with the highest recorded meat intakes went on to experience high cortisol and develop hypertension."
And, I know that the Motherwell diet is not exactly the same as Brewer. However, this study drove home the point for me that experimenting with my body could hurt my children, even if it takes decades to see the damage.
I love Caryn's literature review, Thank You, Caryn! I wanted to add just a few more thoughts:
60-85% of women *will not get PE again*. No matter what we do. So anyone can say "I did x and x prevented PE". But unless a lot of women, randomly selected, try the same prevention and *more than 60-85%* stay healthy (one of our research professors will be along to correct my poor explanation of statistics, but I think I'm close), then that "prevention" is just luck. It's just that PE is so scary that the natural human response is to latch on to something that promises to keep horrible things from happening to us. The Brewer diet is not the only thing people have latched onto. People have also tried low protein diets, salt restriction, massive *extra* salt, fish oil, eggs, calcium, vegan diets, no trans-fat diets, extra vitamin C, E, water immersion, progesterone, the list is fairly extensive... My personal theory is that it's a credit to Brewer's skills at self-promotion and partnership with the Bradley childbirth classes that has given the Brewer diet hypothesis extra longevity and staying power, despite the evidence against it.
Finally, even though you say Dr. Brewer did not blame women, in at least one letter to our founder, Anne Garrett, he did. And even if *he* normally didn't, many other people use this diet as a way to blame women for getting sick. Since there is no research-based evidence to support Brewer's protein diet, I personally would like it eradicated from serious discussion about the disease.
|
Heather - mom to
DS #1 - 7/18/03, 37 weeks - Mild PE, 5lbs, 8oz, 4 days in NICU
DS #2 - 8/11/06, 36 1/2 weeks, 6lbs, 14oz!!! Induced for diagnostic BP. No NICU!
DD #3 - 9/10/09, high bp at 33 1/2 weeks, induced at 37 weeks, 5 pounds, 12 ounces - healthy girl!
"Thank God for the internet - otherwise my children would be raised in a med school library" |
|
|
|
Mada
Pregnant Again Moderator
USA
4613 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 10:37:47 PM
|
Frankly,
I think Mr. Brewer is getting far too much attention..please...RIP!!!!! |
Mada Harpster-moderator
Sam 6-29-00 36weeks P.E.
Ben 11-03-01 No P.E.
Eli 11-7-08 induced for high bp but no pre-e!
|
|
|
|
onesock
Senior Member
1605 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 10:39:59 PM
|
Thank You Caryn for posting those URL's, I wasn't quite sure how to explain that it is triggered by an immune process/autoimmune/rejection.:) We can always count on you!!
BTW...I emailed you.[:p] |
Wendy 36
Tony 37
Tameron 4/99 PE 34wks 3lbs 13oz
Bennett 10/01 PIH/PPHBP 37wks 5lbs
"one sock...somehow both of my boys always started with a pair and ended up with only one" :) |
|
|
|
Blythe
Ask the Experienced Moderator
USA
2277 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 11:22:09 PM
|
*laugh*
Thanks, Mada! [:)] |
Heather - mom to
DS #1 - 7/18/03, 37 weeks - Mild PE, 5lbs, 8oz, 4 days in NICU
DS #2 - 8/11/06, 36 1/2 weeks, 6lbs, 14oz!!! Induced for diagnostic BP. No NICU!
DD #3 - 9/10/09, high bp at 33 1/2 weeks, induced at 37 weeks, 5 pounds, 12 ounces - healthy girl!
"Thank God for the internet - otherwise my children would be raised in a med school library" |
|
|
|
Laura
Administrator Emeritus
USA
6187 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 11:38:17 PM
|
Joy, I'm sorry you've found some of our posts condescending! I think I am familiar with everyone here very well, if they came off that way, it certainly isn't anyone's intention, especially mine.
I agree heartily with Heather- I very much appreciate your intent in coming her to assist us, you seem like a very kind and helpful person. I know the questions asked of you have been pointed, but I was looking forward to an opportunity for our members to see an earnest and knowledgeable discussion of the topic. As Caryn mentions, all too often we've heard the 'intiution' argument, which is difficult to refute, yet intuitively (ha,ha, I pun!) not satisfactory.
We are fortunate at the Foundation to have an expert (ie, PE researcher at a university faculty level) Medical Board, the movers and shakers who are pushing the science of this disease forward. I can understand the limitations of peer review, but the rigorous examination our MB offers prevents us from adopting any theory that isn't supported in peer-reviewed literature, because, as your husband points out, it is a great Quack filter!
I would also be very appreciative if someone could offer recent peer reviewed literature supporting diet based treatment of preeclampsia.
ETA: has anyone else noticed that our much vaunted and quoted WGR is now tagged with an "outdated" watermark on the CDC site? Outdated since 2001? Argh! When will we get a new one?
|
Alicia (severe PE) 5/98 ~ Camille (htn, oligo) 4/03~ Alexander (htn, oligo) 6/07
PCOS/Chronic htn/homozygous MTHFR |
|
|
|
hhbeachgurl
Advanced Member
USA
625 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 12:03:57 AM
|
Joy, I too am sorry that you have found some of the psot condescending and I seconf Laura that I am quite sure no one meant to come across that way (Oh and please excues any typos in this as I am typing in the dark with a fussy 8 month old sleeping next to me.)
I just wanted to say that for me I do find the Brewers diet to blame the mother so to speak. I have had many many peope tell me that if I had only eaten healthier, eaten more protein, followed the Brewer Diet that I would not have developed PE, had weeks of bedrest, or had a preemie. That is extreamly hurtful and hard to hear while going through something and suffereing from a disease that could kill you and your unborn child. And afterwards while dealing with the after effects of PE to hear the same thing...well it is just devistating, especially when I was following the diet to a T when I developed PE at 29 weeks. I was planning on doing an all natural hypno birth, and those plans were ripped away from me as I needed Mag and an emergency C section due to fetal distress and the fact that my BP's were very high, I had cerebral edema, and central nervous system involvement. It is extreamly hard to listen to people tell me that I brought this on myself. It has been almost a year since my PE diagnosis and the fear I felt, the complete and utter fear that I experienced while fighting for my life and that of my daughter is as fresh as it was that day. So please understnad that if some people have come across condenscending in your eyes...this is what we have gone through, and continue to go through evertime someone tells us that "if you had just eaten better you wouldn't have had PE"
My question to you is this.....
We now know that many underlying disorders such as certain clotting disorders etc, can contribute to PE (it is suspected that I have one of these by my doctors due to my multiple miscarriages, though I have not been tested yet but will be before TTC again). How does the Brewers diet propose that by following it it can stop a person who has an underlying disorder that predisposes them from developing PE? It seems like if the Brewer's diet could cure PE in even before mention women, then why is it not being used to treat those underlying disorders by themselves sans pregnancy? |
Amanda (25),Tom (35),and Ansley born 3/10/07 @35w due to pre-e
m/c- 1/1/06 at 9w and m/c-7/4/06 at 5w
Officially diagnosed with Pre-e 29 weeks when bp jumped from 90/50 to 158/98 and protein of 450.... Made it to 35 weeks on complete home and hospital bedrest. Finally induced due to cerebral edema, +4 reflexes and 3 beats of clonus,and fetal indicators. Delivered a healthy baby girl at 35w3d :) |
|
|
|
onesock
Senior Member
1605 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 01:25:25 AM
|
Here is a link to what our experts on call had to say about it...(albeit, it is over 2 years old, I don't believe the standpoint has changed).
http://www.preeclampsia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3919
No disrespect intended, but we are women that are very versed and have strong feelings about this disease. We just want facts...good, solid, researched, up to date proven facts. You can lead these horses to water, but you can't make them drink :) |
Wendy 36
Tony 37
Tameron 4/99 PE 34wks 3lbs 13oz
Bennett 10/01 PIH/PPHBP 37wks 5lbs
"one sock...somehow both of my boys always started with a pair and ended up with only one" :) |
|
|
|
SaraB
Community Forum Administrator
USA
2967 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 01:46:40 AM
|
Joy, I too want to say that most of our posters would never intentionally be condescending, and I'm sorry if things have seemed that way.
I, like many other women here, researched everything - and I mean everything - I could find on this disease after my first train wreck pregnancy. Please believe me when I say that if I had found an ounce of concrete evidence to support this diet I would have been elbowing my way to the front of the line to try it. I can attest that if this diet were truly the cure-all that it claims to be the women of these forums would be it's greatest champions. Unfortunately we have yet to see any concrete evidence, so please forgive us for not jumping for joy - no pun intended. [:)] |
Sara
Maggie, June 2003, 29 weeks, severe preeclampsia
Logan, January 2005, 32 weeks, severe preeclampsia/HELLP |
|
|
|
Taras Mom
Advanced Member
937 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 03:29:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by djsnjones
1) I do not know if there are any peer-reviewed articles or research regarding the Brewer Diet. That does not mean that they do not exist--only that I am not privy to all of their files.
You wouldn't need to be "privy to all of their files" to post a link to any such articles; they would be publicly available, and Caryn[8D] would have posted a link long ago. And the Brewer folks would have tattooed them on Paris Hilton's midriff.
quote:
2) I talked with my husband on the subject of peer-review. My husband has been a college professor for about 27 years, and the chair of the Audio Arts and Acoustics Department for maybe 10 years. He said that the peer-review system has two sides to it. On the one hand it does succeed at eliminating quacks. On the other hand, it also succeeds at suppressing any point of view that happens to be unpopular, because any unpopular view will not get a fair chance for review.
The old story of Dr. Semmelweis would seem to be a classic example of this unfair suppression of an unpopular medical view, a suppression which was unrelated to how valid his view was.
The classic example of Dr. Semmelweis has little to do with modern publishing and peer review. Publishers and reviewers generally jump at the opportunity to take on unpopular or untested views, if only to reveal their flaws. There will always be examples of closed minds and narrow views, but can you seriously claim that Brewer has been unfairly shut out of hundreds of peer-reviewed publications consistently for 40 years? That none of them are interested in being the first to publish groundbreaking results?
quote:
Can any non-Brewer-oriented physician know enough about the Brewer Diet to be able to use it or prescribe it well enough to judge whether it "works" on any of their pre-eclamptic patients?
Brewer's site promotes the diet as straightforward and foolproof. Are you now saying it's too complex to be used except by doctors with special training? Keep in mind that many of the women here have been followed very closely by OBs and perinatologists--often experts in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy--with extra blood work, urine tests, ultrasounds, NSTs, Doppler, you name it. What further training and monitoring would you suggest to detect our critical dietary deficiencies? (Anyone who knows the story of Stone Soup will see where I'm going with this.) And isn't the diet supposed to PREVENT preeclampsia? If so, why wouldn't a doctor prescribe it to ALL pregnant patients--no judgment calls required?
With all due respect, the claims you've presented hinge on guesswork and nihilism. In the absence of controlled trials or at least a compellingly plausible mechanism of action, the Brewer diet doesn't even measure up to the many well-balanced pregnancy diets available from any OB or dietician. To claim otherwise IS victim blaming: It implies that blind faith in one particular, untested approach would have succeeded where all our best efforts failed.
|
Carol (42)
DH Bill (44)
Tara Mairichi
12/7-12/9, 2002
The Mightiest Little Angel
and
Nicholas Ewan--no PE, no mag!
|
|
|
|
annegarrett
Founder
USA
3280 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 03:31:27 AM
|
I also want to reinforce that we are vigorous debaters on this forum--even amongst ourselves (by ourselves, I mean moderators, not those who "share" our thinking. It is not personal. If someone feels I am wrong, trust me, people can and should say so. I personally appreciate the opportunity to enlarge my knowledge pool.
That being said--I was definitely a woman who went to the work of Brewer in hopes to prevent a subsequent preeclamptic pregnancy (having had one with number one). I followed the diet, with the support of my midwife, with great care and so was very surprised when everything went south. I ended up in the Intensive Care Unit. Trust me--I'm very open to "alternative" theories and diet. Folks that know me well know that when my mother was given a diagnosis of terminal cancer, I was the one who bought her the juicer and 7 different books on curing cancer with diet. And I believe that her diet did make a huge a difference. I believe it gave her five really productive and healthy years when she had been told to settle things up, she had five months. But the thing is--I have no evidence to support that. I have only my personal belief. So I can only say to folks--this is what I believe.
This organization was firmly founded on the belief that NO theory of a cure, treatment or otherwise was going to be promoted until we could get every single one of our medical board members to support it. That means even the theories that Caryn has referenced have not been officially "endorsed". When I wrote the PF brochure--it took a FULL YEAR to get the medical board to agree that it was correct. This is a high bar for a reason--because when we get something past it--we can go out there and support it. Right now, no "cure" has passed that bar. We have to consider also that we are not doctors, or nurses or midwives. And frankly, none of us know. The enemy here is not one another--the enemy is the disease.
I know a number of researchers who find "pieces" of Dr. B's work valuable (there are some high level doctors with the WHO who are strong proponents of calcium supplementation). A member of our medical board believes more good could come from calcium supplementation ("specifically in low-calcium intake countries") would save more lives than Magnesium sulfate. But this opinion is one of six and not shared by the others on the medical board. The thing is--and I've been to a LOT of conferences about preeclampsia--one year there is a flurry of research touting C&E supplementation and then the next we learn it's actually dangerous. The research is growing rapidly and as Caryn points out--the most exciting developments is the work out of Harvard that points to a real clue in what is causing this.
What I DO know is that this disease incidence actually went down in Europe during WWII and people presumed this was due to meat rationing. Or possibly because the men were gone so maybe there were less "primagravidas" or first borns...the thing is...we don't know.
I want to also say the Preeclampsia Foundation has a strong relationship with professional midwives associations and that our medical director works with midwives daily and is a strong supporter of the practice.
We encourage and participate in vigorous debate but at the end of the day--we are an organization that absolutely defers to solid peer-reviewed medical research, research that is recent, ongoing, and rigorous (and even THEN it has to be approved by six folks who rarely agree on anything) before we present it. Just imagine the challenge to get the website up!! So the thing is--our official stance is "we don't know" and so we are going to challenge anyone aggressively who says they do, but cannot put that theory through the same sort of rigor that we require of our own information before we offer it to the public. There are theories about the disease (treatment) which I firmly believe in, but I try to keep those to myself because they have not gone through this sort of rigourous review (clinical trials yes, but affirmation by the medical board, no), so they are (for the moment...:>)) MY beliefs and not fact.
I hope that helps a little. We're rough--no question--but we just as rough on ourselves as we are on anyone else here because at the end of the day, we take our obligation to our public very seriously.
Take care and thank you for caring for the women you've cared for--I'm sure you've done immense good in the world. |
Anne
Founder, Preeclampsia Foundation
PE 1985, Loss 1986, PE-Free 1990, HELLP 1996, PE 1999.
|
|
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 11:42:24 AM
|
1) I have been using this diet for about 30 years, and it has always worked for my clients, so I have not felt the need to expend any energy to look for reasons that it might not work, or for proof that it does work.
I have also seen for myself what happened when a midwife in one homebirth practice I worked for was vehemently opposed to the use of the Brewer Diet and we had 2-3 patients hospitalized for pre-eclampsia and/or premature labor issues, in her first 6 mo of being there, something that we'd had happen maybe 0-2 times in my previous 4 yrs there.
Also, I have been too busy with the doing of my life and my practice to expend any energy doing a literature search. I expect that others in the Brewer camp with the energy for this type of research will do that as necessary.
It's kind of analogous to breathing. If I find that it's working for me, I do not feel motivated to expend the energy to conduct a literature search for proof that it does work. However, if one believes that the Brewer Diet doesn't work, I can see why one would want to conduct that literature search.
2) I don't know whether the kind of research that you have alluded to is being done or has been done, which doesn't mean that it's not being done. I do know that Dr. Brewer was adamently opposed to doing any research which would involve having one group of women doing something that he believed to be life-threatening to them and to their babies. He felt that such a study would be grossly inethical, especially since previous studies showed severe consequences from such studies.
He believed, and I agree with him, that earlier studies and history provides enough evidence that such diets are hazardous--historical events such as the starvation and resulting complications that happened in Leningrad in 1942, during the Nazi blockade, the results of which were documented in great detail by Dr. Anotov, a pediatrician who also lived in Leningrad during the siege, and whose report was published in the Journal of Pediatrics.
In addition, three of the Brewer books are loaded with studies too numerous to count off-hand--Metabolic Toxemia of Late Pregnancy, What Every Pregnant Woman Should Know, and The Brewer Medical Diet for Normal and High-Risk Pregnancy. For any one who might want to see this for themselves, these books are available through the local public library, or through inter-library loan.
3) The evidence that I have in my hands is listed in the Brewer books, and in the David Stewart books (David Stewart was a medical statistician PhD who directed NAPSAC for many years), all of which are available through inter-library loan for anyone who is interested. It is too volumimous for me to try to list it all for you here.
4) Do you want the explanations that I have to give? I get the impression that you do not, so I am not inclined to spend the time writing it out. But if you do want to hear it, I will gladly put in that time.
5) I hear you. I also hear that you don't like the evidence that I have, and that you don't want to hear about the physiology of how the body works, from a nurse's perspective. I don't have the kind of evidence that you like, which also does not mean that it doesn't exist.
6) It seems to me that it's unfair for you to allow inaccurate statements about the Brewer Diet and philosophy to stand uncorrected on your message board, but that is your prerogative.
I think that the kidney transplant failure analogy is one that does not fit the situation.
7) I don't agree that lots of new research has disproved Brewer's thesis. Most of the new theories have been disproved, even according to your New Yorker article. And the newest theory seems to me to be just a rehash of the old "ischemic placenta" theory developed by Ernest Page in 1939, in which he postulated that a "protein X" was a vasoconstrictor, and a later rehash of Page's theory by Hunter and Hunter, in 1960, in which they claimed to be able to name Page's "protein x". And Page borrowed his "ischemic placenta" theory from Goldblatt's "ischemic kidney" concept, which was developed from the earlier "view of homeostasis of the human body as developed by Claude Bernard and Walter Cannon". All of this is listed in Brewer's original thesis.
8) I do understand that the new research proposes that their mechanism is a cause of pre-eclampsia and not a symptom. I'm saying that from what I know it sounds as though they are likely wrong in that assessment and that this is in fact a symptom and not a cause.
9) Their own research is inconsistent...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/06/MNGP04QGE61.DTL&type=printable
10) As I referred to earlier, you can find this perspective in the writings of Robbie Davis-Floyd...
http://www.davis-floyd.com/ShowPage.asp?id=51
The article I refer to most specifically is "The Technocratic Body: An American Childbirth as Culteral Expression", which you can view by PDF.
--I feel very muzzled in this discussion. I am disappointed that you are not willing to let me fully explain the inaccuracies expressed in this thread.
--You can find the information you're looking for in your local library.
Joy
|
|
|
|
onesock
Senior Member
1605 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 12:19:01 PM
|
| Joy, I am not sure why you would feel muzzled...we have asked you questions, yet we have gotten no answers. You keep saying that you don't want to expend the energy looking for reasons that it might not work,or proof that it does work, but we are talking about the lives of mothers and babies here. In my opinion, it is worth the energy to make sure it is safe and everything is claims to be, which if it really were, it should not be that hard to prove. We just want proof...that is all. I was reading one of the PE stories on your website where the lady developed high blood pressure in her pregnancy and it was blamed on stressful relationships that she was involved in...once again blaming the mother for the problem. Around here, we never blame the mother for PE, particularly when it comes to the mother inducing her own high blood pressure, or not eating the right foods. |
Wendy 36
Tony 37
Tameron 4/99 PE 34wks 3lbs 13oz
Bennett 10/01 PIH/PPHBP 37wks 5lbs
"one sock...somehow both of my boys always started with a pair and ended up with only one" :) |
|
|
|
Caryn
Ask the Experienced Moderator
USA
8780 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 12:21:56 PM
|
So you have only anecdotal evidence, of the "it worked for me" variety, and one news article from 2004 (woefully behind the curve, as the theory has undergone further modification based on new data since that article was written, like all good scientific theories.)
Well, I have anecdotal evidence -- I was on the diet, and it didn't work. I followed the checklists. I ate high-quality food to appetite above and beyond the checklists. I drank water to thirst and salted to taste. My Bradley instructor direct-entry homebirth midwife kept a close eye on me while I did this. And my blood pressure spiked up to 220/116 on admission at 33 weeks 5 days, with a 24-hour proteinuria of 17,000. And I am not the only poster here with this experience.
I *own* all three of those Brewer books you mentioned, and have looked at the research articles he references. They have since been superceded by new research. For starters, I provided you with a link, in my first post, to the Cochrane review of studies showing that protein and protein-calorie supplementation does not affect preeclampsia rates.
Be assured you are not the only nurse familiar with human physiology posting here. [;)] We in fact have several nurses and at least a few PhDs, including a biology researcher into the chlamydia infections thought to underly at least some cases of preeclampsia. (Note: this wouldn't produce elevated sFlt-1 several weeks prior to the development of PE, but it *would* be the result of an immune response that would affect the placenta. PE is sneaky that way.)
The "kind of evidence we like" is the kind that's been peer-reviewed and stood up to scrutiny from multiple different research teams over the course of years -- and the reason for that is that we expect anything we recommend to our readers to have met a very high standard of quality.
Brewer's data simply hasn't met that bar, and in addition, we have lots of anecdotal evidence to suggest that those who do recommend it are conveniently dropping us from the data when they explain how it "works". You yourself suggested that anyone who hadn't had success with the Brewer Diet was doing it wrong -- we had the wrong care providers, we didn't eat more eggs when our symptoms began to appear, or whatever. Well, the only response I have to that is that it's cherry-picking your data to eliminate us from the pool, and count women who were likely no more and possibly less compliant in your data set *just because they didn't happen to get preeclampsia.*
As soon as those advocating a particular diet for preeclampsia can be bothered to produce studies showing that eating said diet really does reduce preeclampsia rates, they will be taken seriously by the scientific community. I've spoken to researchers at the NICHD about this; have you?
ETA: asking for real evidence isn't "muzzling" you. As Paul Boghossian famously put it: " If I say that the earth is flat, and you make no assertion at all, but instead tell me an interesting story, that has no potential for raising deep issues about the objectivity of what either of us said or did." You can tell all the interesting stories you'd like, but at the end of the day, we need some reason to believe them. (ETA: link to the Boghossian paper here: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/boghossian/papers/bog_tls.html)
|
Science is getting us closer to finding a cause, and even a cure. The articles you don't want to miss:
The Preeclampsia Puzzle (New Yorker) and Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy (New York Times)
Looking for recent articles and studies? Lectures from researchers? A chance to participate in research?
Caryn, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE |
|
|
|
Caryn
Ask the Experienced Moderator
USA
8780 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 12:32:38 PM
|
Also, it's common epistemological practice for people with no reason to question "common sense" to accept it, and for those of us with reason to question it to go do some science and figure out whether or not the ideas everyone accepts are actually true.
You haven't experienced preeclampsia or seen it often in your work, so you haven't done this. But now that we've pointed you to studies showing that protein and protein-calorie supplementation don't actually lower preeclampsia rates, are you concerned about your practice and your quality of care? After all, this research suggests that you've just gotten lucky... |
Science is getting us closer to finding a cause, and even a cure. The articles you don't want to miss:
The Preeclampsia Puzzle (New Yorker) and Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy (New York Times)
Looking for recent articles and studies? Lectures from researchers? A chance to participate in research?
Caryn, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE |
|
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 2:08:51 PM
|
--"Joy, I am not sure why you would feel muzzled...we have asked you questions, yet we have gotten no answers."
*I feel muzzled because you decline to allow me to correct the incorrect information posted here about the Brewer Diet and viewpoint.
*I feel muzzled because you only want one kind of answer. I do understand, however, that this perspective is the focus of your forum, so it is understandable.
*I have given you many answers to your questions.
*Now that I have heard more about where you all are coming from,I understand better why you're so strong about what you want.
--"In my opinion, it is worth the energy to make sure it is safe and everything is claims to be, which if it really were, it should not be that hard to prove."
*I agree with you. It is simply not the role given to me in this life.
*In the role that I have been given, the Brewer philosophy has proven to be safe, and so I have no reason to look elsewhere for myself, for the purposes of the role that I have been given. I hope that others who may have had this role will come to light soon.
--"I was reading one of the PE stories on your website where the lady developed high blood pressure in her pregnancy and it was blamed on stressful relationships that she was involved in...once again blaming the mother for the problem. Around here, we never blame the mother for PE, particularly when it comes to the mother inducing her own high blood pressure, or not eating the right foods."
*I entered this discussion hoping that the blame card would not be played. I am disappointed that you are using it now. At the same time, I am very sympathetic to the pain that is caused when it feels as though someone is laying blame in this direction, and I think that the professionals need to be much more sensitive about how that feels and learn to be much more careful to not come across in this way.
*In my opinion this is not blaming the mother. Part of the proper use of the Brewer Diet involves doing a thorough assessment of the mother's life, just as taking a thorough history is vital to every medical, or nursing, or midwifery assessment. Unless we take a proper and thorough history and assessment of the client's life, we cannot fully see where changes can be made to help that client achieve the level of health that she desires.
--For Caryn and others...
*I'm not sure that I'm allowed to answer specifics here, since that would be in the category of answering from the Brewer perspective, as defined by Onesock, and I do know that I do not have the time or energy to answer each member's story individually, at least not today...but I will respond to this question...
*Did you follow the Bradley version or the Brewer version of the diet? The Bradley version can be rather confusing, because it is taken from the earliest consumer book by Brewer. The servings are not standardized, and it calls for only 2 servings (3 oz) from the protein-source group, where later books call for 6-8 servings (1 oz.)
*Was a detailed history taken to ensure that the basic Brewer Diet fit your unique needs, including your daily activity level and personal habits (TBMDFNHRP, p. 106-133)?
*When your BP spiked, were you given IV albumin? If not, were you given the IV albumin substitute--52 eggs and 6 qt milk in 3 days?
--"I *own* all three of those Brewer books you mentioned, and have looked at the research articles he references. They have since been superceded by new research. For starters, I provided you with a link, in my first post, to the Cochrane review of studies showing that protein and protein-calorie supplementation does not affect preeclampsia rates."
* I simply respectfully disagree.
* I also have no reason to trust the Chochrane review, especially since I have no way of knowing what biases they may have brought to their review.
--"You yourself suggested that anyone who hadn't had success with the Brewer Diet was doing it wrong -- we had the wrong care providers, we didn't eat more eggs when our symptoms began to appear, or whatever."
*I cannot begin to address each story individually, even if I did have access to them. So I generalized, which is all that I'm left with.
--"Joy, I too want to say that most of our posters would never intentionally be condescending, and I'm sorry if things have seemed that way.
I, like many other women here, researched everything - and I mean everything - I could find on this disease after my first train wreck pregnancy. Please believe me when I say that if I had found an ounce of concrete evidence to support this diet I would have been elbowing my way to the front of the line to try it. I can attest that if this diet were truly the cure-all that it claims to be the women of these forums would be it's greatest champions. Unfortunately we have yet to see any concrete evidence, so please forgive us for not jumping for joy - no pun intended."
*Thank you to all of you for your thoughtful, compassionate responses to me. I'm not sure that I can respond to them all, and at some point I will need to get on with the rest of my life for today, but I will take a stab at responding to some of them.
*I am also truly sympathetic to all of the pain that all of you have experienced, and I admire all of the work that so many of you have put into understanding what has occurred for you, and how to prevent it in the future.
--I am sympathetic to the huge amount of work that many of you have put into your website and your publications. Thank you for telling me more about that.
--"The classic example of Dr. Semmelweis has little to do with modern publishing and peer review. Publishers and reviewers generally jump at the opportunity to take on unpopular or untested views, if only to reveal their flaws. There will always be examples of closed minds and narrow views, but can you seriously claim that Brewer has been unfairly shut out of hundreds of peer-reviewed publications consistently for 40 years? That none of them are interested in being the first to publish groundbreaking results?"
*I respectfully disagree with the notion that Semmelweis's experience has little to do with modern experience, although I do hear where the differences may lie.
*Brewer was published in many professional publications/journals which I presume were all peer-reviewed. In many other situations, he was shut out unfairly.
--"Brewer's site promotes the diet as straightforward and foolproof. Are you now saying it's too complex to be used except by doctors with special training?"
*No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the BD and philosophy is often misinterpreted and incompletely used, and that there's no way of knowing off-hand in which of these situations represented on this board it was interpreted and used correctly and in which ones it was not.
--"Keep in mind that many of the women here have been followed very closely by OBs and perinatologists--often experts in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy--with extra blood work, urine tests, ultrasounds, NSTs, Doppler, you name it. What further training and monitoring would you suggest to detect our critical dietary deficiencies?"
*I would suggest that each of those experts study Brewer's original thesis thoroughly, complete with case studies and prescribed tests and description of test results. I would also suggest that they apply those suggestions, especially when nothing that they are trying is working.
--(Anyone who knows the story of Stone Soup will see where I'm going with this.)
*I do know the story of Stone Soup, and I don't see the connection.
--"And isn't the diet supposed to PREVENT preeclampsia? If so, why wouldn't a doctor prescribe it to ALL pregnant patients--no judgment calls required?"
*Yes, it does claim to prevent PE. And yes, many practitioners do prescribe it to all pregnant women. But each woman's metabolism, activity level, lifestyle, history, and stress level is unique to her alone, and sometimes some adjustments need to be made in order for the diet to be the most effective that it can be for her unique self.
--"With all due respect, the claims you've presented hinge on guesswork and nihilism. In the absence of controlled trials or at least a compellingly plausible mechanism of action, the Brewer diet doesn't even measure up to the many well-balanced pregnancy diets available from any OB or dietician. To claim otherwise IS victim blaming: It implies that blind faith in one particular, untested approach would have succeeded where all our best efforts failed."
*I respectfully disagree with this viewpoint and characterization.
--"We now know that many underlying disorders such as certain clotting disorders etc, can contribute to PE (it is suspected that I have one of these by my doctors due to my multiple miscarriages, though I have not been tested yet but will be before TTC again). How does the Brewers diet propose that by following it it can stop a person who has an underlying disorder that predisposes them from developing PE? It seems like if the Brewer's diet could cure PE in even before mention women, then why is it not being used to treat those underlying disorders by themselves sans pregnancy?"
*The Brewer Diet is primarily designed for pregnant women who start the pregnancy with no pre-existing disorders, if I understand him correctly. The reason that a non-pregnant person develops hypertension, for example, is completely different than the reasons that a pregnant person develops hypertension, so it would not be appropriate to try to use the BD in a non-pregnant hypertension . By the same token, the clotting mechanisms that go awry with HELLP, which can be addressed with the BD, are different than those that go wrong in a non-pregnant situation, so they cannot be addressed with the BD. Other pre-existing clotting abnormalities are unrelated to these physiologic mechanisms of pregnancy, so they cannot be addressed by the BD, but often other treatments for various pre-existing conditions can be augmented in pregnancy with judicious adjustment of the BD, to the advantage of the mother and baby.
--I hope that you will forgive me if I don't make this post any longer than it is already, by taking on more of the individual points made here. I hope that the responses that I've given here covers them all generally, without leaving anyone feeling overlooked or slighted.
Joy |
|
|
|
heather100
Senior Member
1325 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 2:25:14 PM
|
| How is a debate a true debate when only one side offers facts and the other offers opinions and personal experiences backed up by no research or evidence? |
Heather
Paige born 4/15/05 at 35 weeks; severe pre-e
Luke born 3/3/08 NO PRE-E!!! WAHOOO!!!!! |
|
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 2:39:53 PM
|
It seems to me that I am offering facts that are being rejected because they don't fit the definition of "fact" that has been adopted by this forum--which is a decision, after all, that is the right of any forum to make. :-)
Joy |
|
|
|
Fiona
Forum Administrator
Canada
5862 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 2:55:17 PM
|
Joy, how about we take the dictionary definition of fact and go from there? I have the Cassell to hand:
Fact: Something that has really occured or been done; something known to be true or existing, as distinct from an inference or conjecture.
We just want to see evidence. I hope you agree that Caryn and Heather and Wendy and others have devoted a great deal of their own time to searching out and bringing our evidence to the debate. We are here, we are engaging with you.
List the 'facts' - and we will be happy to discuss them.
|
Fiona
Nate 12/8/97 - 14/8/97 26 wks - 1lb - severe pe
Jay 11/98 30 wks - 3lb 11oz - severe pe; Sacha 5/05 36 wks 3 days - 7lb 9oz - PIH
|
|
|
|
hhbeachgurl
Advanced Member
USA
625 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 3:02:34 PM
|
| Joy, I want to thank you for respond, but as someone who has been trained in research, I have my Masters in a Scientific Health Field, I have to say that seeing someone say that because it has always worked for them they have no reason to do further research bothers me. It is my honest opinion that you have been very blessed not to have to suffer from pe, not to lose a chld from it, a friends from it, a family member from it, sufer the lasting effects of a premeture baby from it. It feels quite condescending of you to spurt things out, come on here and tell us that "had we followed it correctly, would not have suffered from any of this. You do not know us or the depth of our situations. I did follow it correctly, the Brewer diet, and it failed me....many women on here and across the world have. It is great that it has worked so well in your expereince and i think every single on of us on this board would give our right arm for it to work for all of us.....but it didn't. My life is forever changed because of my experience with PE and I am thankful everyfay for the medical interventions of my doctors, the steroid shots for my baby lungs, and the emergency c section that saved mine and my daughters life. Another pregnancy is extreamly frightening for me, and I would jump on the Brewer bandwagon again in a heartbeat, even though it failed me, if I truely thought it would prevent PE. Show me one peer reviewed, well respected article and you may just get somewhere with many of us, but until you can (which you can't because since I was in med school and had access to the libraries and I did those searches) you will probably not convince any of us with anecdotal evidence. We have our own ancedotal evidence and our own peer reviewed research articles, an as they say, your own experience is always stronger, then just learning from someone else. If I had been among the 95% of women who will not go on to not develop PE in pregnancy, and I had been on the Brewers diet I too would have said it works. Please understand that when we ask you for hard evidence it is not to bash you or his theory, I would pay a million dollars for a "cure" or a way to prevent it, but there isn't one plain and simple. I have said my piece and do not wish to debate anymore. i am extreamly blessed that I have a healthy baby girl home with me.... I know many others who have not been so lucky from this disease, so unless you have experience the pain this disease brings or can bring recent peer reviewed, scientific studies to the table, I really see no need for me to further continue reading this post. I am done, have said my to cents, and i will not allow anyone, Dr. Brewer, you, or anyone, make me feel responsible for what I and my baby girl went through by saying "Did you follow the Bradley version or the Brewer version of the diet? The Bradley version can be rather confusing, because it is taken from the earliest consumer book by Brewer. The servings are not standardized, and it calls for only 2 servings (3 oz) from the protein-source group, where later books call for 6-8 servings (1 oz.)" To me that is blaming me pure and simple....had I done it right, eaten healthier, better, the right way none off this would have happened. Well it would have, I did it right, and it did. So until you have been through someting horrible, that nothing you could or anyone could do to prevent it almost takes your life, I really think you will never understand were we on this board are comming from. I am sorry if any of the above sounds condescending, but I have been through enough in my life and with PE to believe miricle cures, preventions, that have no scientific basis (and don't say it does, because until you present it you will be waisting your breath). |
Amanda (25),Tom (35),and Ansley born 3/10/07 @35w due to pre-e
m/c- 1/1/06 at 9w and m/c-7/4/06 at 5w
Officially diagnosed with Pre-e 29 weeks when bp jumped from 90/50 to 158/98 and protein of 450.... Made it to 35 weeks on complete home and hospital bedrest. Finally induced due to cerebral edema, +4 reflexes and 3 beats of clonus,and fetal indicators. Delivered a healthy baby girl at 35w3d :) |
|
|
|
AundAPenner
Senior Member
Germany
1578 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 3:13:01 PM
|
I'm curious too to see what comes about.
Joy - for what it's worth, you say that you don't have much time, yet seem to have written lots!!!
At this point, it's too exhausting to try to sort through all the statements ... can you just summarize your viewpoint?
Thanks. |
Alice & Alexander
Henry - born @ 34 weeks due to PIH, GD, PE, IUGR
Sofia - born at 37+1 due to fetal distress on 2/27, kicked PEs butt since 12/24 |
|
|
|
djsnjones
Starting Member
US
38 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 3:28:26 PM
|
AundaPenner, you are right. I have spent far to much time on this issue on this board in the past couple of days, which has been unfair to the other responsibilities in my life.
Fiona,
--I believe that what I have been offering in my posts for the past couple of days does fit that dictionary definition that you quoted.
--At the same time, I cannot give you the kind of academic information that you seek. That is not my role in this world.
--My "facts" are not your "facts", and so therefore I have nothing to offer you that fits your definition.
--We have talked about many, many issues over the past couple of days--so many and diverse that I cannot summarize them.
--If you are inviting me to now offer the clarification of the Brewer Diet inaccuracies that I offered to post earlier, I am glad to do that. But it seems that a policy of your board is to not give air space to remedies that have been deemed to be quackery, and the Brewer Diet fits that definition for you, so therefore I think that anything that I have to say is excluded.
I am willing to go away and not take up any more of your time, if you prefer.
Joy |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Chat | Profile
|
Register
|
Active Topics
|
Members
|
Search
|
FAQ
Brewer 
Topic Locked
