Blissfully Informed Hippie Chick

Encouraging people to think critically about everything.

Article: There’s No Such Thing as Baby Food (Baby Lead Weaning / Solids)

This is exactly what I did with Natalie and am more doing with Bobby!

Laissez Faire

I wrote the following for a very wonderful woman for a now dormant site called Daily Momtra.   It seems like such an eon ago when my daughter still smelled new with her feet firmly planted in babyhood, but she was facing the direction of Toddlerland.   I know full well that I don’t follow what I am “supposed” to do (I’m a quiet rebel).    I refused to discuss home birth plans with anyone but my husband because who needs that stress of having to feed of well-meaning, but maddening questions.     I also didn’t discuss my determination (and success) to committing to elimination communication, using cloth diapers and wipes, baby led weaning, breastfeeding, or co-sleeping outside of our household.       Why?  Because this is my primate troop and all interlopers will be growled at until they leave.    When Alicia Silverstone was all over the news because she masticated food in her mouth…

View original post 2,399 more words

1 Comment »

Bed Sharing: Two little blessings

When I told Natalie, my 18 month old, that it was time for bed, she ran to my bed and went and laid her head on my pillow. We talked and tickled and giggled for awhile. Then she laid her head on my husband’ s pillow with a sad look on her face. I asked her if she missed daddy and she whimpered a little. (He started a career as a truck driver not long ago.) Then I told her again it was time for her to go to sleep and she laid down again. I told her “no, in your bed” and she shook her head and pointed to her daddy’s pillow. So I asked if she wanted to sleep with me and Bobby (my 6 month old) tonight and she grinned widely, found her bottle, and laid down. How could I say no to that? So I laid down next to her, with Bobby on my other side. He nursed and quickly went to sleep. Natalie drank her whole bottle, fidgeted a bit, then finally fell asleep, too. So they’re both in there, asleep in my bed, a few inches apart. I’ll have to squeeze in between them to get back in bed. But how many years will they actually want to both sleep with mama? How many opportunities will I get to snuggle up with my 2 precious babies? To hear their breathing while they slumber peacefully, knowing they are safe, protected by their mama until morning. I doubt I could ever regret saying yes to such a request. And I daren’t imagine Natalie’s heartbroken cries if I had said no. I have to say no to far too many things on a daily basis. I like to be able to say yes. It warms my heart to give her what she desires, to see her face light up. Besides, I know that it’s hard for her to be a big sister at such a young age. It’s hard to be a baby, but yet not be THE baby. It’s hard to see a littler one need mama so much when she herself needs mama, too. Especially days like today, when his tummy was upset and he just needed to be held. So yes, tonight, my love, you can sleep with mama. And tomorrow, I will have the pleasure of waking next to the two most beautiful babies, instead of just one. Tonight, my heart is full. =)

1 Comment »

Reduction of Disease: Where does the credit lie?


The population of the US was about 133.4 million in 1941. Assuming this graphic is correct, that means a whopping .67% of the population contracted measles in that year. We’re talking fractions of a percent here, people. ~900,000 might seem like a huge number, but it’s not. And actually, the CDC says that before the measles vaccination, the average number of reported cases was 400,000 per year. ( Which would mean that only .3% of the population contracted measles (severe enough to be reported, at least). And considering that our sanitation is better, water sources are cleaner, understanding of the disease is better, etc, even if no one was vaccinated, far less than .67% or even .3% of our population would contract the disease now.  Also, considering that the CDC only claims a 99% efficacy rate (meaning, ~1% of those vaccinated will not show any immunity), we know that far less people would naturally contract measles than will be unaffected by the vaccination for measles! How is that any sort of improvement? If less than 1% of people were naturally contracting measles, and 1% of those vaccinated are still vulnerable to infection, why in the world are we taking such a huge risk of injecting ourselves with a host of chemicals, heavy metals, etc?

The reality is that vaccination has little or nothing to do with the decline in deaths from measles infections (as well as other diseases).


This article briefly describes why vaccinations deserve little or no credit for the decline of diseases such as the measles:

Here are a few excerpts:

The credit for the century-long decline, scientists generally agree, goes to improved nutrition and improved health care, side effects of the West’s growing affluence. In the U.S., the death rate dropped by about 98%, from about 10 per 100,000 population a century ago to one fifth of one person by 1963, the year measles vaccines made their American debut. Both before and after vaccination started, victims tended to be poor.

Measles didn’t only discriminate by income — in another study, [Roger] Barkin found that children with underlying diseases were particularly vulnerable, and that the “majority of this group were physically or mentally retarded, or both.” The realization that measles was selective in whom it killed led Barkin to emphasize that vulnerable populations, rather than the general population, should be targeted for measles vaccination.

In the pre-vaccine era, when the natural measles virus infected the entire population, measles — “typically a benign childhood illness,” as Clinical Pediatrics described it — was welcomed for providing lifetime immunity, thus avoiding dangerous adult infections. In today’s vaccine era, adults have accounted for one quarter to one half of measles cases; most of them involve pneumonia, one-quarter of them hospitalization.

In my opinion, vaccinations have been rarely (if ever) beneficial, but have done a whole lot of damage to society as a whole. It’s my belief that we’d be better off without them. And before you disagree with me, I encourage you to do the research, crunch the numbers, and then decide if your opinion is based on on facts or fear.

Leave a comment »

“Spanking with Dignity”?

The pope was speaking at the Vatican this week on the importance of a good father. He recalled a conversation with a father who admitted he hit his children, but not in the face.

“How beautiful. He has a sense of dignity. He needs to punish them and he does it justly and moves on,” Pope Francis reportedly said.

Funny. We call our detention centers “correctional facilities”, because the aim is reform, not punishment. When a boss verbally harasses an employee, they are subject to “disciplinary action”, not punishment. If a person hits their spouse with the intent of reforming their behavior, it’s called domestic violence. Most would call it “animal abuse” when someone “punishes” their dog or cat or bird by “spanking” it.

But yet, somehow, so many people still say that spanking a child is ok. Even more think that children need to be punished in order to reform their behavior into compliance with whatever their parents want them to do or say.

Tell me, what dignity is there in physical violence? What dignity is there in punishment? Even if you do believe in the necessity of changing a child’s behavior, how will physical force or punishment accomplish that? Is that how you would get your spouse or friend or employee to change their behavior? How about your adult child? Why are we holding onto this invisible line we’ve drawn around children that is such an enormous double standard? And what is that teaching those children about us, about life?

In the early 1800s most legal systems implicitly accepted wife-beating as a husband’s right, part of his entitlement to control over the resources and services of his wife. Feminist agitation in the 1800s produced a sea change in public opinion, and by the end of the 19th century most courts denied that husbands had any right to “chastise” their wives.

Why should we wait until it’s universally illegal and socially unacceptable to decide that it’s wrong?

Many studies have shown that physical punishment — including spanking, hitting and other means of causing pain — can lead to increased aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury and mental health problems for children.

“I can just about count on one hand the studies that have found anything positive about physical punishment and hundreds that have been negative.” [ Elizabeth Gershoff, PhD]

And please, don’t use religion as an argument for spanking.

Rushworth Kidder notes that the Golden Rule can be found in the early contributions of Confucianism. Kidder notes that this concept’s framework appears prominently in many religions, including “Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world’s major religions”.[7] According to Greg M. Epstein, “ ’do unto others’ … is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely.”[8] Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be “found in some form in almost every ethical tradition”.[9] All versions and forms of the proverbial Golden Rule have one aspect in common: they all demand that people treat others in a manner in which they themselves would like to be treated.

Unless you’re going to argue that children are less than human, chances are, your religion supports treating them the same way you want to be treated. They aren’t excluded from the Golden Rule. On the contrary, they should be the prime recipients of such compassion. How else will they learn it if they do not experience it firsthand?


(Graphic courtesy of

Leave a comment »

Yelling at Your Troubles

I really love this take on babies and their communication with us; often mistaken for yelling, screaming, or being a “bad baby”.


070630byTamakiSonoFlickrCC 070630 by Flickr user Tamaki Sono, used with CC license

Over the last 13 months, my baby, like all babies, cries when she is upset. Now that she is a toddler, she often babbles angrily or sadly when she is dissatisfied with something, which goes something like this:

(Today, at the end of dinner, as she still sat in her high chair)
“Way-tuh ga-guh PA ma! Mamamamamama! Goi dukka dukka dukka DA!” *whimpering* Dai dai dai ooooooooooh yai yai me! BA DA GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I believe this may roughly translate as “And if things weren’t bad enough already, now I have broccoli pieces on my pants! Mom! And my nose still feels funny! *panic setting in* Why isn’t my hair in my eyes? WHAT IS HAPPENING?!?”

While many people might say that their child was screaming at them, I choose to believe that mine is instead screaming at her troubles.

Maybe this seems…

View original post 385 more words

Leave a comment »

Vaccinations: the right to choose

I posted this article on Facebook. Someone I know who is obviously very pro-vaccine told me that it wasn’t good enough, despite the references, because the writer was not a scientist or doctor.

Then, I posted this link. An article written by a doctor, with even more references. The same individual commented again, stating that this doctor’s opinion was not good enough because she is a mere kidney specialist, not an immunologist.

Here is my reply:

I could give you a link to an article with an immunologist who is anti-vaccine (which, if you actually wanted, would be easy to find on your own). Then you would say that one immunologist is not enough. I could then send you five more examples, to which you would say is still not enough. To which I would ask, “how many is enough?” You would probably reply “at least 50%”. To which I would then reply,  “is that how you make all your decisions? By majority rule? What if the majority is wrong?” Ah, but then we are back where we started, which is that one must decide for themselves. But you’ve already stated that vaccination shouldn’t be a personal choice. We lowly “regular” people cannot possibly make an educated decision for ourselves. We must trust the majority of doctors who tell us what is right. Then, I ask, why should you be allowed to decide what medications to take, or to give your child? Why should you be allowed to decide what surgeries to undergo? For that matter, why shouldn’t every aspect of our lives that could possibly affect our society be decided by a special council? What job you have, where you live, what you eat, whom you marry, how many children you have. Is that ad ridiculum? Maybe. But if the argument can be applied to one aspect of your life, why not all?

I choose to question everything. I choose to do my own research. I choose to read everything I can get my hands on, from both sides, and also completely unbiased information (pure facts, such as what the ingredients of vaccines are). I choose to make as informed choice as possible about everything, and never simply follow what the majority of anyone says is right. I believe that such free choice should not only be respected, but applauded. I believe that the search for the truth never ends, which is why individuals must have free choice. The freedom to decide for ourselves what is truth is our most basic human right. No one can take that away, it has to be given away willingly. I, personally, will never give away that right.