"Bringing Baby Home" DVD review

Just watched this DVD with DH last night (got it from Netflix) and
wanted to let other first-time moms know about it.
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?...92&trkid=90529
I thought it was a pretty good review of basic baby care, some birth
info although not much, and pretty supportive of breastfeeding,
including close-up of good latch, etc. The one breastfeeding thing I
disagreed with was the statement that you should breastfeed for 4-6
months and "could" breastfeed "up to" 2 years if you choose. AFAIK,
the recommendation is more that you should BF as long as possible and
wean when ready with no "up to" date. All in all though, it was much
more supportive of breastfeeding than other mainstream materials I've
seen. It did include a brief mention of formula and bottle feeding,
but the main focus was definitely breastfeeding.
Delivery of material was good, not dumbed down or goofy at all. It was
pretty basic, how to bathe, how to diaper, what newborns look like, how
to hold, etc so I didn't really learn anything new but it was nice to
see a nurse demonstrating everything rather than pictures in a book,
and much of it was certainly new to DH! The look on his face when
"sleeping throught the night" at 3 months was defined as 4 hours of
consecutive sleep was priceless! DH also got a kick out of the
"football hold" since he'd never heard of it.
Worth a rental or borrow, but I wouldn't buy it because one viewing is
enough to get the material.

Amy

including close-up of good latch, etc. The one breastfeeding thing I
disagreed with was the statement that you should breastfeed for 4-6
months and "could" breastfeed "up to" 2 years if you choose. AFAIK,
the recommendation is more that you should BF as long as possible and
wean when ready with no "up to" date.

Which isn't too bad though, I wonder if some people are put off
breastfeeding because of the length of time they are expected to do it?
Perhaps it's better to take the real life approach, which is encourage it as
much as possibly, but accept that many people stop for many different
reasons before 1 year and it's best to give them good advice about that and
point out that the baby will need to have formula upto 1 year. I think
sometimes the ideal thing can seem far too daunting and a dose of real life
can be really helpful.

Anne

CDC's FRAUDULENT "IMMUNIZATION" PROGRAM

See below.

in article , Anne Rogers at
wrote on 9/13/05 8:30 AM:

including close-up of good latch, etc. The one breastfeeding thing I
disagreed with was the statement that you should breastfeed for 4-6
months and "could" breastfeed "up to" 2 years if you choose. AFAIK,
the recommendation is more that you should BF as long as possible and
wean when ready with no "up to" date.

Which isn't too bad though, I wonder if some people are put off
breastfeeding because of the length of time they are expected to do it?
Perhaps it's better to take the real life approach, which is encourage it as
much as possibly, but accept that many people stop for many different
reasons before 1 year and it's best to give them good advice about that and
point out that the baby will need to have formula upto 1 year. I think
sometimes the ideal thing can seem far too daunting and a dose of real life
can be really helpful.

Anne



FOR ANY NEW READERS....

When discussing breastfeeding...

I like the idea of giving two "doses of real life":

1. Breastfeeding women manufacture specific IMMUNIZATIONS which they inject
into their babies DAILY with their breasts...

2. Breastfeedings (free daily immunizations) reportedly make
MD-needle-vaccinations work better.

CDC failure to administer these two "doses of real life" amounts to mass
failure to make the breastfeeding (immunization) and vaccination rates
skyrocket.

CDC is in effect denying massive numbers of babies massive numbers of free
daily immunizations.

What woman informed that she can immunize her baby daily and (reportedly)
make MD vaccinations work better - is going to fail to at least ATTEMPT to
breastfeed?

Why would CDC's National Immunization [sic] Program fail to mention the most
prolific immunizers - breastfeeding mothers - and the reported fact that
they make MD-needle vaccinations work better?

CDC's National Immunization [sic] Program is a sad excuse for an
"immunization" program.

It amounts to mass immunologic child abuse/neglect.

Todd

"Anne Rogers" wrote in message
...
including close-up of good latch, etc. The one breastfeeding thing I
disagreed with was the statement that you should breastfeed for 4-6
months and "could" breastfeed "up to" 2 years if you choose. AFAIK,
the recommendation is more that you should BF as long as possible and
wean when ready with no "up to" date.

Which isn't too bad though, I wonder if some people are put off
breastfeeding because of the length of time they are expected to do it?
Perhaps it's better to take the real life approach, which is encourage it
as much as possibly, but accept that many people stop for many different
reasons before 1 year and it's best to give them good advice about that
and point out that the baby will need to have formula upto 1 year. I think
sometimes the ideal thing can seem far too daunting and a dose of real
life can be really helpful.

Anne


True! I actually don't plan to bf for 2 yrs, but didn't like the you
"could" bf "up to" 2 yrs because it made it sound like it was bad to bf past
2 yrs. Maybe they should say "many women wean when the baby is on solids,
but others choose to continue to maximize the benefits" or something like
that rather than imply an upward limit.


Amy

On 13 Sep 2005 07:58:07 -0700, "V." wrote:

Just watched this DVD with DH last night (got it from Netflix) and
wanted to let other first-time moms know about it....
DH also got a kick out of the "football hold" since he'd never heard
of it.

With the arrival of my first granddaughter some fifteen years ago, I
started making use of the same hold we employ in pediatric advanced
life support (PALS) to clear choking in infants, with the baby prone
along the forearm, the chest and head cradled in the holder's hand,
the arms and legs on either side of the palmar aspect of the forearm.
I would hold her in this fashion, tilted up against my torso, and walk
her about. I had little time with my own kids in their baby years,
and I suppose that as a grandpop I related more readily to my
children's offspring as potential patients than as members of the
family.

Most folks tend to cradle munchkins so that there can be eye contact,
but I found that babies in their first and second years of life kinda
*like* being carried around so that they're looking out at everything.
My grandchildren (youngest one currently 5 months of age) seem
to have enjoyed it. If they want to squirm around and yank on Poppi's
mustache, the option is always open, but the ability to regard the
world from a secure upright stance giving them the lordly perspective
of a grown-up, hands grasped firmly upon their bearer's first and
fifth fingers, "steering" their mount as they please, seems conducive
to a feeling of satisfaction dear to their inarticulate personae.

But, then, the child views the grandfather in pretty much the same
way he/she looks upon dinosaurs: large, fierce, and extinct.

------------------------
Whatever it is that government does, sensible Americans
would prefer that the government do it to somebody else.
This is the idea behind foreign policy.

-- P.J. O'Rourke