Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Merry Christmas by Menopause
Monday, December 13, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Another Test Another No
Sunday, November 28, 2010
day 60
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Sex Drive?
Monday, November 15, 2010
Thinning
Sunday, November 14, 2010
I am guilty
Monday, November 8, 2010
Welcome Forty-One?
Friday, November 5, 2010
Menopause Morning Sickness
Thursday, November 4, 2010
is this what 41 is gonna be
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Night Sweats
Thursday, October 28, 2010
And Again
Friday, October 15, 2010
Scared
Sunday, October 3, 2010
period
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Max
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Sex
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Alvin
Thursday, July 1, 2010
spot - spot - spot
Friday, June 25, 2010
Boobs!
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Bloated Much
Gushing
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
iron anyone
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
ummmm period
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
FerFucksSake!
Monday, May 17, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Hello?
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Faucet is on High
Friday, March 5, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Boobies & Hormones
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
SEX
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Valentines DAy
Thursday, February 11, 2010
she's in
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Sister
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
SISTER
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Sister - January 31st
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Sister's Baby Update as of Today!!
Boys are FABULOUS!! Small size difference but completely normal for fraternal twins. Baby A is in vertex position not sideways and weighs about 5lb 13oz. Baby B is sideways but that's ok as he will move once A is born. He is weighing about 5lbs 5oz. Both definitely have BOY parts!! Basically everyone is doing fine
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
NST
Monday, January 18, 2010
34.5 Weeks!
Friday, January 15, 2010
choices
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Ultrasounds
During the course of one month in late 1993, two landmark scientific papers were published. The first paper, a largely randomized trial of the effectiveness of routine prenatal ultrasound screening, studied the outcome of more than 15,000 pregnant women who either received two routine scans at 15 to 22 weeks and 31 to 35 weeks, or were scanned only for medical indications.
Results showed that the mean number of sonograms in the ultrasound group was 2.2 and in the control group (for indication only) was 0.6. The rate of adverse outcome (fetal death, neonatal death, neonatal morbidity), as well as the rate of preterm delivery and distribution of birth weights, was the same for both groups. In addition, in the author's words: "The ultrasonic detection of congenital abnormalities has no effect on perinatal outcome." At last we have a randomized clinical trial of sufficient size to conclude that there is no value to routine scanning during pregnancy.
The second landmark paper, also a randomized controlled trial, looked at the safety of repeated prenatal ultrasound imaging. While the original purpose of the trial was hopefully to demonstrate the safety of repeated scanning, the results were the opposite. From 2,834 pregnant women, 1,415 received ultrasound imaging at 18, 24, 28, 34 and 38 weeks gestation (intensive group) while the other 1,419 received single ultrasound imaging at 18 weeks (regular group). The only difference between the two groups was significantly higher (one-third more) intrauterine growth retardation in the intensive group. This important and serious finding prompted the authors to state: "It would seem prudent to limit ultrasound examinations of the fetus to those cases in which the information is likely to be of clinical importance." Ironically, it is now likely that ultrasound may lead to the very condition, IUGR, that it has for so long claimed to be effective in detecting.
Although we now have sufficient scientific data to be able to say that routine prenatal ultrasound scanning has no effectiveness and may very well carry risks, it would be naive to think that routine use will not continue.
Unfortunately, medical doctors are inadequately educated in the basics of scientific method. It will be a struggle to close the gap between this new scientific data and clinical practice.