Saturday, March 22, 2008

Oh, baby! Look at you now in designer duds

While many adults find it difficult to dress fashionably, consider the plight of the toddler. There's nothing but applesauce-stained synthetic fabrics in their closets, and until those chubby fingers learn to fasten their own buttons, little girls are at the mercy of Mom.

Now, worse news: Suri Cruise has upped the ante.

Since she arrived on the celebrity circuit, Suri has been impeccably turned out in Armani, Juicy Couture, Ralph Lauren and Chloe. And rumor has it that Katie Holmes ordered a custom pair of Christian Louboutin shoes for $3,000.

Maybe that's why so many of her peers are drooling.

As the average age of parents gets higher, they seem to be spending more money on their children's clothes. Mothers who have never owned Burberry items are splurging on designer plaid kilts for their kids.

Cynthia Jamin, an actress who landed roles on "Friends" and "Don't Shoot Me," wanted even more glamor for her girls, Roxy, 6, and Lola, 4. Her TwirlyGirl creations are for funky princesses with $70 to burn.

The dresses reflect the new consumer mentality. "Every girl who wears a TwirlyGirl dress is unique," says Jamin. "I want the dress to be as extraordinary as she is."

Among TwirlyGirl's extraordinary fans: Brooke Shields' daughter Rowan, Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter Apple and Heather Locklear's daughter Ava.

Beware of getting carried away, though, says Pamela Paul, author of Parenting, Inc.: How We Are Sold on $800 Strollers, Fetal Education, Baby Sign Language, Sleeping Coaches, Toddler Couture, and Diaper Wipe Warmers -- and What It Means for Our Children. Designer clothes come at too great a price if they keep kids from playing in the mud.

"The message is that what you wear is really important," says Paul. "I do think there are repercussions, and psychologists who study the effects of money and branding culture on kids notice the same thing. Certainly in an era in which second-graders are incredibly brand conscious -- insisting on $100-plus jeans -- starting this at age 2 is not a good idea."

So explore options. While it's possible to spend $625 on an Easter Sunday dress from Posh Tots.com, there's one way to cut down on clothing costs: rental. Gagas.com offers a selection of thousands of formal kids' clothes, so you can spend just $15.99 on a size 3T silk shantung dress, and keep it for three weeks.

It might be a good idea to start saving. It's hard enough keeping up with Suri's wardrobe -- but just wait until Jennifer Lopez's daughter Emme gets a little older.

Friday, March 21, 2008

Public Health Risk Seen as Parents Reject Vaccines


SAN DIEGO — In a highly unusual outbreak of measles here last month, 12 children fell ill; nine of them had not been inoculated against the virus because their parents objected, and the other three were too young to receive vaccines.

The parents who objected to their children being inoculated are among a small but growing number of vaccine skeptics in California and other states who take advantage of exemptions to laws requiring vaccinations for school-age children.

The exemptions have been growing since the early 1990s at a rate that many epidemiologists, public health officials and physicians find disturbing.

Children who are not vaccinated are unnecessarily susceptible to serious illnesses, they say, but also present a danger to children who have had their shots — the measles vaccine, for instance, is only 95 percent effective — and to those children too young to receive certain vaccines.

Measles, almost wholly eradicated in the United States through vaccines, can cause pneumonia and brain swelling, which in rare cases can lead to death. The measles outbreak here alarmed public health officials, sickened babies and sent one child to the hospital.

Every state allows medical exemptions, and most permit exemptions based on religious practices. But an increasing number of the vaccine skeptics belong to a different group — those who object to the inoculations because of their personal beliefs, often related to an unproven notion that vaccines are linked to autism and other disorders.

Twenty states, including California, Ohio and Texas, allow some kind of personal exemption, according to a tally by the Johns Hopkins University.

“I refuse to sacrifice my children for the greater good,” said Sybil Carlson, whose 6-year-old son goes to school with several of the children hit by the measles outbreak here. The boy is immunized against some diseases but not measles, Ms. Carlson said, while his 3-year-old brother has had just one shot, protecting him against meningitis.

“When I began to read about vaccines and how they work,” she said, “I saw medical studies, not given to use by the mainstream media, connecting them with neurological disorders, asthma and immunology.”

Ms. Carlson said she understood what was at stake. “I cannot deny that my child can put someone else at risk,” she said.

In 1991, less than 1 percent of children in the states with personal-belief exemptions went without vaccines based on the exemption; by 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, the percentage had increased to 2.54 percent, said Saad B. Omer, an assistant scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

While nationwide over 90 percent of children old enough to receive vaccines get them, the number of exemptions worries many health officials and experts. They say that vaccines have saved countless lives, and that personal-belief exemptions are potentially dangerous and bad public policy because they are not based on sound science.

“If you have clusters of exemptions, you increase the risk of exposing everyone in the community,” said Dr. Omer, who has extensively studied disease outbreaks and vaccines.

It is the absence, or close to it, of some illnesses in the United States that keep some parents from opting for the shots. Worldwide, 242,000 children a year die from measles, but it used to be near one million. The deaths have dropped because of vaccination, a 68 percent decrease from 2000 to 2006.

“The very success of immunizations has turned out to be an Achilles’ heel,” said Dr. Mark Sawyer, a pediatrician and infectious disease specialist at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego. “Most of these parents have never seen measles, and don’t realize it could be a bad disease so they turn their concerns to unfounded risks. They do not perceive risk of the disease but perceive risk of the vaccine.”

Dr. Sawyer and the vast majority of pediatricians believe strongly that vaccinations are the cornerstone of sound public health. Many doctors view the so-called exempters as parasites, of a sort, benefiting from the otherwise inoculated majority.

Most children get immunized to measles from a combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, a live virus.

While the picture of an unvaccinated child was once that of the offspring of poor and uneducated parents, “exempters” are often well educated and financially stable, and hold a host of like-minded child-rearing beliefs.

Vaccine skeptics provide differing explanations for their belief that vaccines may cause various illnesses and disorders, including autism.

Recent news that a federal vaccine court agreed to pay the family of an autistic child in Georgia who had an underlying mitochondrial disorder has led some skeptics to speculate that vaccines may worsen such conditions. Again, researchers say there is no evidence to support this thesis.

Alexandra Stewart, director of the Epidemiology of U.S. Immunization Law project at George Washington University, said many of these parents are influenced by misinformation obtained from Web sites that oppose vaccination.

“The autism debate has convinced these parents to refuse vaccines to the detriment of their own children as well as the community,” Ms. Stewart said.

While many parents meet deep resistance and even hostility from pediatricians when they choose to delay, space or reject vaccines, they are often able to find doctors who support their choice.

“I do think vaccines help with the public health and helping prevent the occasional fatality,” said Dr. Bob Sears, the son of the well-known child-care author by the same name, who practices pediatrics in San Clemente. Roughly 20 percent of his patients do not vaccinate, Dr. Sears said, and another 20 percent partially vaccinate.

“I don’t think it is such a critical public health issue that we should force parents into it,” Dr. Sears said. “I don’t lecture the parents or try to change their mind; if they flat out tell me they understand the risks I feel that I should be very respectful of their decision.”

Some parents of unvaccinated children go to great lengths to expose their children to childhood diseases to help them build natural immunities.

In the wake of last month’s outbreak, Linda Palmer considered sending her son to a measles party to contract the virus. Several years ago, the boy, now 12, contracted chicken pox when Ms. Palmer had him attend a gathering of children with that virus.

“It is a very common thing in the natural-health oriented world,” Ms. Palmer said of the parties.

She ultimately decided against the measles party for fear of having her son ostracized if he became ill.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, measles outbreaks in Alaska and California triggered strong enforcement of vaccine mandates by states, and exemption laws followed.

While the laws vary from state to state, most allow children to attend school if their parents agree to keep them home during any outbreak of illnesses prevented by vaccines. The easier it is to get an exemption — some states require barely any paperwork — the more people opt for them, according to Dr. Omer’s research, supported by other vaccine experts.

There are differences within states, too. There tend to be geographic clusters of “exempters” in certain counties or even neighborhoods or schools. According to a 2006 article in The Journal of The American Medical Association, exemption rates of 15 percent to 18 percent have been found in Ashland, Ore., and Vashon, Wash. In California, where the statewide rate is about 1.5 percent, some counties were as high as 10 percent to 19 percent of kindergartners.

In the San Diego measles outbreak, four of the cases, including the first one, came from a single charter school, and 17 children stayed home during the outbreak to avoid contracting the illness.

There is substantial evidence that communities with pools of unvaccinated clusters risk infecting a broad community that includes people who have been inoculated.Link

For instance, in a 2006 mumps outbreak in Iowa that infected 219 people, the majority of those sickened had been vaccinated. In a 2005 measles outbreak in Indiana, there were 34 cases, including six people who had been vaccinated.

Here in California, six pertussis outbreaks infected 24 people in 2007; only 2 of 24 were documented as having been appropriately immunized.

A surveillance program in the mid ’90s in Canada of infants and preschoolers found that cases of Hib fell to between 8 and 10 cases a year from 550 a year after a vaccine program was begun, and roughly half of those cases were among children whose vaccine failed.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Halle Berry Has a Baby Girl

16-Mar-2008
Written by: Louise Robina Happe

Berry gives birth to a girl.

Halle Berry gave birth to a baby girl on Sunday.

Berry and boyfriend, Gabriel Aubry, announced their pregnancy last September when she was three months pregnant; the couple have been together since November 2005.

In an interview with Parade magazine, Berry happily exclaimed, “I’ve accomplished things I never thought I would. Now my sights are set on a different chapter in my life, which is motherhood. That’s the goal I have very clearly set for myself.”

According to People, Aubry has been reading up on fatherhood in baby manuals and parenting books – obviously excited on becoming a new Dad.

Berry, equally excited, recently gushed in Hello magazine, “I have someone who is putting a spark in my eye. I have never been in better physical and emotional shape, and I’m happy in my personal life – what a novel idea!”

After a “fantastic” pregnancy, as the actress put it, Berry’s rep confirmed that the new parents are “doing great!”

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Is Baby Einstein Good for Kids?


By Shelley Page - The Ottawa Citizen

Shelley Page on how modern parents plunked our youngsters in front of the DVD player, believing the videos were as indispensible as diapers and bottles. How could we have been so gullible?

If little Albert Einstein were in the school system today, what would be his fate? The future Nobel Prize-winner in physics didn't speak until he was three and struggled throughout school, especially in math.

He might have been labelled learning-disabled, spoonfed Ritalin and shuffled off to a special-needs class, written off as a lost cause. At least that's the prediction of child psychiatrist Dr. Alvin Rosenfeld, co-author of Hyper-Parenting: Are you Hurting Your Child By Trying Too Hard? He suspects that in the modern world where parents expect their pre-schoolers to be prodigies, Einstein's slowness would have marginalized him.

Who knows if such labels would have hampered his special theory of relativity, published in 1905 at the positively geriatric age of 26?

Dr. Rosenfeld, then, finds it ironic that the No. 1 educational program for infants is named after the late-blooming physicist.

As anyone whose had a baby in the last decade knows, the Baby Einstein program, which makes DVDs for babies and toddlers aged three months to three years, promises to brighten our babies and sharpen their speech with multi-coloured musical feasts for the eyes and ears.

Many of us bought the hype that our babies' growing brains would soak up the stimulation of these video products and prime them for future brilliance. While we were washing dishes, taking showers, checking e-mail, our budding baby Einsteins were glued to a video, as indispensible as diapers and bottles. Surely Harvard and Yale would soon come calling. Or at least elementary school teachers sniffing out giftedness.

At one point, it was estimated one in three American children had watched a Baby Einstein video, or one of the competing products, such as So Smart and Brainy Baby and Baby Prodigy.

How could we have been so gullible?

Just last week, Baby Einstein stopped billing its videos as educational, following a formal complaint from a U.S. advocacy group that the Disney-owned company was making "false and deceptive" claims that it can give babies a leg up in learning.

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood claimed victory after Baby Einstein quietly changed its website to remove assertions that its videos help develop cognitive skills in the very young.

The company removed promotional claims such as the one saying the Baby Wordsworth DVD "fosters the development of your toddler's speech and language skills" and Numbers Nursery will "help develop your baby's understanding of what numbers mean."

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood filed a complaint almost two years ago with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. The commission ruled in December that it would not take any enforcement action against Baby Einstein, under consumer protection laws, in light of changes the company had made to descriptions of its DVDs and a promise that it would "take appropriate steps to ensure that any future claims of educational and/or developmental benefit for children was adequately substantiated."

If any one of us had bothered to investigate what was clearly too good to be true, we might have bypassed the videos in favour of some one-on-one time with Junior. But ease and convenience are the mantra of the modern parent.

Baby education was launched by a 1993 study that purported to have found the "Mozart Effect." Researchers Gordon Shaw and Frances Rauscher at the University of California at Irvine had groups of college students listen to 10 minutes of a Mozart sonata, a relaxation tape, or silence, and then take a paper-folding-and-cutting test.

Those who listened to Mozart performed better than those who had not. The researchers concluded that listening to Mozart improved the students' short-term spatial thinking. This one study led well-meaning social engineers to apply the Mozart Effect to infants.

Soon mothers were playing Mozart to their pregnant bellies, and politicians were legislating classical music.

In 1998, Georgia Governor Zell Miller signed a bill to send to every home with a newborn in his state a Mozart CD to enhance the baby's mathematical ability. Gov. Don Sundquist of Tennessee made sure Tennessee newborns were receiving CDs, while the State of Florida ordered all state-funded childcare centres to play classical music. Baby Einstein and other baby education companies were quickly launched at the exact time that parents seemed to be determined to try anything to brighten their baby.

Only one problem: the Mozart Effect couldn't be duplicated.

Several dozen unsuccessful attempts have been made to replicate the findings in scientific settings. And in a 1999 television debate, researcher Rauscher -- who has said she stands by her work -- stated, "There's no scientific data suggesting that playing Mozart to babies is going to make them 'smarter.'"

In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children younger than two should watch no TV at all, no matter how educational the content claims to be. And one recent study found such products might actually delay language development in toddlers.

Researchers at the University of Washington found that with every hour in a day spent watching baby DVDs and videos, infants learned six to eight fewer new words than babies who never watched the videos, with the strongest detrimental effect on babies eight to 16 months old. The results of this study have been strongly disputed by Disney. Its CEO complained about the methodology used to study the videos' effects on children, pointing out that only telephone surveys were used instead of actually observing the "interactive nature" of such products.

While I'm sure some parents sit beside Junior "interacting with them" while these so-called brain boosters are broadcast, I never did. I ran away and hid, usually with a phone stuck to my ear, desperate for adult conversation.

If I could convince myself that my kids were growing neurons while I talked on the phone, all the better. Although -- and this isn't just in hindsight -- I doubted the videos had much impact. My second child fell asleep the few times she watched them.

What I find curious is how so many of us fear that if our children aren't labelled "gifted," or possess some unique talent, by the time they're out of diapers, we've failed as parents. What's the hurry? I have to ask myself that question all the time. I never picked up a basketball until I was in Grade 9, and made my university team -- yet today, if I suspected one of my daughters was interested in the sport, I'd probably sign them up as soon as possible, who cares if they're five and nine? They'd probably hate the sport in no time.

Still, parents get sucked in by stories of midget math prodigies or the tennis success of the Williams sisters.

I have it on good authority at least one kid I know hates the pressure.

The other day I was snuggling with my five-year-old, and she said something characteristically funny about boobs and bowling balls. I told her that she cracked me up. Her response?

"Don't sign me up. Don't sign me up! I just want to be a jokester around home."

No kidding. She must have smelled clown camp in the near future.