— Leave a Comment

Back to Blogging

So after nearly five long years, I am coming back to this blog. I abandoned it recognizing I didn’t have the time to devote to keep feeding content – which may still be the case.

Needless to say, since I last posted, the world of social media has exploded and become mainstream. For much of the time, I sat on the sidelines watching the evolution of emerging online communities. Then recently, I have begun to re-engage in the conversation via Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.

These new platforms for communicating have created quite a buzz in the public relations and marketing industry. Whole conferences are devoted to the subject. There are entire crops of consultants and agencies that are scrambling to position themselves as the experts in this field – ready to tell our organizations how we can mount campaigns that take advantage of these “new” mediums.

The good news is that our industry has finally embraced new media as being more than a fad. However, the transition to this new world is not easy and there are no easy answers on how to approach it. Despite being an “early adopter” of Web 2.0 platforms in my personal life, as a communicator new media can be infuriating. The fact is social media requires a complete shift in how you view promotion and how you tell your story.

In the world of PR and marketing, controlling the message has always been our primary goal. But how can you “control the message” when thousands of everyday people are publishing exactly what they think about your company/organization? The answer is you can’t. (BTW, as a control freak, that was really hard for me to accept!)

All you can do is listen, participate and hope to eventually build enough credibility to eventually break through the noise. Our PR team at Kaiser Permanente has just begun to play in this realm. We are participating in the conversation as individuals, sharing our passion for the work we do and as a result we are communicating directly with communities that share our interests.

new media public relations social media web 2.0
— Leave a Comment

Uncomfortable Questions

When I started hearing about all of these parents deciding against immunizing their kids, I suspected that it eventually would impact us directly. Over the past 16 months, whether we’ve gone to the park, played at Gymboree, attended La Leche League meetings, and even when I’ve taken Ethan to the grocery store, I have fleetingly wondered whether the other parents we meet have immunized their kids.

I realized that at some point — likely when Ethan entered school — I’d have to deal with this issue head on, but I figured that was years away. So, when I read yet another Berkeley Parents Network message from an anti-vax parent decrying insenstive pediatricians and praising Randall Neustader of all people, I felt like the wind had been knocked out of me when I saw that it was written by the woman that I’d selected as Ethan’s child care provider.

For the past three weeks, I have been thrilled to have a limited child care option (six hours per week) with a mother that I truly like and two little boys whose temperments are a perfect match with Ethan’s. The situation could not have been more ideal. And now with that one email, it is wholly unacceptable.

I know that when Ethan starts playing at other kids’ houses on his own, I will ask typical mommy questions like, “is so-and- so’s mom or dad going to be there?” Todd and I also strongly believe that we have the responsibility of asking whether there is a gun in the house. Never in a million years would I have thought that I would need add “do you immunize your kids?” to the list. And yet, it is fundamentally the same thing — it’s about protecting Ethan’s health and well-being.

child care health immunizations vaccines
— Leave a Comment

Always Something to Worry About

As I sit here, I can hear the blowers of the auto body shop next door. Each weekday, I wait until the blowers are turned off so that I can venture out into the backyard without becoming overwhelmed by the smell of solvents.

Months ago, I contacted Berkeley’s environmental health department and the county’s air quality management board to find out whether I should be concerned about my son, Ethan, breathing in the fumes. I assumed someone must document what chemicals are being emitted and that guidelines must exist detailing safe levels of exposure. I was wrong.

So, we just err on the safe side. If the blowers are on, we keep the windows closed and don’t take Ethan into the yard, but that is unlikely to be a workable plan long-term. Sadly, the likely toxic emissions coming from our neighbor is just one of a long line of very real environmental concerns in my everyday life.

These days I find myself drawn to news stories about toxic hazards. Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t typically obsess about these things, but nonetheless, I am finding a never ending supply of things to worry about: there’s mercury in our fish, rocket fuel in cow’s milk, and even breastmilk is filled with chemicals and contaminants.

Each day, it feels like I am walking a fine line between healthy caution and utter paranoia. Maybe I’d be better off if I didn’t read the news — perhaps that’s why George W. Bush doesn’t bother.

environment health
— Leave a Comment

The Blame Game

While I can empathize with parents and families whose children are struck by illness, it puzzles me when their energy is expended on finding someone or something to blame.

The more I read about attempts to link thimerosal to autism, the more I am struck by a sense of desperation. Numerous organizations have been created exclusively to promote the theory that thimerosal causes autism — to the exclusion of all other theories. They choose to discount epidemiological studies and elevate parental anecdotes as hard facts — ultimately to the detriment of their cause.

As the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia writes: “Unfortunately, for current and future parents of children with autism, the controversy surrounding vaccines has caused attention and resources to focus away from a number of promising leads.”

While I support efforts to investigate the possible link, it seems as if the net should be cast more widely. Instead, these activists expend their energy promoting the reports that support their claim and attempting to discredit any study that discounts their theory.

Ironically, these organizations have no qualms in describing the Institute of Medicine (IOM) as a credible resource for calling link between autism and thimerosal “biologically plausible,” but then turn around and decry the same agency as corrupt when its analysis of available research three years later concluded that existing research does not support the theory.

The bottomline is that these advocates seem to refuse to acknowledge the complexity of autism. It simply is not plausible that a single factor, like thimerosal exposure, is responsible for the rising rates we are witnessing.

At least some of the organizations are upfront about the fact that they want to document the link for the sake of litigation efforts. (See Mother Jones: Toxic Tipping Point for more information.) But, if that is the case, how are their efforts any more credible than the parties they are suing?

If these parents and advocates are truly concerned about finding the cause and, presumably a cure, for autism, why would they put all their eggs in this one basket? Is it cynical for me to believe that they are pursuing this narrow avenue of inquiry in the hope of a big payout?

* * *

To learn more about autism from organizations that are casting a wider net, check out UC Davis MIND Institute and Cure Autism Now.

autism health immunizations vaccines
— Leave a Comment

Of Mice and Mercury

A little over a year ago, if someone had asked me what thimerosal was I would not have had a clue. But since then, I have been exposed to countless Web sites and online forums decrying the evils of this mercury-based preservative once commonly used in childhood vaccines.

A few years ago, as a result of the frightening increases in the incidence of autism as well as suggestions that the increases were due to thimerosal, parents started getting squirmy about vaccinating their kids. In an effort to alleviate parental fears, pediatricians and the public health community rightly asked pharmaceutical companies to remove the preservative from vaccines.

This was done despite a lack of scientific evidence of a causal link between it and autism (or any other problem for that matter). In fact, just last month, the Institute of Medicine released a monumental report that indicated that existing research showed that any link between thimerosal and autism was only theoretical.

Ultimately, for the sake of protecting universal immunization rates, the medical and public health practioners realized it was better to remove the obstacle than to engage in a philosophical debate on the topic on a patient-by-patient basis. The pharmaceutical companies honored the request and since 2000, commonly used vaccinations in the U.S. have been free of the preservative.*

I think we can all agree that we are better off with the removal of the mercury, no matter how trace the amount was. Goodness knows that given all the warnings about mercury in fish,** I am as paranoid as can be. Ahi (tuna) is right up there on my list of favorite foods, but as a breastfeeding mom I feel guilty eating it with the risk of passing the mercury on to my son. So it is nice to be spared the concern when it comes to whether or not to immunize him.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that thimerosal was virtually eliminated nearly four years ago, if you read anti-vaccination Web sites and comments in online forums, you could easily conclude children are still routinely exposed to it. This is where I get frustrated. While I can applaud activists who helped convince doctors and the pharmaceutical companies that it was a good idea to remove the thimerosal, I am sickened by the fact that they continue to frighten parents by implying that it is still used.

Today the Los Angeles Times reported that results of a new study demonstrated that when exposed to thimerosal, a specific strain of mice already predisposed to autoimmune diseases*** exhibited autism-like behaviors. Three additional strains of mice without that genetic predisposition did not exhibit any changes after the thimerosal exposure. This study is fascinating because it reinforces the theory that there is likely a genetic predisposition to autism and that environmental factors could influence the onset of autism among those predisposed.

The study may help deepen our understanding of autism and related disorders and I hope it will lead to additional research. Unfortunately, rather than being seen as a data point for understanding a complex issue, anti-vaccination advocates will tout the study as conclusive and use it to push a social and political agenda challenging universal immunization efforts. Case in point, mercola.com’s headline for the story reads: Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines Increases Risk of Autism-Like Damage.

This headline is an is a classic example of how those opposed to U.S. immunization policies routinely mislead parents to believe that vaccines are more harmful than the diseases they were designed to prevent. These deceptive practices are the latest addition to the long line of my pet peeves.

* * * * * *

*Commonly used injectable-flu vaccines have thimerosal. Also, while thimerosal is no longer an active ingredient in the vaccines, trace amounts may be present as a result of the production process. Check out the FDA chart detailing amounts present.

**It is important to stress that the mercury in fish (methylmercury) and the mercury in thimerosal (ethylmercury) are NOT the same thing. Check out the CDC’s Web site for more information. While there is significant documentation of the harms of the methylmercury found in fish, there is not a body of evidence indicating harms directly related to ethylmercury.

***Autism is not an autoimmune disease, but some research suggests that those with family history of autoimmune disorders may be predisposed to autism.

health immunizations mercury vaccines
— Leave a Comment

Breastfeeding Ads

I suppose this is as good a place as any to begin this blog . . .

This story aired Friday night on 20/20: Breast-Feeding Ads Stalled, ‘Watered Down’. I usually go out of my way to avoid news magazine shows, but as a breastfeeding mom and communications consultant, I thought I should watch.

Well, I watched and now I am annoyed.

Not because the formula-industry exerted their influence, but because the message was so weak from the start. Given the involvement of the Ad Council, I shouldn’t be surprised that their message about breastfeeding was so off target. After all, they are the same folks who decided it would be a good idea to equate teens who use drugs with international terrorists.

How could the message have been better? Well first you’d have to consider who is and is not breastfeeding and then address why. While breastfeeding is natural, it does not come easily to all women. Some women try, but experience difficulties and give up. Just check out La Leche League’s FAQs to get a sense of some of the challenges that some moms face.

I consider myself lucky that I made it past the first year and am still nursing my son, Ethan. But, I realize I had it pretty easy: I work from home and am rarely away from him, I live in an area that is very comfortable with mothers nursing in public, my milk supply has always been plentiful and Ethan is a great little sucker.

Despite that, to make it beyond the year of nursing that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends, I still required the help the nurses in the hospital, the home visitation nurse I was lucky my health plan provided, a lactation consultant, a supportive family (particularly my sister who breastfed her kids), a network of friends who were breastfeeding along with me, and my monthly trips to La Leche League meetings. Take away any of those support mechanisms and who knows how long I would have been able to nurse.

Yet, rather than addressing the obstacles and promoting access to the types of support mechanisms available to mothers who want to nurse, these dumb ads imply that women who don’t nurse are just selfish. If you really want behavioral change, it seems only logical to attempt to address the barriers to change first.

ads breastfeeding health