In this time of highly conservative precaution for embryonic development, one curious thought comes to my mind. Way back, in the middle of the last century, before I was delivered, I doubt my mother’s doctor told her to put down her glass of scotch or her Parliaments when she was carrying a child. I might not be the best example of embryonic development, but that’s probably a different discussion anyway. However, there was not the whole alphabet associated with childhood development like ADD, ADHD, SID, PDD-NOS. The primary designation doctors had in those days was FLK, doctor shorthand for Funny-Looking Kid.

But, now everybody is extremely concerned about what a woman ingests when she is pregnant. Rightfully so, nothing is more precious than a child. I whole-heartedly agree with all the clamoring. 

While we are so concerned about organic this and wholesome that, mothers routinely tell me their doctors require them to get flu vaccines. “You will be putting your unborn child at risk”, is the common admonishment.

The child’s risk

In our society at this time, we are instructed at every turn, before you do anything, “Ask your Doctor”. Embryonic development is the utmost priority. I would ask all doctors these questions. Where is the blood/brain barrier between the mother’s arm and the notochord of this developing embryo? You are recommending/prescribing this intramuscular injection for the mother. That will be absorbed by the mothers’ blood system. Would you inject it straight into baby in utero? Isn’t that essentially what you are doing when you inject the mother carrying a child?

In the 50,000 year history of human development, how long has it been “common practice” to inject pregnant women with foreign substances? Where is the clear science saying this is best for the embryonic development? Or is it just the report from the pharmaceutical representative?