bigbirthas.co.uk Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the bigbirthas.co.uk

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host bigbirthas.co.uk. Currently, hosted in Netherlands and its service provider is Go Daddy Netherlands B.V. .

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called Apache containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

main menu skip to primary content skip to secondary content pre-pregnancy body mass index (bmi) folic acid vitamin d pre-pregnancy blog posts pregnancy anaesthetic referral folic acid glucose tolerance testing (gtt) making decisions in pregnancy and labour – using your brain maternity bras for bigger boobs milk leaking in pregnancy plus-size maternity clothes scans sleep position during pregnancy pregnancy blog posts labour & birth making decisions in pregnancy and labour – using your brain shoulder dystocia the impact of negativity on labour and birth water birth help!? what do i wear in labour!? labour & birth blog posts post natal bigger breastfeeding – behind the statistics breastfeeding bras for bigger boobs the fourth trimester post natal blog posts policies & research guidelines research hospital trust policies hospital trusts a-b airedale nhs foundation trust (airedale general hospital, keighley) ashford & st peter’s hospitals nhs foundation trust (ashford hospital, ashford) barnet and chase farm hospitals nhs trust (barnet hospital, barnet, chase farm hospital, enfield) barnsley hospital nhs foundation trust (barnsley district general hospital, barnsley) bedford hospital nhs trust (bedford hospital, bedford) hospital trusts c-m cambridge university hospitals nhs foundation trust (addenbrooke’s hospital, rosie hospital, cambridge) countess of chester hospital nhs foundation trust (countess of chester, chester) heart of england nhs foundation trust (heartlands hospital, birmingham, good hope hospital, sutton coldfield, solihull hospital, solihull) leeds teaching hospitals nhs trust (leeds general infirmary, st james’ university hospital, leeds) mid cheshire hospitals nhs foundation trust (leighton hospital, crewe) mid essex hospitals trust (broomfield hospital, chelmsford) hospital trusts n-u northampton general hospital nhs trust (northampton general hospital) princess alexandra hospital nhs trust (princess alexandra hospital, harlow, essex) university hospitals bristol (bristol royal infirmary, bristol) university hospitals of leicester nhs trust (leicester general hospital, leicester; leicester royal infirmary, leicester; glenfield hospital, leicester) university hospitals of morecambe bay nhs foundation trust (royal lancaster infirmary, lancaster; furness general hospital, barrow-in-furness; westmorland general hospital, kendal) hospital trusts v-z western health & social care trust (altnagelvin area hospital, londonderry; south west acute hospital, enniskillen; tyrone county hospital, omagh) wirral university teaching hospital nhs foundation trust (arrowe park hospital) worcestershire acute hospitals nhs trust (alexandra hospital, redditch, kidderminster hospital, worcestershire royal hospital) york teaching hospital nhs foundation trust (york hospital, scarborough general hospital, bridlington & district hospital) big birtha’s blog about big birtha contact big birtha privacy policy big birthas bargains post navigation ← older posts time to have your say! posted on may 10, 2018 by big_birtha reply the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists is seeking feedback from women on its new leaflet ‘ being overweight or obese during pregnancy and after birth ‘. the closing date for comments is midday on friday 18 may. click on this link to access the rcog page where you can read the draft leaflet and then feed back your thoughts via their online questionnaire. make sure you feed back on the right one – not the hysteroscopy one (unless you happen to be interested in that too!) i don’t want to prejudice your thinking, so i’m not saying what i wrote, but i will say that it’s nice to be asked our opinion at last! aaand… while you’re busy having your say, let me do another shameless plug for our big birthas parenting science gang over on facebook. we’ve been discussing the topic and what we might research for a little while, spoken to some really interesting experts to get their views; this week we’re talking to experienced midwife and waterbirth expert dianne garland (srn rm adm pgcea msc) of www.midwifeexpert.co.uk . we’re nearly at the point of deciding what we’re going to research – come along and get involved, you don’t have to be a scientist (i’m not!) to get involved in citizen science! share this: facebook twitter google pinterest print email posted in labour & birth blog posts , post natal blog posts , pre-pregnancy blog posts , pregnancy blog posts | tagged big , bmi , causation , correlation , diet , fat , gyaecology , gynaecologists , large , maternity , nursing , obese , obesity , obstetrician , obstetrics , overweight , plus-size , policy , pregnancy , pregnant , royal college , weight , women | leave a reply abortion delays for bmi 40+? posted on march 16, 2018 by big_birtha reply i was quite surprised to discover today that being overweight can not only affect the maternity and antenatal care you receive, but if you’re seeking a termination of pregnancy, it can cause you problems there too. the british pregnancy advice service (the uk’s leading abortion care service) have today released a briefing paper to highlight the number of women who are being forced to continue with pregnancies against their will, and sometimes against medical advice, because of delays and lack of capacity in the system. on 46 occasions in 2016 and 2017 – or generally twice a month – bpas was unable to secure suitable nhs hospital treatment for women by the strict legal cut-off point of 24 weeks. in other cases, there was significant delay between the woman presenting for treatment and being able to access that treatment: one mother with cancer, whose treatment could not start until the abortion was performed, waited 45 days for an appointment. in another case, a mother with epilepsy and learning difficulties who presented at the end of first trimester was treated nearly 7 weeks later. but where does high bmi come into this? three of the cases for whom bpas could not find an appointment in time are described thus in the paper: bmi over 40. existing children. pregnancy is the result of a sexual assault. presented at 22 weeks. no appointment available. 19 years old with three young children. bmi>40. her ex-partner has recently been released on bail following a prison sentence for domestic violence. presented at 19 weeks. no suitable appointment available. bmi over 40. 18 weeks pregnant. daughter was recently violently assaulted and raped; she feels unable to cope with both a new baby and supporting her daughter through this experience. cannot stay overnight and leave her other children. no suitable appointment available. why is this? while most abortions in the uk are performed outside the nhs by the not-for-profit sector, in stand-alone community clinics run by organisations like bpas, women with co-morbidities must be managed within a hospital setting where there is swift access to backup care and specific clinical expertise in the event of an emergency. bmi is included in these co-morbidities, with the cut-off being a bmi of 40, and in fact, according to bpas’s statistics, it’s the fourth most common reason for referral for treatment. the briefing goes on to show that many of the clinics they would refer these women into will only treat women up to a certain point in their gestation, so the later you present for treatment, the fewer options you would have in terms of a location to access the service you need. there are just 35 sites across the country offering this service to women, but if you don’t discover you’re pregnant until several weeks along, this can drastically reduce your options. i can’t imagine coming to the very difficult decision of terminating a pregnancy and then finding you are compelled to continue with it anyway because of a lack of access to appointments. so, where does this leave us? one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime, and according to government statistics, 3.6% of women have a bmi greater than 40. so, on a rough guesstimate of the figures, it stands to reason that around 1% of the population may find themselves in exactly this situation. if you’re considering a termination, and you have a high bmi, it looks like the sooner you approach a provider for treatment, the more likely you are to be able to access it, and access it in a location convenient to you. perhaps in this instance it’s better to approach the provider even while you’re in the process of making up your mind, in order to buy you time to arrange a suitable appointment. but according to this study of 4968 women in 2016, safety of outpatient surgical abortion for obese patients in the first and second trimesters (75.5 kib) abortion clinics needn’t be restricting access to women with high bmi at all? is this yet another thing we should be fighting to be treated the same as any other women? we’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. medically complex women and abortion care (425.4 kib) obesity statistics (5.7 mib) share this: facebook twitter google pinterest print email posted in labour & birth blog posts , pre-pregnancy blog posts , pregnancy blog posts | tagged abortion , big , bmi , fat , maternity , obese , obesity , overweight , plus-size , policy , pregnancy , pregnant , scared , statistics , surgery , termination , top , weight , women | leave a reply fed up with lazy journalism posted on march 9, 2018 by big_birtha reply another day, another article which blames obese mums and completely misrepresents the research it purports to be reporting on. thanks helen mcardle ‘health correspondent’ for the herald @hmcardleht , for yet more scaremongering claptrap. here’s the article: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16071005.foetuses_of_obese_women_develop__fatty_liver__in_the_womb/ let’s begin with the headline: “ offspring of obese mothers prone to childhood obesity because they develop ‘fatty liver’ in womb “ so, that sounds worryingly simple enough, an assertion which is reinforced in the first paragraph: “children whose mothers were obese during pregnancy are more likely to become overweight themselves because they develop a “fatty liver” in the womb, research has found.” as usual, we’re to blame, and “research has found it”, so the article says, so it must be true. surely? unless you read on. but the trouble is, how many people do read on with articles like this? how many mums, glancing at this and feeling sick to the pit of their stomach at the potential harm they’re doing to their baby/have done to their children, breath deeply, and flick past to something lighter to brighten the mood? if you’re already pregnant/have had the baby there is little point in finding more things to stress over – being a parent is hard enough! how many healthcare professionals, busy on a lunchbreak, notice the heading and possibly the first paragraph and move on, because there’s no need to read it – it’s clearly just going to tell the thing they already believe to be true; overweight women are harming their children through greed, laziness, and ignorance? not all health professionals think this way, certainly, but i’ve met enough to get the impression that it’s not a rarely-enough-held viewpoint. newspaper articles like this don’t help matters. the second paragraph kicks us again when we’re down. “it has long been known that overweight and obese women are more likely to give birth to heavy babies and that these infants are at greater risk of childhood obesity.” actually, (and please correct me if you know of more recent studies to the contrary) i think the link between big mum=big baby is only shown in studies which failed to adjust for mums with poorly controlled blood glucose levels (usually as a result of poorly managed gestational diabetes). where this is accounted for, there is no established correlation between otherwise obese mums and heavier babies at birth. the second claim, that ‘these infants are at greater risk of childhood obesity’ does have some grounding; there are plenty of studies that show a correlation between maternal obesity and childhood obesity. it’s very easy to find data on the mother’s bmi at her booking appointment – and so again, lazy researchers have been known to draw conclusions that pregnancy bmi is a factor in the obesity of a 10 year old, failing to account for the environment the child is growing up in after its birth! funny how these studies are so rarely interested in paternal obesity as an indicator, isn’t it, since that data is so much less readily available? then we get onto the third paragraph and the headline starts to unravel… “however, research published in the journal of physiology has revealed for the first time how fat accumulates in the liver and metabolic pathways are disturbed in foetuses developing in obese mothers with diets high in sugar and fat.” hang on a second! that additional information makes quite a bit of difference!! “ obese mothers with diets high in sugar and fat “. so not all obese mothers, but the ones with poor diets. obviously much less catchy as a headline though, isn’t it? then comes not just the unravelling, but the full scale chopping up of the headline with the sword of damocles… if you read further down to paragraph eleven. “the study was carried out using obese pregnant monkeys.” i’m sorry? what?! obese. pregnant. monkeys ??!? they didn’t mention that in the title, now, did they? no, in fact, the herald used the word ‘childhood’ in the title. could have used the more factually correct ‘infant’; it even comprises fewer letters, but implying that this is research on humans makes this a more compelling read, doesn’t it? the very first word of the article itself is ‘children’, which we now know should read ‘baboons’! w hile i concede that humans share 91% of their dna with baboons , there’s definitely enough of a difference between us for that distinction to be quite important. i can’t do this, for instance. and i’m not overly fond of bananas.>> if you google a bit, you’ll discover that helen mcardle didn’t even write all of the article herself. most of it, the accurate stuff, was lifted directly from this press release from the physiological society. the herald’s only input was just to add confusion and a click-bait title – and bury the essential information deeper in the text. standard journalistic fare, sadly. my advice, always read on if you come across a news story that makes you feel uncomfortable about being a bigger mum. more often than not, the article unravels itself as you read, and your fears prove false. even better, find the research the article is citing and read that, if possible, (if, in this case, you’re not squeamish about reading of the the deaths by exsanguination of not-quite-to-term baby baboons…) primate fetal hepatic responses to maternal obesity: epigenetic signalling pathways and lipid accumulation (72.7 kib) this journalistic laziness is so frustrating. r esearch which usually took scientists months, maybe years to conduct, and several thousand words to explain, are so often twisted and misrepresented when distilled by a journalist into an attention-grabbing article. but the damage is done. this is all i have to say about that… if you’d like to get involved in some citizen-led science about high-bmi pregnancy in conjunction with parenting science gang, funded by the wellcome trust, then do join our facebook group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1955647771354577/ x big birtha share this: facebook twitter google pinterest print email posted in labour & birth blog posts , post natal blog posts , pre-pregnancy blog posts , pregnancy blog posts | tagged big , blame , bmi , causation , correlation , diet , epigenetic , fast food , fat , guilt , journalism , junk food , large , lazy , maternity , obese , obesity , overweight , plus-size , pregnancy , pregnant , scaremongering , statistics , stereotype , unfit mother , weight , women | leave a reply now for the science bit… posted on march 1, 2018 by big_birtha reply there’s a real lack of good quality research into high bmi pregnancies. there are few studies done specifically on the topic. those that do exist are often with very small sample sizes, conflate being overweight with medical conditions, or have flawed methodology. yet we’re supposed to accept recommendations based on their results? even given the state of some of it, i definitely prefer recommendations based on evidence! all too often we’re told we should do something while pregnant because it’s ‘policy’, yet when you start unpicking the advice, it turns out to be based on nothing more than a hunch – e.g.taking an an increased dose of folic acid . and then there’s the problem with finding the evidence that applies to our circumstances when it does exist. many big birthas out there, myself included, have found that it’s best not to assume that your healthcare professionals are experts in whatever course of action they’re proposing, and often have no idea of the evidence base (or lack of it) to support their advice, and so we have to do the research ourselves to ensure we’re making fully informed decisions! well, i can announce some exciting news. parenting science gang is a user-led citizen science project funded by wellcome, and one of the new groups for 2018 is a big birthas parenting science gang ! this is an amazing opportunity to get involved in looking at issues faced by mothers and mothers-to-be with a high bmi. you don’t need to be a scientist – i’m not! you just need to want more information and help us find it! we will look for evidence-based answers to the questions that us bigger mums want to know, and where we find gaps, we’ll design and run our own research studies to discover and publish our own scientific results and add to the body of knowledge available. we’ll get advice from professional scientists along the way – but the group will be in charge of the experiments. we’ll also have regular online q&a sessions with experts. they will help us in designing our experiments, and maybe even point us in the direction of equipment and resources. so far we’ve already talked about weight management in pregnancy, gestational diabetes, use of blood thinners in pregnancy, fat vaginas and more! and we’ve had q&a sessions with yours truly and clare murphy of the british pregnancy advisory service (bpas) . come along and find out more, ask your questions, and maybe even help us to find the answers! you can give as little or as much time as you choose. it’s a closed facebook group ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/1955647771354577/ ) and there are also some meet-ups being organised across the country for people in the different parenting science gangs to get together and discuss the issues in march and april. we’d love to have you on board! share this: facebook twitter google pinterest print email posted in uncategorized | tagged big , bmi , causation , correlation , diet , fat , maternity , obese , obesity , overweight , parenting science gang , plus-size , policy , pregnancy , pregnant , research , science , statistics , women | leave a reply post navigation ← older posts search disclaimer all information on this site is the opinion of the author. it does not and should not replace professional advice. please discuss your personal circumstances with a medical professional. top posts & pages sponsored links big birthas community found a big birthas bargain? add it here! want to stay informed? click the link below to like big birthas on facebook and see updates in your fb feed. recent posts time to have your say! abortion delays for bmi 40+? fed up with lazy journalism now for the science bit… important new info about sleeping on your side privacy statement big birthas will never, ever, sell or pass on your email address or other details. ever. nor will we send you spam about things you haven't asked for. ever. we promise. read our privacy policy here bigbirthas is funded by google adsense advertising and skimlinks. this doesn't affect you in any way, but your clicks and purchases do help to bring in money (not a lot!) which pays for the site's hosting, so thank you. sponsored links send to email address your name your email address cancel post was not sent - check your email addresses! email check failed, please try again sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.

URL analysis for bigbirthas.co.uk

http://bigbirthas.co.uk/author/big_birtha/
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/tag/pregnant/
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/time-to-have-your-say/?share=pinterest
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/policies/hospital-trust-policies/leeds/
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/policies/hospital-trust-policies/university-hospitals-of-leicester-nhs-trust-leicester-general-hospital-leicester-leicester-royal-infirmary-leicester-glenfield-hospital-leicester/
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/time-to-have-your-say/?share=google-plus-1
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/policies/hospital-trust-policies/york-teaching-hospital-nhs-foundation-trust-york-hospital-scarborough-general-hospital-bridlington-district-hospital/
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/lazy-journalism/?share=pinterest
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/tag/fast-food/
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/policies/hospital-trust-policies/countess-of-chester/
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/download/studies/sn03336.pdf
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/time-to-have-your-say/?share=facebook
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/policies/hospital-trust-policies/mid-essex-hospitals/
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/policies/hospital-trust-policies/heart-of-england/
http://bigbirthas.co.uk/tag/policy/
midwifeexpert.co.uk
rcog.org.uk

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

Error for "bigbirthas.co.uk".

the WHOIS query quota for 2600:3c03:0000:0000:f03c:91ff:feae:779d has been exceeded
and will be replenished in 193 seconds

WHOIS lookup made at 21:34:14 11-Jul-2017

--
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:

Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2017.

You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.uk/whoisterms,
which includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

  REFERRER http://www.nominet.org.uk

  REGISTRAR Nominet UK

SERVERS

  SERVER co.uk.whois-servers.net

  ARGS bigbirthas.co.uk

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

DISCLAIMER
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:
Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2017.
You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.uk/whoisterms,
which includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

  REGISTERED no

DOMAIN

  NAME bigbirthas.co.uk

NSERVER

  NS46.DOMAINCONTROL.COM 208.109.255.23

  NS45.DOMAINCONTROL.COM 216.69.185.23

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .