Sunday, October 19, 2008

Lactation Questions

This was posted as a comment on a post rather far down the list. I thought I'd give it a post of its own since I've had numerous questions in private email that are similar.

"I'd like to present Audrey with a question. As a lactation consultant, have you ever diagnosed Bristol's boobs from the the RNC? I've saved several photos of that event and I just can't believe that anyone's boobs would be that huge at 5-6 months along. Especially the ones of her sitting down with Levi. They are HUGE!!! Is this normal for a 5-6 month along pregnancy, or perhaps someone who is lactating? I hope you see this, Audrey... I'd like to hear your take. Thanks! ~Tina"


Tina, the truth is that I have been avoiding this question because I honestly don't know. Over a month ago, several people sent me this picture from the RNC. (You can see larger versions of all pictures by clicking on them.)

It's probably one of the ones that Tina is referring to. One woman referred to Bristol's bust line as "bolster-like." I have never come up with a better phrase. In my official lactation consultant parlance, I would term this bustline "gigantic." This young woman belongs on the prow of a ship.

It's been suggested to me repeatedly that the bustline looks stuffed, padded, and even lopsided. Here's another shot from the same night that I agree, there is a degree of "lopsided-ness."



OK, now take a look at this picture, taken approximately one week earlier at the Alaska State Fair. (I don't have an exact date since the fair ran from 8/21 to 9/2 but we know that Sarah was out of Alaska by 8/25.) Yes, I know Bristol is wearing a jacket and I know she is standing partially behind her mother (to her mother's right - first Palin from the left in picture), but still...



That bustline that we are seeing a week later at the RNC is not something that would be easy to hide. So where is it at the fair?

And here she is getting off the bus only a day or so before the RNC. Again, that massive bustline seems no where in evidence.



Is this just my imagination, people? I know she is a large-breasted young woman... we can see that in the photographs of her when she is not pregnant. But I agree, there's something wrong at the RNC.

It has been suggested to me that her breasts were bound at the RNC as part of a "forced weaning" and padded to ensure against any leakage. From this photographic evidence I can't say that that's an impossibility. However, I also believe she definitely looks pregnant here. And, having done it, I know how difficult it is to breastfeed and be pregnant at the same time.

So... frankly... I really don't know. Even given the fact that she's wearing a snug dress... and in the other pictures she's wearing a jacket or a sweatshirt, something seems "off" here.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ima Sikadis said...

I can't believe I just read this post!

This is crusading citizen journalism - specualting on the size of someone's breasts? WOW!

Think of it this way- go ahead and take a screenshot of this and all the other posts on this blog and put them in a scrapbook. Would you be proud to share what you wrote with your grandchildren 10 years from now?

OR would they think it was just a sign of Grandma's decline?

Ima Sikadis

Really.

Audrey said...

This question is directly relevant because the McCain campaign has used Bristol's stage of pregnancy as the primary - and in fact only - means of proof that Sarah Palin is Trig Palin's mother. They opened the door. I do find this distateful. This poor young woman is the same age as my teens.

But because of the McCain campaign's choice to bring Bristol in, unfortunately, we are reduced to having to look at a 17 year old girl's bustline and try to figure out what the EFF is going on here.

Maybe I needed to spell it out more clearly since you have appeared to miss the point completely. If they are padding her bustline at the RNC, they are doing it for a reason. And the main reason that I can think of is that they were afraid she was going to leak milk. Believe me, this is probably the number one question I have received in email. At least twenty women have written to me pointing out the same thing: they think this is a photo of a nursing mom.

I am not sure, but I do think there is a fairly noticeable difference between how she appears at the Alaska Fair, and how she appears at the RNC, jacket notwithstanding. You are free to disagree.

But you need to understand that this post did not come out of boredom or cruel speculation. It is directly relevant to whether or not Bristol Palin could be Trig Palin's mother.

Ima Sikadis said...

Audrey -

Bristol's pregnancy was not announced to dispel rumors about Trig's birth. It was announced, because she IS PREGNANT and the campaign needed to front that. If they hadn't, you would be writing a blog about the pregnancy cover-up no doubt.


Your argument is weak, and your interest is meretricious and just downright sleazy.

Is your real name isn't Gladys Kravitz?

Ima

Anonymous said...

Re Ima's last post....

New York Times reports that "the 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child."

amy said...

Perhaps Bristol borrowed Sarah's empathy belly.

Ima Sikadis said...

Okay - gosh - all you guys are right! I've been persuaded by your great logic and high-minded presentations such as this one about Bristol's boobs.

Ima REALLY REALLY Sikadis

BTW Audrey, my offer is still open to email the reply I received from the National Enquirer.

Anonymous said...

Audrey,

I know you want to be open to all opinions. But please delete posts like the obscene one above by Anonymous at 2:13 pm.

Audrey said...

Ima-

I found your original post. You offered the Enquirer a photo of Bristol supposedly pregnant in July. First, there are several unimpeachable photos of her in existence from July in which she does not look pregnant at all (including one taken at the Philadelphia Zoo and released by them), and I am sure the Enquirer knows that. She wasn't visibly pregnant in July. Any photo purporting to show that she was visibly pregnant they will know up front is a fake.

Second, offer them a verifiable photo of Bristol very clearly NOT pregnant in March/early April and see what response you get. I bet it will be quite different.

They have no interest in Bristol's status in July. Most of us believe she was pregnant in July, though HOW pregnant is a different issue. Her status on April 1, 2008 is a different matter, and still the subject of considerable interest.

This is the topic that I corresponded with two reporters about 2-3 weeks ago. I got the impression at that point that they were still working the story very hard.

Morgan said...

Audrey, the more shrill posters like Ima come, the closer you are obviously getting to the truth.

I've noticed a direct correlation between the rise in negative comments and the numbers of pertinent questions you raise.

Were I a Palin supporter, I'd be even MORE adamant - not less - to find the truth to these questions. Because if she becomes vice president and this stuff hits the fan it's going to hurt McCain who's biggest sin seems to be that he did not vet this woman. At all.

Does Ima really think McCain deserves that? And does the country deserve that kind of distraction given the very real problems we face?

Ima, if you are so incensed by the point Audrey makes and find them so implausible, then dismiss them. That's what I do whenever someone speculates on something I *know* not to be the truth.

The fact that you stick around here squawking like an injured hen makes me wonder whether your uncomfortable not because Audrey is so wrong, but because she may be right.

Kate said...

Hi Audrey,
The Huffington Post has a new article about McCain's health, which states that the McCain campaign refused to release Palin's medical records to the New York Times. Hmm...I wonder why! (only four pregnancies? duh!)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/new-york-times-publishing_n_136002.html

By the way I posted in the comments on that article and linked to your blog. :O)

Ima Sikadis said...

Audrey,

You seem to have select-a-vision when it comes to making your points. Or perhaps, you are just so blinded by your misguided zeal that you cannot understand very simple concepts.

The Enquirer email I received did not say they weren't interested in my photo in July. They said "No,we are not working on that story. The facts point to Trig is Sarah's."

You call yourself a 'citizen journalist.' Do you think that being online gives you a special immunity from upholding the journalistic standards of fairness and accuracy?

REAL journalists do follow up on rumors, however, they do not speculate nor do they engage in conjecture. Most importantly, they do not report RUMORS if the FACTS cannot be verified.

EVERY mainstream media outlet and even the Tabloids in this country have let this story go. Even the blogs that started it all have posted retractions and/or apologies and have let it go.

Do not deceive yourself, you are not a reporter, you are a gossip - of the worst kind.


Ima
Out of here

jamie newman said...

Memo to Ima Sikadis:

Gladys Kravitz was RIGHT about Samantha Stephens.

King said...

Bristol is not pregnant, and yes she is breastfeeding Trig,..Im just waiting on the soon to be announced "Bristol has unfortunately had a miscarriage...and because of her traumatic loss she feels the need to care for her little brother as though he was her very own. Please respect our lying and deceiving family's privacy"

Anonymous said...

Bristol is not pregnant, and yes she is breastfeeding Trig,..Im just waiting on the soon to be announced "Bristol has unfortunately had a miscarriage...and because of her traumatic loss she feels the need to care for her little brother as though he was her very own. Please respect our lying and deceiving family's privacy"

Anonymous said...

We all need to read the expose set to run in the New York Times tomorrow, as reported by the Huffington Post:

"But another peculiar facet of the Times story involves the McCain campaign's refusal, as of this weekend, to turn over Sarah Palin's medical information."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/new-york-times-publishing_n_136002.html

Anonymous said...

Ima--It is certainly possible that you are in the right here, and that there is nothing to any of this conjecture. I think all anybody here wants to know is the truth. You're entitled to your opinion, but in the absence of actual proof, everyone else's opinion is equally valid.

Did you ever stop to consider that you may have received a "standard" email from the Enquirer? They don't know you from Adam. You could be working for a competitor's publication, for example. If Audrey is correct in her supposition that they would have assumed (based on the date of your photo) that it was a fake, it's not like they'd come out and say "Oh, but just so you know, you're on the right track b/c we're really close to cracking this story!" Seems unlikely.

Like I said--you might be right. The thing is, you don't know any more than we do, and you don't seem to be changing anyone's opinion. So why are you still here?

amy said...

I don't think Audrey is a gossip. She is a child labor coach and smells something wrong with this story and is extremely courageous to create and maintain this site.

At this point we only have circumstantial evidence and no hard evidence that Sarah DID NOT give birth to Trig -- but circumstantial evidence does not equal gossip. If hard evidence proves Sarah DID give birth to Trig (which somehow I doubt will happen, especially in light of the McCain campaign hiding her medical records), then I know Audrey will state that here.

Audrey is fighting the good fight.

Morgan said...

Ima has said she is out of here multiple times. And yet she keeps commenting. With honesty like that no wonder she's backing Palin.

And as someone who spent years as a working journalist, Ima - and I know you're still lurking because you can't stop yourself - let me inform you that what Audrey is doing *is* journalism.

Why? Because journalism doesn't state something as fact until it's been proven. Until it has, journalists raise questions and probe the ones that remain unanswered.

Never has Audrey ever said that Trig is Bristol's. She's only said that the facts point to Trig not being Sarah's, and that the story the campaign is floating now that Bristol is pregnant is highly suspect.

Again, your ongoing opposition to the job Audrey is doing by raising these questions prove that she's getting closer to the truth. If it comes out that you were supporting a woman willing to throw her own daughter and grandson under the bus for her own political gain, then what will you tell YOUR grandchildren? Hmm?

Anonymous said...

I find it very interesting that the rightous palenites are even looking at sites like Audrey's-is your goal to save those who suspect foul play by insulting us, or just to damn us for not believing everything that sarah palin tells us?

I'm only interested in the truth, and nothing is clear and transparent when it comes to Sarah Palin and her family.

Not only that, but the Mat-Su Valley has set records for meth use, incest, and cult activity. I lived there for 20 years, and as a teacher I saw enough to cause me to lose hope. I left the year SP became mayor.

I think those of us who are mothers, have daughters, know children who were incested, witnessed authoritative and absentee parenting, and in general-intuitively know when something is VERY wrong with the picture, feel obligated to keep insisting on the truth.

Come on Dr. Baldwin-Johnson, it's time to confess whose baby you delivered. Who are you protecting?

Anonymous said...

Chillizzle out ladies!

The place where you will make a real difference is behind the curtains on November 4.

Ms. Voter

Sustainer said...

I think it is of utmost importance to keep working on this story. It is real clear now that McCain will lose and Palin will not be VP. However, she is not going to disappear. When she runs again the question of Trig's parentage may be dismissed as old news and she may get away with it forever.

Consider if the military record of the current president had been thoroughly investigated at the time of his first election and on an ongoing basis from that point on. We may then have found out earlier he didn't show up for his Air Force flight physical - which is a very serious matter for which major military discipline would have been called for - and may have been able to get to the bottom of the issue in time to prevent his re-election. To this day, the flight physical issue has never been resolved (of course Dan Rather's reporting made it hard to pursue do any further ivestigation
from that point on).

We need to make sure Palin doesn't get away with this. I don't think we can count on someone blowing the whistle on their own accord. Palin is still the governor and
she and her husband play hardball big-time so its going to take a gutsy person to take them on.

Has anyone been talking to Kilkenny on any of this?

Also, can you imagine how Bristol Palin must feel about this? Having to live with such a huge public lie with her child and all. What kind of a mother would do this to her daughter? Thats the one consideration making me wonder if Palin really did fake her pregnancy.

Sustainer

Anonymous said...

Yes, I think "Ima" is Karl Rove or one of his minions in drag.

They want to suppress this story, and they know that now's a dangerous time with the New York Times reporting the McCain campaign's refusal to release Palin's medical records. Why's that? will be the question on the mind of every reporter worth his or her salt.

And on the mind of every blogger, too. What are they hiding?

And with the National Enquirer very likely still working the story, and smelling a rat from "Ima"'s email.

The Enquirer is good at sniffing out fakes and liars. Tough luck, Ima/Ms. Rove!

Anonymous said...

The New York Times expose did not shed any light on Sarah Palin's pregnancy:

"Nothing is known publicly about Ms. Palin’s medical history, aside from the much-discussed circumstances surrounding the birth of her fifth child last April. Ms. Palin has said that her water broke while she was at a conference in Dallas and that she flew to Anchorage, where she gave birth to her son Trig hours after landing.

Last week Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for Ms. Palin, said the governor declined to be interviewed or provide any health records."

Of course she won't release the records, because they would expose her lies. Any important records were probably destroyed anyway, if they ever existed.

Silvergirl said...

Sustainer,

You are right on about the bad parenting issue to poor Bristol, but also, Sarah has done this to her entire family. If Bristol is Trig's mother, then the whole family is in on this lie and deception. It's too bad Sarah did not own up to this, and it's going to blow up in her face someday.

Anonymous said...

Oh, this is rich - Sarah is bleating to WWOR, a New York television station, that the press is mistreating her kids and that this mistreatment is bringing out the grizzy bear in her: “They’re my kids. The mama grizzly bear in me comes out, makes me want to rear up on my hind legs and say, ‘Wait a minute.’

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/provoking-palins-inner-bear/

Who showcased her kids at the RNC? Who brought her kids on the campaign trail? Whose main qualification for VP is that she is a hockey mom? Who carries her infant son around like Paris Hilton carries her Chihuahua?

Shove your kids down our throats and expect your parenting skills to be critiqued. Hey, Sarah, we're not critiquing your kids, we're critiquing you. You may be a hockey mom, but your family is a mess and we prefer not to turn over the nuclear codes to someone who can't even manage her own family.

Now, go back to Alaska and teach your two younger daughters about abstinence. Either that or teach them about birth control.

Anonymous said...

Audrey,

Are you sure that the girl left of Palin is Bristol in the fair pic? I have confused the two and thing that Bristol is the one behind everyone.

Audrey said...

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The young woman to Palin's RIGHT is Bristol. The girl you can't see any of is Willow, and of course Piper is in front.

Bristol is the first Palin to OUR left. You can see half of the front of her jacket.

Bristol is as tall or even a bit taller than her mother. Willow is much shorter.

Anonymous said...

In those photos Bristol looks like Dolly Parton wearing a padded bra. Yeah, padding will prevent leaking milk. Can a pregnant woman who is not also breastfeeding leak milk? I know milk shouldn't come before birth, but does it ever happen? If so, I'm sure the GOP will claim this is so if Bristol leaks in public. I've never been pregnant--let alone breastfed--but I know that women's breasts enlarge during pregnancy. Could the enlargement be due to pregnancy rather than lactation? All those photos showing Bristol holding Trig look like a mom holding her baby. Look how she looks lovingly at him. I don't see pix of Sarah looking at him that way.

Anonymous said...

I do feel sorry for Bristol being in the public eye. Assuming that she is Trig's mom, and that the true eventually comes out, don't you think that people would respect the Palins a lot more if t hey had just been open in the fist place? Teenage unwed mothers (especially at 17) are a fact of life. The other Palin family members have to keep this a secret, too. Think it is easy for the younger kids to keep the secret?

Anita said...

AmericaBlog is also reporting the less-than-candid behavior of the McPalin campaign in delivering Sarah's medical records:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/palin-wont-provide-health-records.html

Check out the number of comments about Trig, and even some speculation as to whether Trig is Track's baby!

Keep it up, Audrey ... people ARE listening!