I just wanted to look perfect on my wedding day... but my fixation nearly robbed us of our future
But that's precisely what Cynthia Donovan's doctor told her she must do if she were to stand any chance of having the baby for which she and her husband of four years longed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Newborn left brain damaged 'by virus' after walk near $1m Martha's Vineyard home...now locals fear it's spreading
A newborn baby has been left with brain damage after being infected with a rare virus while on a family walk in Martha's Vineyard. The one-month-old baby, Lily Belle Sisco, was flown to Massachusetts General Hospital on July 24 with a persistent 102-degree fever. Lily later started having seizures and was determined to have viral encephalitis. The baby's family learned over the weekend that the cause of the newborn's illness was a tick bite and that the little girl had Powassan - a rare but very serious disease. The family of the infant said she has suffered brain damage from the infection, but is currently listed as stable and is receiving treatment at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Tiffany and Marcus were shocked that a short walk in their Martha's Vineyard neighborhood caused their newborn to contract the severe illness. 'We certainly had no idea a 20-minute walk on the West Tisbury bike path beside our home, a walk we do most every day, could potentially cause my child her life,' parents Tiffany Sisco and Marcus Sisco wrote in a Facebook post on Saturday. The family live in a $1.3 million home in the West Tisbury town of Martha's Vineyard, according to public records. 'Please, please, please check yourselves, your children and your pets. It was the tiniest nymph tick the size of a needle tip,' the parents added. According to a Facebook page for the family business - Sisco Family Services, their company offers fence and gate contracting in the West Tisbury area. Lily's Aunt Ashlee Moreis created a GoFundMe to raise money for the family. 'While she has the best medical team in Boston her parents haven't left her side,' she wrote. She added that Rose, Lily's big sister, is being cared for on Martha's Vineyard by family while her parents are with their newborn. 'Marcus is the sole provider for their family,' the GoFundMe says. 'He has been by Lily's side every moment in this journey.' So far the fundraising page has raised over $27,000. The Sisco family said Lily is youngest person to contract Powassan in the world. They are hoping to get their story out so a case like their daughter's is never repeated. Powassan virus is a rare but serious virus spread through the bite of infected ticks that has become more common in recent years. Now, amidst one of the worst tick seasons in New England in a long time, cases are on the rise - and the disease is unpreventable and untreatable. The virus can be spread within just 15 minutes of the tick's bite, and early symptoms can include fever, headache and vomiting. More serious cases involve brain swelling, seizures and long-term neurological complications. Only one case of the Powassan virus had been recorded in Martha's Vineyard over the past 20 years, until now. This year alone Massachusetts has seen three confirmed cases. Most cases of the virus arise in the Northeast and Great Lakes region of Massachusetts from late spring through mid-fall, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The disease is carried by nymph and adult deer ticks. 'The virus is present every year in a small percentage of deer ticks; fortunately, severe disease remains very rare,' Dr. Sam Telford, a Tufts University professor who has conducted research on Martha's Vineyard, said in a statement. His lab tested more than 3,500 nymph deer ticks between 2021 and 2024 and found that between one and two percent of deer ticks were infected.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Funeral held for Dr. Greg Brannon, North Carolina tea party favorite and ex-Senate candidate
A funeral was held over the weekend for Dr. Greg Brannon, a physician in North Carolina and past favorite of political conservatives who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate and House in the 2010s. Brannon, an early personality in the tea party movement, delivered babies over 27 years as an OB-GYN. He died July 27 at his home at age 64, according to an obituary posted by Wake Funeral & Cremation. Funeral home director Britt Paynter confirmed Brannon's death on Wednesday but said he couldn't provide information about a cause. Brannon, from Cary, billed himself as a constitutional conservative when he sought the 2014 Republican nomination for Senate. He finished as the May 2014 primary runner-up to Thom Tillis with 27% of the vote. Tillis went on to defeat Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan that November. Brannon also finished second to then-U.S. Sen. Richard Burr in the March 2016 GOP primary. Three months later, he ran for a Raleigh-area congressional seat but lost in the party primary. Born in a Los Angeles suburb to a single mother, Brannon attended the University of South California and ultimately finished medical school at a Chicago school. Eventually he moved to North Carolina and went into private practice in 1993. Later in life Brannon was the medical director and founder of a hormone replacement therapy company called Optimal Bio. Messages from mourners on the funeral home website recalled his medical work, in particular during complicated and challenging pregnancies. Brannon's funeral was held last Saturday at Cross Assembly Church in Raleigh. Brannon became an evangelical Christian as a young adult. 'Greg's goals were to teach people about the love of Jesus Christ, adore Jody, pour into his family, and make people's lives healthier and happier,' his posted obituary read. Survivors include his wife, Jody, seven children and two grandchildren, according to the obituary.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
I'm a perinatal psychiatrist. The US is promoting misinformation on SSRIs and pregnancy
Late last month, the FDA advisory panel – on the heels of the president's 'make America healthy again' executive order scrutinizing psychotropic medications – raised debate around the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in pregnancy. Commonly called antidepressants, these medications are used to treat a range of disorders, and earlier this year a consortium of major mental health organizations pushed back on the administration's stance. As a perinatal psychiatrist who sees pregnant and postpartum people struggling with conditions such as depression and anxiety every week, I'm deeply concerned that this public discussion – chaired by the controversial FDA commissioner Marty Makary – shared significant misinformation about mental illness and the treatment modalities (with overly simplified statements denouncing 'chemicals' during pregnancy). Here in Washington DC, I recently examined a pregnant woman struggling with severe depression and anxiety. As she was nervously mulling treatment options we had discussed, she asked me questions about starting medication to treat her condition: will this affect my child's development? How long will the medication stay in my child's bloodstream? How much of the medication will go into my breast milk? Do I have to stay on it for ever? These questions are part of everyday practice for those who care for individuals making decisions about treating their mental health challenges in the course of pregnancy. And answering them clearly is critical for people already dealing with some of the most difficult and vulnerable moments of their lives. But giving established guidance becomes difficult at a time when the authorities themselves are platforming misinformation under the guise of scientific inquiry. There isn't enough space here to deconstruct all of the falsehoods shared by some of the FDA panelists, with often meandering anecdotes that did not address the core issue being discussed. The panelists overstated risks, which may deter treatment, despite robust data supporting the safety of use of SSRIs when clinically indicated. As the adage attributed to W Edwards Deming goes: 'In God we trust; all others, bring data.' Here's the data: we know that severe maternal mental health challenges occur during pregnancy and the postpartum period. And according to a recent national study, there have been large declines in mental health among pregnant women – one in five pregnant women struggles with conditions such as anxiety and depression during their pregnancy. Three in four pregnant persons are untreated. That's more than 500,000 people every year who experience significant mental health issues before, during or after their pregnancies. There are also real harms of untreated perinatal depression and anxiety – such as preterm birth, bonding difficulties, and even maternal death by suicide or overdose. The low, manageable neonatal risks generally support initiating and continuing SSRIs when they're clinically needed. These women need and deserve evidence-based care. And as for pregnant people who do take SSRIs, large reviews, called meta-analyses, find no overall rise in major birth defects from taking SSRIs during pregnancy, and occasional small links to heart problems with certain drugs disappear in larger studies. Some newborns exposed late in pregnancy may have an issue called neonatal adaptation syndrome – mild, brief withdrawal-like symptoms which include jitteriness, poor feeding and affect the baby's breathing – but this almost always clears up quickly with routine care in the first week. There is also an inherent problem in the way the FDA panelists spoke about the issue: one that minimized the health of the mother and focused solely on the baby. I am the first person to say there is a dearth of science when it comes to maternal mental healthcare. We need more research, and it is unfair that so many are left scrambling for help outside of our health system. But we should be seriously weighing the risk of not treating these conditions because mental illness is real and has significant impacts on the wellbeing of the pregnant person and baby. SSRIs are not new drugs – they've been on the market for more than 30 years, and if there is a widespread epidemic of the harms that the FDA panel claimed, it is not substantiated in the data. So let's not apply an inconsistent standard towards SSRIs in pregnancy. Their comments that we need more data is the last slide or nearly every scientific discussion – of course, we need more robust data. That shouldn't seed unnecessary doubt and leave patients and their doctors in a limbo on how best to treat these conditions. We need the right treatment, for the right patient, at the right time. In this moment when trust in government institutions is at a low, sowing further doubt is the last thing my patients deserve. The American public needs to know they are getting the highest quality guidance; in the absence of that, lives are at risk. As we've seen in the case of vaccines, official federal guidance has been rapidly changing and is often out of alignment with the best science available. Professional medical societies are currently filling the void where government guidance falls short. If this panel on SSRIs is a harbinger of what's to come, this might become the case for SSRIs in pregnancy. The American Psychiatric Association and American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology have expert guidance on treatment, including psychotropic medications. As for my patient, we evaluated the data – doctor and patient – and together she made an informed decision weighing the risks and benefits to start an SSRI along with therapy. Her mood and anxiety improved, and she had a safe delivery. Both mother and baby are thriving. Dr Sunny Patel is a psychiatrist at Georgetown's Thrive Center for Children, Families, and Communities. He recently served as senior adviser at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
