I love the righteous indignation by people who themselves haven't done the research. While doctors previously thought castor oil increases the likelihood meconium, there has been a good amount of research shows that it actually does not. I can never understand why people who obviously haven't done in-depth research on a subject feel the need to terrorize other people for their choices.
Castor oil will not lead to childbirth unless your body is already ready to go into labor. It has been used for centuries. For some people, this type of induction is actually recommended because they would otherwise have to get pitocin, which has actually been linked to negative outcomes such as an increased risk for c-sections and autism. At the end of the day, do your research and listen to your health professionals. Together with your health professionals, you can do the costs-benefits analysis to determine whether it is appropriate for you. The end.
I love the righteous indignation by people who themselves haven't done the research. While doctors previously thought castor oil increases the likelihood meconium, there has been a good amount of research shows that it actually does not. I can never understand why people who obviously haven't done in-depth research on a subject feel the need to terrorize other people for their choices.
Castor oil will not lead to childbirth unless your body is already ready to go into labor. It has been used for centuries. For some people, this type of induction is actually recommended because they would otherwise have to get pitocin, which has actually been linked to negative outcomes such as an increased risk for c-sections and autism. At the end of the day, do your research and listen to your health professionals. Together with your health professionals, you can do the costs-benefits analysis to determine whether it is appropriate for you. The end.
I'm pretty sure that the majority of people who commented simply pleaded that people exercise caution and follow their practitioner's advice, while also recommending doing more research and sharing their personal not as happy experiences. And that was because OP only referenced doing independent research, not working with her midwife, then started answering questions about doses and methodology that people should clearly be asking their practitioners instead.
I don't think anyone was rude or even judgemental, they just had differing experiences and information, which is the true beauty of a public forum.
Seriously? Terrorizing? That's extreme. Differing opinions were expressed. While one or two maybe could have been a little more tactful, no one is terrorizing anybody. Calm down.
I love the righteous indignation by people who themselves haven't done the research. While doctors previously thought castor oil increases the likelihood meconium, there has been a good amount of research shows that it actually does not. I can never understand why people who obviously haven't done in-depth research on a subject feel the need to terrorize other people for their choices.
Castor oil will not lead to childbirth unless your body is already ready to go into labor. It has been used for centuries. For some people, this type of induction is actually recommended because they would otherwise have to get pitocin, which has actually been linked to negative outcomes such as an increased risk for c-sections and autism. At the end of the day, do your research and listen to your health professionals. Together with your health professionals, you can do the costs-benefits analysis to determine whether it is appropriate for you. The end.
So where is your research? That's a pretty bold statement to say that pitocin is linked to an increased risk in autism (which I am calling BS on unless you give me a link to a medical journal or something and not just some mommy blog). I have done some Googling about caster oil as well and yes if you take a small enough dose it CAN begin labor but it also CAN give you the shits and I'm not sure that's a dice I want to roll. Again a lot of people who seem to be pro-castor oil talk about the extensive research they have done but no one has actually produced any. I'm genuinely curious if said "research" is just posting on Internet forums asking "Does this work!?"
I'm a researcher/scientist, so I have to actually read the studies themselves for a living. The website you sent, which has its own agenda like most organizations, mentions prior studies that found a link. A new study does not automatically erase that. There will still be many more studies to come, which may continue to have mixed findings, and you can make your choices based on what your comfort level is. With very little effort, here are a couple of actual studies (not websites interpreting the studies) finding a pitocin-autism link:
Suffice to say, if you spend significant time doing the research, you will see that these issues are a lot more nuanced than popularly suggested. There's a reason why recommendations are constantly changing through the years (new studies, politics, public health concerns, etc.). My point is that women should evaluate their own individual risks and make decisions with their providers. And, absolutely no one should feel so entitled to belittle such a choice because very few people spend the time to do real research.
Terrorize: "create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone)." Yes, I think that's accurate. Feeling the need to "warn" people based on half-researched assumptions, so that they might be so frightened to do the contrary. I think it's completely accurate. It's also typical of these pregnancy and parenting boards.
Was my using that word not tactful enough for you? How about gentle bully?
I'm a researcher/scientist, so I have to actually read the studies themselves for a living. The website you sent, which has its own agenda like most organizations, mentions prior studies that found a link. A new study does not automatically erase that. There will still be many more studies to come, which may continue to have mixed findings, and you can make your choices based on what your comfort level is. With very little effort, here are a couple of actual studies (not websites interpreting the studies) finding a pitocin-autism link:
Suffice to say, if you spend significant time doing the research, you will see that these issues are a lot more nuanced than popularly suggested. There's a reason why recommendations are constantly changing through the years (new studies, politics, public health concerns, etc.). My point is that women should evaluate their own individual risks and make decisions with their providers. And, absolutely no one should feel so entitled to belittle such a choice because very few people spend the time to do real research.
First, the term "link" is highly colloquial in the field of research and does nothing to disambiguate the research findings to date.
Second, there will be many more studies to come "which may continue to have mixed findings." Herein lies the issue I take with your statement earlier that even brought autism into the conversation. There are mixed findings everywhere in research, and there are very few studies in the grand scheme at this point that firmly indicate causality or correlation between induction with pitocin and autism. My sincerest frustration stems from the ease with which you threw autism risk into the conversation with such limited scientific evidence to date. With very little effort, I have deduced that your reasoning is flawed enough to mislead the general, non-scientist/researcher, public.
Finally, your statement, "...you will see that these issues are a lot more nuanced than popularly suggested" does not align with your previous willingness to throw out a "popularly suggested" but under-researched (to date) issue. You did nothing to indicate the nuances of the research, and instead you grossly over-generalized enough to mislead those who are approaching a point in their lives where they feel a great deal of uncertainty. If you'd like to share useful information or give people useful information, please do, but please don't imply "links" when you know full well that the term itself does not indicate direct correlation.
I'm a researcher/scientist, so I have to actually read the studies themselves for a living. The website you sent, which has its own agenda like most organizations, mentions prior studies that found a link. A new study does not automatically erase that. There will still be many more studies to come, which may continue to have mixed findings, and you can make your choices based on what your comfort level is. With very little effort, here are a couple of actual studies (not websites interpreting the studies) finding a pitocin-autism link:
Suffice to say, if you spend significant time doing the research, you will see that these issues are a lot more nuanced than popularly suggested. There's a reason why recommendations are constantly changing through the years (new studies, politics, public health concerns, etc.). My point is that women should evaluate their own individual risks and make decisions with their providers. And, absolutely no one should feel so entitled to belittle such a choice because very few people spend the time to do real research.
First, the term "link" is highly colloquial in the field of research and does nothing to disambiguate the research findings to date.
Second, there will be many more studies to come "which may continue to have mixed findings." Herein lies the issue I take with your statement earlier that even brought autism into the conversation. There are mixed findings everywhere in research, and there are very few studies in the grand scheme at this point that firmly indicate causality or correlation between induction with pitocin and autism. My sincerest frustration stems from the ease with which you threw autism risk into the conversation with such limited scientific evidence to date. With very little effort, I have deduced that your reasoning is flawed enough to mislead the general, non-scientist/researcher, public.
Finally, your statement, "...you will see that these issues are a lot more nuanced than popularly suggested" does not align with your previous willingness to throw out a "popularly suggested" but under-researched (to date) issue. You did nothing to indicate the nuances of the research, and instead you grossly over-generalized enough to mislead those who are approaching a point in their lives where they feel a great deal of uncertainty. If you'd like to share useful information or give people useful information, please do, but please don't imply "links" when you know full well that the term itself does not indicate direct correlation.
I'm a researcher/scientist, so I have to actually read the studies themselves for a living. The website you sent, which has its own agenda like most organizations, mentions prior studies that found a link. A new study does not automatically erase that. There will still be many more studies to come, which may continue to have mixed findings, and you can make your choices based on what your comfort level is. With very little effort, here are a couple of actual studies (not websites interpreting the studies) finding a pitocin-autism link:
Suffice to say, if you spend significant time doing the research, you will see that these issues are a lot more nuanced than popularly suggested. There's a reason why recommendations are constantly changing through the years (new studies, politics, public health concerns, etc.). My point is that women should evaluate their own individual risks and make decisions with their providers. And, absolutely no one should feel so entitled to belittle such a choice because very few people spend the time to do real research.
I want to bang my head against a wall right now. All I can say is that if you actually are a researcher/scientist, I hope to God you don't actually do anything meaningful if this is your idea of interpretation of studies through research to draw conclusions. If you think that searching a database and cherry picking studies that clearly state even in the abstract that the correlation needs infinitely more research and is at best a casual and disputable relationship is "real research," you should probably go be friends with Jenny McCarthy or similar ilk.
One person mentioned a possible relation to a premature passing of meconium because of her personal experience and her doctor's indication that her use of castor oil may have been a cause. I guess if you feel "terrorized" by opposing opinions and research, then your wording is accurate, but in that case, I would find your position as unbiased researcher even more frightening.
As you've stated, scientific studies are nuanced. And just because it's a study doesn't mean it doesn't have an agenda... You realize that scientific studies are funded by groups wanting specific results even in academic settings right? If anything they're even more questionable as they aren't aggregated and compared. You can find "scientific studies" even published by reputable sources, that say pretty much whatever you want, as often they are preliminary findings stating a hypothesis, and those initial findings, often from a small sample, don't disprove the hypothesis. Scientific method and all that. So a recommendation for people to exercise caution and consult their medical practitioners is simply responsible. As far as I'm concerned,while it seems some people are incredibly offended by differing views (seriously when did this become such a problem?), if those differing views get people to think twice and talk to their doctor before following the dosage of someone who said it worked for them off the internet, I say good days work, and screw your terrorized feelings. You'll recover eventually.
I'm a researcher/scientist, so I have to actually read the studies themselves for a living. The website you sent, which has its own agenda like most organizations, mentions prior studies that found a link. A new study does not automatically erase that. There will still be many more studies to come, which may continue to have mixed findings, and you can make your choices based on what your comfort level is. With very little effort, here are a couple of actual studies (not websites interpreting the studies) finding a pitocin-autism link:
Suffice to say, if you spend significant time doing the research, you will see that these issues are a lot more nuanced than popularly suggested. There's a reason why recommendations are constantly changing through the years (new studies, politics, public health concerns, etc.). My point is that women should evaluate their own individual risks and make decisions with their providers. And, absolutely no one should feel so entitled to belittle such a choice because very few people spend the time to do real research.
First, the term "link" is highly colloquial in the field of research and does nothing to disambiguate the research findings to date.
Second, there will be many more studies to come "which may continue to have mixed findings." Herein lies the issue I take with your statement earlier that even brought autism into the conversation. There are mixed findings everywhere in research, and there are very few studies in the grand scheme at this point that firmly indicate causality or correlation between induction with pitocin and autism. My sincerest frustration stems from the ease with which you threw autism risk into the conversation with such limited scientific evidence to date. With very little effort, I have deduced that your reasoning is flawed enough to mislead the general, non-scientist/researcher, public.
Finally, your statement, "...you will see that these issues are a lot more nuanced than popularly suggested" does not align with your previous willingness to throw out a "popularly suggested" but under-researched (to date) issue. You did nothing to indicate the nuances of the research, and instead you grossly over-generalized enough to mislead those who are approaching a point in their lives where they feel a great deal of uncertainty. If you'd like to share useful information or give people useful information, please do, but please don't imply "links" when you know full well that the term itself does not indicate direct correlation.
.... Quote Fail ....
I think this is the greatest response I've ever read.
I'm a researcher/scientist, so I have to actually read the studies themselves for a living. The website you sent, which has its own agenda like most organizations, mentions prior studies that found a link. A new study does not automatically erase that. There will still be many more studies to come, which may continue to have mixed findings, and you can make your choices based on what your comfort level is. With very little effort, here are a couple of actual studies (not websites interpreting the studies) finding a pitocin-autism link:
Suffice to say, if you spend significant time doing the research, you will see that these issues are a lot more nuanced than popularly suggested. There's a reason why recommendations are constantly changing through the years (new studies, politics, public health concerns, etc.). My point is that women should evaluate their own individual risks and make decisions with their providers. And, absolutely no one should feel so entitled to belittle such a choice because very few people spend the time to do real research.
First, the term "link" is highly colloquial in the field of research and does nothing to disambiguate the research findings to date.
Second, there will be many more studies to come "which may continue to have mixed findings." Herein lies the issue I take with your statement earlier that even brought autism into the conversation. There are mixed findings everywhere in research, and there are very few studies in the grand scheme at this point that firmly indicate causality or correlation between induction with pitocin and autism. My sincerest frustration stems from the ease with which you threw autism risk into the conversation with such limited scientific evidence to date. With very little effort, I have deduced that your reasoning is flawed enough to mislead the general, non-scientist/researcher, public.
Finally, your statement, "...you will see that these issues are a lot more nuanced than popularly suggested" does not align with your previous willingness to throw out a "popularly suggested" but under-researched (to date) issue. You did nothing to indicate the nuances of the research, and instead you grossly over-generalized enough to mislead those who are approaching a point in their lives where they feel a great deal of uncertainty. If you'd like to share useful information or give people useful information, please do, but please don't imply "links" when you know full well that the term itself does not indicate direct correlation.
Thanks for putting the time into responding to my comment, which I spent all of 2 minutes writing during my commute. Your response seems well-considered, complete with the words "deduced" and ""herein." I was being a bit casual in using the word "link," so I stand corrected.
My point is that women should make personalized decisions, in consultation with their healthcare providers; with few exceptions, we all cherry pick what studies we choose to prop up; there is no need to belittle or be condescending about others' choices; and there is no need to be a paternalistic know-it-all, when much of these issues are the subject of ongoing debates and are not as settled as some women on here seem to suggest. Women should be entitled to do the cost-benefit analysis with their providers. While I appreciate the good intention of the warnings, women's bodies don't need to be the site of constant policing, especially by other women. So again, as I said before, do your research and speak with your healthcare provider. Congrats to the original poster who had healthy babies. The end.
I'm a researcher/scientist, so I have to actually read the studies themselves for a living. The website you sent, which has its own agenda like most organizations, mentions prior studies that found a link. A new study does not automatically erase that. There will still be many more studies to come, which may continue to have mixed findings, and you can make your choices based on what your comfort level is. With very little effort, here are a couple of actual studies (not websites interpreting the studies) finding a pitocin-autism link:
Suffice to say, if you spend significant time doing the research, you will see that these issues are a lot more nuanced than popularly suggested. There's a reason why recommendations are constantly changing through the years (new studies, politics, public health concerns, etc.). My point is that women should evaluate their own individual risks and make decisions with their providers. And, absolutely no one should feel so entitled to belittle such a choice because very few people spend the time to do real research.
I want to bang my head against a wall right now. All I can say is that if you actually are a researcher/scientist, I hope to God you don't actually do anything meaningful if this is your idea of interpretation of studies through research to draw conclusions. If you think that searching a database and cherry picking studies that clearly state even in the abstract that the correlation needs infinitely more research and is at best a casual and disputable relationship is "real research," you should probably go be friends with Jenny McCarthy or similar ilk.
One person mentioned a possible relation to a premature passing of meconium because of her personal experience and her doctor's indication that her use of castor oil may have been a cause. I guess if you feel "terrorized" by opposing opinions and research, then your wording is accurate, but in that case, I would find your position as unbiased researcher even more frightening.
As you've stated, scientific studies are nuanced. And just because it's a study doesn't mean it doesn't have an agenda... You realize that scientific studies are funded by groups wanting specific results even in academic settings right? If anything they're even more questionable as they aren't aggregated and compared. You can find "scientific studies" even published by reputable sources, that say pretty much whatever you want, as often they are preliminary findings stating a hypothesis, and those initial findings, often from a small sample, don't disprove the hypothesis. Scientific method and all that. So a recommendation for people to exercise caution and consult their medical practitioners is simply responsible. As far as I'm concerned,while it seems some people are incredibly offended by differing views (seriously when did this become such a problem?), if those differing views get people to think twice and talk to their doctor before following the dosage of someone who said it worked for them off the internet, I say good days work, and screw your terrorized feelings. You'll recover eventually.
* ) I think this was just about everything I wanted to say, as well. Thanks @jefinely1 for picking up my slack haha
Finally, once again OP, I really am glad you had a healthy beautiful baby Enjoy those cuddles!
I feel like a parent who mistakenly left her child with some paint and came back to a horror movie. A few women talked about positive experiences with castor oil. A few others (myself included) politely shared the negatives sides and suggested people do careful reaearch of their own (not implying that these ladies didn't, but encouraging others not to read this and immediately go do it because it worked for some random lady on the Internet). Then all hell done broke loose!!
Congratulations to all who have already had healthy babies , and I just hope everyone else talks to their care providers or other trusted professionals and gets trustworthy advice. If you trust yourself to do academic research (not googling blogs), then do that. If you trust your care provider, then great! But if this puts a baby in danger of death or serious injury then people ARE allowed to judge others who risk their baby in that way IMO. Although I tried to be as polite as possible and feel others were also.
Wow you ladies have sure let your hormones take this thread over!
Congratulations on your beautiful baby! Only 4 days left until my due date and hopefully my little one will be here. I haven't tried Castor oil but I have tried raspberry leaf tea, evening primrose oil, and bouncing and walking like a mad woman. My next apt will be tomorrow and if induction is brought up I may ask about my OBs opinion on the oil before I take a pitocin drip.
It makes my heart so happy when I see all of the mommys finally having their little ones after these long nine months of waiting!
Wow you ladies have sure let your hormones take this thread over!
Congratulations on your beautiful baby! Only 4 days left until my due date and hopefully my little one will be here. I haven't tried Castor oil but I have tried raspberry leaf tea, evening primrose oil, and bouncing and walking like a mad woman. My next apt will be tomorrow and if induction is brought up I may ask about my OBs opinion on the oil before I take a pitocin drip.
It makes my heart so happy when I see all of the mommys finally having their little ones after these long nine months of waiting!
Ya, cause everyone knows women only have thoughts and opinions when their hormones really kick in! Lordy, our brains just aren't made for critical thinking otherwise! Aren't those hormones just bothersome? Sometimes, I even have to take a nap to recover after. Fortunately when I wake up, my brain is back to normal and only thinking gooey happy thoughts about babies!
Wow you ladies have sure let your hormones take this thread over!
Congratulations on your beautiful baby! Only 4 days left until my due date and hopefully my little one will be here. I haven't tried Castor oil but I have tried raspberry leaf tea, evening primrose oil, and bouncing and walking like a mad woman. My next apt will be tomorrow and if induction is brought up I may ask about my OBs opinion on the oil before I take a pitocin drip.
It makes my heart so happy when I see all of the mommys finally having their little ones after these long nine months of waiting!
Ya, cause everyone knows women only have thoughts and opinions when their hormones really kick in! Lordy, our brains just aren't made for critical thinking otherwise! Aren't those hormones just bothersome? Sometimes, I even have to take a nap to recover after. Fortunately when I wake up, my brain is back to normal and only thinking gooey happy thoughts about babies!
Right @jefinley1 ! I really hate when my hormones make me capable of having a brain worthy of rational thought!
I was just sharing my experience, no where in my story was I advocating to go out and buy some castor oil... I spoke to a midwife in regards to taking it... Along side my prodromal labor that I've been having, & I was sharing this post because I am so excited my son is here and healthy!!! but to go out and say a mom is irresponsible for desicions she made (with her midwife btw) is unecessary. Especially when it's based on your assumptions! Use yoga balls, walk, have sex, I tried all of that & nothing.... Nonetheless, keep your rude comments to yourself!
I'm glad your baby is here and healthy but your post is about castor oil working so yes that is advocating for it whether you realize it or not. I posted my experience because I also tried this and the result was horrible, and I wanted to show women another side to trying something that has risks. I have a cousin who is one of the most respected and sought after midwives in her province and she strongly opposes using anything that could cause harm to a baby so I guess I'm the end not all OBs/ midwives think the same. As far as people making rude comments, well it's a discussion board and unfortunately we can't dictate what others might say, and maybe, like me these women are just extremely worried about others trying something without proper research just cause someone on the Internet said it worked.
I used Castor Oil with my second son and he didn't have the issue your baby had. And I did go Into labor shortly after the Castor Oil with no issues.
Meconium issues can affect any baby and something no one can predict.
Just because you had a horrible experience does not mean it was related to Castor Oil.
It's good to get advice from all sides but I don't think it's responsible to say something was caused by something and you have no way of proving that either.
I do have to comment that my 84 year old grandmother...who was an L&D nurse for 30+ years visited this past weekend and talked about the "standard of care" which in her mind/era included castor oil. Just had to comment on how ideas and medicine differs from decade to decade.
I dont plan on trying it...but I dont plan on telling her that, she would think me irresponsible!
I was just sharing my experience, no where in my story was I advocating to go out and buy some castor oil... I spoke to a midwife in regards to taking it... Along side my prodromal labor that I've been having, & I was sharing this post because I am so excited my son is here and healthy!!! but to go out and say a mom is irresponsible for desicions she made (with her midwife btw) is unecessary. Especially when it's based on your assumptions! Use yoga balls, walk, have sex, I tried all of that & nothing.... Nonetheless, keep your rude comments to yourself!
I'm glad your baby is here and healthy but your post is about castor oil working so yes that is advocating for it whether you realize it or not. I posted my experience because I also tried this and the result was horrible, and I wanted to show women another side to trying something that has risks. I have a cousin who is one of the most respected and sought after midwives in her province and she strongly opposes using anything that could cause harm to a baby so I guess I'm the end not all OBs/ midwives think the same. As far as people making rude comments, well it's a discussion board and unfortunately we can't dictate what others might say, and maybe, like me these women are just extremely worried about others trying something without proper research just cause someone on the Internet said it worked.
I used Castor Oil with my second son and he didn't have the issue your baby had. And I did go Into labor shortly after the Castor Oil with no issues.
Meconium issues can affect any baby and something no one can predict.
Just because you had a horrible experience does not mean it was related to Castor Oil.
It's good to get advice from all sides but I don't think it's responsible to say something was caused by something and you have no way of proving that either.
Personally for me I would just stick to all those other methods people talk about unless a dr gives a go ahead. What's wrong with sex, walking, teas etc. Why ingest something into your body that COULD cause issues. I really wrote my very first comment as a PSA that there can be downsides to taking it. I would hate for other women to have to go through what I did and always have to sit there and wonder if it was my fault.
Well, I used it at 40 weeks and it worked. Took it around 5 in a smoothie and started having contractions around 3am. I had her around 7pm that day. Healthy as can be. 6lbs 13ozs.
Well, I used it at 40 weeks and it worked. Took it around 5 in a smoothie and started having contractions around 3am. I had her around 7pm that day. Healthy as can be. 6lbs 13ozs.
I'm glad your LO is healthy, but seriously, stop fucking advocating this shit!
Just an old 'bad apple' with no home to call her own,lurking in the shadows :-)
Re: Well castor oil worked!
Speaking of doing research, please don't claim a risk of autism with such little ground to stand on. It is wildly misleading. https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/reassuring-findings-large-study-induced-labor-and-autism-risk
I don't think anyone was rude or even judgemental, they just had differing experiences and information, which is the true beauty of a public forum.
@LiveNLove44
I love you. That is all.
.... Quote Fail ....
I think this is the greatest response I've ever read.
Thanks for putting the time into responding to my comment, which I spent all of 2 minutes writing during my commute. Your response seems well-considered, complete with the words "deduced" and ""herein." I was being a bit casual in using the word "link," so I stand corrected.
My point is that women should make personalized decisions, in consultation with their healthcare providers; with few exceptions, we all cherry pick what studies we choose to prop up; there is no need to belittle or be condescending about others' choices; and there is no need to be a paternalistic know-it-all, when much of these issues are the subject of ongoing debates and are not as settled as some women on here seem to suggest. Women should be entitled to do the cost-benefit analysis with their providers. While I appreciate the good intention of the warnings, women's bodies don't need to be the site of constant policing, especially by other women. So again, as I said before, do your research and speak with your healthcare provider. Congrats to the original poster who had healthy babies. The end.
Finally, once again OP, I really am glad you had a healthy beautiful baby
Congratulations to all who have already had healthy babies
Congratulations on your beautiful baby! Only 4 days left until my due date and hopefully my little one will be here. I haven't tried Castor oil but I have tried raspberry leaf tea, evening primrose oil, and bouncing and walking like a mad woman. My next apt will be tomorrow and if induction is brought up I may ask about my OBs opinion on the oil before I take a pitocin drip.
It makes my heart so happy when I see all of the mommys finally having their little ones after these long nine months of waiting!
My birth class suggested avoiding castor oil. So it's not something that I'll personally be trying. But I'm glad you are both safe.
Meconium issues can affect any baby and something no one can predict.
Just because you had a horrible experience does not mean it was related to Castor Oil.
It's good to get advice from all sides but I don't think it's responsible to say something was caused by something and you have no way of proving that either.
I dont plan on trying it...but I dont plan on telling her that, she would think me irresponsible!