All content of this blog is my own opinion only. It does not represent the views of any organisation or association I may work for, or be associated with. Nothing within this blog should be considered as medical advice and you should always consult your Doctor.

The complicated rules of "breast coverage"

Well for men it seems really quite simple. Generally chests are always ok, if not they display signs to tell them:
For women the rules are very complicated:

Showing breasts is OK if it's hot, there's sand and you are next to a vast expanse of water.  If you are there and see this in person it's OK.  However if a photo is taken of the scene, then the breasts must be obscured "for decency."   Again men don't need to worry about this as their chest can be photographed without covering.
The water has to have waves though, the same rules don't apply to say a river or lake; there it would be indecent for a female to remove her top..

In hot weather it's acceptable to wear a bikini top, but it has to be made of a Lycra type material and be suitable for swimming.  Otherwise it's considered only OK for underneath clothes, you wouldn't answer the door or head out wearing only this item - this would be considered "indecent".

Certain newspapers have a special page to show off the uncensored breasts they decide are OK for people to see, but breasts are never shown on other pages.  More of these "vetted and ok" breasts can be found in magazines - but if they're on the cover the nipples are covered. Also, breasts including nipples, as adverts to sell things seem to be OK too...
What seems to cause the most upset otherwise is the nipple.  Although it looks very similar to a man's, it seems to be very offensive.  If this is covered, almost anything goes...unless you are famous and have sheer fabric and then you can show nipple too.
The rules on the Internet are very confusing indeed - one website "Facebook" has declared breasts that do not show nipple are OK, but then they remove pictures of breasts without nipples and leave other nipples on there.  I'm not sure whether even they really know what is and isn't OK. 

Why the breasts are on show seems to be an important factor.  If it's just for fun that seems to be OK, whereas generally they seem to get more upset if the woman is feeding her baby.

As you can imagine, feeding babies can be very difficult with all these rules, but they get round this by making plastic copies of the breast and silicone copies of nipples (which are considered "decent").  Because mums want to go out and about, this often means they use these replicas frequently, so some fill them with a powder made from whey, a by-product of the manufacture of cheese - which then gets modified so babies can tolerate it.  Now most babies are fed this way after the first few weeks, and the women who want to give their own milk often struggle to find someone to help if they have a problem.  Some who want to give their own milk use a large apron called a nursing cover  to ensure they are "modest".  Others suggest mums should express their milk and feed back via the plastic copy breast so as to ensure not a flash of breast is seen.

Our culture is infected and obsessed with sexual objectification (thanks to patriarchy).
Hence, women's body’s are constantly deemed as being inappropriate when dressed or presented in a certain manner (something that is apparently open to personal interpretation). Men are taught that they’re entitled to our bodies, on many different levels, and women are shamed and blamed when they’re attacked/sexually harassed. [sic]
PS the rest of the blog post is well worth a read, just click through the link.

In fact our culture has gone so far the other way, some suggest exposure to breasts can cause all sorts of problems.... (click the link to see more!) and some consider a picture like that on the link disgusting   Well no actually the text with the image discusses nudity, and the writer appears to be discussing discussing genitals (confused? I was!) ....I'm not sure what they were up to during biology class, but my money isn't on listening.

Perhaps most interesting of all, is whilst many Americans feel:
"Increasingly, in the United States, women are pressed to wear burkas. Such level of submission and servitude is un-American, and undermines women's rights to equality and better quality of life" (Facebook group - Americans againt Burkhas)
Nobody considers breast coverage to be vaguely comparable.  Nobody argues for equality on the old chest front.  Nobody spots the irony....

Breastfeeding mums should use a bottle in public!

This one of the ridiculous lines I heard this week.

Because some people fail to understand the basic notion of mammals - they expect others to express their milk, use a plastic replica of their breast, and a silicone copy of their nipple - or go hide in another room. Breastfeeding in public is just offensive! And you know maybe they're onto something?

There are lots of things I would rather not look at:

This isn't too appealing:

Mmm isn't this attractive:

IRK messy eaters!

Eating with mouth open (yep sorry even if it's a cute kid!):

Ew and this:

Imagine this face eating:

Anyone eating fish - I hate the smell!

Jeremy Clarkson - who states in his column: Men do not find breastfeeding natural. We find it deeply disturbing. This is because men do not see breasts as part of the reproductive process. We see it as a plaything, a toy. And letting a baby use it is like letting a baby use the sports car we keep in the garage for sunny days. The mewling, squawking infant will tuin it. And invariably, of course, it does. Thanks Jeremy for speaking on behalf of all men....

I imagine vegetarians don't enjoy seeing this

and vegans would probably prefer not to see this:

Let's think what else?  Some people object to same sex relationships, or to those of a different faith or ethnic origin.

Hey, maybe we need a whole range of special rooms - so anyone who could potentially be offensive to anyone else, could be segregated....hmmmm actually I think that would mean everyone would need their own private "eating booth".  Perhaps that's the future if society can't get to grips with the "avert function" eyes have, or maybe we could get an i-Phone app to help with that?

How tongue tie division changed our life

Louie was born on the September 2010 by elective c section at 37 weeks, weighing 7lb 15oz.  I was warned of several potential problems at delivering the baby so early, such as-breathing issues, sleepy baby, jaundice etc, but because I had a T cut section with my 2nd son I was not able to go further than 37 weeks.  I had steroids to mature Louie’s lungs at 36 weeks.
There were no issues at all when he was born, the c section was lovely and calm, he had skin to skin in theatre and other than being cold at birth he was in great condition.  He was very sleepy after the birth but I was told to wake him up to feed every 3 hours.  He had jaundice until he was 7 weeks old, this was checked by a paediatrician and I was told breast fed babies can have jaundice until 16 weeks.
In the early days Louie was a frequent but very quick feeder, he fed well for a few minutes but then fell asleep at the breast, I put this down to him being a 37 week baby who was sleep and assumed he would ‘wake up’ and be more alert by his official due date.  Louie co slept and partially shared my bed from the beginning.
Louie did ‘wake up’ but it soon became apparent he was not a very happy/settled baby, feeding became a nightmare.  I have fed 2 other children, exclusively for 6 months and continued up to a year and never have experienced anything like how Louie fed.  I became very sore, not bleeding nipples but a terrible burning sensation that lasted throughout the whole feed, I thought I may have thrush but this was never diagnosed and I think I just got used to the feeling.  I also put it down to him feeding every hour, day and night (my nipples never had chance to recover!) I never really questioned how often he fed, although I was told to try and push him further on or offer him formula top ups but I didn’t because I’ve always taken the attitude that in much the same way as I don’t feed every 4 hours then neither do babies and again I kept thinking that it was because he was born early and things would improve.
Louie consistently gained weight (I was even told he was obese and I should formula feed him as this would mean I could regulate how much he fed, which is utter rubbish as he was born on the 25th centile and is still on it now) although he never had a big growth spurt as my others have.
Not only was Louie a frequent feeder but he was also a distressed feeder, he would wriggle, squirm, writhe, arch his back and fight me until finally becoming so distressed and hysterical that I had to stop feeding  and cuddle him until he calmed down – he was described as a “typical reflux baby”.  it was just a case of ‘riding it out’ as unfortunately nothing I or anyone else did could soothe him; after he had calmed down he would feed ok, still wriggly and almost uncomfortable but he would take some milk.
Afterwards he would be sick, (I had to have a bath towel to cover him and me) and full of wind.  At 7 months the  most he had ever slept on a night is 3 hours and this was very rare.  Throughout the night we had to cope with several screaming fits and again had to ride these out by cuddling him and swaddling him.  Louie spent much of the day crying and was very rarely content.  We tried a sling, Cranial Osteopathy, tilted mattress, infant gaviscon etc but nothing worked.

Ignore Annabel Karmel says the Analytical Armadillo!

Since when did Annabel Karmel get a medical degree?  In fact a quick Google of Annabel's qualifications didn't clarify on what authority she is urging mums to ignore official weaning guidelines as outlined by the Department of Health?

This, the Daily Telegraph reports today is exactly what Annabel is doing:

"Ignore official weaning guidelines, says Annabel Karmel"
"Mothers should ignore Government advice not to wean their babies before six months to help expand their taste for different foods, according to Annabel Karmel, the 'Delia Smith' of baby food."
The first paragraph alone either demonstrates a clear lack of understanding regarding breastfeeding (ie that infants are exposed to flavours via breastmilk), or assumes that all her readers are formula feeding.  Even then there is no evidence to support this theory.

Some may remember in a previous post I made about starting solids, I asked Gill Rapley about this "argument":

"Breastfed babies get a variety of flavours in their mother's milk and are known to be more receptive to a range of tastes once solids are introduced. They do not need experience of the food itself beforehand to be able to enjoy it at 6 months"
Things don't improve if you read on:
She said "official guidelines that stipulated exclusive breastfeeding to six months, based on World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations, were misplaced in a developed country like Britain where people knew the importance of sterilisation."
Ah so the Department of Health is wrong, they obviously never considered the UK knew how to sterilise when they set the guidelines! Doh, quick someone get on the phone to them.


Of course sterilisation is significant, but Annabel's comments again demonstrate ignorance as to the further reaching impact of solids.  We know introduction of anything other than breastmilk to the gut, changes the bacteria that resides there and that this can impact on health.
And she said "the advancing science of baby nutrition was rapidly proving them to be obselete and counterproductive"
Really? What "advancing science" is this then?  Unfortunately Annabel doesn't clarify...
She said: "We have this window of opportunity when babies eat pretty well, from six to 11 months, and we really need to introduce as many flavours then as we can."
Woah hang on, I thought we were ignoring guidelines because babies needed some "flavour exposure" earlier? Yet 6-11 months is six months - plenty of time for them to have a huge range of flavours if they are included in normal family meals from the start.

"That meant prepping them before six months to take full advantage of that window", she explained.
Prepping them?  How exactly does one "prep" a baby to eat?  Get them to have a flick through the Good Food Guide?  Play pre-recorded episodes of Nigella?
Attacking the guidelines, she said: "In a developed country like the UK where we know about sterlising milk bottles and preparing food in a hygenic way, there's no real risk of weaning before six months."
"No real risk"?  Even if we went along with that (which let me be clear as discussed above I don't!) no real risk is very different to "lots of benefits to".  There's lots of things in life that don't propose a "real risk", but that does not by default make them desirable or essential.
"Simple foods are absolutely fine," she said, recommending fruit or vegetable purees.
What Annabel also fails to consider is that evidence strongly supports the notion that solids displace the infant's milk.  Even if they are given at the end of a feed to "fill extra space", overall intake of milk has been repeatedly shown to reduce in response.  So essentially what Annabel is supporting is swapping calorific fatty breastmilk, full of immune properties,  for some carrot mush?  We know infants absorb iron less effectively once they consume something other than breastmilk, which is why many experts now say an infant's first food should be iron rich.
"Some babies would be ready to wean sooner than others and she argued that, when it came to deciding, mum knew best."
I agree some are ready sooner than others, and if mums read the guidelines fully and understand them; they will recognise that readiness is indicated by putting food into the mouth and eating it, not night waking or breastfeeding more frequently - babies absolutely know best!

The article continues:
According to Department of Health guidelines, "mothers who wish to introduce solids before six months should always talk to health professionals first".
But Mrs Karmel said: "I think as a mother you kind of know what your baby needs. You are best placed to understand."
"You can talk to your health visitor, but anybody who knows anything about baby nutrition will say you can introduce solids from 17 weeks."
Is Annabel seriously implying that even if a Health Professional suggests it's not the best idea, it's fine to ignore them because "anybody who knows anything about baby nutrition" (well clearly except for the Department of Health, The World Health Organisation, UNICEF etc) state it's fine?  Who exactly is "anybody who knows anything"? 
She went on: "There's no evidence that introducing food from 17 weeks makes a child more prone to allergies, provided it's very simple."
Actually the evidence regarding allergies is incredibly patchy, indeed there is little suggesting significant risk if the gut has closed and the child is actually "ready" as per the Department of Health guidelines - the "provided it's simple" is something I presume Annabel has added. What isn't recognised is that once an infant is ready for solids, they are ready to digest an appropriate range of foods
"Many babies at four to six months cried because they were simply hungry and not nutritionally satisfied with milk alone."
Which babies? Who decided they were crying "simply because they weren't satisfied"?  This is purely an opinion statement written as fact - unless of course I missed the journal that printed Annabel's research into this area?
"Mrs Karmel, who has just launched a new iPhone 'app' to help parents feed their children, added that she was dismayed that so many resorted to jars of sterilised baby food."
Oh now we get down to the nitty gritty.  A nice controversial piece timed alongside her iPhone app - nifty bit of marketing there Ms Karmel!  And don't tell me, parents should replace these yucky jars with the ready meals from your range instead!  The ones that last year hit the news with the headline "Child guru's ready meals laced with sugar and salt":

Attention has centred on Mrs Karmel's beef lasagne, which contains 5.4g of sugar per 100g of weight. This is double the sugar found in a similar product for adults.  The same ready meal contains 1g of salt per pack, half of the entire daily recommended maximum for a child aged one to three.  The lasagne and cottage pie contain added sea salt despite a Government recommendation that parents cooking at home should not add salt to meals for toddlers.
'There is little point in making a meal that children will not eat. If healthy alternatives are bland and children refuse to eat them, frustrated parents may well turn to chicken nuggets, pizzas and pot noodles."
Has the Delia Smith of the children's culinary world not heard of herbs and spices?  Which is it - mother knows best, or mothers are quick to give  junk food?

Forgive me if I'm not lining up to take nutritional advice from someone who feels food that isn't heavy on sugar and salt, and is vaguely healthy is "bland".

All that aside, seriously an iPhone app to help parents feed their children?  for real?  How on earth did the human race manage pre iPhone? 
Her stance on weaning is backed up by research, published in January in the British Medical Journal, which called for existing advice on breastfeeding and weaning to be reassessed.
Ah yes the research published in January - the research that brought no new evidence whatsoever to the table and purely noted they think some areas should be restudied.  The same paper that declares three of the four authors "have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past three years".

I guess baby led weaning must really bother those who profit from infants starting solids.  Simply including baby in mealtimes, offering them a selection of home cooked food to eat when ready really isn't that profitable to those who sell outdated advice telling mums how to squash a banana and add milk to a strict routine.  That's sooo last century dharling!

Here's a few starting solids photos from the Facebook gallery - note babies eating solids not laden with salt or sugar and not a pot noodle in sight!

Have you seen "Apple Dumplings - Breastfeeding Burlesque"?

The fantastic Virginia Howes (independent midwife) has produced a great breastfeeding song, entitled "Apple Dumplings".  It features Big Brother winner Brian Belo too!

I can't believe it has only received just over five and a half thousand views so here it is for you Armadillians to see and share ;)  Lyrics below so you can sing along!!


Apple Dumplings, Angel Cakes, Bongo Baps & Betty Boops
Cherry Pies, Charlies, Coconuts & Cantaloupes
Doobies, Dingoes, Dairies, Fleshy Flappers, Gags & Globes
Happy Hangers, Hemispheres & Heavy Hilly Homes

You make the milk, so don't let it go to waste
Woman let your baby enjoy that yummy taste

Baby loves Mamma's breast because her milk tastes the best and it beats all the rest
Baby loves Mamma's milk, when its time to re-fuel
Dontcha know how it's cool

Igloos, Jubblies, Juggernaughts, Jumbo Jugs & Jelly Jibs
Kettledrums, Kazoogas, Kumquats, Knockers & Kids
Lollies, Lemons, Lactoids, Love Cushions & Loaves
Mambo, Mammeries, Macaroons, Melons, Mounds & Mangos

You make the milk and can take it any place
Woman, let your body be your baby's saving grace

Baby loves Mamma's breast because her milk tastes the best and it beats all the rest
Baby loves Mamma's milk, when it's time to re-fuel
Dontcha know how it's cool

Nunga Nungas, Nectarines, Noogies, Norks & Nancies Nibs
Oobies, Oompas, Oranges, Palookers, Pillows & Pips
Quarts of Love, Rib Balloons, Snobs, Scones & Sweater Swellers
Totos, Tangerines, Twinies, Taddies, Tits & Tooters

You make the milk and it's ready all the time
Woman, make that tummy fat be on the downward climb

Baby loves Mamma's breast because her milk tastes the best and it beats all the rest
Baby loves Mamma's milk, when it's time to re-fuel
Dontcha know how it's cool

Tonsils, Teats, Twangers, Tweakers, Tortillas & Torpedoes
Upper Decks, Volcanoes, Wahwah & Winnebagos
Watermelons, Weather Balloons, some Wongas & Front Wings
Yabbos, Yams, Yard Dogs, some Yayas & Zeppelins

You make the milk, throw the thick stuff in the bin
Woman open up those breasts and let the health shine in

Baby loves Mamma's breast because her milk tastes the best and it beats all the rest
Baby loves Mamma's milk, when it's time to re-fuel
Dontcha know how it's cool. -- Repeat x2

The imperfect mother - is a lil TV viewing really that BAD?

I was reading today about how TV is "toxic" for under 2's, and how shock horror "Baby Einstein" DVDs don't turn your child into a genius.
"For every 1 hour of television viewed per day by preschoolers, their likelihood of developing concentration problems and other attention-deficit ‘disorders’ by the age of 7, increases by 10%" 
The page screamed...

I decided to hunt down said study:
A total of 1278 children had data from age “1” (mean: 1.8 years; SD: 0.6), and 1345 had data from age “3” (mean: 3.8 years; SD: 0.6). Children watched an average of 2.2 hours (SD: 2.91) of television per day at age 1 and 3.6 hours (SD: 2.94) per week at age 3.
Ten percent of children for whom data were available at ages 1 and 3 had attentional problems on the basis of our definition derived from the BPI.
I'm no statistician but looking at the graphs, the average TV watched was a couple of hours - but a not insignificant proportion of infants watched anything from 4-16 hours!  The researchers found 10% had attentional problems (note NOT clinically diagnosed ADHD) and if this is directly linked to amount of viewing (as the authors found) those who displayed attentional problems must have watched an awful lot of TV if 2 hours per day was the average at a year old?

The authors also go on to say:
We cannot draw causal inferences from these associations. It could be that attentional problems lead to television viewing rather than vice versa. However, to mitigate this limitation, we exploited the longitudinality of the data set and focused on television viewing at 1 and 3 years of age, well before the age at which most experts believe that ADHD symptoms are manifest.32,39
It is also possible that there are characteristics associated with parents who allow their children to watch excessive amounts of television that accounts for the relationship between television viewing and attentional problems. For example, parents who were distracted, neglectful, or otherwise preoccupied might have allowed their children to watch excessive amounts of television in addition to having created a household environment that promoted the development of attentional problems.
Finally, we had no data on the content of the television being viewed. Some research indicates that educational television (eg, Sesame Street) may in fact promote attention and reading among school-aged children.24 Others have disagreed and posited that even such programming can be detrimental.40 If exposure to certain kinds of programming is beneficial, even at a very young age, then our results represent conservative estimates of the risks of television as a medium in general because some proportion of the programming may have moderated the detrimental aspects of others and deviated the results toward the null. However, more research is needed on the effects of varying content of television, particularly for children who are preschool age.

Furthermore it must be mightily difficult to quantify parenting - if a parent does "cry it out", also linked with behavioural issues - but doesn't have TV on, is the baby at less or more risk than a co-sleeping infants who watches half an hour?

Why am I rambling on about TV viewing - am I suggesting you all go flick the box on and plop your darlings there for the rest of the day.  Of course not.

The trouble is that how on earth are mothers supposed to do everything?  Gone are the days of communities, where there was always an older sibling, sister, aunt or mother to help out - instead many families are nuclear, one or both parents out for most of the day working, or one at work whilst the other takes care of the baby.

Lob a "high needs" infant into that, older siblings - breastfeeding, cleaning, washing, ironing, cooking healthy meals and of course "quality time" and can we really blame mothers for needing the help of that flashing babysitter every once in a while?

Even if this isn't the case - what happens if you have more than one child?  Maybe you have a four year old who wants to watch say Sesame Street, you as a parent want to also watch and interact with the older child.  Do you blindfold and pop ear muffs on the baby?  Sling them on your back so they can't see?

My eldest was a glue baby, I hadn't heard of good slings (and who even knows whether she would have gone in one anyway) she was very "high needs" and quite often by late afternoon I would realise I was starving, and I hadn't even been able to put her down long enough to get something to eat.  It wasn't that I was a purist against baby swings or bouncers - she simply only tolerated them for a few minutes.   Fast forward a few months to her starting solids and I had various options:

1.  Leave her to scream whilst I prepared her some decent home cooked food
2.  Attempt to hold her and cook, not good with a wriggly infant.
3.  Feed her something quick - food from a jar or packet
4.  Find something to keep her busy for 10- 15-20 mins (depending on the day and her mood!) that would engage her enough she would be happy with me in the adjoining kitchen.

Given it usually ended up on the floor, perhaps I should have rethought!  Anyway....

I didn't really go for the flashing, boinging, singing LOUD programmes that generally are kids TV and so I played, wait for it, shock horror a Baby Einstein DVD! (ok shoot me now)  With number two I had no hesitation in pulling it back out if required - which was generally less often given he was a far more chilled out baby generally, usually loved his sling; and of course when the eldest was at home she was far more entertaining than any flashing box.

I'm sure by now some (perhaps those who have discovered slings, or have a baby who actually naps somewhere else other than on you, or are generally a relaxed temperament) feel I'm trying to justify my own Baby Einstein secret - or so a friend who in response proudly told me she has no TV (yet downloads episodes to her PC?!?) suggested.  I didn't dare point out that in reality I thought Baby Einstein was probably the least of my early parenting concerns, I'm personally far more worried about the hours of "pick up put down" that followed reading the Baby Whisperer - but hey that's one for another day....

PS - if you're not quite ready to toss the television, Dr. Dimitri Christakis at Seattle Children's Hospital (often quoted for their research into the effects of TV viewing on children)  suggests parents can manipulate viewing to turn it into a useful tool? click here to watch his presentation....

Top Ten Tongue Tie Myths...

1.  A tongue tied infant has a frenulum on the tip of their tongue - it's obvious to see if they have one!  FALSE
All tongue tie is, is a frenulum that is too short or tight.  A frenulum can be anywhere down the tongue and may not be at all easily visible.

2.  A tongue tied infant cannot extend their tongue past their lower gum/lip - FALSE
Whilst some tongue tied infants are not able to protrude well, others can - particularly when the mouth is "small" ie just open wide enough for the tongue, rather than the large gape required to latch at the breast effectively.  My son on the left has quite a restrictive tie yet he can protrude!  It all depends where the tie is and what aspect of tongue movement it is hindering.

3.  If an infant is tongue tied but can protrude the tongue, the tie wont impact on feeding - FALSE
We see lots of infants who can protrude experiencing feeding problems.  The tongue doesn't just need to protrude to feed as this article discusses, it needs to do a whole host of things.

4.  As long as mum can breastfeed without pain, there is no reason to divide a tongue tie - FALSE
We see infants feeding who are uncoordinated or disorganised and as a result splutter, cough, gasp, arch and scream.  Nipples can be hugely compressed but mums appear sometimes to become almost numb to the pain.  Baby may be windy/unsettled and sleeping poorly.  Whilst some infants gain weight really well with a tongue tie (ie often a lot more than expected) some infants really struggle to grow at all.

5.  A tongue tie cannot impact on speech - FALSE
Whilst certainly not all tongue tied children have speech issues, others struggle with sounds that require certain tongue actions - particularly when the gape is wide ie "L" or when the tongue needs to do something more complicated ie "R", or when speech is rapid.

6.  A person with tongue tie can't roll their "R's" - FALSE
Again it depends on where the tie is and how it's hindering tongue movement.  Some tongue tied people can roll their R's just fine, others can't.

7.  Frenulotomy is an invasive aggressive procedure - FALSE
Unless you also consider a heel prick test as such.  It takes seconds and the difference is often apparent immediately (some infants, particularly older babies may need a little time to learn how to use their new found free moving tongue!)  The NHS states crying time as approximately 15 seconds, however it is often significantly less if the baby is breastfed and  mum is next to baby, enabling fast transfer to the breast post division.  Often the babies have been crying significantly longer than that whilst we discuss the procedure!

8. GPs, International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLCs), Health Visitors, Midwives, Osteopaths and Speech and Language therapists are all able to identify a tongue tie - FALSE
Whilst some can, others may not have had the specific training to orally examine properly under baby's tongue.  However this information is not always provided and parents are frequently told there isn't a tongue tie when there is!   Some breastfeeding counsellors and IBCLCs are often the most clued up, although some have little tongue tie experience - ensuring you seek out an "oral specialist" IBCLC is essential.  If you are having trouble getting a diagnosis when your child exhibits several signs (please click here if you are unsure what these are), this may help.

9.  A tongue tied tongue makes the tongue deformed when the infant does attempt to protrude, resulting in a heart shape - FALSE
Whilst some infants have a tongue that hearts, others do not!  To the untrained eye the tongue may appear perfectly normal.

10.  Tongue tie doesn't impact on any other area of health -FALSE
Dr Bryan Palmer has studied extensively the impact of tongue ties.  As this article discusses, they are significantly linked with a high palate, resulting in high dental arches and potential dental issues, plus narrower airways.  Releasing the frenulum early gives the tongue time to impact on the still forming oral cavity  Dr Palmer has also linked high palates, arches and reduced airways to other areas of health.