This cord-clamping thing
Mogget
reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is.
--
Mogget
Todd Gastaldo
See below.
in article 33bvZxDv...@scat.demon.co.uk, Mogget at
bi...@scat.demon.co.uk wrote on 8/27/05 11:46 AM:
> So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be some
> reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is.
Mogget,
Immediate cord clamping/cutting is EUPHEMISM - for an obvious mass felony...
Immediate cord clamping/cuttiing means "amputating mother from baby -
amputating baby's natural oxygenation/transfusion device - temporarily
asphyxiating baby (forcing baby to breathe through his/her lungs before
he/she is ready) - robbing baby of up 50% off his/her blood volume."
As medical students, MDs are TRAINED to perform this obvious mass felony in
EVERY CESAREAN BIRTH - according to retired obstetrician George Malcolm
Morley, MB ChB FACOG.
Simply stopping the obvious mass felony would be tantamount to admitting the
obvious mass felony.
Perhaps most importantly, stopping the obvious mass felony would betray the
attorney generals who have been studiously ignoring the obvious mass felony.
THE problem is attorney generals knowingly failing to enforce the law.
Arrogant "Libertarian" Steve B. Harris, MD told everyone how MDs get away
with obvious crimes:
"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
I think there are a LOT of adults who don't understand that attorney
generals remain silent in accord with organized medicine's "elementary
principles" - laws be damned - babies be damned.
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
to...@chiromotion.com
PS "Libertarian" Steve B. Harris, MD recently called upon OB/GYNs to
comment.
I replied:
I AGREE WITH STEVE B. HARRIS, MD...
I wrote:
Yes - it is time for OB-GYNs to account for themselves. First, they need to
account for the fact that the baby blood robbery crime isn't just happening
in cesarean births. It is being PROMOTED [as "cord blood banking"] - as
OB/GYNs stupidly assist the
promoters - and lie to cover-up the fact they are routinely closing birth
canals up to 30%.
Surely all OB-GYNs can agree that that bizarre TEMPORARY baby asphyxiation
experiment being promoted by Dr. Morley should never be attempted...
Here it is again....note the word "asphyxia"...
"[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The
[fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color
will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue
(vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be
able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on
a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon
release the finger and thumb."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ac og-cp.htm
I specifically wrote to Steve: You do agree that OB/GYNs should not be
experimenting with
asphyxiating babies temporarily, right?
See OB/GYNs: I AGREE WITH STEVE B. HARRIS, MD
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/8ac5f5f9540f419a
Steve hasn't replied.
Is there ANYONE who thinks it is right/legal for OB/GYNs to experiment with
asphyxiating babies?
Remember: Dr. Morley encourages this grisly experiment to encourage
obstetricians to demonstrate to themselves that it is not right to rob
babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
Bottomline, Mogget, MDs continue because they don't want to go to prison.
MDs are desperately HOPING
MDs are committing MANY obvious crimes...
Which is why I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical
students, MDs are TRAINED to commit obvious felonies.
Pardons in advance for MDs would break the vicious medical training cycle -
and likely save America billions of dollars per year - not to mention likely
saving many lives and making birth easier.
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
to...@chiromotion.com
PS There is an obstetrician in Congress (Ron Paul, MD) who could speak out
- but he is placing politics above babies...
Politics corrupts. Libertarians are going along with the gag - babies be
damned.
See Libertarians: Crooked obstetrician Ron Paul, MD (also: Michael Badnarik
for Congress)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com /group/chiro-list/message/3789
Politics corrupts. CHIROPRACTORS are going along with the gag - babies be
damned.
See Babies, the CIA and obstetric health fraud
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3829
Ericka Kammerer
> So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be some
> reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is.
They do it because that's the way it's *been* done, unfortunately.
That's how a lot of things happen. Why do many still say that you should
put alcohol on the cord stump, even though current research suggests
otherwise?
It used to be that they were worried that allowing the extra blood
into the baby would lead to increased rates of jaundice and polycythemia
and such, but that assumption has not been borne out in studies. Where
the rates of some of these conditions are slightly higher with delayed
cord clamping, they tend not to be serious enough to be symptomatic
or even to require any treatment whatsoever. *And* the babies are
less likely to be anemic later on with the delayed cord clamping.
You cannot take for granted that just because something is
standard care, it is justified in some way. Change frequently lags
research *substantially*, and many things were originally done
for reasons that no longer hold any water whatsoever.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Mogget
In message <BF361AAD.9F47%tgas...@earthlink.net>, Todd Gastaldo
<tgas...@earthlink.net> writes
>BABY ASPHYXIATION AND "LIBERTARIAN" STEVE B. HARRIS, MD
>
>See below.
>
>in article 33bvZxDv...@scat.demon.co.uk, Mogget at
>bi...@scat.demon.co.uk wrote on 8/27/05 11:46 AM:
>
>> So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be some
>> reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is.
>
>Mogget,
>
>Immediate cord clamping/cutting is EUPHEMISM - for an obvious mass felony...
>
>Immediate cord clamping/cuttiing means "amputating mother from baby -
>amputating baby's natural oxygenation/transfusion device - temporarily
>asphyxiating baby (forcing baby to breathe through his/her lungs before
>he/she is ready) - robbing baby of up 50% off his/her blood volume."
>
>Bottomline, Mogget, MDs continue because they don't want to go to prison.
So the only reason they do it is so as not to have to admit they've been
wrong?
When my daughter was delivered, non-clamping of the cord yada yada was
on the birth plan but it didn't happen. It ended up being an emergency
C-section and my husband explained to the surgical team that we didn't
want the cord clamped until it had stopped pulsing but they said no,
they had to clamp straight away. I was so out of it by then that I have
no recollection of the explanation.
You're preaching to the converted; it makes good sense to me not to
clamp immediately. I would just like to know why they DO.
--
Mogget
Marie
wrote:
>So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be some
>reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is.
I figure it's so the OB can get done with you and baby and go on to
do whatever else he has planned. Most things seem to be about habit or
convenience of the medical team. If the OB had to wait around to cut
the cord, it would take longer for him to move on to other laboring
women/c-sections.
Marie
Marie
wrote:
>You're preaching to the converted; it makes good sense to me not to
>clamp immediately. I would just like to know why they DO.
No one will admit to why they do it when it's best not to do it in the
first place. Like episiotomies, IV's, epidurals, c!rcs, telling you
you have to lay on your back to have a baby, pushing formula and
pacifiers,...
Marie
Jo
I think with the active management of 3rd stage, you 'have to' clamp
early so that blood from the placenta isn't *forced* into the baby with
the unnaturally large contraction that the synthetic oxytocin causes to
detatch the placenta. That's the explanation I was given when I was a
Midwifery Student. I don't see why they can't delay the synto until the
cord has been clamped, *after* it has stopped pulsating.
Jo (Mum to Will, 3 months old!)
Todd Gastaldo
See below.
in article QuedneZGjsd...@comcast.com, Ericka Kammerer at
e...@comcast.net wrote on 8/27/05 2:53 PM:
> Mogget wrote:
>> So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be some
>> reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is.
>
> They do it because that's the way it's *been* done, unfortunately.
<snip>
David M. Eddy, MD put it this way in AMA's journal...
"[T]he intellectual foundation of medical care...is...whatever a
physician decides is by definition correct." [Eddy DM. The
challenge. (Jan12)1990 JAMA]
An AMA member had previously observed...
"There is one quotation that captures the essence of what
membership in both the AMA and our state medical associations is
all about...'Joining the AMA is like joining a church...'
[Hopkins D reviewing Campion FD: The AMA and U.S. Health Policy
Since 1940, 1984, Review Press: Chicago, IL. In Western J Med,
1985;142(2):273]
The American medical religion is a brutal religion.
> It used to be that they were worried that allowing the extra blood
> into the baby would lead to increased rates of jaundice and polycythemia
> and such, but that assumption has not been borne out in studies.
Before they were "allowing" extra blood into the baby, sometimes (often?)
they would FORCE extra blood into the baby, as in,
Walsh SZ.
Early clamping versus stripping of card: comparative study of
electrocardiogram in neonatal period.
Br Heart J. 1969 Jan;31(1):122-6. No abstract available.
SIDDALL RS, RICHARDSON RP.
Milking or stripping the umbilical cord; effect on vaginally delivered
babies.
Obstet Gynecol. 1953 Feb;1(2):230-3. No abstract available.
SIDDALL RS, CRISSEY RR, KNAPP WL.
Effect on cesarean section babies of stripping or milking of the umbilical
cords.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1952 May;63(5):1059-64. No abstract available.
> Where
> the rates of some of these conditions are slightly higher with delayed
> cord clamping, they tend not to be serious enough to be symptomatic
> or even to require any treatment whatsoever. *And* the babies are
> less likely to be anemic later on with the delayed cord clamping.
So the research is in - there was no science behind FORCING more blood into
babies - and there is no science behind ROBBING blood from babies.
MDs should openly admit their mistakes and immediately go back to ALLOWING
babies to take as much blood as they want.
> You cannot take for granted that just because something is
> standard care, it is justified in some way.
One CAN however take it for granted that if it is standard care, it is
protected practice - even if MDs are LYING to keep it standard care.
Back in the 90s, then-California Medical Board Medical Director Richard
Ikeda, MD agreed with me that obstetricians are closing birth canals up to
30% but said there was nothing he could do - it was standard care!
> Change frequently lags
> research *substantially*, and many things were originally done
> for reasons that no longer hold any water whatsoever.
>
Ummmm... If MD reasons don't hold water now - they never did - unless...
"Holding water" = "[T]he intellectual foundation of medical care...whatever
a physician decides is by definition correct." [Eddy DM. The
challenge. (Jan12)1990 JAMA]
Ericka, do you agree that Dr. Morley's baby asphyxiation experiment is
obvious child abuse?
Note Dr. Morley's word "asphyxia"...
"[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The
[fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color
will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue
(vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be
able to observe...a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on
a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon
release the finger and thumb."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ac og-cp.htm
FOR ANY NEW READERS...
As I wrote in my original reply to Mogget...
Is there ANYONE who thinks it is right/legal for OB/GYNs to experiment with
asphyxiating babies?
Remember: Dr. Morley encourages this grisly experiment to encourage
obstetricians to demonstrate to themselves that it is not right to rob
babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
Bottomline, Mogget, MDs continue because they don't want to go to prison.
MDs are desperately HOPING [that attorney generals will remain silent and
not enforce laws that MDs are breaking]
Todd Gastaldo
See below.
in article der7uc$1dl4$1...@otis.netspace.net.au, Jo at
breast...@portjackson.net wrote on 8/27/05 7:35 PM:
VIOLENT uterine contractions due to oxytocin would be sort of like an MD
stripping the cord then clamping maybe?
My understanding is that NATURAL uterine contractions cause a TIDAL WAVE of
placental blood to flow to the baby - but the baby can send back what he or
she doesn't need.
I recently noted my understanding in an exchange with Ericka Kammerer...
NEONATAL RESUSCITATION: A SIMPLE QUESTION
See the very end of this post....
"Ericka Kammerer" <e...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:suGdnYf05O6...@comcast.com...
> Todd Gastaldo wrote:
>> Until medical "science" cleans up its criminal cord clamping act, I like
>> Larry's advice to wait till the placenta delivers. Other mammals don't
>> clamp. Waiting till the placenta delivers couldn't hurt and may well be
>> beneficial in ways we haven't discovered.
>> Regarding BEFORE the placenta delivers...
>> Postpartum uterine contractions can reportedly deliver "a
>> virtual tidal wave of placental blood flow"...
>> And it looks like you've got to watch the
>> cord for over a minute to catch a uterine contraction/transfusion peak...
> Nevertheless, anyone who wishes can watch and see when
> the cord stops pulsating, and there are certainly situations
> where it is much more convenient and comfortable to detach
> the baby before the placenta is delivered--particularly if
> you're working with a short cord. If one doesn't feel like
> making sure the cord has stopped pulsating, by all means,
> wait as long as one wants.
Ericka,
You snipped the part about how Cochrane collaborationists have hijacked the
word "delayed" to mean 30 to 120 seconds.
One is not allowed to do what one "feels like" in many hospitals - and with
"science" hijacking the word "delayed" - well - 120 seconds could become the
"scientific" standard for "delayed."
> Heck, lotus birth and you don't
> even have to decide when. I have no problem with that. But
> if you want to get the cord cut, waiting until it has stopped
> pulsating, whenever that happens to be for your baby, is
> sufficient.
Not the point. You were talking about expending "capital" arguing with an
OB.
OBs could well start arguing "scientifically" that "delayed" means 120
seconds - or 30 seconds.
I reproduce my post below.
There is a simple question at the end.
No one has answered it yet.
Todd
"REEEEEAAAALLLY DELAYED"?
Does this mean clamping after 120 seconds?
Some medical "scientists" might think so...
See below.
Larry McMahan wrote:
>> I would say that if you wait until the placenta delivers, you are going
>> to be safe.
Ericka Kammerer replied:
> Sure, but as far as I can remember it didn't seem all
> that difficult to figure out when it stopped pulsating.
Ericka,
Until medical "science" cleans up its criminal cord clamping act, I like
Larry's advice to wait till the placenta delivers. Other mammals don't
clamp. Waiting till the placenta delivers couldn't hurt and may well be
beneficial in ways we haven't discovered.
Regarding BEFORE the placenta delivers...
Postpartum uterine contractions can reportedly deliver "a
virtual tidal wave of placental blood flow"...
And it looks like you've got to watch the
cord for over a minute to catch a uterine contraction/transfusion peak...
See the graph at the Morley URL below.
> If
> in doubt, one can always wait, of course, but I also don't
> think that there's much evidence that it's beneficial to
> wait longer.
I don't think OBs are *looking* for such evidence - indeed - quite the
contrary: It appears to me that OBs have employed at least one CNMwife to
pretend in the medical literature that "delayed" means waiting 30 seconds.
Heike Rabe, MD, PhD spewed the most recent evidence of this grisly nonsense:
"Delaying cord clamping by 30 to 120 seconds, rather than early clamping,
seems to be associated with less need for transfusion and less
intraventricular haemorrhage." [Rabe H, Reynolds G, Diaz-Rossello J.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18;(4):CD003248. PubMed abstract ]
For my discussion of Rabe et al., see...
http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ 7e3e71a8f...
See also: CNMwife baby blood robber (45 sec is 'delayed' cord clamping,
Judy?!)
http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ 03626f39c...
>If one is having to push to get delayed clamping,
> one might not choose to spend further capital trying to get
> reeeeeeaaaalllly delayed clamping ;-)
That's a cute phrase Ericka - "reeeeeeaaalllly delayed" - some medical
"scientists" no doubt now think that waiting 120 seconds is "reeeeeaaalllly
delayed." See the "delayed" game above.
And remember...
OBs are ROOOOOUTIIIIIIIIIINELY robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood
volume as they hijack the word "delayed" to mean 30 second clamping.
AN INCREDIBLE CASE
In 1957, Mavis Gunther, MD reported a case where cord and baby were kept
warm and cord pulsating went on for 20 minutes.
Dr. Morley exclaimed regarding Dr. Gunther's case:
"Figure 1 is a recording of a placental transfusion [3] obtained by placing
the newborn at the level of the placenta, wrapped in a warm blanket, on a
recording scales. It was obviously not a typical birth - the cord pulsated
for 19 minutes, the placental transfusion (cord closure) was completed after
20 minutes, and the child started crying about ten minutes after birth!"
And then...
"During the first nine minutes...[t]here is no record of it breathing during
this time..." [Gastaldo remarks - WOW!]
Finally...
"Weight variation, INFLUENCED BY UTERINE CONTRACTIONS, indicates that a
virtual tidal wave of placental blood flow was adequately oxygenating the
child in the absence of any obvious lung function." (emphasis
added)...Marked vertical 'activity' lines occur at the height of UTERINE
CONTRACTION/TRANSFUSION PEAKS..." (emphasis added)
Dr. Morley discussing Gunther M. The Transfer of
Blood Between the Baby and the Placenta. Lancet 1957;I:1277-1280.
http://www.cordclamping.com/cr ťy.htm
Again, it looks like you've got to watch the
cord for over a minute to catch a uterine contraction/transfusion peak...
Or I guess mom could tell you when a contraction is happening.
Todd
PS 1957 - the year Mavis Gunther, MD reported her remarkable case - was also
the year that Borell and Fernstrom demonstrated radiographically (albeit
indirectly) that semisitting and dorsal delivery close the birth canal - up
to 30% it turns out.
PS2 Rabe et al. promote robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume,
as in,
"Early clamping allows for immediate resuscitation of the newborn..." [Rabe
et al. 2004]
WHICH REMINDS ME...
In cases where the baby MUST be
resuscitated after birth - I am still wondering why pediatricians have to
sever the baby's access to blood and oxygen and rush baby across the room to
resuscitate. Why can't neonatal resuscitation stations be designed so
that
mother and baby can be wheeled underneath (or between) with baby's natural
oxygenation/transfusion device still intact? No one has answered this
question.
Todd Gastaldo
ATTENTION: Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers (hardy...@state.or.us): This is
a Suspected (Mass) Child Abuse Report.
See below.
in article ocv1h11agvt59hqrj...@4ax.com, Marie at
annad...@yahoo.com wrote on 8/27/05 4:57 PM:
FOR NEW READERS...
If I were a baby about to have an MD asphyxiate me and rob up to 50% of my
blood, I would put it this way: Few MDs will admit there is NO REASON to do
it when it is obviously CRIMINAL to do it in the first place.
The problem is attorney generals KNOWINGLY failing to enforce the law.
(They don't call it the medico-"legal" "just us" system for nothing.)
Women shouldn't have to ASK for the "extra" up to 50% of blood for their
babies.
Most women don't KNOW to ask.
Attorney generals are silently harming some of The People - some of the
tiniest people.
"Libertarian" Steve B. Harris, MD told everyone how MDs get away
with obvious crimes:
"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
I think there are a LOT of adults who don't understand that attorney
generals remain silent in accord with organized medicine's "elementary
principles" - laws be damned - babies be damned.
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
to...@chiromotion.com
PS Is there ANYONE who does not agree that Dr. Morley's TEMPORARY baby
asphyxiation experiment is child abuse?
Here it is again:
....note the word "asphyxia"...
"[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The
[fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color
will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue
(vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be
able to observe...a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on
a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon
release the finger and thumb."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ac og-cp.htm
Sorry to repeat myself but...
Immediate cord clamping/immediate cord CUTTING asphyxiates the baby into
breathing with his/her lungs - and robs up to 50% of the baby's blood
volume.
The Red Cross wouldn't risk taking up to 50% of someone's blood - yet
obstetricians rob babies of up to 50% of their blood in EVERY CESAREAN
DELIVERY, according George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG.
Ladies, this mass child abuse is happening in a maternity hospital near you.
If I were a baby about to be born, I would want everyone reporting the crime
to law enforcement.
But that's just me.
Sincerely,
Todd
PS Oregon readers, do you SUSPECT that asphyxiating babies and robbing up to
50% of their blood is child abuse?
The baby blood robbery is reportedly happening in EVERY CESAREAN BIRTH,
according to Dr. Morley.
The State of Oregon says:
"ALL OREGON CITIZENS ARE ENCOURAGED TO REPORT SUSPECTED [CHILD ABUSE] TO DHS
OR LAW ENFORCEMENT. Over 25 percent of the substantiated cases of child
abuse are reported by concerned citizens who are not required to report.
Failure to report is a violation and carries a maximum penalty of $1,000.00.
Mandatory reporters have also been successfully sued for damages in civil
court for failing to report.©—
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/children/abuse/cps/report.shtml
As indicated above, I'm copying this Suspected (Mass) Child Abuse Report to
Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers via hardy...@state.or.us.
I urge others (inside and outside of Oregon) to report to Atty Genl Hardy
Myers and to their own state's attorney general...
Compose your own Suspected (Mass) Child Abuse report - or feel free to
forward this one to state attorney generals.
Again, if I were a baby about to be born, I would want everyone reporting
the crime.
But that's just me.
Mogget
<e...@comcast.net> writes
>Mogget wrote:
>> So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be
>>some reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is.
>
> They do it because that's the way it's *been* done, unfortunately.
>That's how a lot of things happen.
That is a shame.
Mr Mogget would call that the difference between fluid & static
intelligence.
Just as well I have you lot for better information :-)
--
Mogget
Mogget
<breast...@portjackson.net> writes
>I think with the active management of 3rd stage, you 'have to' clamp
>early so that blood from the placenta isn't *forced* into the baby with
>the unnaturally large contraction that the synthetic oxytocin causes to
>detatch the placenta. That's the explanation I was given when I was a
>Midwifery Student. I don't see why they can't delay the synto until
>the cord has been clamped, *after* it has stopped pulsating.
Hmm, this 3rd stage thing is something I'm going to have to investigate
more. Is there perhaps a FAQ for it?
--
Mogget
Todd Gastaldo
bi...@scat.demon.co.uk wrote on 8/28/05 9:02 AM:
FOR ANY NEW READERS...
Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG has gathered ALMOST
all the information about third stage one could want.
Go to www.cordclamping.com.
AN INCREDIBLE CASE
In 1957, Mavis Gunther, MD reported a case where cord and baby were kept
warm and cord pulsating went on for 20 minutes.
Dr. Morley exclaimed regarding Dr. Gunther's case:
"Figure 1 is a recording of a placental transfusion [3] obtained by placing
the newborn at the level of the placenta, wrapped in a warm blanket, on a
recording scales. It was obviously not a typical birth - the cord pulsated
for 19 minutes, the placental transfusion (cord closure) was completed after
20 minutes, and the child started crying about ten minutes after birth!"
And then...
"During the first nine minutes...[t]here is no record of it breathing during
this time..." [Gastaldo remarks - WOW!]
Finally...
"Weight variation, INFLUENCED BY UTERINE CONTRACTIONS, indicates that a
virtual tidal wave of placental blood flow was adequately oxygenating the
child in the absence of any obvious lung function." (emphasis
added)...Marked vertical 'activity' lines occur at the height of UTERINE
CONTRACTION/TRANSFUSION PEAKS..." (emphasis added)
Dr. Morley discussing Gunther M. The Transfer of
Blood Between the Baby and the Placenta. Lancet 1957;I:1277-1280.
http://www.cordclamping.com/cry.htm
Sincerely,
Ericka Kammerer
No FAQ that I'm aware of. You can get abstracts on PubMed, if
you like:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
Best wishes,
Ericka
Todd Gastaldo
See below.
in article DsmdnZ2dnZ2UnkWwnZ2dn...@comcast.com, Ericka
Kammerer at e...@comcast.net wrote on 8/28/05 11:13 AM:
Sorry to be so persistent but I sincerely believe MDs are committing rather
obvious (easily stopped) mass child abuse and I would like to see it end as
soon as possible.
Ericka, do you agree that Dr. Morley's baby asphyxiation experiment is
obvious child abuse?
Note Dr. Morley's word "asphyxia"...
"[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The
[fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color
will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue
(vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be
able to observe...a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on
a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon
release the finger and thumb."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ac og-cp.htm
FOR ANY NEW READERS...
As I asked in my original reply to Mogget...
Is there ANYONE who thinks it is right/legal for OB/GYNs to experiment with
asphyxiating babies?
Remember: Dr. Morley encourages this grisly experiment to encourage
obstetricians to demonstrate to themselves that it is not right to rob
babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
I must admit that I enjoy reading PubMed - so I liked Ericka's "get
abstracts on PubMed" recommendation.
But if I were a baby about to be born, I would want every mother reporting
the obvious child abuse - or pointing out why she doesn't think it is child
abuse.
Ericka, do you agree that Dr. Morley's baby asphyxiation experiment is
obvious child abuse? Some recent PubMed abstracts appear to me to be
anti-scientific medical ploys to re-define "delayed" clamping so that
immediate clamping doesn't look like the obvious child abuse that (I say) it
is...
Remember, according to Dr. Morley, in EVERY CESEAREAN BIRTH obstetricians
CONTINUE the grisly asphyxiation experiment - force the baby to breathe with
his/her lungs before he/she is ready - in the process robbing babies of up
to 50% of their blood volume.
I would like to hear from ANYONE who agrees with me that this is obvious
child abuse.
And if you (Ericka?) don't agree - I would like to hear why not....
Women shouldn't have to ASK for the "extra" up to 50% of blood for their
babies.
Most women don't KNOW to ask.
Attorney generals are silently harming some of The People - some of the
tiniest people.
"Libertarian" Steve B. Harris, MD told everyone how MDs get away
with obvious crimes:
"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
I think there are a LOT of adults who don't understand that attorney
generals remain silent in accord with organized medicine's "elementary
principles" - laws be damned - babies be damned.
As usual, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students
MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.
Todd
sbha...@ix.netcom.com
Jo wrote:
> I think with the active management of 3rd stage, you 'have to' clamp
> early so that blood from the placenta isn't *forced* into the baby with
> the unnaturally large contraction that the synthetic oxytocin causes to
> detatch the placenta. That's the explanation I was given when I was a
> Midwifery Student. I don't see why they can't delay the synto until the
> cord has been clamped, *after* it has stopped pulsating.
>
> Jo (Mum to Will, 3 months old!)
COMMENT:
Certainly this seems logical if only 30-45 seconds clamp delay gives a
decrease in cerebral hemorrhage probability (which Cochrane database
meta analysis thinks it does). Unless there's some horrid tearing
emergency going (like mom is bleeding out from placenta previa, or
needs CPR or there's a fire in the delivery room or, etc), slipping in
another 30 sec before the cord is clamped in normal deliveries, and
especially premature infant deliveries where there IS a significant
later risk of intraventricular hemorrhage, doesn't seem unreasonable.
What can happen in 30 sec if there's no emergency? The worst thing on
the clock is fetal asphyxia time, and that doesn't count if you're got
it on nature's heart-lung bypass :).
SBH
PS. Of course, this doesn't mean that Gastaldo isn't certifiable. He is.
Todd Gastaldo
them to breathe through their lungs before they are ready - and in the
process robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
Fortunately, it is easy for you to make sure your baby gets the "extra" up
to 50% of blood volume.
See below.
STEVE B. HARRIS, MD IS A COWARD - BABIES BE DAMNED
Steve B. Harris, MD fails to report the obvious mass child abuse/baby
asphyxiation/baby blood robbery being committed by his fellow MDs.
FACT: If cultural authorities called MDs don't report MD-crime - attorney
generals usually won't enforce the law.
Steve B. Harris, MD DEPENDS on this fact, writing:
"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
Steve B. Harris, MD is a coward - babies be damned.
I now remark on Steve's most recent comments in reply to a midwife...
Jo wrote:
>> I think with the active management of 3rd stage, you 'have to' clamp
>> early so that blood from the placenta isn't *forced* into the baby with
>> the unnaturally large contraction that the synthetic oxytocin causes to
>> detatch the placenta. That's the explanation I was given when I was a
>> Midwifery Student. I don't see why they can't delay the synto until the
>> cord has been clamped, *after* it has stopped pulsating.
>>
>> Jo (Mum to Will, 3 months old!)
Steve B. Harris, MD replied:
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Certainly this seems logical if only 30-45 seconds clamp delay gives a
> decrease in cerebral hemorrhage probability (which Cochrane database
> meta analysis thinks it does).
If a baby is still transfusing blood to him or herself at 30-45 seconds in a
normal birth, it is criminal to stop that transfusion - regardless what
Cochrane database meta analysis thinks.
Sadly, there are many normal births where transfusion is stopped IMMEDIATELY
thereby robbing the baby of up to 50% of his/her blood volume. This
practice is being promoted as "cord blood banking"...
In addition, retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG
indicates that EVERY CESAREAN BABY is being robbed of up to 50% of blood
volume.
Steve B. Harris, MD ignores this MASSIVE emergency caused by his fellow MDs
- and calls attention to relatively infrequent occurences, as in,
> Unless there's some horrid tearing
> emergency going (like mom is bleeding out from placenta previa,
> or
> needs CPR or there's a fire in the delivery room or, etc),
> slipping in
> another 30 sec before the cord is clamped in normal deliveries, and
> especially premature infant deliveries where there IS a significant
> later risk of intraventricular hemorrhage, doesn't seem unreasonable.
> What can happen in 30 sec if there's no emergency? The worst thing on
> the clock is fetal asphyxia time, and that doesn't count if you're got
> it on nature's heart-lung bypass :).
<snip>
Ignoring the obvious mass child abuse and focusing on infrequent emergencies
is COWARDICE.
(BTW, has Steve B. Harris, MD manufactured emergencies that require cord
clamping/cutting? Why couldn't a mother be given CPR without robbing the
baby of blood volume? Why couldn't mother and child be wheeled out of a
burning delivery room without robbing the baby of blood volume? Regardless
- when babies are ROUTINELY being asphyxiated/robbed of massive amounts of
blood - you don't ignore that - unless you are protecting your fellow MDs.
That is what the cowardly Steve B. Harris, MD is doing.)
Cowardly Steve B. Harris, MD diagnoses me as insane.
> PS. Of course, this doesn't mean that Gastaldo isn't certifiable. He is.
>
I must indeed be insane. After all, Steve is an MD and "the intellectual
foundation of medical care...is...whatever a physician decides is by
definition correct." [Eddy DM. The challenge. (Jan12)1990 JAMA]
In this case, however, whatever a physician decides is NOT correct.
Steve B. Harris, MD is deciding that he does not wish to address obvious
mass child abuse.
Steve B. Harris, MD is a coward - babies be damned.
Steve B. Harris, MD recently killfiled me, writing:
"Google this, Gastaldo: **PLONK**"
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/6f1eec8fb7f3175b
Here's the exchange that caused Steve to killfile me....
I wrote:
<snip>
>> Keeping in mind that most newborns are still breathing through their
>> umbilical cords at birth...
>> Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG indicates that
>> EVERY CESAREAN BABY is having its umbilical cord immediately clamped.
Steve B. Harris, MD snipped substantially and wrote:
> COMMENT:
> Since resuscitation is done at another site,
Steve, I think it best to REDESIGN "another site" so that mother can be
wheeled there with baby still attached to the natural
transfusion/oxygenation device rather than routinely asphyxiating babies and
robbing blood from them.
> and you can't move the
> baby out of the operating field till the cord is clamped and cut,
First consideration: Many babies are very likely only in an "operating
field" in the first place because of OB/GYN lies - for example OB/GYNs are
lying to cover-up the fact they are closing birth canals up to 30%.
Second consideration: You are euphemizing. "Cord clamped and cut" is
euphemism for "baby being amputated from mother and anti-scientifically
denied benefit of natural transfusion/oxygenation device."
Third consideration: The baby blood robbery crime isn't just happening in
cesarean births. It is being PROMOTED [cord blood banking - TG] - as
OB/GYNs stupidly assist the promoters - and lie to cover-up the fact they
are routinely closing birth canals up to 30%.
Fourth consideration: OB/GYNs are committing LOTS of obvious crimes.
See Birth Danger: Cal Chiro Bd - SIMPLE QUESTION
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3526
When I noted that MDs are committing obvious crimes and that law enforcement
isn't enforcing the law.
You replied with typical MD arrogance:
"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ 28866f338...
See Libertarians: Crooked obstetrician Ron Paul, MD (also: Michael Badnarik
for Congress)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com /group/chiro-list/message/3789
> it
> seems rather stupid to sit there and wait too long.
Speaking of stupid Steve, please note your arrogance babies be damned.
As long as law enforcement looks the other way, the grisly MD silence game
will work.
> You have to
> resuscitate sometime. How long to wait is a good question. Perhaps we
> can have some OB-GYN input?
I AGREE WITH STEVE B. HARRIS, MD...
Yes - it is time for OB-GYNs to account for themselves. First, they need to
account for the fact that the baby blood robbery crime isn't just happening
in cesarean births. It is being PROMOTED - as OB/GYNs stupidly assist the
promoters - and lie to cover-up the fact they are routinely closing birth
canals up to 30%.
Surely all OB-GYNs can agree that that bizarre TEMPORARY baby asphyxiation
experiment being promoted by Dr. Morley should never be attempted...
Here it is again....note the word "asphyxia"...
"[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The
[fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color
will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue
(vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be
able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on
a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon
release the finger and thumb."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ac og-cp.htm
[PREGNANT WOMEN: To make sure your baby gets the "extra" up to 50% of blood,
tell the obstetrician not to clamp the cord until it stops pulsating and
your baby is pink and breathing and not in need of resuscitation.]
Steve, you do agree that OB/GYNs should not be experimenting with
asphyxiating babies temporarily, right?
> As for premature infants born vaginally, evidence does support 30 to
> 120 seconds of delay before cord clamping.
Evidence supports the fact that a massive baby asphyxiation/baby blood
robbery crime is being commmitted by OB/GYNs and CNMwives.
Evidence supports the fact that criminals will do everything possible to
make it look like they haven't committed a crime.
My view: OB/GYNs and CNMwives are cooperating to get 30 seconds defined as
"delayed" clamping.
See 'Scientifically' supporting mass child abuse by MDs...
http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ 7e3e71a8f...
> Need for transfusion and
> (more importantly) interventricular brain hemmorhage seems to be
> decreased by doing this.
Yes, Steve-o, when you let the baby transfuse more of his or her OWN blood
to himself or herself - "need for transfusion" will very likely "seem...to
be decreased by doing this."
> Here's a full Cochrane review on the very
> subject.
> http://www.mrw.interscience.wi ley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/arti cles/CD00...
> e.html
I've discussed this very paper...
See again: 'Scientifically' supporting mass child abuse by MDs...
http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ 7e3e71a8f...
The authors, Heike Rabe, MD, PhD et al.^^^ write:
"Early clamping allows for immediate resuscitation of the newborn..."
<---BIZARRE
^^^Rabe H, Reynolds G, Diaz-Rossello J. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct
18;(4):CD003248. PubMed abstract
I copied Heike before - but she never got back to me...
I'll copy her again:
Heike Rabe, MD, PhD
Consultant Neonatologist
Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals
Brighton BN2 5BE (UK)
Tel. +44 1273 696955, Fax +44 1273 664795,
E-Mail heike.r...@bsuh.nhs.uk
Heike, you are a neonatologist - why haven't neonatal resuscitation stations
been redesigned so that mother and baby can be wheeled under keeping the
natural oxygenation/transfusion device attached?
Is there some technical obstacle?
Again, my view: OB/GYNs and CNMwives are cooperating to get 30 seconds
defined as "delayed" clamping.
They know they are committing crime - they know they are abusing babies -
they know they are using cultural authority to cover-up.
Sorry to be redundant, but I say again Steve: When I noted that MDs are
committing obvious crimes and that law enforcement
isn't enforcing the law.
You replied:
"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ 28866f338...
I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students, MDs are
TRAINED to perform felonies.
See Libertarians: Crooked obstetrician Ron Paul, MD (also: Michael Badnarik
for Congress)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com /group/chiro-list/message/3789