The cord blood volume standard drives child abuse
Todd Gastaldo
very end of this post.
PREGNANT WOMEN: Do NOT let the obstetrician immediately clamp your baby's
umbilical cord - talk to your OB about this today.
Immediate cord clamping/cord blood harvesting temporarily asphyxiates babies
and robs them of massive amounts of blood volume and blood cells that they
would otherwise have transfused to themselves.
THE CORD BLOOD VOLUME STANDARD DRIVES THIS CHILD ABUSE
Francis Verter, PhD and Joana Ramos say:
"Public banks reject a large fraction of...cord blood donations...the
majority of these rejections are based on 'low' volume...It could be argued
that...the volume standard should be open to reconsideration."
http://www.parentsguidecordblood.com/CBDonorConcerns.html
Peter Hollands, PhD says:
"It is well known that it is often difficult to obtain sufficient
cells for a transplant from an umbilical cord blood sample."
http://www.myelinresearch.com/2002_08_01_archive.html
http://www.ivf.net/artman/publish/article_89.shtml
Babies are BORN with "sufficient cells" - we are robbing them without their
consent. We should take only what they leave.
OPEN LETTER (archived for global access; see below)
Matthew L. Schissler
Chairman & CEO of Cord Blood America, parent company to Cord
Partners, Inc. (www.cordpartners.com), a private cord blood banking
company.
m...@cordpartners.com
Matthew,
The volume standard is no doubt partly responsible for the obvious child
abuse called "immediate cord clamping." (Peter Hollands, PhD offered a dodge
when I put the issue of timing of clamping. See below.)
Does Cord Blood America explicitly state anywhere that cord blood should
only be harvested after the cord has stopped pulsating and the baby is pink
and breathing and not in need of resuscitation?
I am in favor of cord blood banking as long as the baby is not robbed of
blood volume (and blood cells, including stem cells) that s/he would
otherwise have transfused to him/herself.
Thank you for posting to the usenet (misc.kids.pregnancy) and recommending
the website maintained by Francis Verter, PhD quoted above.
I will copy Francis via fve...@his.com.
Hopefully, she will state right up front on www.parentsguidecordblood.com
website she maintains that cord blood should
only be harvested after the cord has stopped pulsating and the baby is pink
and breathing and not in need of resuscitation.
Hopefully you will do the same on the Cord Blood America website.
ALL cord blood banking websites should call attention to the child abuse and
the simple way to end it - by stopping immediate cord clamping.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
to...@chiromotion.com
PS Pediatricians indicate that immediate cord clamping is UNETHICAL...
"The importance of larger numbers of stem cells to the success of
engraftment could encourage...cord clamping is done too soon after
birth...the infant may be deprived of a placental blood transfusion,
resulting in lower blood volume and increased risk for anemia in later
life...There may be a temptation to practice immediate cord clamping
aggressively to increase the volume of cord blood that can be harvested for
cord blood banking. This practice is unethical and should be
discouraged...."
PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118
PETER HOLLANDS' CORD CLAMP TIMING DODGE...
"In terms of cord blood collection we do not advocate either early or late
clamping, simply normal practice."
--Peter Hollands, PhD to Todd Gastaldo, DC
Peter Hollands, PhD
Peter,
Your glib sentence is a dodge.
Immediate cord clamping IS "simply normal practice" - in babies with medical
problems at delivery (!), as in your statement,
...[B]abies with medical problems at delivery...[should have their cords]
clamped immediately so [they] can be attended to by neonatal
paediatricians..."
Babies with medical problems at delivery may be suffering BRAIN DAMAGE and,
as you say,
"If there were damaged areas of brain...then stem cells could potentially
repair these lesions."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Can stem cells cure Epilepsy?)
I was pleased to see that AAP says in its cord blood banking statement:
"Cord blood collection should not be done in complicated deliveries..."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/104/1/116
Complicated deliveries can be a cause of "medical problems at delivery."
I believe OBs are causing some complicated deliveries by closing birth
canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck.
I hope you will inform pregnant women in your circle of family and friends
and tell them how easy it is for them to allow their birth canals to open
the "extra" up to 30%.
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
to...@chiromotion.com
PS I quoted AAP:
"[I]mmediate cord clamping aggressively...is unethical and should be
discouraged...."
PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118
I forgot to add: ALL immediate cord clamping is agressive [since] the baby
is robbed of blood or blood products that s/he would otherwise have
tranfused to him/herself...
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Hollands
To: Todd Gastaldo
Cc: chiro...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: A sad birthday...and Dr. Hollands' 'logical medical
thought'...
Dear Todd,
Thank you for this interesting information. In terms of cord blood
collection we do not advocate either early or late clamping, simply normal
practice.
Regards,
Peter
Dr Peter Hollands PhD, CSci, FIBMS
Scientific Director
Cells for Life Ltd & Victoria Angel Registry of Hope
www.cellsforlife.com
All information in this email is confidential and intended solely for the
addressee. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this
information is prohibited and may be unlawful. Although Cells for Life
strives to maintain a virus-free network, all recipients are advised to
check this email and any attachments for viruses. Cells for Life shall not
accept any liability for the transmission or emanation of viruses from this
email.
----- Original Message -----
From: Todd Gastaldo
To: pet...@cellsforlife.com
Cc: chiro...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 3:04 PM
Subject: A sad birthday...and Dr. Hollands' 'logical medical thought'...
A SAD BIRTHDAY...AND DR. HOLLAND'S "LOGICAL MEDICAL THOUGHT"...
For the sad birthday, see below.
TIPS FOR PREGNANT WOMEN: Dr. Hollands' 'logical medical thought'
(immediate cord clamping so neonatologists can resuscitate) is NOT logical
according to George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB, FACOG, i.e.,
OB or CNMwives should not clamp your baby's cord until it has stopped
pulsating and your baby is pink and breathing and not in need of
resuscitation.
Also, do not let the OB or CNMwife place you dorsal or semisitting as
you push your baby out - unless you want your birth canal closed up to 30%.
It's easy to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%. See the
URL in the postscript.
Talk to your OB or CNMwife about these matters BEFORE your birth.
PETER HOLLANDS, PhD (Cells for Life, Ltd), please rethink your "logical
medical thought."
See below.
THE SAD BIRTHDAY...
Kelly Moscarello wrote to me on Jan. 16, 2005:
"Today is [little Bella's] 2nd birthday. No presents or party as she
cannot open up any presents and she will vomit at the sight of cake. Maybe
next year. :) I hope...My friend...who I met in Fort Lauderdale Florida,
had a severely brain injured child too. Her name was Lief. She died on
Thursday nite. She was born August 26th, and was comatose, vent-dependent,
tube-fed, etc, etc. She died without ever once having opened her eyes to
look at her mom. So sad."
OPEN LETTER
Kelly Moscarello
Kelly,
Thank you for calling my attention back to immediate cord clamping after
Donna Young first called my attention to it...
I will try to always mention your little Bella whenever I write about
immediate cord clamping.
I was really hoping that the idea of hospitals paying for oxygen for
brain-injured babies (HBOT) would catch on given that hospitals are blithely
DENYING babies oxygen at birth.
With hospitals STILL asphyxiating babies routinely, who knows the idea
still might catch on - it could even catch on after hospitals stop
asphyxiating babies at birth.
ASPHYXIATION OF BABIES
Some readers of this Open Letter may not yet be aware that
birth-canal-closing (see the postscript) and immediate cord clamping are
BOTH terrible asphyxiations.
WORSE...
Immediate cord clamping robs babies of significant numbers of STEM CELLS
thought to be able to repair brain tissue...
Peter Hollands, PhD (Cells for Life, Ltd) writes:
"If there were damaged areas of brain...then stem cells could
potentially
repair these lesions."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Can stem cells cure Epilepsy?)
Bizarrely, Peter Hollands, PhD (Cells for Life, Ltd) writes:
"This concept of not clamping until the cord stops pulsating has no
basis in logical medical thought...[B]abies with medical problems at
delivery...[should have their cords] clamped immediately so [they] can be
attended to by neonatal paediatricians..."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Click on "Share your learnings" then
on
"I don't recommend cord blood banking" <---Note: Someone else wrote
this. Peter RECOMMENDS blood banking - and so do I - but whereas I say we
should never immediately clamp cords - Peter is in favor of immediate
clamping "babies with medical problems.")
(Kelly, thanks for calling my attention to some of these quotes from
Peter Hollands, PhD.)
PETER...
WHAT ABOUT BABIES WITH **BRAIN DAMAGE** MEDICAL PROBLEMS AT DELIVERY?
What if stem cells DO repair brain lesions?
What if little Bella's cerebral palsy would have been LESS - perhaps FAR
less - had the paramedic not aped MDs in immediately clamping little Bella's
cord - cutting off her access to her placental stem cells?
We can't know - but we can WONDER whether little Bella would have used
more stem cells to repair her brain...
Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB, FACOG attacks your
"logical medical thought."
According to Dr. Morley, immediate cord clamping creates "asphyxiated,
hypovolemic" babies - perhaps causing some cases of AUTISM and CEREBRAL
PALSY, as in,
"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is
immediate
cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies. The child's only
functioning source of oxygen - the placenta - is amputated together with
30%
to 50+% of its natural blood volume. Total asphyxia is imposed until the
lungs function...[as]...the depressed (asphyxiated, hypovolemic) child
starts its
extra-uterine life in hypovolemic shock...
"B138 was first published in 1993. Every cesarean section baby, every
depressed child, every premie, and every child born with a neonatal team
in
the delivery room has its cord clamped immediately to facilitate the
panicked rush to the resuscitation table. The current epidemic of
immediate
cord clamping coincides with an epidemic of autism.
"For the trial lawyers, it is essential that the 'true genesis' of
cerebral
palsy remains unknown, because that 'true genesis' (B.138) is a standard
of
medico-legal care..."
http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm
Peter Hollands, PhD once wrote:
"It is well known that it is often difficult to obtain sufficient
cells for a transplant from an umbilical cord blood sample."
http://www.myelinresearch.com/2002_08_01_archive.html
http://www.ivf.net/artman/publish/article_89.shtml
It only "logical" to immediately clamp cords if one is trying to "obtain
sufficient cells for a transplant."
(There are truly logical occasions to immediately clamp - but they arise
only rarely.)
PEDIATRICIANS TO THE RESCUE...
"The importance of larger numbers of stem cells to the success of
engraftment could encourage...cord clamping is done too soon after
birth...the infant may be deprived of a placental blood transfusion,
resulting in lower blood volume and increased risk for anemia in later
life...There may be a temptation to practice immediate cord clamping
aggressively to increase the volume of cord blood that can be harvested for
cord blood banking. This practice is unethical and should be
discouraged...."
PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118
KEY POINT: Immediate cord clamping forces babies to "donate" cord stem
cells to OTHER PEOPLE.
Now, to be sure, in umbilical cord blood banking promotion, the OTHER
PEOPLE are the babies themselves - LATER IN LIFE - but...
F. Leonard Johnson, MD of Oregon Health and Science University/OHSU
says:
"...[A]t most only 0.04 percent of the cord blood units stored for
the baby's exclusive use might actually be used--and this is very likely
a
gross overestimate."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id21.htm
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3086
Since an estimated 4.6% of "healthy" term neonates suffer unexplained
brain bleeds.
Since there are unexplained paralyses and unexplained DEATHS following
birth...
I think 100% of babies would want ALL of their stem cells at birth and
not have some that they would otherwise have tranfused to themselves stored
for them for use later in life.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
to...@chiromotion.com
PS Kelly, thanks for writing to find out if I am doing OK. I was pretty
depressed recently. I'm much better now; but obviously, some depression
about this or that is a picnic compared to having to care 24-7 for a
brain-injured child.
Copied to:
Peter Hollands, PhD
Scientific Director
Cells for Life Ltd.
#201-377 Church Street
Markham, Ontario,
Canada L6B 1A1
Tel: 905 472 0060
Email: pet...@cellsforlife.com
http://www.ivf.ca/phollands.htm
Peter,
Some more "logical medical thought" for you...
Williams Obstetrics teaches medical students to close birth canals up to
30% and KEEP birth canals closed when babies get stuck. See The Four OB
Lies at the URL given below.
Williams Obstetrics teaches medical students to pull on tiny spines with
hands, forceps and vacuums - with the birth canal closed up to 30%.
It's gruesome mass spinal manipulation by MDs...
OBs sometimes pull so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal
cords.
Some babies die - some babies get paralyzed - most "only" have their
spines gruesomely wrenched.
ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal senselessly
closed up to 30%.
Additionally, OBs are committing SURGICAL felonies/batteries - slicing
vaginas/abdomens en masse (episiotomy/c-section) - surgically/fraudulently
inferring they are doing/have done everything possible to open birth
canals - even as they close birth canals up to 30%.
To be sure, allowing birth canals to open the "extra" up to 30% will not
prevent all episiotomies or c-sections or instrumental deliveries - but
there is no reason women should have to ask for the "extra" up to 30% - no
reason for OBs to keep birth canals closed when babies get stuck.
For The Four OB Lies - and for details on gruesome spinal manipulation
by OBs - and for simple
instructions on how easy it is for women to OPEN the birth canal the
"extra"
up to 30%...
See Pediatricians: What about DURING birth?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3142
Peter, you once offered a hypothetical situation...
"A couple with two children and one of the parents suffers damage to the
spine in an accident resulting in paralysis from the neck down. The couple
decide that they would like to create an embryo to provide stem cells to
repair the damage to the spine and give that parent the chance to return to
normal life. Is this acceptable?"
http://www.ivf.net/artman/publish/article_89.shtml
How can you say,
"...[B]abies with medical problems at delivery...[should have their
cords] clamped immediately so [they] can be attended to by neonatal
paediatricians..." (?)
What if the medical problem is paralysis as in your hypothetical
situation?
What if stem cells help repair brachial plexus paralysis?
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
to...@chiromotion.com
This post will be archived for global access within 24 hours. Search
http://groups.google.com for "A sad birthday...and Dr. Hollands' 'logical
medical thought.'"
<m...@cordpartners.com> wrote in message
news:1106706305.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Ericka:
> I am the Chairman & CEO of Cord Blood America, parent company to Cord
> Partners, Inc. (www.cordpartners.com), a private cord blood banking
> company.
> In reading all of the comments attached, it is obvious that many
> people, including medical professionals, are misinformed about
> umbilical cord blood, its stem cells and the chances of use.
>
> I suggest you read up on the industry and really understand what you
> are discarding if you choose not to privately bank. There are 22
> private companies in the United States that provide cord blood banking.
> Some better than others. A good place to start is
> www.parentsguidecordblood.com, a non-biased website which talks about
> each and every company.
>
<snip>
>>>>>END Gastaldo's post to Cord Blood America
Copied to:
Peter Hollands, PhD
Scientific Director
Cells for Life Ltd.
#201-377 Church Street
Markham, Ontario,
Canada L6B 1A1
Tel: 905 472 0060
Email: pet...@cellsforlife.com
http://www.ivf.ca/phollands.htm
Peter,
Again, it was a dodge for you to say: "In terms of cord blood collection we
do not advocate either early or late clamping, simply normal practice."
Immediate cord clamping IS "simply normal practice" - in babies with medical
problems at delivery (!), as in your statement,
...[B]abies with medical problems at delivery...[should have their cords]
clamped immediately so [they] can be attended to by neonatal
paediatricians..."
Babies with medical problems at delivery may be suffering BRAIN DAMAGE and,
as you say,
"If there were damaged areas of brain...then stem cells could potentially
repair these lesions."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Can stem cells cure Epilepsy?)
Please explicitly advocate what retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley,
MB ChB, FACOG advocates...
Cord blood should only be harvested after the cord has stopped pulsating and
the baby is pink
and breathing and not in need of resuscitation.
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
to...@chiromotion.com
This Open Letter will be archived for global access in the Google usenet
archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "The cord blood volume
standard drives child abuse"
amyea...@gmail.com
<snip>
I know I'm new here, so I want to be clear that I mean this as
constructive criticism. Reading your posts is like hearing a shrill,
small dog (like a toy poodle) barking frantically into the wind.
You're such an alarmist that I have a very difficult time taking
anything you say seriously. Maybe you should tone it down, because at
least as far as I'm concerned, any truth in your messages is being
completely lost in the delivery.
My doctor (an OBGYN, not a chiropractor, incidentally) told me that
collecting cord blood is safe, and that they collect a small amount of
blood. I have been told by multiple sources that there is no risk to
my baby or myself. I'm having it collected for research, so that I can
help advance the treatment of Huntington's disease, so that I can help
one of my best friends. She is going to die a horrible death if they
don't figure something out in the next 15 years or so. I think my baby
will be proud to know that s/he helped someone the very day s/he was
born.
I would encourage any woman who is on the fence to talk to her own
doctor about the risks and the benefits of cord blood donation. And
again, I welcome any woman who would like more information about
donation for research purposes to contact me. I would be happy to
share what I have learned.
Sincerely,
Amy
Renee
You're going to be told that OBs are lying. :)
Renee
Todd Gastaldo
also: WOOF! : )
<amyea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106926091....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Todd wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I know I'm new here, so I want to be clear that I mean this as
> constructive criticism.
Amy, if no one has welcomed you, let me be the first to do so.
> Reading your posts is like hearing a shrill,
> small dog (like a toy poodle) barking frantically into the wind.
Strangely enough, my wife has two small poodle-like dogs (Bichon Frises)!
> You're such an alarmist that I have a very difficult time taking
> anything you say seriously.
I do not speak in euphemism, that's for sure.
1. OBs really are routinely closing birth canals up to 30% and routinely
keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck - and LYING to cover-up -
and sometimes pulling so hard on babies' skulls (with hands, forceps and
vacuums) that they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords.
2. OBs really are temporarily asphyxiating babies and robbing them of
massive blood volume - including massive numbers of stem cells - that they
would otherwise have transfused to themselves. See the quote from Dr.
Morley below.
> Maybe you should tone it down, because at
> least as far as I'm concerned, any truth in your messages is being
> completely lost in the delivery.
>
If you perceive error (above and beyond your tone concerns) - please point
it out - preferably publicly.
> My doctor (an OBGYN, not a chiropractor, incidentally) told me that
> collecting cord blood is safe, and that they collect a small amount of
> blood.
I agree that it is safe if they only take what the baby leaves - NO
IMMEDIATE CORD CLAMPING - let the cord stop pulsating and make sure the baby
is pink and breathing and not in need of resuscitation before clamping.
Does your OB/GYN recommend this?
> I have been told by multiple sources that there is no risk to
> my baby or myself.
>
The American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP sees risk in immediate cord
clamping...
"The importance of larger numbers of stem cells to the success of
engraftment could encourage...cord clamping...too soon after
birth...the infant may be deprived of a placental blood transfusion,
resulting in lower blood volume and increased risk for anemia in later
life...There may be a temptation to practice immediate cord clamping
aggressively to increase the volume of cord blood that can be harvested for
cord blood banking. This practice is unethical and should be
discouraged...."
PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118
Please note especially: "There may be a temptation to practice immediate
cord clamping aggressively...This practice is unethical and should be
discouraged...."
PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118
According to Peter Hollands, PhD if their are medical problems at delivery,
it is STANDARD to yield to this "aggressive" temptation without banking any
cord blood!!
As I wrote to Peter...
it was a dodge for you to say: "In terms of cord blood collection we
do not advocate either early or late clamping, simply normal practice."
Immediate cord clamping IS "simply normal practice" - in babies with medical
problems at delivery (!), as in your statement,
...[B]abies with medical problems at delivery...[should have their cords]
clamped immediately so [they] can be attended to by neonatal
paediatricians..."
Babies with medical problems at delivery may be suffering BRAIN DAMAGE and,
as you say,
"If there were damaged areas of brain...then stem cells could potentially
repair these lesions."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Can stem cells cure Epilepsy?)
ALL immediate cord clamping is agressive/unethical since the baby
is robbed of blood or blood products that s/he would otherwise have
tranfused to him/herself...
> I'm having it collected for research, so that I can
> help advance the treatment of Huntington's disease, so that I can help
> one of my best friends. She is going to die a horrible death if they
> don't figure something out in the next 15 years or so.
Amy, I am sorry that one of your best friends will die a horrible death "if
they don't figure something out"...
> I think my baby
> will be proud to know that s/he helped someone the very day s/he was
> born.
>
As long as they harvest for banking only what your baby leaves - I think
banking your baby's cord blood is great!
I note that you wrote of the cord blood banking company you will be using...
"I am not affiliated with them in any way - I'm just a pregnant lady..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/6822319c961f81af
Why not post the name of the company?
Why not say whether the company explicitly recommends against immediate cord
clamping?
> I would encourage any woman who is on the fence to talk to her own
> doctor about the risks and the benefits of cord blood donation.
>
I too encourage women - esp. pregnant women - to talk to their doctors.
Pregnant women shouldn't have to ask about the "extra" up to 30% - but
that's the way it is - so they NEED to talk to their OBs. With many OBs
engaging in immediate cord clamping - they also need to talk to their
doctors about that. Sad but true.
> And
> again, I welcome any woman who would like more information about
> donation for research purposes to contact me. I would be happy to
> share what I have learned.
>
Again, Amy, you wrote:
> Maybe you should tone it down, because at
> least as far as I'm concerned, any truth in your messages is being
> completely lost in the delivery.
>
"Lost in the delivery" is appropriate phraseology! Two MDs on
misc.kids.pregnancy read my posts then denied their babies the "extra" up to
30% - one of the babies was "a tad stunned."
If you perceive error (above and beyond your tone concerns) - please point
it out - preferably publicly.
You said your OB says it is safe...
I agree that it is safe if they only take what the baby leaves - NO
IMMEDIATE CORD CLAMPING - let the cord stop pulsating and make sure the baby
is pink and breathing and not in need of resuscitation before clamping.
Does your OB/GYN recommend this?
When you ask your OB/GYN, please offer him the words of George Malcolm
Morley, MB ChB, FACOG...
According to Dr. Morley, immediate cord clamping creates "asphyxiated,
hypovolemic" babies - perhaps causing some cases of AUTISM and CEREBRAL
PALSY, as in,
"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is
immediate cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies. The child's only
functioning source of oxygen - the placenta - is amputated together with
30% to 50+% of its natural blood volume. Total asphyxia is imposed until the
lungs function...[as]...the depressed (asphyxiated, hypovolemic) child
starts its extra-uterine life in hypovolemic shock...
"B138 was first published in 1993. Every cesarean section baby, every
depressed child, every premie, and every child born with a neonatal team
in the delivery room has its cord clamped immediately to facilitate the
panicked rush to the resuscitation table. The current epidemic of
immediate cord clamping coincides with an epidemic of autism.
"For the trial lawyers, it is essential that the 'true genesis' of
cerebral palsy remains unknown, because that 'true genesis' (B.138) is a
standard
of medico-legal care..."
http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm
Let BABIES have all the blood volume and stem cells they can transfuse to
themselves THEN harvest...
Woof! : )
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
to...@chiromotion.com
PS I see where Renee responded to Amy:
"You're going to be told that OBs are lying. :)"
Renee obviously has the gift of prophecy! LOL!
Since there may be readers who have never seen The Four OB Lies...
Here they are...
THE FOUR OB LIES
OB LIE #1. After MASSIVE change in the AP pelvic outlet diameter was
clinically demonstrated in 1911 and radiographically demonstrated in 1957,
the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that pelvic
diamaters DON'T CHANGE at delivery.
OB LIE #2. After Ohlsen pointed out in 1973 that pelvic diameters DO
change - the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that
their most frequent delivery position - dorsal - widens the outlet.
OB LIE #3. After I pointed out in 1992 that dorsal CLOSES - and so does
semisitting - the authors of Williams Obstetrics - put the correct
biomechanics in their 1993 edition - but kept in their text (in the same
paragraph!) - the dorsal widens bald lie that first called my attention to
their text...
OB LIE #4. OBs are actually KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get
stuck - and claiming they are doing everything to allow the birth canal open
maximally. (ACOG Shoulder Dystocia video - also forceps and vacuum births
are performed with the mother in lithotomy.)
See Make birth better: Dan Rather, before you leave CBS...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2983
I noted some of the OB lies in an Open Letter to the FTC years ago...
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html
ETHICAL VIOLATION
MDs are violating AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics, failing to strive to
expose the OB fraud and deception, as in,
"[AMA physician[s] shall...strive to expose those physicians...who engage in
fraud or deception."
"[AMA p]hysician[s] shall...seek changes in those requirements which are
contrary to the best interests of the patient."
"[AMA p]hysician[s] shall...make relevant information available to patients,
colleagues, and the public..."
http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/ethics/ethics_opinions53101.cfm
Regarding CORD CLAMPING and Amy's OB...
I would have thought that if Amy's OB told her that s/he lets the cord stop
pulsating and waits till the baby is pink and breathing and not in need of
resuscitation - that she would have said that.
Amy, is that what your OB told you?
Ericka Kammerer
> My doctor (an OBGYN, not a chiropractor, incidentally) told me that
> collecting cord blood is safe, and that they collect a small amount of
> blood.
It doesn't really matter how much they collect. They
collect after clamping and cutting the cord. As soon as they
clamp and cut the cord, your baby will no longer be getting
any of that blood. Depending on when the cord is clamped,
that could mean that your baby's blood volume can change by
25-45 percent, which is huge. Different people use different
protocols for collecting cord blood. Some want the cord
clamped as early as possible in order to harvest the maximum
amount of blood. Others are willing to wait and harvest
the cord blood after the cord has stopped pulsating. You
might be wise to discuss with your doctor when the cord
will be clamped in order to harvest the cord blood. If
the answer is that they will not wait until the cord has
stopped pulsating, you may wish to investigate whether that
is acceptable to you or if you wish to put some restrictions
(e.g., the cord can only be clamped early if the baby is
breathing well and pink).
Best wishes,
Ericka
bapayne
30% Birth canal
Letter to Dr. Hollands.
How many more times are you going to post about this?
Larry McMahan
have seen you here before. Welcome to the group.
And while I sympathize with you regarding Todd's posting style,
I think some of the conclusions you draw and not particularly
accurate. See comments below.
In misc.kids.pregnancy amyea...@gmail.com <amyea...@gmail.com> wrote:
: Todd wrote:
: <snip>
: I know I'm new here, so I want to be clear that I mean this as
: constructive criticism. Reading your posts is like hearing a shrill,
: small dog (like a toy poodle) barking frantically into the wind.
: You're such an alarmist that I have a very difficult time taking
: anything you say seriously. Maybe you should tone it down, because at
: least as far as I'm concerned, any truth in your messages is being
: completely lost in the delivery.
Talk to Daye. She is person on mkb who has been entrusted with the
task of teaching Todd to post more civilly and informatively. And
believe me, his posting style has improved greatly. You shoulda
been here 3 years ago. :-)
: My doctor (an OBGYN, not a chiropractor, incidentally) told me that
: collecting cord blood is safe, and that they collect a small amount of
: blood. I have been told by multiple sources that there is no risk to
: my baby or myself. I'm having it collected for research, so that I can
: help advance the treatment of Huntington's disease, so that I can help
: one of my best friends. She is going to die a horrible death if they
: don't figure something out in the next 15 years or so. I think my baby
: will be proud to know that s/he helped someone the very day s/he was
: born.
I think the comment that "there is not risk to my baby or myself" is a
slippery slope. That could be true, but there is a lot of room for
problems. Specifically, Todd's posts warns about the dangers of early
cord clamping. Ideally, the cord should not be clamped and cut until
it has stopped pulsating, and some people say not until the placenta
has delivered. There are numerous medical studies that show the
advantage of delayed clamping, primarily to the baby.
: I would encourage any woman who is on the fence to talk to her own
: doctor about the risks and the benefits of cord blood donation. And
: again, I welcome any woman who would like more information about
: donation for research purposes to contact me. I would be happy to
: share what I have learned.
I don't want to be too much of a cynic, but a lot of OBs don't practice
evidence based medicine. Rather they practice habit based medicine.
In addition to any discussions with doctors, I would suggest reading
the medical literature (peer-reviewed studies) and coming to an
independent conclusion based on the study results.
: Sincerely,
: Amy
Just because he is shrill doesn't mean he is not right!
Larry
Todd Gastaldo
Amy didn't say whether her OB or her cord blood banking company are opposed
to immediate cord clamping.
Amy didn't say whether her OB or her cord blodd banking company are in favor
of letting the cord stop pulsating and making sure the baby is pink and
breathing and not in need of resuscitation before clamping.
See Amy's OB (also: Woof! : )
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/674acce47568c767
BETH "bapayne" <bap...@gmail.com> now helpfully replies...
"Oh geez...here we go again...30% Birth canal...Letter to Dr. Hollands...How
many more times are you going to post about this?"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/fd64a5430b96bfc6
Beth,
OBs close birth canals up to 30% THOUSANDS of times per day around the
world.
OBs temporarily asphyxiate babies and rob massive amounts of blood from them
every day.
One or two posts a day is not too much to ask of myself - and if you don't
like it - just delete.
Peter Hollands, PhD offered a dodge instead of a straight answer.
I don't think Peter should be advising any blood banks since he thinks it's
"logical" to temporarily asphyxiate babies and rob them of blood in order to
resuscitate them
As I wrote to Peter...
it was a dodge for you to say: "In terms of cord blood collection we
do not advocate either early or late clamping, simply normal practice."
Immediate cord clamping IS "simply normal practice" - in babies with medical
problems at delivery (!), as in your statement,
...[B]abies with medical problems at delivery...[should have their cords]
clamped immediately so [they] can be attended to by neonatal
paediatricians..."
Babies with medical problems at delivery may be suffering BRAIN DAMAGE and,
as you say,
"If there were damaged areas of brain...then stem cells could potentially
repair these lesions."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Can stem cells cure Epilepsy?)
Beth, do *your* OB and cord blood bank company recommend against immediate
cord clamping?
Are they in favor of letting the cord stop pulsating and before clamping
making sure the baby is pink and breathing and not in need of resuscitation?
I am sorry to have bored you with the ongoing news that OBs are routinely
closing birth canals up to 30% and routinely keeping birth canals closed
when babies get stuck - but some women don't know about this.
Does your OB do semisitting or dorsal vaginal deliveries?
Just curious.
Some babies find out about this grisly news up close and personal - the hard
way - their mothers are not informed of what's about to happen.
That's why I post.
Larry McMahan
: How many more times are you going to post about this?
Whoops, you phrased the question wrong. We have NO idea
how many times Todd will post, but we can get a VERY GOOD
idea of HOW OFTEN he will post.
I would say probably a couple or 3 times a week.
:-)
Larry
Todd Gastaldo
"Larry McMahan" <mcm...@spike.cup.hp.com> wrote in message
news:41fa...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
I think that's a low estimate. : )
Todd
amyea...@gmail.com
"bark" a lot louder and longer than I can - I'm home early to take a
nap, and I simply don't have the energy to argue wth you. I love this
first trimester stuff.
1) My doctor made it extremely clear, and we agreed, that the cord
blood collection was our last priority. Yes, it's important, but if
there are difficulties during birth, our attention and efforts will be
focused on helping the baby and I though them. Research, while noble,
is secondary (tertiary) to our health. If anything goes wrong, our
plans to collect the blood are scrapped, period. So your alarmist
statements about brain damaged babies being "robbed" of "massive
amounts" of blood, yadda yadda, don't apply. Frankly, I can't imagine
any parent or doctor would say, "Gosh, the baby's in respiratory
failure, but they said on their birth plan that they want to blood
banked, so we'd better do that before we save the kid..." That's
absurd.
I'd be interested to know how many deliveries you've participated in...
You seem to have this idea that the medical establishment is out to
kill and injure babies, and I don't believe that's the case. While
I've had my share of run-ins with doctors (my husband's 90+ year old
grandma was taken, by me, to the ER because she was altered and short
of breath. We cooled our heels for 2 hours before a doc came, and by
then she was breathing normally and no longer altered. The doctor took
a cursory look at her and dismissed our fears. I told him to get his
ass on the phone with her doctor and tell her what I'd described,
because these symptoms were atypical for Grandmother, and sure enough,
she got a pacemaker later that week because I was right - I'm not one
who takes the word of doctors as gospel... and I'm not afraid to stand
up for myself and my loved ones against authority figures) I don't
think they're evil or that they have negative intentions.
2) I'm not posting the name of the company that's collecting our cord
blood because I feel that to be private information that I am unwilling
to share online. However, a pregnant woman who is considering donation
is welcome to e-mail me privately, I'll be happy to put her in contact
with the company.
3) I happen to have the info and consent forms right here, ready to be
taken to my OB at my next appointment and signed. They say, "After
your baby is born and the cord has been clamped and cut, the doctor can
collect the umbilical cord blood. There is no guarantee that your
baby's cord blood will be collected or stored. There are many reasons
that could prevent collection, such as staff unavailability, birth
complications, or other events making donations inappropriate."
And under "Potential Risks" it says:
"None. The collection of blood from you for the infectious disease
testing will be performed at the same time your blood is drawn after
you arrive at the hospital for delivery. The actual collection of the
cord blood from the umbilical cord occurs after your baby has been
delivered, the cord cut, and the afterbirth delivered. In some
instances, the collection of the cord blood may not be done in the same
room as you and your baby. Potential risk to your baby - None. Having
blood drawn for testing is a normal occurrence prior to delivery. The
amount of blood collected for the infectious disease testing is low
enough that it will not impact your health or the health of the baby."
They apparently take an extra vial or two from Mom before delivery to
test for AIDS and stuff, because there is such a small volume of cord
blood, they want to save that for research.
At no point in the literature I received does it instruct the doctor to
clamp the cord immediately, or to put the baby at risk for the sake of
blood collection.
I'm sorry, I am really, really tired. I had a horrible night's sleep
last night, and I don't have any more energy to spare on this
conversation. By the time you read this, I'll be dreaming.
Amy
Ericka Kammerer
> At no point in the literature I received does it instruct the doctor to
> clamp the cord immediately, or to put the baby at risk for the sake of
> blood collection.
The problem is that many doctors do not believe there is
any problem with immediate cord clamping. In fact, some are still
operating according to outdated information where it was thought
*good* to clamp the cord quickly to avoid jaundice. So unless
you *specify* that you don't want the cord clamped until it has
stopped pulsating (which there is ample evidence to support
these days), it may well be your doctor's standard practice
to clamp quickly and he or she may believe that this is not
potentially harmful to the baby. I would merely suggest that
based on the evidence, you might wish to find out your doctor's
policy and investigate yourself whether you believe it is the
appropriate policy.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Larry McMahan
I would like to take exception to a couple of your points below:
: And under "Potential Risks" it says:
: "None.
That means no additional risk to you. That much I agree with. And
I agree that the collection of the blood itself will not impose any
risk to the baby since it will not require that the baby be stuck.
However, there may be a risk because of the collection protocol.
See additional comments below.
: At no point in the literature I received does it instruct the doctor to
: clamp the cord immediately, or to put the baby at risk for the sake of
: blood collection.
Aha, but I'll wager that at no point in the instructions they give you
does it say they will NOT clamp and cut the cord early. I tell you
what. Go back to your OB and ask if they will still do collection if
you demand that the cord not be clamped until the placenta delivers.
I'll bet they say "No way." Then ask if they will do collection if you
simply demand that they not do collection until the the cord stops
pulsating and you give specific permission. I'll bet they will hem and
haw and say they cannot guarantee collection, and they may even back
out. This is the acid test to see whether they are blowing smoke or
not.
There is enough medical evidence to show the latter provides a significant
medical benefit to the baby, and that the latter may provide an additional
benefit that I would not giwe it up to get cord blood collecgtion for
any reason.
Make sure they are not going to unwittingly remove that benefit.
Larry
amyea...@gmail.com
Todd Gastaldo wrote:
> AMY <amyea...@gmail.com> criticized me as barking into the wind...
>
> Amy didn't say whether her OB or her cord blood banking company are
opposed
> to immediate cord clamping.
>
> Amy didn't say whether her OB or her cord blodd banking company are
in favor
> of letting the cord stop pulsating and making sure the baby is pink
and
> breathing and not in need of resuscitation before clamping.
>
> See Amy's OB (also: Woof! : )
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/674acce47568c767
Thanks for the recap. You're an odd, odd man.
TODD didn't answer whether or not he had actually attended a birth.
TODD didn't answer the issue of whether or not he felt that there was
some vast conspiracy on the part of doctors to harm babies in the US.
TODD got all shrill and weird and, frankly, lost me completely, even
though I probably agree with him (I don't think laboring in the supine
position is the best idea, either, for example, but if I read "30%..."
one more time I'm going to scratch my eyes out...
TODD forced me to go find a real newsreader so I can have a real bozo
bin...
> OBs close birth canals up to 30% THOUSANDS of times per day around
the
> world.
*scratching...out...eyes*
Sincerely,
Amy
amyea...@gmail.com
I had requested in my first-draft birth plan, long before I started
posting and reading MKP, that the cord be clamped later than sooner, if
possible.
My issue with Todd isn't his message, necessarily, so much as his
alarmist posting style and the idea that there's some conspiracy to
harm women and their babies going on. That, I believe, is nuts.
Amy
bapayne
> My issue with Todd isn't his message, necessarily, so much as his
> alarmist posting style and the idea that there's some conspiracy to
> harm women and their babies going on. That, I believe, is nuts.
>
> Amy
I agree with this. Maybe Todd does believe there is a conspiracy.
Like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory. But my OB is great and I trust
her.
Todd does seem to loop OBs into one group..."does YOUR OB do this?" or
something of that nature.
There is a way of informing people without freaking them out or having
them think you're nuts.
Todd Gastaldo
<amyea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106956258.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Todd Gastaldo wrote:
>> AMY <amyea...@gmail.com> criticized me as barking into the wind...
>>
>> Amy didn't say whether her OB or her cord blood banking company are
> opposed
>> to immediate cord clamping.
>>
>> Amy didn't say whether her OB or her cord blodd banking company are
> in favor
>> of letting the cord stop pulsating and making sure the baby is pink
> and
>> breathing and not in need of resuscitation before clamping.
>>
>> See Amy's OB (also: Woof! : )
>>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/674acce47568c767
>
> Thanks for the recap. You're an odd, odd man.
>
If it is odd, odd to persistently protest OB lies and bizarre OB birth
behaviors like routinely closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth
canals closed when babies get stuck...
Then I am an odd, odd man.
> TODD didn't answer whether or not he had actually attended a birth.
>
Todd wasn't asked - and yes he actually attended a birth - but it's not
necessary to attend any births to see the OB lies.
> TODD didn't answer the issue of whether or not he felt that there was
> some vast conspiracy on the part of doctors to harm babies in the US.
>
Todd felt (and feels) that OBs are lying - NOT to harm babies (though this
is a consequence) - but rather to stay out of prison for closing birth
canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck - and
lying to cover-up.
Todd is in favor of pardons in advance for OBs. As med students OBs are
TRAINED to perform felonies.
> TODD got all shrill and weird and, frankly, lost me completely,
>
Most people to regard as "shrill and weird" the notion that powerful
cultural authorities are lying and closing birth canals up to 30% and
keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck.
It is rather unbelievable - but it is true.
> even
> though I probably agree with him (I don't think laboring in the supine
> position is the best idea, either, for example, but if I read "30%..."
> one more time I'm going to scratch my eyes out...
>
It's both supine and semisitting delivery positions that close the birth
canal up to 30%.
> TODD forced me to go find a real newsreader so I can have a real bozo
> bin...
>
Ad hominem noted. Use your delete key until you get a real newsreader.
>> OBs close birth canals up to 30% THOUSANDS of times per day around
> the
>> world.
>
> *scratching...out...eyes*
>
It's better just to hit the delete key until you get a real newsreader and
filter. : )
Todd
Ericka Kammerer
> I had requested in my first-draft birth plan, long before I started
> posting and reading MKP, that the cord be clamped later than sooner, if
> possible.
Then, with luck, all will be well.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Todd Gastaldo
see below.
SWEET DREAMS
See the very end of this post...
<amyea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106941958.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Ok, I'm not going to reply to all of this because frankly you can
> "bark" a lot louder and longer than I can - I'm home early to take a
> nap, and I simply don't have the energy to argue wth you. I love this
> first trimester stuff.
>
> 1) My doctor made it extremely clear, and we agreed, that the cord
> blood collection was our last priority. Yes, it's important, but if
> there are difficulties during birth, our attention and efforts will be
> focused on helping the baby and I though them. Research, while noble,
> is secondary (tertiary) to our health. If anything goes wrong, our
> plans to collect the blood are scrapped, period. So your alarmist
> statements about brain damaged babies being "robbed" of "massive
> amounts" of blood, yadda yadda, don't apply.
My "alarmist statements" are quite appropriate given that there are other
readers and obvious felonies.
You trivialize the FACT that immediate cord clamping is standard when their
are medical problems at birth. (See Peter's dodge below.)
You trivialize the fact that immediate cord clamping robs babies of massive
blood volume and massive numbers of stem cells (thought to have the
potential to repair brain damage).
> Frankly, I can't imagine
> any parent or doctor would say, "Gosh, the baby's in respiratory
> failure, but they said on their birth plan that they want to blood
> banked, so we'd better do that before we save the kid..." That's
> absurd.
>
Don't look now but...
Top cord blood banking expert Peter Hollands, PhD writes:
...[B]abies with medical problems at delivery...[should have their cords]
clamped immediately so [they] can be attended to by neonatal
paediatricians..."
I replied to Peter:
Babies with medical problems at delivery may be suffering BRAIN DAMAGE and,
as you say,
"If there were damaged areas of brain...then stem cells could potentially
repair these lesions."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Can stem cells cure Epilepsy?)
> I'd be interested to know how many deliveries you've participated in...
>
I've participated in three deliveries and been the sole attendant at one -
this last over my objections and at the insistence of the mother.
But it is NOT necessary to participate in deliveries to know that OBs are
telling obvious lies...
> You seem to have this idea that the medical establishment is out to
> kill and injure babies, and I don't believe that's the case.
If I thought MDs were out to kill and injure babies I wouldn't be in favor
of pardons in advance for MDs.
As med students MDs are TRAINED to perform felonies. That is the problem.
Once they become MDs, they are out to stay out of prison, maintain cultural
authority and not get sued into oblivion for the obvious felonies they
perform routinely.
Again, OBs are routinely closing birth canals up to 30% and routinely
keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck - and lying to cover-up.
The lying is perfectly understandable - but unconscionable.
> While
> I've had my share of run-ins with doctors (my husband's 90+ year old
> grandma was taken, by me, to the ER because she was altered and short
> of breath. We cooled our heels for 2 hours before a doc came, and by
> then she was breathing normally and no longer altered. The doctor took
> a cursory look at her and dismissed our fears. I told him to get his
> ass on the phone with her doctor and tell her what I'd described,
> because these symptoms were atypical for Grandmother, and sure enough,
> she got a pacemaker later that week because I was right - I'm not one
> who takes the word of doctors as gospel... and I'm not afraid to stand
> up for myself and my loved ones against authority figures) I don't
> think they're evil or that they have negative intentions.
>
MDs are NOT evil - they are stuck in the system - cultural authorities who
know they shouldn't be doing what they are doing - but they must not stop
because stopping would be tantamount to admitting the obvious felonies.
> 2) I'm not posting the name of the company that's collecting our cord
> blood because I feel that to be private information that I am unwilling
> to share online.
Suit yourself. Do ANY cord blood banks explicitly oppose immediate cord
clamping and explicitly recommend waiting until the cord stops pulsating and
baby is pink and breathing?
> However, a pregnant woman who is considering donation
> is welcome to e-mail me privately, I'll be happy to put her in contact
> with the company.
>
Yes, that's why I quoted that part of your email. That's very nice of you.
> 3) I happen to have the info and consent forms right here, ready to be
> taken to my OB at my next appointment and signed. They say, "After
> your baby is born and the cord has been clamped and cut,
Yep - reminds me of Peter Hollands' dodge...
PETER'S DODGE...
Peter wrote: "In terms of cord blood collection we
do not advocate either early or late clamping, simply normal practice."
I replied:
Immediate cord clamping IS "simply normal practice" - in babies with medical
problems at delivery (!), as in your statement,
...[B]abies with medical problems at delivery...[should have their cords]
clamped immediately so [they] can be attended to by neonatal
paediatricians..."
Babies with medical problems at delivery may be suffering BRAIN DAMAGE and,
as you say,
"If there were damaged areas of brain...then stem cells could potentially
repair these lesions."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Can stem cells cure Epilepsy?)
the doctor can
> collect the umbilical cord blood. There is no guarantee that your
> baby's cord blood will be collected or stored. There are many reasons
> that could prevent collection, such as staff unavailability, birth
> complications, or other events making donations inappropriate."
>
> And under "Potential Risks" it says:
>
> "None.
Voila! Peter's dodge! When risks of immediate cord clamping are blithely
ignored - OF COURSE there are no further risks to the baby - the baby has
been severed from his blood oxygen already!
> The collection of blood from you for the infectious disease
> testing will be performed at the same time your blood is drawn after
> you arrive at the hospital for delivery. The actual collection of the
> cord blood from the umbilical cord occurs after your baby has been
> delivered, the cord cut, and the afterbirth delivered.
Yep - that's the game - AFTER the cord is cut - it's Peter's dodge!
> In some
> instances, the collection of the cord blood may not be done in the same
> room as you and your baby. Potential risk to your baby - None.
Wouldn't this be the same as "Potential risks...None.." above?
> Having
> blood drawn for testing is a normal occurrence prior to delivery. The
> amount of blood collected for the infectious disease testing is low
> enough that it will not impact your health or the health of the baby."
>
> They apparently take an extra vial or two from Mom before delivery to
> test for AIDS and stuff, because there is such a small volume of cord
> blood, they want to save that for research.
>
BINGO! There is such a small volume of cord blood - and immediate clamping
increases the volume - that's the crime - "unethical" according to AAP.
Blood volume and blood cells which should be IN THE BABY are on the way
instead to the cord blood bank. It's child abuse to rob babies of massive
amounts of blood that they would otherwise have transfused to themselves.
According to George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB, FACOG, immediate cord clamping
> At no point in the literature I received does it instruct the doctor to
> clamp the cord immediately, or to put the baby at risk for the sake of
> blood collection.
>
Ummm... That's the game - it's Peter's dodge - it is STANDARD to clamp
immediately - if there are medical problems!
> I'm sorry, I am really, really tired. I had a horrible night's sleep
> last night, and I don't have any more energy to spare on this
> conversation. By the time you read this, I'll be dreaming.
>
Sweet dreams and I hope tonite's sleep is much, much better.
I mean that sincerely.
Todd
amyea...@gmail.com
Todd Gastaldo wrote:
> PETER'S DODGE
Ok, you know what, this Peter dude is NOT my doctor, and while you seem
to lump all OBs into one generic category, most of us are smart enough
to realize that not all OBs are the same person.
> <amyea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1106941958.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > So your alarmist
> > statements about brain damaged babies being "robbed" of "massive
> > amounts" of blood, yadda yadda, don't apply.
>
> My "alarmist statements" are quite appropriate given that there are
other
> readers and obvious felonies.
What felonies? Assisting a birth, and using one's best medical
judgment, is a felony?
> You trivialize the FACT that immediate cord clamping is standard when
their
> are medical problems at birth. (See Peter's dodge below.)
I'm not trivializing anything. I'm listening to my doctor (i.e.
someone who went to MEDICAL SCHOOL).
And Todd, just FYI, if my baby is born blue or whatever, and they have
to cut the cord so that they can resusitate him, I hope to God that
they do so. Because at that point, what happened in the womb is over,
and it's time to get oxygen like everyone else - by breathing - and if
that means that they need to cut the cord to get the baby to the
machines to help him breath, then I want them to do that. Again, I'm
going to listen to my doctor over anyone on Usenet.
Maybe, MAYBE if you weren't an alarmist, accusing innocent doctors of
felonies and of deliberately harming women and their babies, I *might*
have listened to you, but again, you completely lost me in the fact
that you read like a complete Usenet KoOk.
> > Frankly, I can't imagine
> > any parent or doctor would say, "Gosh, the baby's in respiratory
> > failure, but they said on their birth plan that they want to blood
> > banked, so we'd better do that before we save the kid..." That's
> > absurd.
>
> Don't look now but...
>
> Top cord blood banking expert Peter Hollands, PhD writes:
>
> ...[B]abies with medical problems at delivery...[should have their
cords]
> clamped immediately so [they] can be attended to by neonatal
> paediatricians..."
Let's see. The cord is a few feet long, at best, right? And my knees
and feet and whatnot are in the way, and the baby's not breathing, so
the doctors can't get to him to help him without liberating him totally
from my body and taking him across the room where they can get to him
easily. Yeah, cut the freaking cord and get my baby breathing. That
makes perfect sense to me. How long does it take for the cord to stop
pulsing, Todd? A minute? 10? How long can the human brain survive
without damage and without oxygen? Oh, wait, you don't know because
you didn't go to medical school... Ericka, you're smart - am I
remembering right from CPR class that you have about 4 minutes without
oxygen before you start killing off brain cells?
It seems to me that if the baby isn't breathing, it makes sense to get
him or her to start breathing as quickly as possible, and that they
can't well do that if they can't get access to his little body because
he's still attached to me. What would you have them do? Wait, and
watch the baby get bluer and bluer, until your precious blood has been
transfused (even though the total volume of blood isn't transfused -
see below, re: meat)? What if by then irreperable damage has been
done? You just love your hypotheticals... What if by waiting, you do
more harm than would've been done if you had cut the frigging cord and
gotten that baby to breathe?
And, PS and by the way, as I already demonstrated by quoting the
company that I'm donating to (by way of their literature) and my doctor
(from a conversation we had), if the baby is in any distress, the
collection is cancelled. Period. So you're mucking around in two
separate issues and confusing them both.
> I replied to Peter:
Blah blah blah, I'm not Peter so I'm not replying to any of this...
> Babies with medical problems at delivery may be suffering BRAIN
DAMAGE and,
> as you say,
>
> "If there were damaged areas of brain...then stem cells could
potentially
> repair these lesions."
> http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Can stem cells cure Epilepsy?)
Oh, yes I am. POTENTIALLY is a whole lot different from, "if that baby
doesn't start breathing it will DEFINITELY die." I'll take the steps
to prevent definite consequences before potential consequences any day.
> > I'd be interested to know how many deliveries you've participated
in...
> I've participated in three deliveries and been the sole attendant at
one -
> this last over my objections and at the insistence of the mother.
My doctor has delivered hundreds of babies. He wins. Hell, I've
participated in as many deliveries as you have...
> But it is NOT necessary to participate in deliveries to know that OBs
are
> telling obvious lies...
It is NOT necessary to participate in Usenet discussions to know that
people on Usenet are often KoOkS...
> > You seem to have this idea that the medical establishment is out to
> > kill and injure babies, and I don't believe that's the case.
>
> If I thought MDs were out to kill and injure babies I wouldn't be in
favor
> of pardons in advance for MDs.
Pardons for WHAT? You throw the "felony" thing around a lot. See
below. I would love it if you would quote, chapter and verse, any law
from any state in the U.S. that applies to any of the tripe you're
laying down in this thread.
> As med students MDs are TRAINED to perform felonies. That is the
problem.
> Once they become MDs, they are out to stay out of prison, maintain
cultural
> authority and not get sued into oblivion for the obvious felonies
they
> perform routinely.
I think my doctor's goal as an MD is more along the lines of keeping me
alive, keeping my baby alive (as in breathing), and keeping my husband
from passing out. And by doing those things, he's keeping himself from
being sued. I'd love to know what doctor smacked you on the butt too
hard when you were born and caused you to hate all doctors everywhere.
> Again, OBs are routinely closing birth canals up to 30% and routinely
> keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck - and lying to
cover-up.
> The lying is perfectly understandable - but unconscionable.
I think I have this memorized.
> MDs are NOT evil - they are stuck in the system - cultural
authorities who
> know they shouldn't be doing what they are doing - but they must not
stop
> because stopping would be tantamount to admitting the obvious
felonies.
Oh, bullshit. Doctors used to starve people with diabetes to the point
of near death because that was the only treatment available to them at
the time - the nearly starving patients lived longer than the ones who
were allowed to eat normally. When they figured out a better way, and
started using insulin and letting their patients eat again, did any of
them go to jail? No. That's the way medicine progresses, and in 100
years every last thing we do now as a matter of course will look
barbaric to the people of that time. Look at the things they did a
hundred years ago - or longer. My great grandmother, from arond 1910
to 1920 or so, put marijuana on her chest in a little bowl and inhaled
the smoke to treat her asthma. This treatment was prescribed by her
doctor. They prescribed cocaine and heroin for other things. None of
those doctors went to jail, because they were doing the best they could
with the knowledge and treatments that they had available to them at
the time.
I'd still love to see the statute that makes anything you've talked
about an actual felony. I'm betting you come back with some generic
child abuse statute.
> > 2) I'm not posting the name of the company that's collecting our
cord
> > blood because I feel that to be private information that I am
unwilling
> > to share online.
>
> Suit yourself. Do ANY cord blood banks explicitly oppose immediate
cord
> clamping and explicitly recommend waiting until the cord stops
pulsating and
> baby is pink and breathing?
Explicitly, I would bet not, because they probably leave the timing of
the clamping to the expert in the room (the doctor). As I've said ad
nauesaum, the baby's not breathing - the blood's not collected. Again,
you're confusing two separate issues.
> > 3) I happen to have the info and consent forms right here, ready
to be
> > taken to my OB at my next appointment and signed. They say, "After
> > your baby is born and the cord has been clamped and cut,
>
> Yep - reminds me of Peter Hollands' dodge...
>
> PETER'S DODGE...
Trying to have a discussion with you is like riding a merry go round.
Same scenery, over and over and over...
> Peter wrote: "In terms of cord blood collection we
> do not advocate either early or late clamping, simply normal
practice."
>
> I replied:
>
> Immediate cord clamping IS "simply normal practice" - in babies with
medical
> problems at delivery (!), as in your statement,
>
> ...[B]abies with medical problems at delivery...[should have their
cords]
> clamped immediately so [they] can be attended to by neonatal
> paediatricians..."
>
> Babies with medical problems at delivery may be suffering BRAIN
DAMAGE and,
> as you say,
>
> "If there were damaged areas of brain...then stem cells could
potentially
> repair these lesions."
> http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Can stem cells cure Epilepsy?)
Potentially repair (in Todd World, where the sky is pink and the clouds
are made of cotton candy...) or definitely die if the baby doesn't
start breathing. Survey says! Going to do what we do based on the
definite. Anyone who doesn't is a fool.
> the doctor can
> > collect the umbilical cord blood. There is no guarantee that your
> > baby's cord blood will be collected or stored. There are many
reasons
> > that could prevent collection, such as staff unavailability, birth
> > complications, or other events making donations inappropriate."
> >
> > And under "Potential Risks" it says:
> >
> > "None.
>
> Voila! Peter's dodge! When risks of immediate cord clamping are
blithely
> ignored - OF COURSE there are no further risks to the baby - the baby
has
> been severed from his blood oxygen already!
The baby's supposed to be getting new oxygen through a process that
most of us like to call respiration. If the baby's not getting new
oxygen, the cord blood isn't going to help him for long. You see,
Todd, if you had gone to medical school you would have learned that as
cells use Oxygen, they create a waste product called Carbon Dioxide,
which can be toxic at high levels. Through breathing, the body
exchanges the Carbon Dioxide for new Oxygen which the lungs extract
from the air. Therefore, the oxygen in the cord blood isn't going to
help the baby survive if the baby isn't breathing. The baby needs to
breath, to exchange CO2 for O2, or he will die. It's very simple. So
your potential benefits really don't mean squat. Sure, the stem cells
MAY repair damage, whatever. But the baby will definitely die if he
isn't breathing within a very short window of time.
I'll bet you play the lottery, too, because you could "potentially" win
a million dollars. Me, I'll take the $5 I definitely have in my pocket
over a potential million any day. Otherwise you're just throwing your
money (or in the case of the above, the survival of the baby) away.
> > The collection of blood from you for the infectious disease
> > testing will be performed at the same time your blood is drawn
after
> > you arrive at the hospital for delivery. The actual collection of
the
> > cord blood from the umbilical cord occurs after your baby has been
> > delivered, the cord cut, and the afterbirth delivered.
>
> Yep - that's the game - AFTER the cord is cut - it's Peter's dodge!
What would you rather they do? Collect it before the cord is cut? Not
collect it at all?
> > In some
> > instances, the collection of the cord blood may not be done in the
same
> > room as you and your baby. Potential risk to your baby - None.
>
> Wouldn't this be the same as "Potential risks...None.." above?
I don't know, you mutilated my post beyond all recognition, adding all
the Peter crap and whatnot. I think the original document separated
the risks into Potential Risks ("to the mother" being implied) and then
a separate section entitled Potential Risks to the Baby.
> > Having
> > blood drawn for testing is a normal occurrence prior to delivery.
The
> > amount of blood collected for the infectious disease testing is low
> > enough that it will not impact your health or the health of the
baby."
> >
> > They apparently take an extra vial or two from Mom before delivery
to
> > test for AIDS and stuff, because there is such a small volume of
cord
> > blood, they want to save that for research.
>
> BINGO! There is such a small volume of cord blood - and immediate
clamping
> increases the volume - that's the crime - "unethical" according to
AAP.
> Blood volume and blood cells which should be IN THE BABY are on the
way
> instead to the cord blood bank. It's child abuse to rob babies of
massive
> amounts of blood that they would otherwise have transfused to
themselves.
Have you ever seen a placenta? It's a bloody mess. Even if you left
the cord attached for three days, there would still be blood in it
(have you ever seen how they butcher meat? They let the animal bleed
out for a while before they start cutting it up. Still, cook a steak
and there's still blood in it. Same thing. Placentas are, basically,
meat).
Unethical things are not necessarily crimes, by the way, but I don't
really feel the need to get into a discussion of how a bill becomes a
law with you - watch Schoolhouse Rocks or something ("I'm just a bill,
yes I'm only a bill, sittin' on Capital Hill..." or is it Capitol? I
can never remember...).
You have a loose definition of chlid abuse that Child Protective
Services would laugh at, by the way. I dare you to find a case where a
doctor cut the cord immediately, and call CPS or the police to report
it. They'll say, "that's nice," and hang up on you.
> According to George Malcolm Morley,
<snip> I'm so bored with this...
> > At no point in the literature I received does it instruct the
doctor to
> > clamp the cord immediately, or to put the baby at risk for the sake
of
> > blood collection.
>
> Ummm... That's the game - it's Peter's dodge - it is STANDARD to
clamp
> immediately - if there are medical problems!
Because they have to get the BABY to where the HELP is. That seems
pretty legitimate to me.
> > I'm sorry, I am really, really tired. I had a horrible night's
sleep
> > last night, and I don't have any more energy to spare on this
> > conversation. By the time you read this, I'll be dreaming.
> Sweet dreams and I hope tonite's sleep is much, much better.
>
> I mean that sincerely.
It was, I appreciate it. My patience for this conversation is still
wearing extremely thin, but at least I'm cutting down on the number of
typos.
Amy
Daye
<tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Does Cord Blood America explicitly state anywhere that cord blood should
>only be harvested after the cord has stopped pulsating and the baby is pink
>and breathing and not in need of resuscitation?
Todd,
I donated my son's cord blood in Jan 2004. This was done through a
public hospital in Australia. I asked about the pulsating, etc. They
wait until the cord has stopped pulsating before they harvest the
blood.
This is just for your information.
--
Daye
Mommy to DD3 and DS1
Chump Change for Major Change
http://www.change4change.tk
Daye
<mcm...@spike.cup.hp.com> wrote:
>Talk to Daye. She is person on mkb who has been entrusted with the
>task of teaching Todd to post more civilly and informatively. And
>believe me, his posting style has improved greatly. You shoulda
>been here 3 years ago. :-)
LOL! For the record, I post on mkp (not mkb). I try with Todd, and I
admit that I seem to get Todd to hear me when others don't. I guess
it is my approach with him.
Todd's posting style has gotten much better. Yes, he still needs
work, but he is going a lot better.
>Just because he is shrill doesn't mean he is not right!
Amen to that! Todd is right about a lot of things. Too bad that
people can't see past the posting style and get his message. He has a
lot of good information that pregnant women should not only read, but
they should heed his advice as well.
Daye
<amyea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I know I'm new here, so I want to be clear that I mean this as
>constructive criticism. Reading your posts is like hearing a shrill,
>small dog (like a toy poodle) barking frantically into the wind.
>You're such an alarmist that I have a very difficult time taking
>anything you say seriously. Maybe you should tone it down, because at
>least as far as I'm concerned, any truth in your messages is being
>completely lost in the delivery.
Todd's posts have gotten a lot better recently. He even answers
posts, not just posting his messages. Even if you think he is an
alarmist, he is right about a lot of things. His message should be
read and understood. If you google Todd, you will see that he has
toned things down a lot.
Todd is a good guy with a good heart. He is fighting for the babies.
He is fighting the good fight, and I am glad that he is here to spread
the word about issues that he finds to be important.
>My doctor (an OBGYN, not a chiropractor, incidentally) told me that
>collecting cord blood is safe, and that they collect a small amount of
>blood. I have been told by multiple sources that there is no risk to
>my baby or myself.
There isn't a risk about collecting the blood. Tood is concerned that
the cord should stop pulsating before the blood is collected. He has
a good point about that.
I donated my son's cord blood in Jan 2004, and I would do it again (if
I was going to have more children, but I am not). I made sure that
the blood would not be collected before the cord stopped pulsating.
They assured me that they only collected the blood after the cord
stopped pulsating. For me, that was the make or break point. I
wanted the best for my baby. Making sure the cord stopped pulsating
was what was best for my baby.
One thing, just because Todd is a chiropractor and not a "real" doctor
doesn't mean anything. He does a lot of research before he posts his
messages. He can point you to sources if you want them. If you point
out that he is wrong, he will retract or correct his comments.
However, most people have a very hard time proving him wrong.
Just because you got information from a "real" doctor (an OB/GYN)
doesn't mean that it is well researched information. Doctors don't
know everything, nor are they gods. They can and do get it wrong at
times. It is best to make sure that your OB is going to collect the
blood after the cords stops pulsating.
Daye
>Oh geez...here we go again.
>
>30% Birth canal
>
>Letter to Dr. Hollands.
>
>How many more times are you going to post about this?
Quite frankly, he will continue posting this until OBs and doctors get
his message and stop the practice.
You want it to stop make sure that pregnant women know his message,
and that you inform OBs and doctors that it is unacceptable to you.
Daye
<tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Let BABIES have all the blood volume and stem cells they can transfuse to
>themselves THEN harvest...
I completely agree. I made sure when they harvested the cord blood.
Thankfully, my hospital's policy was not to clamp the cord until it
stopped pulsating. This was for all deliveries -- cord blood donation
or not.
I was told in some cases there was an immediate clamping, but I think
these were emergency situations -- like a life or death situation for
the baby.
Daye
<amyea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ok, I'm not going to reply to all of this because frankly you can
>"bark" a lot louder and longer than I can
You have missed Todd's point. This doesn't surprise me... many people
do.
>1) Frankly, I can't imagine
>any parent or doctor would say, "Gosh, the baby's in respiratory
>failure, but they said on their birth plan that they want to blood
>banked, so we'd better do that before we save the kid..." That's
>absurd.
Nor did Todd say anything of the sort. He was saying to make sure
that the cord had stopped pulsating BEFORE you harvest the cord blood.
In emergency situations, I think even Todd would say that you do what
you gotta do to save the baby.
>I'd be interested to know how many deliveries you've participated in...
>You seem to have this idea that the medical establishment is out to
>kill and injure babies, and I don't believe that's the case.
Okay, since you brought it up, how many deliveries have you
participated in?
I have participated in 2 deliveries... my own. I don't believe that
the medical community is actively trying to kill or injure babies, but
they certainly aren't making the best situation possible for the
babies to come into this world either.
OBs can and do close the birth canal up to 30% and they do immediate
cord clamping. Why? I personally think because they don't know any
better or it isn't convenient for them. There is also a lot of "cover
your ass" medicine being practiced out there (c-sections fall under
this category as well). The doctors do what they think will not get
them sued... and that isn't necessarily what is best for the mother or
the baby. I have read enough stories to know that this is happening,
not only in the US, but in Australia as well.
My first c-section was an emergency c-section due to severe
pre-eclampsia. I truly believed that it saved mine and my daughter's
life. However, when the second delivery was coming up, I had so many
conditions put on me for a vaginal birth that I chose an elective
c-section. They wanted to do it when I was 38 weeks pregnant. Even
though, the research shows that the best time to do an elective
c-section is when the mother is already in labour. I had to fight to
have my c/s at 39 weeks. They won't even consider waiting until I was
40 weeks or until I was in labor. The OB snottily told me that
waiting until 39 weeks was a risk because I could go into labor before
then and I would have to have another emergency c-section. I
responded that waiting until I was 38 weeks was a risk for an
emergency c-section because there was no guarantee that my son would
wait until 38 weeks either. All this was the hospital covering their
ass. They didn't care about what was best for my baby. They wanted
to do it when it was best (legally and conveniently) for them... not
my baby.
>3) I happen to have the info and consent forms right here, ready to be
>taken to my OB at my next appointment and signed. They say, "After
>your baby is born and the cord has been clamped and cut, the doctor can
>collect the umbilical cord blood.
<SNIP>
>At no point in the literature I received does it instruct the doctor to
>clamp the cord immediately, or to put the baby at risk for the sake of
>blood collection.
All Todd is saying is to make sure the cord has stopped pulsating
BEFORE they harvest the blood. All it will take is a 2 minute
conversation with your OB before you consent. I didn't read anywhere
where you said that you knew whether or not they would immediately
clamp the cord or not.
Daye
<amyea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>My issue with Todd isn't his message, necessarily, so much as his
>alarmist posting style and the idea that there's some conspiracy to
>harm women and their babies going on. That, I believe, is nuts.
I will speak for Todd for a few seconds... he doesn't care if you
think he is nuts so long as you read his message and get what he is
saying. I have called him crazy in the past, but I have come to
realize that Todd has a huge heart and he is right most of the time.
He only wants what is best for the babies.
I don't think he thinks that there is necessarily a conspiracy, but
doctors are using old information that can and do harm babies.
Daye
>Todd does seem to loop OBs into one group..."does YOUR OB do this?" or
>something of that nature.
I have a long enough history with Todd and I have read enough of his
posts to know that isn't true. He knows there are OBs out there doing
the right thing by mothers and babies. He, like me, consider them to
be the exception rather than the rule.
>There is a way of informing people without freaking them out or having
>them think you're nuts.
Yes, there are. I am (and have been for a while) trying to work with
Todd to get his message out there so more women will read and get his
message. Todd has his own style. It isn't for everyone, but his
information is good and he knows what he is talking about. To dismiss
him as a nut is doing him and you a huge disservice.
Ericka Kammerer
> I was told in some cases there was an immediate clamping, but I think
> these were emergency situations -- like a life or death situation for
> the baby.
That, and there are specific situations where early
cord clamping is beneficial to babies, even if it's not a
matter of having to, say, cut the cord because it's wrapped
too tightly around the baby's neck. Most of the time, though,
it's best for mother and baby for the baby to get the blood.
There are still a scary number of websites where doctors
are advocating early cord clamping as beneficial, and
there are banks that talk out of both sides of their
mouths. They'll say that they don't make any recommendations
one way or the other about when to clamp the cord (that
being a medical decision to be made by the attending
caregiver), but then they go on about how delayed
cord clamping reduces volume and may result in a
rejected sample.
Still, the main thing is that one should be
able to solve the problem by the simple expedient of
making it clear to whoever will do the collection
that it is not to be done until the cord stops
pulsating ;-)
Best wishes,
Ericka
Daye
<mcm...@spike.cup.hp.com> wrote:
>Aha, but I'll wager that at no point in the instructions they give you
>does it say they will NOT clamp and cut the cord early. I tell you
>what. Go back to your OB and ask if they will still do collection if
>you demand that the cord not be clamped until the placenta delivers.
In Australia or rather at the hospital where I had both of my
children, they wait until cord stops pulsating before the harvest.
I cannot speak for other hospitals or OBs.
Daye
<tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I am sorry to have bored you with the ongoing news that OBs are routinely
>closing birth canals up to 30% and routinely keeping birth canals closed
>when babies get stuck - but some women don't know about this.
Keep posting it Todd. I still think we can work on your posting
style, but women need to hear the message. Even they only read one of
your posts, at least the information will be there somewhere.
Daye
<tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Suit yourself. Do ANY cord blood banks explicitly oppose immediate cord
>clamping and explicitly recommend waiting until the cord stops pulsating and
>baby is pink and breathing?
I donated my son's cord blood to the Australian Red Cross. They wait.
At least, my hospital waited until it stopped before harvesting. I
can't speak for other hospitals.
Daye
<amyea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What felonies? Assisting a birth, and using one's best medical
>judgment, is a felony?
It should be a felony. If the OB knowing harms a baby during birth,
it should be a felony, but it isn't.
>I'm not trivializing anything. I'm listening to my doctor (i.e.
>someone who went to MEDICAL SCHOOL).
My family doctor went to medical school. He has a lot of letters
after his name, and he worked very hard to get those letters after his
name. He is a great doctor. However, I know more about certain
medical subjects than he does. I have never attended medical school.
I just happen to read a lot, and I do a lot of research. There have
been countless times that my doctor had "homework" because I knew more
about the subject than he did, and he couldn't answer my questions.
He did do his homework and he did answer my questions.
Why did he have homework? Because he doesn't know everything. He has
the resources to find out, but he can't know everything. As I told
him, "You are the one with medical training; I am just well read."
>Maybe, MAYBE if you weren't an alarmist, accusing innocent doctors of
>felonies and of deliberately harming women and their babies, I *might*
>have listened to you, but again, you completely lost me in the fact
>that you read like a complete Usenet KoOk.
Doctors aren't innocent. I have been told by nurses and doctors that
they know a way of doing something is better for the mother and the
baby, but that is the best way for them legally to do it. I would
call that deliberate.
>My doctor has delivered hundreds of babies. He wins. Hell, I've
>participated in as many deliveries as you have...
So? He has delivered hundreds of babies. He isn't all knowing. How
do you know that he practicing the best medicine possible for you and
your baby? How do you know that he is up to date with all the latest
research about the best way for a mother to labor and have a child?
One thing I know about Todd is that he is a good researcher. He
actively researches this information. So when he posts something, I
know that he has done the leg work, and he is posting the most up to
date information there is out there.
>It is NOT necessary to participate in Usenet discussions to know that
>people on Usenet are often KoOkS...
Yep, I know a k00k when I read one. Sorry to break it to you, but
Todd may have a mission, but he ain't a k00k.
>Pardons for WHAT? You throw the "felony" thing around a lot. See
>below. I would love it if you would quote, chapter and verse, any law
>from any state in the U.S. that applies to any of the tripe you're
>laying down in this thread.
It isn't tripe. If these things were being done to adults, there
would be laws against it.
Odd fact, did you know that in the state of Victoria in Australia that
if you kill an unborn baby it isn't considered murder? If you kill a
pregnant woman, you will get tried for murder for the mother, but not
the baby. Laws aren't everything.
>I think my doctor's goal as an MD is more along the lines of keeping me
>alive, keeping my baby alive (as in breathing), and keeping my husband
>from passing out. And by doing those things, he's keeping himself from
>being sued.
So naive. There is more to it than that. I have decided that you
believe that doctors know best and they know everything.
>That's the way medicine progresses, and in 100
>years every last thing we do now as a matter of course will look
>barbaric to the people of that time.
The problem with this argument is that the information is out there
that there is a better way of doing things, and yet the old ways
continue.
>What would you rather they do? Collect it before the cord is cut? Not
>collect it at all?
He wants to make sure that the OBs wait until the cord stops pulsating
then collect it. I thought that was clear.
I think I will stop arguing with you.
Todd is a Champion. He will continue to fight the good fight, and I
will be one of his supporters. I am sorry that you can't get past his
style to get his message.
Larry McMahan
:> My issue with Todd isn't his message, necessarily, so much as his
:> alarmist posting style and the idea that there's some conspiracy to
:> harm women and their babies going on. That, I believe, is nuts.
:>
:> Amy
: I agree with this. Maybe Todd does believe there is a conspiracy.
: Like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory. But my OB is great and I trust
: her.
I have to resond to this. Ignorance is just as good as conspiracy.
Yes, I, too don't particularly like Todd's "alarmist" posting style
and more people may listen to his message if he were a little less
shrill, but...
Most OBs practice routine habit based medicine, rather than evidence
based medicine supported by the medical research, even thought it is
there for them to access. They do this for reasons involving economics,
politics, and just plain laziness. The result is that they do not
KNOW the best birthing techinques, must less use them.
You OB may be the most wonderful person with a terrific personality
and an ability to communicate with and reassure you, the patient.
However, if he or she is not critical enough of traditional medical
delivery techniques, and analytical enough to read the research that
tells him/her what to do instead, he/she can, and often does do harm
without meaning to. In this case, your wonderful trust is misplaced.
That said, I also disagree with Todd's unqualified use of the word
"felony," because while it may be a moral felony (sin? :-), it is
quite well protected practice legally because since "everybody" does
it, it is the standard of care.
Now, I am not completely clear on HOW Todd wants to stomp out the
practice, but I AM clear on how *I* want to. I want to educate
birthing women to what is going on so that they will make birthing
choices that make the current inadvisable practces NOT what everybody
does, hence NOT the standard of care!
In closing let me state my initial point as clearly as I can;
It doesn't mattter whether there is a conspiracy or not, and it
doesn't mattter how much you trust your OS as a sincere person
or not. As long as they are ignorant of the best birthing
techniques because they have unwittingly bought into the habit
based medical practice, they are just as capable of doing you
harm as any consiprator. Knowledge is power. Education is your
defense.
Todd is shrill, but he is trying to educate you and he has his
facts right.
Larry
carl jones
"Renee" <rshi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106931945.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > I would encourage any woman who is on the fence to talk to her own
> > doctor about the risks and the benefits of cord blood donation. And
> > again, I welcome any woman who would like more information about
> > donation for research purposes to contact me. I would be happy to
> > share what I have learned.
>
> You're going to be told that OBs are lying. :)
Or just spouting the nonsense they have learned in the priesthood. I think
an OB is the last person to ask about cord blood donation. What do you say,
Todd?
Carl
carl jones
"Larry McMahan" <mcm...@spike.cup.hp.com> wrote in message
news:41fa...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...> : How many more times are you going to post about this?
>
> Whoops, you phrased the question wrong. We have NO idea
> how many times Todd will post, but we can get a VERY GOOD
> idea of HOW OFTEN he will post.
>
> I would say probably a couple or 3 times a week.
>
>
As he said (I paraphrase) some women don't know that OBs close birth canals
up to 30% -:))
Carl
Todd Gastaldo
"carl jones" <carl...@usadatanet.net> wrote in message
news:J9SdnS2iUpP...@usadatanet.net...
OBs are indeed spouting some nonsense about key birth issues.
In regard to immediate cord clamping, I wish the OBs would listen to retired
obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB, FACOG...
See Why Do Babies Cry?
http://www.cordclamping.com/cry.htm
Todd