'Scientifically' supporting mass child abuse by OBs
Todd Gastaldo
See below.
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
OPEN LETTER (archived for global access at http://groups.google.com)
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...@bsuh.nhs.uk
Heike,
Why not design neonatal resuscitation stations such that mother and neonate
can be wheeled underneath with the cord still intact?
It makes NO sense - it is BIZARRE - to clamp and cut the cord thereby
robbing baby of up to 50% of his/her blood volume only to run across the
room to resuscitate.
See CNMwife baby blood robber (45 sec is 'delayed' cord clamping, Judy?!)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/03626f39cb4ec8aa
See also the www.cordclamping.com website of retired obstetrician George
Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG.
You (Heike Rabe, MD, PhD et al.^^^) say:
"Delaying clamping may facilitate transfusion of blood between the placenta
and the baby."
Delaying clamping usually DOES facilitate transfusion of blood between the
placenta and the baby.
You write:
"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."
Did you really expect another outcome?
While it is nice that you let some babies have access to/transfuse their
blood for 30 to 120 seconds...
You (Heike Rabe, MD, PhD et al.^^^) should have compared "early clamping" to
letting the cord stop pulsating.
Your statement "Optimal timing for clamping of the umbilical cord at birth
is unclear" reminds me of your blithe statement: "Early clamping allows for
immediate resuscitation of the newborn..."
Why NOT design neonatal resuscitation stations such that mother and neonate
can be wheeled underneath with the cord still intact?
It makes NO sense - it is BIZARRE - to clamp and cut the cord thereby
robbing baby of up to 50% of his/her blood volume only to run across the
room to resuscitate.
You (Heike Rabe, MD, PhD et al.^^^) are "scientifically" facilitating
obvious mass child abuse by obstetricians.
Here is the PubMed abstract I am quoting from...
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18;(4):CD003248. PubMed abstract
Early versus delayed umbilical cord clamping in preterm infants.
^^^Rabe H, Reynolds G, Diaz-Rossello J.
Trevor Mann Baby Unit, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals, Royal
Sussex Country Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton, UK, BN2 5BE.
heike...@bsuh.nhs.uk
BACKGROUND: Optimal timing for clamping of the umbilical cord at birth is
unclear. Early clamping allows for immediate resuscitation of the newborn.
Delaying clamping may facilitate transfusion of blood between the placenta
and the baby. OBJECTIVES: To delineate the short- and long-term effects for
infants born at less than 37 completed weeks' gestation, and their mothers,
of early compared to delayed clamping of the umbilical cord at birth. SEARCH
STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials
register (2 February 2004), the Cochrane Neonatal Group trials register (2
February 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The
Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004), PubMed (1966 to 2 February 2004) and
EMBASE (1974 to 2 February 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled
trials comparing early with delayed (30 seconds or more) clamping of the
umbilical cord for infants born before 37 completed weeks' gestation. DATA
COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers assessed eligibility and trial
quality. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies (297 infants) were eligible for
inclusion. The maximum delay in cord clamping was 120 seconds. Delayed cord
clamping was associated with a higher hematocrit four hours after birth
(four trials, 134 infants; weighted mean difference 5.31, 95% confidence
interval (CI) 3.42 to 7.19), fewer transfusions for anaemia (three trials,
111 infants; relative risk (RR) 2.01, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.27) or low blood
pressure (two trials, 58 infants; RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.67) and less
intraventricular haemorrhage (five trials, 225 infants; RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.08
to 2.81) than early clamping. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: 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. There
are no clear differences in other outcomes.
>>>>END Heike's PubMed abstract
"JUDY"...
Heike, I gave the URL for my post "CNMwife baby blood robber (45 sec is
'delayed' cord clamping, Judy?!)" above...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/03626f39cb4ec8aa
Judy is Judith S Mercer, CNM.
I see you co-authored a letter with Judy to Biology of the Neonate
2004;86:108 titled:
"Early Cord Clamping Protects At-Risk Neonates from Polycythemia."
With your hijacking of the term "delayed," you (Heike Rabe, MD, PhD et
al.^^^) - and Judith S. Mercer, CNM - are "scientifically" facilitating
obvious mass child abuse by obstetricians.
Obstetricians and CNMwives have no business robbing babies of up to 50% of
their blood volume - or less - via "delayed" clamping at 120 seconds.
I have reported this and other mass child abuse by obstetricians to various
law enforcement officials around the country - including UCLA Chief of
Police Karl T. Ross.
See Women can sue: UCLA OBs slicing vaginas illegally: It's sexual
assault
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3404
See also: UCSF: Could OBs be causing strokes in babies? (Cerebral palsy)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3437
I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students MDs are
TRAINED to perform obvious mass child abuse.
Thanks for reading everyone.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
to...@chiromotion.com
Copied to UCLA Chief of Police Karl T. Ross at KR...@ucpd.ucla.edu.
Copied to Brendan Carvalho, MD at bcar...@stanford.edu
Brendan, thank you for acknowledging that at Stanford - as at UCLA - you
"similarly clamp the cord immediately i.e. within 15 to 20 seconds."
You have no business robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
Please stop immediately.
This Open Letter to Heike Rabe, MD, PhD will be archived for global access
in the Google usenet archive. Search http://groups.google.com for
"'Scientifically' supporting mass child abuse by OBs"
Todd Gastaldo
I should have clearly stated that they studied OTHERS clamping cords: "The
maximum delay in cord clamping was 120 seconds."
Heike Rabe, MD, PhD et al. are helping to hijack the word "delayed" to mean
what obstetricians usually do.
Obstetricians and CNMwives have no business temporarily asphyxiating babies
and robbing them of up to 50% of their blood volume.
This mass child abuse must end immediately.
Todd
"Todd Gastaldo" <tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:R2M6e.4622$lP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...