If Amy's baby is born blue (also: Asphyxia does not injure the brain?)

Attn: George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG )

Please see the postscript.

PREGNANT WOMEN: See the White Elephant Fact at the very end of this post...


IF AMY'S BABY IS BORN BLUE...

ASPHYXIA DOES NOT INJURE THE BRAIN?

("Asphyxia Does Not Injure the Brain" - no question mark - is the title of
an article by retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB, FACOG.
See below.)

Amy E. Austin writes:

"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."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...74a2efaa85aecf

I wonder...

DO they need to cut the cord to get the baby to the machines to help him
breathe?

That is the question.

Amy snipped the remarks of retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB
ChB, FACOG...

She said of Dr. Morley's remarks, "I'm so bored with this."

I continue to be FASCINATED by Dr. Morley's remarks...

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

IF THE CHILD IS NOT BREATHING...

Possible agreement with Amy...

If as Amy indicates, it is impossible to bring the resuscitation machinery
to mother and baby, then I have to agree with her that if the child is not
breathing it is necessary to "[amputate] the child's only functioning source
of oxygen - the placenta...together with 30% to 50+% of its natural blood
volume." (Quote is from Dr. Morley.)

THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

It seems likely that most babies who are immediately clamped ARE
breathing...

Again quoting Dr. Morley:

"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is
immediate cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies...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."

Surely all can agree that robbing the baby of massive amounts of blood
volume to obtain cord blood pH is wrong?

Further comment below.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Todd Gastaldo wrote:
PETER'S DODGE

Ok, you know what, this Peter dude is NOT my doctor, and


Peter Hollands, PhD is not a doctor of medicine but he notes that it is
normal for OBs to immediately clamp cords when their are medical problems.

Two points: First, you are not the only one reading here; and second, your
doctor may well do EXACTLY what these two doctors say is being done:
Immediate cord clamping when there are medical problems.

Again, I must agree with you Amy in cases where the baby is not breathing
and it is impossible to bring resuscitation machinery to him or her without
cutting the cord.


THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

Most immediate cord clamps, I suspect, are not done because the baby is not
breathing. See Dr. Morley quote above.

while you seem
to lump all OBs into one generic category,

OBs lump THEMSELVES together by aping each other - pretending they are
practicing science as they senselessly close birth canals, for example.

It is a powerful legal maneuver. See "the community norm" discussion below.

To be sure, *some* OBs do not do this - but most do.

most of us are smart enough
to realize that not all OBs are the same person.


You do seem at least that smart. : )

wrote in message
oups.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?


Knowingly closing a birth canal up to 30% is not "assisting a birth."

Knowingly KEEPING a birth canal closed when a baby gets stuck is not
"assisting a birth."

These are obvious batteries caused by criminal negligence. (Since most OBs
apparently did not learn that semisitting and dorsal close the birth canal
at medical school - obviously medical schools are part of the criminal
negligence. The biomechanics have been in the medical literature since
early last century - and I published them in the medical literature in 1992.
See Gastaldo TD. Birth. 1992;19(4):230-1.)

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).


Again, medical schools are part of the criminal negligence.

Two medical schools that I know of actually PROMOTE
birth-canal-closing/semisitting. As noted above, this is obvious criminal
negligence.

See [UCI] Pediatricians: What about DURING birth?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3142

See Distinguished OBSTETRIC Teaching at UCLA?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3153

See: Birth child abuse: Oregon's only medical school (OHSU)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2986


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.


Amy, ALWAYS listen to your doctor over anyone on Usenet!! But bewa As
I've previously noted - OBs are LYING and closing birth canals up to 30% -
and these are OBVIOUS lies. See the end of this post for The Four OB Lies.
Currently women have to ASK for the "extra" up to 30% - so they definitely
do need to talk to their doctors.

NOTE #1: One of The Four OB Lies involved the authors of Williams
Obstetrics publishing "my" biomechanics at my request but leaving in their
text (in the same paragraph!) their "dorsal widens" bald lie.

NOTE #2: To readers: Please post the name of any medical doctor (your OB
for example) if he says I am wrong (for example) when I say OBs should not
be keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.

Maybe, MAYBE if you weren't an alarmist, accusing innocent doctors of
felonies and of deliberately harming women and their babies,

In a sense I agree doctors are innocent - because as innocent medical
students they were TRAINED to perform the obvious felonies. This is the
reason I favor pardons in advance for MDs.

I *might*
have listened to you, but again, you completely lost me in the fact
that you read like a complete Usenet KoOk.


Ad hominem noted - at least you don't think me incomplete - LOL!

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?


Amy, I must agree with you that if the baby is born not breathing and it is
impossible to bring resuscitation machinery to him then it is necessary to
"[amputate] the child's only functioning source of oxygen - the
placenta...together with 30% to 50+% of its natural blood volume." (Quote is
from Dr. Morley.)

THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

As noted above, it appears from Dr. Morley's quote that babies born not
breathing account for only a small percent of immediate cord clampings.

Regarding the resuscitation machinery, what if mother and baby can be
wheeled UNDER such machinery with the cord still intact?

That is what I would want if I were a baby.

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, 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?


Again Amy, I must agree with you that if the baby is born not breathing and
it is impossible to bring resuscitation machinery to him then it is
necessary to "[amputate] the child's only functioning source of oxygen - the
placenta...together with 30% to 50+% of its natural blood volume." (Quote is
from Dr. Morley.)

THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

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.


But the immediate cord clamping is not cancelled!

Again, regarding the resuscitation machinery, what if mother and baby can be
wheeled UNDER such machinery with the cord still intact?

I replied to Peter:

Blah blah blah, I'm not Peter so I'm not replying to any of this...


Well, I thank you for replying a bit, see below.

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.


Yep, we are in agreement in cases where the baby isn't breathing and
resuscitation machinery can't reach the baby.

THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

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...


Your doctor very likely did (and does) semisitting and dorsal deliveries -
closed (closes) the birth canal up to 30% and keeps the birth canal closed
when babies get stuck.

Your doctor very likely has temporarily asphyxiated babies born breathing
thereby robbing them of massive amounts of blood volume.

I would love to hear that I am wrong.

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...


This is a true statement I think.

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.


It is common law in all 50 states, I believe, that submitting a patient to a
medical procedure without consent is a battery even if the medical procedure
is necessary. This common law in California was restated in the 1993 THOR
decision of the California Supreme Court.

In the medical procedure of keeping the birth canal closed the "extra" up to
30%, obviously no informed consent is obtained and the medical procedure is
wrong. The Four OB lies do not help.

It's definitely a felony - albeit unprosecuted because MDs are powerful
cultural authorities in part because of the "community norm" part of the
law. Years ago, Richard Ikeda, MD then-medical director of the California
Medical Board AGREED with me that OBs were closing birth canals but said
there was nothing the Board could do because closing birth canals was the
community norm.

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.


I don't hate all doctors everywhere. I probably was smacked on the butt -
but I don't think this is done anymore? Also, soon after birth I was
strapped down and had my penis ripped and sliced. This is another obvious
MD felony that should be ended.

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.


LOL. In all seriousness, I hope you will tell pregnant women in your circle
of family and friends.

Women should not have to ask for the "extra" up to 30% - but that's the way
it is - so they need to talk to their OBs. Same goes for immediate cord
clamping.

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.

AMY SAID BULL**** - I AM APPALLED - LOL!


Oh, bull****. 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.


Well, bull****. OBs are LYING to cover-up their bizarre birth practice of
routinely closing birth canals up to 30% and routinely keeping birth canals
closed when babies get stuck. See The Four OB Lies below.

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.


Yes, the child abuse statutes apply. See also THOR mentioned above.


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.


You are standing on a minority situation (baby not breathing). Based on Dr.
Morley's writing, it appears that most babies whose cords are being clamped
immediately are born breathing.

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...


Yes, I do repeat myself. Sorry.

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

In the OBs' world dorsal both widens and narrows the pelvic outlet!

In 1987, MDs couldn't agree whether babies feel pain! LOL!

In 1987, MDs perpetuated uncorrected the notion that babies can't feel pain
for "lack of myelin."

Lack of myelin is phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology. Most of the
nervous system never becomes myelinated and unmyelinate fibers are thought
to transmit the most excruciating qualities of pain.

In late 1987, I called for an immediate end to the obvious ("no medical
indication") mass child abuse that was American medicine's grisly most
frequent surgical behavior toward males - and for an exemption for the
ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis. (In
California, child abuse includes the infliction of "unjustifiable physical
pain.")

A month later, the New England Journal of Medicine published Anand and
Hickey's article acknowledging the phony babies can't feel pain neurology.
Anand later told me NEJM had been sitting on the article for over a year -
because it was "too inflammatory."

Keeping in mind that I called for a religious exemption for the ancient
Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis...

It is important to note that...

In the Jan 1988 issue of Pediatrics, the AAP came out against all religious
exemptions.

In the Feb 1988 issue of Pediatrics, the AAP came out in favor of anonymity
for PERPETRATORS of child abuse.

In March 1988, the California Medical Association ignored its own Scientific
Board and suddenly passed a resolution its Scientific Board had squashed the
previous year: "No medical indications" routine infant circumcision
suddenly became (by voice vote!) "an effective public health measure" - one
that prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS.

In 2004, AAP published an article perpetuating the fraudulent notion that
the American medical religion's TOTAL foreskin amputation ritual is the same
as the ritual of ancient Judaism that leaves most of the foreskin on the
penis.

Note to Carl Jones: When considering the 2005 epidemiologic evidence that
ripping and slicing infant penises en masse prevents transmission of HIV,
one must remember that American MDs could still go to prison for their phony
"babies can't feel pain" neurology history which was hastily covered-up by
hurriedly resurrecting an HIV resolution that the CMA's own Scientific Board
had squashed. See above.

See also: Dr. Baeten's folly? Infant penis ripping, HIV and African truck
drivers (also: C-section and obesity)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3173

I'll take Todd's pink sky and cotton candy clouds ANY day over mass ripping
and slicing of penises by lying MDs!!!

[or baby will] 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.


Again, I agree in regard to babies born not breathing...

THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

It seems likely that most babies who are immediately clamped ARE
breathing...

Again quoting Dr. Morley:

"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is
immediate cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies...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."


Surely all can agree that robbing the baby of massive amounts of blood
volume to obtain cord blood pH is wrong?

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.


Most babies who are immediately clamped ARE breathing - or so it seems from
Dr. Morley's writing...

You are betting everything on a minority of immediate cord clampings.

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?


Sorry, I wasn't clear. They are DISCUSSING the risks beginning after the
cord is cut.

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.

Good phrase "Peter crap." Peter Holland, PhD offered a dodge.

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.


It looks like "Potential Risks...None" was the general heading and the first
word of the section and "Potential risk to your baby - none." was a sentence
repeating that sentiment.

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.


I saw the placentas of my three children born at home.

Even if you left
the cord attached for three days, there would still be blood in it


This isn't the point. The point is that clamping the cord immediately stops
the baby from transfusing to him/herself a rather massive amount of blood
volume.

(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).


Yes, letting the animal bleed out is an ancient Jewish tradition...

"Following the slaughter, the carcass is hung upside down so that the blood
can drain properly."
http://www.kosherquest.org/bookhtml/...GH_BUTCHER.htm

As an aside, I'm not sure I agree with the author that an animal that is not
dead has been "slaughtered."

Nor am I sure I agree that it is "more humane" to bleed an animal to death
than to kill it instantly, as in,

"This cut only takes a few seconds and is a much more humane method of
killing an animal than are such common practices as smashing the head,
shooting the animal..."

(This quote is why it seems to me that the author is saying that an animal
still bleeding to death has been slaughtered. Maybe they wait till the
animal dies to hang it up?)

Apparently, the Nazis exploited ancient Jewish slaughter techniques in their
propaganda - and some are accusing People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals/PETA of doing the same thing with a recent video, as in,

"Nathan Lewin, a Washington lawyer who represents AgriProcessors, said the
plant is continuously monitored by USDA inspectors and kosher certifying
organizations, none of which has found anything wrong. PETA's campaign, he
said, 'is really an attack on shechita,' or kosher slaughter...'I'm not
suggesting this is part of an anti-Semitic wave. But I do I think it's an
attempt to get rid of kosher slaughter, maybe as a first step to getting rid
of all slaughter'..."

PETA was quoted saying that "done correctly" bleeding live animals to
death/"kosher slaughter is no less humane, and probably is better, than the
conventional method' in commercial slaughterhouses, which fire an air gun or
metal bolt into the animal's brain."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Personally, if I had to die, I would take what seems to me a more instant
death - but maybe death is not so instant using an air gun to fire a metal
bolt into the animal's brain?

Of course, hanging a PLACENTA to "bleed out" does not seem inhumane at all
to me - as long as we harvest only what the baby leaves.

Immediate cord clamping is inhumane - because it involves robbing a baby of
blood that s/he would otherwise have transfused to him/herself. See again
Dr. Morley's remarkable quote.

Unethical things are not necessarily crimes, by the way,


True.

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...).


It's Capitol Hill, but it might as well be called Capital Hill, LOL.

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.


I think you are right about this. Similarly, police did not used to arrest
husbands who beat their wives - even though it was an obvious felony.

According to George Malcolm Morley,

snip I'm so bored with this...


Yes, George's statement indicates that most immediate cord clampings occur
in babies who are BREATHING - and you leaned so heavily on "baby not
breathing."

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.


Seems pretty legitimate to me too.

THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

Again, regarding the resuscitation machinery, what if mother and baby can be
wheeled UNDER such machinery with the cord still intact?

That is what I would want if I were a baby.

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, I appreciate your responses - even with typos.

This discussion stimulated me to think more about babies born not
breathing - it is a good point you make.

I do like the idea of wheeling mother and baby UNDER resuscitation equipment
with baby still attached to nature's oxygenation/transfusion device (mother
and placenta).

It's such a simple idea - it's no doubt been thought of - and perhaps
discarded - or maybe not?

This discussion has also helped me further my knowledge of Dr. Morley's
work.

Again, there is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS I will copy George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG )


George, no doubt someone else has thought of the idea of wheeling mother and
baby, cord still attached, UNDER resuscitation equipment but this idea has
been discarded?

Also George, are you doing anything to stop your fellow OBs from closing
birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed up to 30%?

Here are The Four OB Lies again...

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...t/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/eth...nions53101.cfm

As a doctor of chiropractic, I am appalled that OBs are performing gruesome
spinal manipulation on babies - pulling with hands, forceps, vacuums - with
birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%.

Sometimes OBs pull so hard they rip spinal nerves our of tiny spinal cords.

Some babies die - some babies are paralyzed - most "only" have their spines
gruesomely wrenched.

ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal closed the "extra"
up to 30%.

In addition George, OBs are performing surgical batteries...

UNNECESSARY C-SECTIONS: OBs CAUSE cephalopelvic disproportion (close the
pelvis up to 30%) then perform c-sections BEcause of cephalopelvic
disproportion.

UNNECESSARY EPISIOTOMIES: OBs are slicing vaginas en masse (routine
episiotomy) - surgically/fraudulently inferring they are doing everything
possible to open birth canals - even as they close birth canals up to 30%.

NOTE TO PREGNANT WOMEN... It's easy to allow your birth canal to OPEN the
"extra" up to 30%.
All you have to do is roll onto your side as you push your baby out. Note:
This won't prevent all operative vaginal deliveries and unnecessary
c-sections and episiotomies but it will very likely prevent some.

WHITE ELEPHANT FACT: Women shouldn't have to ASK for this "extra" up to
30% - but that's the way it is - so talk to your OB today.

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "If Amy's baby is born blue (also:
Asphyxia does not injure the brain?)"

Todd Gastaldo wrote:

IF AMY'S BABY IS BORN BLUE...

Ok, I'm superstitious enough that I would appreciate it if you wouldn't
say things like this.

Now in addition to confusing the issue of cord blood banking/donation
with procedures involved with distressed babies immediately following
birth, you're bringing the ol' standards - the 30% thing and
circumcision into it, too. You're also starting an animal rights
thing, a PETA problem, questions about Kosher practices, vegetarianism,
and a whole host of other non sequiturs that frankly have absolutely no
bearing on the discussion at hand.

Frankly, I'm exhausted. I mean, I'm trying to grow a baby here. It's
tiring.

I can't keep up with the merry-go-round of posts. I don't want to try.
I'm sure you'll take this as a win, a notch in the monitor, whatever,
but I simply quit.

And I used to be on the debate team - Doc would be stunned to see me
give up so easily.

I'll just leave it at this - Todd, when you have a baby, you can do it
any old way you want. If you want to give birth in a pool of lime
jello, standing on your head, surrounded by shamans chanting about the
circle of life, if you want to leave the cord attached until the kid is
20, if you want to give him special drugs so that his foreskin will
grow so large that he can pull it up over his head if he wants to, if
you want to feed him nothing but non-Kosher food - including meat that
has been shot and cheeseburgers at every meal, if you want to, you can
do whatever you please.
Just please don't tell me all about it.

Sincerely,
Amy

ACOG's TRULY BLUE BABY HEAD

See the postscript.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Todd Gastaldo wrote:

IF AMY'S BABY IS BORN BLUE...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3198

Amy E. Austin replied:


Ok, I'm superstitious enough that I would appreciate it if you wouldn't
say things like this.


YOU said "if my baby is born blue"...

"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."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...74a2efaa85aecf


Your "baby born blue" argumentation was part of your intellectually
dishonesty answer to my evidence (Dr. Morley's statement - which you
snipped!) that OBs are routinely clamping cords immediately, robbing babies
of massive blood volume.

You argued in effect that: since it is good to immediately clamp when babies
are not breathing at birth - Todd is wrong - OBs must only be immediately
clamping when there is a need to do so.

The statement from Dr. Morley - which you snipped - gives the lie to this
assertion.

Also interesting: Dr. Morley's article: "Asphyxia does not injure the
brain" - no question mark...

Now in addition to confusing the issue of cord blood banking/donation
with procedures involved with distressed babies immediately following
birth, you're bringing the ol' standards - the 30% thing and
circumcision into it, too. You're also starting an animal rights
thing, a PETA problem, questions about Kosher practices, vegetarianism,
and a whole host of other non sequiturs that frankly have absolutely no
bearing on the discussion at hand.


My replies were NOT non sequiturs. Each and every one was relevant to what
preceded it.

Also, I did NOT start "an animal rights thing."

PETA videotaped an apparently *******ized version of the
butchery/slaughterhouse practice which YOU brought up.

The 30% and routine infant circumcision discussions are ALWAYS relevant when
someone alleges that MDs are not lying and committing obvious felonies. MDs
are telling HUGE lies to cover-up OBVIOUS felonies.

That MDs are not being prosecuted for their felonies does NOT mean they
aren't committing felonies - which is why I mentioned that husbands not
being prosecuted for beating wives did not mean they weren't committing
felonies.

I choose to educate women who care to read - I choose to do so via Open
Letters to OBs and other experts - and by answering when I am challenged.


Frankly, I'm exhausted. I mean, I'm trying to grow a baby here. It's
tiring.

I can't keep up with the merry-go-round of posts. I don't want to try.
I'm sure you'll take this as a win, a notch in the monitor, whatever,
but I simply quit.


Amy, your baby is the priority here. LOTS of women are growing babies
here - and at birth I want those babies to have the "extra" up to 30% and
not get robbed of massive blood volume, etc.

And I used to be on the debate team - Doc would be stunned to see me
give up so easily.


Nope - you are pregnant - your baby is the priority. I understand that. So
would Doc I am sure.

I'll just leave it at this - Todd, when you have a baby, you can do it
any old way you want.
If you want to give birth in a pool of lime
jello, standing on your head, surrounded by shamans chanting about the
circle of life, if you want to leave the cord attached until the kid is
20, if you want to give him special drugs so that his foreskin will
grow so large that he can pull it up over his head if he wants to, if
you want to feed him nothing but non-Kosher food - including meat that
has been shot and cheeseburgers at every meal, if you want to, you can
do whatever you please.
Just please don't tell me all about it.


What COOL embellishments of your non sequitur intellectual dishonesty!

Take care of yourself and your baby and have a good birth.

Sincerely,

Todd

PS ACOG's TRULY BLUE BABY HEAD

Anyone who wants to see TRULY blue baby head, watch ACOG's shoulder dystocia
training video. The video purports to show OB how to allow the birth canal
to open maximally when shoulders get stuck (which itself is an indirect
admission that OBs are routinely narrowing birth canals) - but the kicker is
that the method shown actually keeps the birth canal closed!

OBs routinely pull with hands, forceps and vacuums with birth canals
senselessly closed the "extra" up to 30% (with women semisitting or dorsal).

WHY are OBs keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies
get stuck?

Why are women having to ASK for the "extra" up to 30%?

I think everyone can agree that when the baby gets stuck OBs should not KEEP
birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30%, right?

And since cord blood stem cells are thought to repair all sorts of tissues -
including brain tissue - why not let the baby have all he wants of HIS cord
blood stem cells - and harvest what he leaves?

What could be simpler and more straight forward?

In message .com,
" writes
I'll just leave it at this - Todd, when you have a baby, you can do it
any old way you want. If you want to give birth in a pool of lime
jello, standing on your head, surrounded by shamans chanting about the
circle of life, if you want to leave the cord attached until the kid is
20, if you want to give him special drugs so that his foreskin will
grow so large that he can pull it up over his head if he wants to, if
you want to feed him nothing but non-Kosher food - including meat that
has been shot and cheeseburgers at every meal, if you want to, you can
do whatever you please.
Just please don't tell me all about it.

Just wanted to say - boy, did I need that laugh! Thank you! (Although,
for the sake of both my monitor and my trachea, I'm glad I didn't read
this until after I'd finished my breakfast.......)


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

I'm not Amy, but this is an unfair attack toward Amy, Todd. Using her
name in the subject line? Using her as an example to get your point
across? If you used my name like this, I would feel very
uncomfortable.

What do you do in the time when you're not on the computer, not posting
to Google Groups?


Todd Gastaldo wrote:
Attn: George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG )

Please see the postscript.

PREGNANT WOMEN: See the White Elephant Fact at the very end of this
post...


IF AMY'S BABY IS BORN BLUE...

ASPHYXIA DOES NOT INJURE THE BRAIN?

("Asphyxia Does Not Injure the Brain" - no question mark - is the
title of
an article by retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB,
FACOG.
See below.)

Amy E. Austin writes:

"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."

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...74a2efaa85aecf

I wonder...

DO they need to cut the cord to get the baby to the machines to help
him
breathe?

That is the question.

Amy snipped the remarks of retired obstetrician George Malcolm
Morley, MB
ChB, FACOG...

She said of Dr. Morley's remarks, "I'm so bored with this."

I continue to be FASCINATED by Dr. Morley's remarks...

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

IF THE CHILD IS NOT BREATHING...

Possible agreement with Amy...

If as Amy indicates, it is impossible to bring the resuscitation
machinery
to mother and baby, then I have to agree with her that if the child
is not
breathing it is necessary to "[amputate] the child's only functioning
source
of oxygen - the placenta...together with 30% to 50+% of its natural
blood
volume." (Quote is from Dr. Morley.)

THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

It seems likely that most babies who are immediately clamped ARE
breathing...

Again quoting Dr. Morley:

"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is
immediate cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies...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."

Surely all can agree that robbing the baby of massive amounts of
blood
volume to obtain cord blood pH is wrong?

Further comment below.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Todd Gastaldo wrote:
PETER'S DODGE

Ok, you know what, this Peter dude is NOT my doctor, and


Peter Hollands, PhD is not a doctor of medicine but he notes that it
is
normal for OBs to immediately clamp cords when their are medical
problems.

Two points: First, you are not the only one reading here; and
second, your
doctor may well do EXACTLY what these two doctors say is being done:
Immediate cord clamping when there are medical problems.

Again, I must agree with you Amy in cases where the baby is not
breathing
and it is impossible to bring resuscitation machinery to him or her
without
cutting the cord.


THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

Most immediate cord clamps, I suspect, are not done because the baby
is not
breathing. See Dr. Morley quote above.

while you seem
to lump all OBs into one generic category,

OBs lump THEMSELVES together by aping each other - pretending they
are
practicing science as they senselessly close birth canals, for
example.

It is a powerful legal maneuver. See "the community norm" discussion
below.

To be sure, *some* OBs do not do this - but most do.

most of us are smart enough
to realize that not all OBs are the same person.


You do seem at least that smart. : )

wrote in message
oups.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?


Knowingly closing a birth canal up to 30% is not "assisting a birth."

Knowingly KEEPING a birth canal closed when a baby gets stuck is not
"assisting a birth."

These are obvious batteries caused by criminal negligence. (Since
most OBs
apparently did not learn that semisitting and dorsal close the birth
canal
at medical school - obviously medical schools are part of the
criminal
negligence. The biomechanics have been in the medical literature
since
early last century - and I published them in the medical literature
in 1992.
See Gastaldo TD. Birth. 1992;19(4):230-1.)

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).


Again, medical schools are part of the criminal negligence.

Two medical schools that I know of actually PROMOTE
birth-canal-closing/semisitting. As noted above, this is obvious
criminal
negligence.

See [UCI] Pediatricians: What about DURING birth?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3142

See Distinguished OBSTETRIC Teaching at UCLA?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3153

See: Birth child abuse: Oregon's only medical school (OHSU)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2986


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.


Amy, ALWAYS listen to your doctor over anyone on Usenet!! But
bewa As
I've previously noted - OBs are LYING and closing birth canals up to
30% -
and these are OBVIOUS lies. See the end of this post for The Four OB
Lies.
Currently women have to ASK for the "extra" up to 30% - so they
definitely
do need to talk to their doctors.

NOTE #1: One of The Four OB Lies involved the authors of Williams
Obstetrics publishing "my" biomechanics at my request but leaving in
their
text (in the same paragraph!) their "dorsal widens" bald lie.

NOTE #2: To readers: Please post the name of any medical doctor
(your OB
for example) if he says I am wrong (for example) when I say OBs
should not
be keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get
stuck.

Maybe, MAYBE if you weren't an alarmist, accusing innocent doctors
of
felonies and of deliberately harming women and their babies,

In a sense I agree doctors are innocent - because as innocent medical

students they were TRAINED to perform the obvious felonies. This is
the
reason I favor pardons in advance for MDs.

I *might*
have listened to you, but again, you completely lost me in the fact
that you read like a complete Usenet KoOk.


Ad hominem noted - at least you don't think me incomplete - LOL!

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?


Amy, I must agree with you that if the baby is born not breathing and
it is
impossible to bring resuscitation machinery to him then it is
necessary to
"[amputate] the child's only functioning source of oxygen - the
placenta...together with 30% to 50+% of its natural blood volume."
(Quote is
from Dr. Morley.)

THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

As noted above, it appears from Dr. Morley's quote that babies born
not
breathing account for only a small percent of immediate cord
clampings.

Regarding the resuscitation machinery, what if mother and baby can be

wheeled UNDER such machinery with the cord still intact?

That is what I would want if I were a baby.

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, 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?


Again Amy, I must agree with you that if the baby is born not
breathing and
it is impossible to bring resuscitation machinery to him then it is
necessary to "[amputate] the child's only functioning source of
oxygen - the
placenta...together with 30% to 50+% of its natural blood volume."
(Quote is
from Dr. Morley.)

THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

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.


But the immediate cord clamping is not cancelled!

Again, regarding the resuscitation machinery, what if mother and baby
can be
wheeled UNDER such machinery with the cord still intact?

I replied to Peter:

Blah blah blah, I'm not Peter so I'm not replying to any of this...


Well, I thank you for replying a bit, see below.

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.


Yep, we are in agreement in cases where the baby isn't breathing and
resuscitation machinery can't reach the baby.

THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

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...


Your doctor very likely did (and does) semisitting and dorsal
deliveries -
closed (closes) the birth canal up to 30% and keeps the birth canal
closed
when babies get stuck.

Your doctor very likely has temporarily asphyxiated babies born
breathing
thereby robbing them of massive amounts of blood volume.

I would love to hear that I am wrong.

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...


This is a true statement I think.

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.


It is common law in all 50 states, I believe, that submitting a
patient to a
medical procedure without consent is a battery even if the medical
procedure
is necessary. This common law in California was restated in the 1993
THOR
decision of the California Supreme Court.

In the medical procedure of keeping the birth canal closed the
"extra" up to
30%, obviously no informed consent is obtained and the medical
procedure is
wrong. The Four OB lies do not help.

It's definitely a felony - albeit unprosecuted because MDs are
powerful
cultural authorities in part because of the "community norm" part of
the
law. Years ago, Richard Ikeda, MD then-medical director of the
California
Medical Board AGREED with me that OBs were closing birth canals but
said
there was nothing the Board could do because closing birth canals was
the
community norm.

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.


I don't hate all doctors everywhere. I probably was smacked on the
butt -
but I don't think this is done anymore? Also, soon after birth I was

strapped down and had my penis ripped and sliced. This is another
obvious
MD felony that should be ended.

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.


LOL. In all seriousness, I hope you will tell pregnant women in your
circle
of family and friends.

Women should not have to ask for the "extra" up to 30% - but that's
the way
it is - so they need to talk to their OBs. Same goes for immediate
cord
clamping.

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.

AMY SAID BULL**** - I AM APPALLED - LOL!


Oh, bull****. 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.


Well, bull****. OBs are LYING to cover-up their bizarre birth
practice of
routinely closing birth canals up to 30% and routinely keeping birth
canals
closed when babies get stuck. See The Four OB Lies below.

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.


Yes, the child abuse statutes apply. See also THOR mentioned above.


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.


You are standing on a minority situation (baby not breathing). Based
on Dr.
Morley's writing, it appears that most babies whose cords are being
clamped
immediately are born breathing.

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...


Yes, I do repeat myself. Sorry.

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

In the OBs' world dorsal both widens and narrows the pelvic outlet!

In 1987, MDs couldn't agree whether babies feel pain! LOL!

In 1987, MDs perpetuated uncorrected the notion that babies can't
feel pain
for "lack of myelin."

Lack of myelin is phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology. Most of
the
nervous system never becomes myelinated and unmyelinate fibers are
thought
to transmit the most excruciating qualities of pain.

In late 1987, I called for an immediate end to the obvious ("no
medical
indication") mass child abuse that was American medicine's grisly
most
frequent surgical behavior toward males - and for an exemption for
the
ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.
(In
California, child abuse includes the infliction of "unjustifiable
physical
pain.")

A month later, the New England Journal of Medicine published Anand
and
Hickey's article acknowledging the phony babies can't feel pain
neurology.
Anand later told me NEJM had been sitting on the article for over a
year -
because it was "too inflammatory."

Keeping in mind that I called for a religious exemption for the
ancient
Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis...

It is important to note that...

In the Jan 1988 issue of Pediatrics, the AAP came out against all
religious
exemptions.

In the Feb 1988 issue of Pediatrics, the AAP came out in favor of
anonymity
for PERPETRATORS of child abuse.

In March 1988, the California Medical Association ignored its own
Scientific
Board and suddenly passed a resolution its Scientific Board had
squashed the
previous year: "No medical indications" routine infant circumcision
suddenly became (by voice vote!) "an effective public health measure"
- one
that prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS.

In 2004, AAP published an article perpetuating the fraudulent notion
that
the American medical religion's TOTAL foreskin amputation ritual is
the same
as the ritual of ancient Judaism that leaves most of the foreskin on
the
penis.

Note to Carl Jones: When considering the 2005 epidemiologic evidence
that
ripping and slicing infant penises en masse prevents transmission of
HIV,
one must remember that American MDs could still go to prison for
their phony
"babies can't feel pain" neurology history which was hastily
covered-up by
hurriedly resurrecting an HIV resolution that the CMA's own
Scientific Board
had squashed. See above.

See also: Dr. Baeten's folly? Infant penis ripping, HIV and African
truck
drivers (also: C-section and obesity)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3173

I'll take Todd's pink sky and cotton candy clouds ANY day over mass
ripping
and slicing of penises by lying MDs!!!

[or baby will] 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.


Again, I agree in regard to babies born not breathing...

THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

It seems likely that most babies who are immediately clamped ARE
breathing...

Again quoting Dr. Morley:

"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is
immediate cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies...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."


Surely all can agree that robbing the baby of massive amounts of
blood
volume to obtain cord blood pH is wrong?

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.


Most babies who are immediately clamped ARE breathing - or so it
seems from
Dr. Morley's writing...

You are betting everything on a minority of immediate cord clampings.

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?


Sorry, I wasn't clear. They are DISCUSSING the risks beginning after
the
cord is cut.

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.

Good phrase "Peter crap." Peter Holland, PhD offered a dodge.

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.


It looks like "Potential Risks...None" was the general heading and
the first
word of the section and "Potential risk to your baby - none." was a
sentence
repeating that sentiment.

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.


I saw the placentas of my three children born at home.

Even if you left
the cord attached for three days, there would still be blood in it


This isn't the point. The point is that clamping the cord
immediately stops
the baby from transfusing to him/herself a rather massive amount of
blood
volume.

(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).


Yes, letting the animal bleed out is an ancient Jewish tradition...

"Following the slaughter, the carcass is hung upside down so that the
blood
can drain properly."
http://www.kosherquest.org/bookhtml/...GH_BUTCHER.htm

As an aside, I'm not sure I agree with the author that an animal that
is not
dead has been "slaughtered."

Nor am I sure I agree that it is "more humane" to bleed an animal to
death
than to kill it instantly, as in,

"This cut only takes a few seconds and is a much more humane method
of
killing an animal than are such common practices as smashing the
head,
shooting the animal..."

(This quote is why it seems to me that the author is saying that an
animal
still bleeding to death has been slaughtered. Maybe they wait till
the
animal dies to hang it up?)

Apparently, the Nazis exploited ancient Jewish slaughter techniques
in their
propaganda - and some are accusing People for the Ethical Treatment
of
Animals/PETA of doing the same thing with a recent video, as in,

"Nathan Lewin, a Washington lawyer who represents AgriProcessors,
said the
plant is continuously monitored by USDA inspectors and kosher
certifying
organizations, none of which has found anything wrong. PETA's
campaign, he
said, 'is really an attack on shechita,' or kosher slaughter...'I'm
not
suggesting this is part of an anti-Semitic wave. But I do I think
it's an
attempt to get rid of kosher slaughter, maybe as a first step to
getting rid
of all slaughter'..."

PETA was quoted saying that "done correctly" bleeding live animals to

death/"kosher slaughter is no less humane, and probably is better,
than the
conventional method' in commercial slaughterhouses, which fire an air
gun or
metal bolt into the animal's brain."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Personally, if I had to die, I would take what seems to me a more
instant
death - but maybe death is not so instant using an air gun to fire a
metal
bolt into the animal's brain?

Of course, hanging a PLACENTA to "bleed out" does not seem inhumane
at all
to me - as long as we harvest only what the baby leaves.

Immediate cord clamping is inhumane - because it involves robbing a
baby of
blood that s/he would otherwise have transfused to him/herself. See
again
Dr. Morley's remarkable quote.

Unethical things are not necessarily crimes, by the way,


True.

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...).


It's Capitol Hill, but it might as well be called Capital Hill, LOL.

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.


I think you are right about this. Similarly, police did not used to
arrest
husbands who beat their wives - even though it was an obvious felony.

According to George Malcolm Morley,

snip I'm so bored with this...


Yes, George's statement indicates that most immediate cord clampings
occur
in babies who are BREATHING - and you leaned so heavily on "baby not
breathing."

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.


Seems pretty legitimate to me too.

THEN AGAIN...

There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

Again, regarding the resuscitation machinery, what if mother and baby
can be
wheeled UNDER such machinery with the cord still intact?

That is what I would want if I were a baby.

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, I appreciate your responses - even with typos.

This discussion stimulated me to think more about babies born not
breathing - it is a good point you make.

I do like the idea of wheeling mother and baby UNDER resuscitation
equipment
with baby still attached to nature's oxygenation/transfusion device
(mother
and placenta).

It's such a simple idea - it's no doubt been thought of - and perhaps

discarded - or maybe not?

This discussion has also helped me further my knowledge of Dr.
Morley's
work.

Again, there is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:

"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS I will copy George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG
)


George, no doubt someone else has thought of the idea of wheeling
mother and
baby, cord still attached, UNDER resuscitation equipment but this
idea has
been discarded?

Also George, are you doing anything to stop your fellow OBs from
closing
birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed up to 30%?

Here are The Four OB Lies again...

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...t/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/eth...nions53101.cfm

As a doctor of chiropractic, I am appalled that OBs are performing
gruesome
spinal manipulation on babies - pulling with hands, forceps, vacuums
- with
birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%.

Sometimes OBs pull so hard they rip spinal nerves our of tiny spinal
cords.

Some babies die - some babies are paralyzed - most "only" have their
spines
gruesomely wrenched.

ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal closed the
"extra"
up to 30%.

In addition George, OBs are performing surgical batteries...

UNNECESSARY C-SECTIONS: OBs CAUSE cephalopelvic disproportion (close
the
pelvis up to 30%) then perform c-sections BEcause of cephalopelvic
disproportion.

UNNECESSARY EPISIOTOMIES: OBs are slicing vaginas en masse (routine
episiotomy) - surgically/fraudulently inferring they are doing
everything
possible to open birth canals - even as they close birth canals up to
30%.

NOTE TO PREGNANT WOMEN... It's easy to allow your birth canal to OPEN
the
"extra" up to 30%.
All you have to do is roll onto your side as you push your baby out.
Note:
This won't prevent all operative vaginal deliveries and unnecessary
c-sections and episiotomies but it will very likely prevent some.

WHITE ELEPHANT FACT: Women shouldn't have to ASK for this "extra" up
to
30% - but that's the way it is - so talk to your OB today.

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet
archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "If Amy's baby is born blue
(also:
Asphyxia does not injure the brain?)"