A Rebuttal to Judith S. Mercer's Studies, A Cord of Prevention" Aug. 5, 2002.

The Way it Was: A rebuttal to Judith S. Mercer's Studies, "A Cord of Prevention" August 5, 2002, New England, Advance For Nurses. Quotations of authorities of the full delayed method of care of the placenta and umbilical cord plus concerns of the World Health Organization on given in this article by Donna Young, Mother and Grandmother. (Revised: February 29, 2004).

To quote Judith S. Mercer:

To quote Judith Mercer's research study, controlling the timing of the clamping of the infant's umbilical cord, the lifeline:

" I called out, 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds." At that point the baby's cord was clamped and cut, and she was placed in a special bed for resuscitation." (p3, August 5, 2002, New England, Advance for Nurses). (Web site: www.advancefornurses.com )

This baby was a 24 week (6-month gestation) and the baby's weight was estimated to be about 1 1/2

pounds. P2, ibid.

___________________________

Links of a related nature:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=13679933

Other Authorities knowing the risk to the child of early umbilical cord clamping, like all done for political motivated profits:

Judith's willing participation in early clamping of her own statements. I ask, if the birthing-women, taking part in this clinical study that may risk all babies to a standard of care of 40-second clamping, and to be so endangered by that policy of care, if these women were questioned, "Did they know the baby's needed all the placenta blood into their expanding lungs as a natural protection to their child?" If not, why not?

If true, these birthing-mother did not truly participate of informed choice to avoid any possible risk to their baby, to lung damage by insufficient volume and pressure of blood to the lungs, as well as to the first fetal oxygenated blood to the brain. The brain is the least able to sustain oxygen debt or drop in blood pressure and volume. The brain cells do not replace themselves, nor the nervous system cells, as do blood cells and tissue cells.

The birthing-mothers were trusting blindly to what was being told them. What was left out of the information may have caused them and their child, potential internal harm.

These mothers, I believe, only had a choice between immediate clamping and 30 or 40 second clamping. This is better then immediate cord clamping but not by much.

Stopping the circulation system is not what happens naturally. In nature, for all placenta-birthing creates, the cord pulsates and transfuses blood into the expanding lungs, as to the child's individual needs, regardless when born (premature) and where born, home or in a medical institution. That the babies had yet to be revived, indicates insufficient blood transfusion for the needs of the child.

Again, there is not much difference between immediate cord clamping and 30 and 45 -second clamping. But the women, if questioned, taking part in this clinical study, were being politically exploited and the purpose was to set, world wide, a new definition on delayed clamping, to be a delayed method of a mere 40-seconds, and a pulsating cord, if left alone, and patience for the placenta expelled, can be witnessed to pulsating for 20 minutes. Where were those studies and right of choice provided in most clinical studies. If politics of use of the placenta blood is not involved the studies of no clamping would be a choice given to all women and the benefits to them and there babies. I would think a mother would choose to have a healthy strong baby, a blue ribbon baby, then to raise a compromised child, the rest of her life, with no help of extra burdens in health care and education costs to her loved child and his/her needs. Often overwhelming for most families to manage.

Why, again, were these women not likely not told of their traditional birth right of primal birth care of the cord, no clamping or tying it ever or cutting it for the removal of the placenta as no harm done and benefits of all hormones given to the child and not a science project?

Primal birth care is now known as Lotus Birth (Lotusbirth).

FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF VISUAL SCIENCE :

The placenta is a embryo-fetal-birth lung. The blood in the placenta is to be transfused into the fetus' expanding lungs, as it emerges from the birth canal and after birth. The fetus is called a neonate at birth, and the process of the transfusion can be witnessed and put on video of continuing up to 20 minutes. See T. Peltonen this web site.

This transfusion from the placenta to the expanding lungs may take as long as 20 minutes for an endangered child. There is no need to rush or interfere with any child's circulation system, ever, no matter if the child is a premature child or a full term baby. The duty of care is respect for security of person that the baby will be the very best society owes the child to be - no harm done or risked.

J Perinatol. 2003 Sep;23(6):466-72. Related Articles, Links

Immediate and delayed cord clamping in infants born between 24 and 32 weeks:
a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Mercer JS, McGrath MM, Hensman A, Silver H, Oh W.

College of Nursing, University of Rhode Island, White Hall, 2 Heathman Road,
Kingston, RI 02881-2021, USA.

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study's aim was to establish feasibility of a protocol
for delayed cord clamping (DCC) versus immediate cord clamping (ICC) at
preterm birth and to examine its effects on initial blood pressure and other
outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial recruited 32 infants
between 24 and 32 weeks. Immediately before delivery, mothers were
randomized to ICC (cord clamped at 5 to 10 seconds) or DCC (30- to 45-second
delay in cord clamping) groups. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analyses
revealed that the DCC group were more likely to have higher initial mean
blood pressures (adjusted OR 3.4) and less likely to be discharged on oxygen
(adjusted OR 8.6). DCC group infants had higher initial glucose levels
(ICC=36 mg/dl, DCC=73.1 mg/dl; p=0.02). CONCLUSION: The research design is
feasible. The immediate benefit of improved blood pressure was confirmed and
other findings deserve consideration for further study."

OTHER COMMENTS:

It has been known and documented by evidence of visual observation of the placenta that 60 percent of total blood volume will be in the baby's lungs, if no clamping is done until after the placenta is out and all pulsation has ceased in the cord. Then the cord need not be cut or removed at all for the right of primal birth rights, and the placenta then not sold for cosmetic purposes and political profits to the medical institute or persons involved, in a fee, likely, political, in the collection of organs and blood. Much of this was done without true informed consent. It likely has penalties of both civil compensation to the victim/s and criminal disciplinary actions for endangering any babies, unnecessarily and/or following following orders of bogus policies and practice, no matter the highest official or institute head directing them, or paying for bogus clinical studies, political in nature. As evidence of risk taking is the known amount of blood deprived the child of 60 percent, to quote, various authorities:

Reproduction, The Cycle of Life, by Karen Jensen and the Editors of U.S. News Books, page 98. ISBN 0-89193-606-8, ISBN 0-89193-666-1 (school ed.) This book was a rarity at the local, Junior High School, that directed delayed umbilical cord clamping. To quote:

". . .Once the head and shoulders have emerged the rest of the birth proceeds rapidly. The baby's body is finally free of its nine-month-long home. The pearly blue umbilical cord still links child to womb, sending him blood from the placenta. The doctor will wait until the cord has stopped pulsating before clamping it above the baby's abdomen and severing it ." (See below how they, without informed consent use the placentas).

This book also states, the quote below, what the Hospitals do with the placenta, and if the placenta is full of stem cell blood, it is likely the placenta is drained and sent to stem cell blood banks, when the blood full of nutrients and enzymes, proteins, and likely iron reserves, out to have been allowed to be in the infant/owner.

This book gives some evidence that the hospitals, such as their labs, many now private enterprises, have participated in sending the placentas to drug companies, the same way aborted babies are sent to drug companies, is evident as to this message of acknowledgment what the doctors and hospital do with the placenta, to quote:

P 98, " After the placenta is delivered, the doctor will examine it to make sure it is intact. It is then discarded or sold to companies for use in research or beauty products. "

(Note, most hospital nurses get frustrated when you ask them questions, how is the placenta discarded....they will not say it is sent to drug companies, they want to lead you to believe it is burned. Not so, according to this statement. In British Columbia, Canada, it is alleged all the human organs and he baby's placentas are sent over to the United States. We have no way of knowing if the tissues are being ground up and put in centrifugal equipment and coming back to as various extractions of enzymes, hormones, white, cells, red cells, stem cells. We are totally at blind trust as to our medical care and services).

_______________________________________________

While the above biology and health reference book on reproduction indicates doctors and medical persons (including nurses) were adequately and competently trained not to clamp a pulsating cord to endanger any baby, this medical manual, below, indicated if they did not have patience to wait until all pulsation ceased, the child would be deprived up to 60 percent total blood volume:

This Medical Manual, Manual of Nursing Practice, which has been made available in most hospital libraries, indicated knowledge of up to 60 percent total blood volume denied the babies who were early cord clamped, to quote . . .

Manual of Nursing Practice , 3rd Edition, The publisher, J. B. Lippincott, Company, Philadelphia & Toronto.1978-1982, stated empirical facts of science, observable if the placenta is drained after immediate cord clamping, that in the circulation changes of the fetus circulation to adult, these facts, to quote . . .

" Placental transfusion at birth --increase in blood volume of 60% if cord is clamped and cut "after" pulsation ceases."

_________________________________________

Secondary - Education: Training practical and registered nurses, and midwives, and doctors:

" Principles of Anatomy and Physiology" , Tenth Edition, 2003, Gerard J. Tortora, Bergen Community college and Sandra Reynolds Grabowski, Purdue University, publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. WIE ISBN 0=471-22472-3, on page 1076, states, too the use of the placenta for drug research and use, to quote:

" Pharmaceutical companies use human placentas as a source of hormone, drugs, and blood: portions of placentas are also used for burn coverage. The placental and umbilical cord veins can also be used in blood vessel grafts, and cord blood can be frozen to provide a future source of pluripotent stem cells, for example, to repopulate red bone marrow following radiotherapy for cancer."

On page 754, Figure 21.31 gives a fetal circulation charge and the difference between the neonate adult circulation. It, however, fails to relate that the placenta has up to 60 percent total blood volume to be transfused into the child's expanding lungs, needed to do the gas exchange the placenta formally did. It fails to mention in that area of circulation topic the nutrients of value to the child that will be deprived when they acknowledge clamping off the cord...but not mentioning that is not a necessary procedure, merely cosmetic. They do not tell the students, that of the endangering of interruption of the circulation system, and death by shock of low blood volume and pressure. Why not?

_________________

World Health Organization , (W.H.O.) has given a warning on Oxytocin (Syntocinon, Toesen, Pitocin are the other names). But, they did not tell each Country's own Food and Drug Authorities or to the drug manufacturers of Oxytocin, that it is a harmful drug requiring the endangering of the child to be immediately cord clamped. Therefore, the drug manufacturers do not warn the mothers of 20 to 50 percent total blood volume deprivation if this drug is used any time of labor or induction of it. Here is the links of that failure to each nation that contributes to the W.H.O. And, W.H.O. has no active links to the representatives responsible for this statement not qualified by clinical reference link as to their opinion stated.

The "World Health Organization (WHO) states that early or relatively early clamping of the umbilical cord is mandatory after the administration of Oxytocin. With Umbicut ... Information from: MP1-577 Tyvek Rx 10.3.qxd

http://www.tyvek.com/na/medicalpack/english/pdf/rx_jan2002.pdf

"In the United States and the European Community, mothers routinely receive Oxytocin to shrink the uterus during delivery. If this drug isn't prevented from reaching the newborn through the umbilical cord, the baby's brain development can be adversely affected.

Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) states that early or relatively early clamping of the umbilical cord is mandatory after the administration of Oxytocin.

tyvekinf@usa.dupont.com for information and questions why they do not give W.H.O. specific medical references. They Dupont and W.H.O. have failed to mention one of the other reasons for directing immediate cord clamping after the use of oxytocin/pitocin is that there is fear the womb will shut down before the placenta is expelled, and then require an operation to remove the placenta. ???

_______________________________________________________

We are long past due on the need for medical studies on mother's choices for no umbilical cord clamping, ever. The studies are needed to resolve a two hundred year old internal medical debate. No clamping of the umbilical cord or tying off the cord is what the pioneer's did prior to the 1920's. It was no theory as to the baby's care. There was no clamping of "the wise pioneers" baby's umbilical cords. The mothers were in control, but as to their needs, were helped when asked, by close friends and/or family. Their choice of no clamping of the umbilical cord was in harmony with Dr. Erasmus Darwin's 1801 statement, to quote him:

Quotation of Dr. Erasmus Darwin:

"Another thing very injurious to the child, is the tying and cutting of the

navel string too soon; which should always be left till the child has not

only repeatedly breathed but till all pulsation in the cord ceases. As

otherwise the child is much weaker than it ought to be, a portion of the

blood being left in the placenta, which ought to have been in the child."

Erasmus Darwin, Zoonomia, 1801, Vol III, page 302.

Reference to Dr. Mavis Gunther, UK, 1957.

To quote Judith Mercer's research study, controlling the timing of the clamping of the infant's umbilical cord, the lifeline:

This baby was a 24 week (6-month gestation) and the baby's weight was estimated to be about 1 1/2

pounds. P2, ibid.

___________________________

Other Authorities knowing the risk to the child of early umbilical cord clamping, like all done for political motivated profits:

Gunther M. M.A., M.D. Camb. Obstetric Hospital, University College Hospital, London, The transfer of blood between the baby and the placenta in the minutes after birth. Lancet 1957; I:1277-1280. In this most complete study of timing of the clamping of the umbilical cord, Dr. Gunther stated that in an unassisted birth, the baby thrives, as a point to leave the cord alone. She witnessed drugged babies' cords pulsated for 14 to 20 minutes.
Therefore, we can conclude from such reliable studies, that no baby should be routinely clamped at 30-seconds, but to wait until all the cord ceases to pulsate. Clamping off a pulsating cord, even just a tad, is not allowed. The pulsation can be felt by our fingers, as well as heard by today's stethoscope. This is because the pulsation is the child's heart beat. The heart controls the transfer of the placenta blood into the baby's now expanding lungs. There the blood absorbs the fluids in the lung's air sacks, and replaces these fluids with the oxygenated blood, yet, coming from the placenta. The oxygen is if the placenta is yet attached inside the mother's womb.
When the blood in the placenta (flat cake) is empty, the baby, often on a dual system, is taking in oxygen on his/her own. This is all done decently and in order by the design of nature. (see a full placenta at www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-175.htm ) Man is causing unnecessary interventions of the normal.
Man should only offer warmth and gentle massage to a newborn child. Often that warmth and massage is best found in warm water births, in my opinion. This is where no endangering harm is done by handling the baby, by a stranger. (See Dr. Sarah Buckley's Declaration, www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-314.htm ) In most instances, the mother receives her own baby, and wisely brings the baby's head up out of the water. The baby is a mammal (like the whales) and is not a fish. It may have oxygenated blood, it may only be receiving the blood volume transfusion, which is good for the baby, not harmful. That is the baby's blood made for his/her own needs, containing nutrients too numerous to mention -- but all essential for that child's development, and sexual maturity, and to the sex organs needs for hormones to the child's external sex organs, too, and most logical.
The mother cannot know if the placenta is torn away from her womb (likely so, if oxytocin was used); thus, the baby will only receive the placenta blood volume supply, which must not be stopped from flowing into the baby, in any case.
The baby's own internal system, unseen by man, closes off the two arteries, returning blood to the placenta. This internal design allows all full blood pressure and volume to be maintained, like we do in priming a water pump. If you drop the pressure in the water pump at either end, the pump struggles and does not work to optimum. That is how the heart circulation system works too. The flaps in the foremen ovale may not seal, or the ductus arteriosus may not seal. These are the by-passes of the fetus circulation system, now to change over to the neonate and adult's circulation. This can only be achieved if the proper blood volume and pressure are not interfered with. Why play around with what we cannot see or respect, the natural design of all mammals? If the system is not broken, don't fix it by guessing one can improve on the natural design. And then avoid accountability and responsibility, if we are wrong.

Natural Birth Education:

The pioneers babies' umbilical cords were left alone; therefore, this is not a theory, nor an opinion, it was a fact. Third world countries, in the small villages, not influenced by Western societies ways from the early 1900's and after the blood types were discovered, never did stray from leaving the umbilical cord alone. They wisely did not tear the cord from the baby. If they did, they found as to Western society the baby did not live long, nor was healthy, if it did. They did not have the drugs or the nutrition supplements to attempt to correct the damage then done.

BIRTH IS SIMPLE AND UNCOMPLICATED:

In all wise natural births, the babies were put in a warmed towel, its mouth and nose were gently wiped clean with a clean hand or towel, and not with an invasive, virus threatening, and gagging syringe bulb. The child had been birthed in the warmest room possible, and sometimes in warm water tubs. And, then, when the placenta was expelled, it, too, was put in a warm towel, and left close with the baby, and not tied off. The baby was in the mother's arms and was not being ritually weighed, measured, and thus, breaking the immediate bond between mother and child. The child could be seen nursing within one-half hour,after birth, or sooner. The child could be seen healthy pink and strong, and alert. Pioneers did not mess with drops in the eyes, nor did they do invasive blood sampling or injections of any kind.

THE HEALTH OF THE NATION IS TO THE BIRTH OF THE OFFSPRING:

This natural birth procedure, knowingly, produced strong healthy children. The reward was that the babies had full immunities, had no cord or navel infections, were not jaundiced, and were not anemic. That is not theory. It is evident in my parents, living today, at ages 89 and 90. Both were unassisted births on the farms, dates of birth 1913 and 1914. There were no drugs, available. There was no cutting of my grandmother's body, called an episiotomy, and c-sections were rarely done. The current trend to manipulate a mother into a c-section now stands as of 2002, at 26 percent as to the recent study done in the USA. C-sections were true emergencies prior to the 1920's. They were only needed in about 3 percent of all births. The mother chose her position of birth, too. Flat on the back and semi-sitting positions were not imposed as they are unnatural birth positions, promoted by Hollywood and by those who wish to control the mother and the child. This fact of harmful birth positions, supine, being harmful was known back in 1913. The facts were known these positions close off the birth canal by up to 30 percent. (See the concerns of Dr. Todd Gastaldo, a chiropractor on the search engines). (see also Dr. Northrup's warning, at www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-442.htm ).

WRONG BIRTH POSITIONS HARM BABIES AND THE MOTHER, TOO:

Chiropractors have been treating many mothers and babies after this harmful form of imposed birth positions. One local chiropractor told a lady, he had been treating for many years, that after she told him her birth was 72 hours long, and her mother kept flat on her back, before a necessary c-section was done, she had in that one sentence told him more of the cause of her headache and back pain then at any time of their visits.

Logically, gravity birth positions were what many of the wise pioneer women did intuitively. Gravity birth positions are the right of the mother and stated in the good of Policy #71, December 1998 of SOGC. Freedom to birth in any position, is a must, and the most ideal are sideways or in a "forward" sitting position for a tired mother, but on all fours, squatting, or forward stride standing position, or any form of gravity position, are best, for the mother of energy. Freedom of position and when to change, intuitively, can be seen by a freed birthing mare rolling over to position her birthing colt. Women must have that same freedom of movement and nourishments, too, to give them strength and energy, as they choose. No hospital or medical policy can interfere with her decision. The mother must be told if it is the drugging that is making the policy of no natural nutrients, which may precipitate a diabetic condition in her or her fetus. Think about what is natural and what are really interventions thought up for man and for man's convenience as a busy business man, called an M.D. To jest, does that mean Medical Deity? Don't argue with God. Well, some do question God. He gave us that right as individuals with free will. So questions M.D.'s, too, and their goddesses, the nurses, and their insubordinates, the ambulance medics, midwives, and the doulas, and any birth witness.

There was, in most part, no meddling of natural births, for animals or the human child, as to past history. Therefore, what we need today is a current filmed study in institutional births of this fact of a pioneer's natural birth, done so long ago. These films are necessary to re-educate the mother's of what is truly a natural birth and her legal rights to have a signed Birth Contract, if professional persons are to be present.

Our grandmothers used warm teas (one was red leaf raspberry tea see www.lotusbirth.com's list of contents) and not drugs. The birthing mothers kept moving around, so there was no need of being drugged. The pioneers logically knew that all drugs and alcohol cross the placenta. The drugs are known to slow the labor (morphines) or stop it altogether for hours. Or, the drugs may cause harmful contractions (abortion drugs like oxytocin / pitocin).

All drugs and alcohol interfere with the natural enzymes and hormones the mother and baby's systems use as team. Most medications can harm the baby and the mother, too. There is no safe dosage of drugs or alcohol during labor, because allergic reactions are factors and never can be controlled. This is regardless of how skillfully alleged the dosages are given and/or monitored. By the time a baby may show signs of distress, the child is already caused to be an impaired and compromised child.

The mother will be doing more then just maintenance of a child's health, after hasty clamping. She will be working harder, the rest of the child's life, in attempting to restore to good health what man interfered with in birth and after her baby's birth. The challenges, in education and in health, will be to the degree the child was compromised during birth and interventions imposed of any kind. Just one iatrogenic interference of the natural may bring a successful law suit. (see reasons for judgement of the Chow-case-law, Ontario, Canada, Sommers and Roth)

This research and on film, if informed consent can be received, is for a comparison of interruption of any pulsating cord by clamping to be demonstrated that it is a very harmful practice compared to no clamping or tying off the cord, at all. Early 30-second clamping is not done by "all" doctors. Immediate or hasty clamping is absent on birth education videos.

And also what is missing, which would, in fact, demonstrate criminal negligence to the child, is the showing of the placenta being drained of the baby's deprived placenta blood, after clamping a still pulsating cord. This blood deprivation is a fact and can be demonstrated to represent 20 to 50 percent of the child's total blood volume.

This is not opinion, but can be documented by overwhelming research of the harm risked the babies this is hasty clamping is imposed on. The blood deprived the owner/infant was essential for the child's well-being -- to be a blue ribbon baby, healthy, as nature intended. Healthy babies can only be if the blood nutrients and suspensions in the blood (enzymes, hormones, platelets, white cells, red cells, plasma, proteins, to name a few) are not stopped by clamping off the circulation system. (see diagram of fetus to the neonate infant's circulation system at: www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-435.htm .

Therefore, as to the need of factual films on hasty clamping being a benefit to any child, I would like to see Judith S. Mercer, DNsc, CNM, FACNM, of 28 years of nursing experience to be used, beneficially, to do a more complete and informed choice research project. This project would include informed choice to have, no drugs and no clamping, at all, ever, now called the Lotus Birth. This is necessary to honestly compare to any of the babies, who by true informed consent of the risk-taking, are then clamped off from their pulsating umbilical cord. The parent giving the waiver (it may not stand up in a court of law), to the hospital and staff and Administration, participating, in weakening a baby. The duty to the child not to weaken it from what nature has provided as a known benefit to the child.

This new project might included the warning of the use of oxytocin that is alleged to interrupt the future growth of new brain cells, until the child is two years of age. A consideration directing, then, immediate cord clamping on the pulsating cord. But this fact, not shared to the women, offered a painless birth. See the World Health Organization's statement, collaborated to bring out Dupont's clamping and cutting tool, with a shield to protect the user from risk of blood spraying and air-borne blood diseases.

The right or wrongness of the choices can be visually seen for the public, at large, to be the judge, and for the benefit of informed choice for all the future mothers-to-be. This is so the mother of the future can make an informed decision as to the duty of protection owed to the child. This is because the Universal Human Rights Declaration require that duty for all adults to protect the child, by reason of age and mental and physical disadvantages. The child, a citizen, must be respected and guarded that the child is not impaired, or compromised by unnecessary risk-taking.

LIMITED RESEARCH, NOT ALL CHOICES TOLD THE BIRTHING MOTHERS:

Judith Mercer only did a 30-second umbilical cord clamping experiment, but perhaps it was controlled by her mentors. Others, in research, have done 45-second umbilical cord clamping, early clamping, by not waiting for "all" pulsation in the cord to cease. Others did full delayed, waiting for all pulsation to cease. Where was that choice offered to the premature baby's mother.

Judith Mercer's mentors did, themselves, both early and delayed clamping. Judith Mercer's study may have given a few babies a tad more blood then 10-15 second clamping and/or immediate umbilical cord clamping. But it was an experiment leaving out no clamping, at all. And, "world wide" the public has not seen what the medical persons are doing by hasty clamping and the amount of blood actually being deprived the baby. Those are observable facts, not opinions, or theories.

The public at large does not know what hasty clamping does to the baby, really. The risks to the child are viruses by using drugs and injections of any kind. These can be slow and fast growing parasites, or poisons (toxins). The risks are whenever something cuts something from the baby, or is injected into the baby's skin, to put in some substance, unknown of its ingredients to the mother, or storage care of the product, or is taken from the baby by any pricking or breaking of the skin, like a needle drawing blood from the umbilical vein or heel of the child, or any part of the child's body.

This is most unwise as the aid of Vitamin K, is not yet in the baby's gut, that aids in blood clotting. Artificial injections of Vitamin K are not necessary when the umbilical cord is not clamped or cut, at all. The baby has received from his/her mother's blood system, all that it needed to grow and to be healthy. Nature provided this selection of enzymes and suspensions in the blood. This was from conception to birth, and supplied at the proper time that was just right for baby to receive. Man cannot guess at this, wisely.

GOOD FAITH VS BAD FAITH:

If early cord clamping, on a pulsating cord, is done in good faith, why is it not on a video and strictly following this hasty clamping with draining out the placenta blood on the film. This is necessary for a judge and the public to see how weak these babies are. This suggests concealment or bad faith. This is after the child is being needlessly deprived of 20 to even recorded up to 60 percent total blood volume. Some babies then are in visual shock needing then to be topped up with blood transfusions. (See Chow-case-law, Ontario, Canada, Sommers and Roth and shock at this birth site).

Often, the blood topping up is with Ringer's Lactate, an artificial blood. It lacks natural nutrients. Or, there is risk-taking of using another's blood and not the baby's own whole blood trapped, that is now trapped in the placenta. The babies, or any injections or transfusions, are then risked to disease as to some babies coming down with Heb C, even twenty years later, or treated for such, following a transfusion after birth. Were the babies early clamped? Most likely.

Often hasty clamping is excused to revive the baby somewhere else other then on his/her own placenta lifeline, the most logical place as to the baby's own support system --for revival. To quote Judith Mercer by her instructions and education:

" In current obstetrical practice, the umbilical cord of a very low birth weight (VLBW) infant is immediately clamped at birth. This is done so the baby can go immediately to the neonatology staff for resuscitation and management. "

PREMATURE BABIES HAVE MORE STEM CELLS WANTED BY RESEARCH:

There may be another motive not revealed to the public for hastily clamping the premature baby, or any baby, full term, c-section or vaginal birthed baby. The facts are premature baby's have higher quantity of stem cell blood, then do full term babies. This is a fact confirmed to me by Judith Mercer.

CONCEALED CONFLICT OF INTEREST -- BABY'S BLOOD NUTRIENTS AND STEM CELLS:

Might there be a medical conflict of interest that the baby's blood is worth more then if the premature baby lived? Blood is more precious than gold, fetching as high as $30,000 for an adult's supply of stem cells. Did the medical persons really expect the premature baby to live? It being so small and clamped off its nutrients to the lungs and all! Would a coroner investigate a premature baby's death as to the facts of care from birth to death? Not so, in my home town. Or, would the police investigate the unconsented to blood-taking by early clamping or endangering to the baby, and some cases to the mother? Not so. This is true anywhere in the world, at this time.

The facts as revealed to me are in Edmonton, Alberta, at the Royal Alexander Hospital. This was according to the statement of the Hon. Gary Mar, of Health and Wellness. What about babies already anemic by early clamping followed then, too, with on-going blood samples of blood taken from any babies in the nurseries. These are the struggling babies who are not around the clocked watched by their parent (s).

The samples of blood taking, was confirmed by the Canadian Paediatric Society in studies revealed samples taken from babies every 2nd and 3rd day? ( www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-192.htm .

Also see these extensions references: shock; extension for 70 percent reduction of babies in ICU with delayed clamping, www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-413.htm ;

And, one in sixteen babies being revived ; www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-193.htm

These babies, struggling to live, are being harvested for stem cells, most likely. Those working with the newborn citizen are working on the premises are concealing what they are doing to the legal guardians the parents. For example: the lab technicians, the nurses, the doctor whose patient's child he/she was looking after, in trust, of no harm done, and with knowledge of the Administrator of the hospital, plus the Board, volunteer or not.

Volunteer boards are not excused for accountability for the decisions of care to the clients of medical services. This is, particularly, if best practice possible is not offered and informed consent is not sought, what they might be, and the choices known and risks to the parents, the legal guardians of the child. All this was done but not with true informed consent of all risks and choices of no tests being imposed on the child, so young.

When the babies, years later, often at school age are showing learning and behavior problems, the questionnaires seldom, if ever go back to drugs, position of birth, and early clamping of the child's birth. How does the drug used and other factors differ from their other children's birth? Many families now have more than one child damaged and no past history of problems, or if so, what was the common factor in all the births for the past 3 and 4 generations? Iatrogenic disorders caused by birth practices called 'active management."

Active Management is a time efficiency program. It uses drugs and for the convenience of a busy staff and a busy business doctor, in most instances. What is time efficient compared to healthy natural births with the mothers directed to labor at home as long as possible; compared to being drugged and having a controlled and manipulated birth. Active management means the doctors and the nurses can gear their time to their knowledge and use of drugs manipulating the birth, first slow, then, at a fast pace. Many such manipulations lead to a distressed mother and child, leading to the increased c-sections. Who are at risk but both the mother and the child, and their quality of life, thereafter, if both survive. Generally, both do survive, but not with happy, thereafter, experiences.

MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF TOTAL BLOOD VOLUME CAN BE DEPRIVED THE NEWBORN INFANT AND CITIZEN:

What might a premature baby lose in blood volume, if 20 to 50 percent or more blood was deprived the child? It actually represents about 4 to 6 ounces of 10 ounces of blood made by a 9-pound* baby. That sized baby took a full 9-months of gestation to make their personal need of that volume of blood. The facts are known, not opinion, it will take, the struggling baby, other normal sized babies, too, not just the premature babies, who are early clamped, knowingly, from 6 weeks to 6 months** to make back the deprived blood.

This time period of blood replacing in the child, and will it be replaced in wholesome blood cells, as were deprived, will depend on how much was deprived the child by clamping off the pulsating cord. Jaundice on an average sized baby may take two weeks for it to clear up. Iron can be a threat to the baby's well being. The jaundice or yellow-green eyes and skin are symptoms of internal damages caused by early cord clamping, drugs in the baby's tiny system, or may be caused even by a viruses injected there, knowingly or unknowingly, at birth.

The symptoms of any internal disorder caused the baby will also be jaundiced for about two weeks, as the baby is trying to create blood to absorb the excess iron in his/her system and which remained, naturally, after the red cells died. Some red cells died by drugs or oxygen suffocation; and some died by 120 day normal life death. But the threat to the child was the clamping off the umbilical cord. This prevented the blood volume to be there, as needed and this would have dealt with the iron now in excess by dead cells, after a traumatic birth. (* World Book, Vol B, 1979) and (**Reference the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada Policy #71, December 1998).

The videos of fact are needed to compare to no-clamped healthy babies to unassisted births or the mother in charge of healthy warm water birthed babies, that the cord was not clamped at all, ever. (See Dr. Sarah Buckley's Declaration, www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-314.htm )

The Facts of the Lotus Birth (previously the pioneers care and treatment of the umbilical cord):

The untied and unclamped umbilical cord dries up and falls off in about two day's time, instead of the 8 to 2 weeks for a cut cord. The cut cord is knowingly at risk to infections, such as tetanus, or a current viruses called super bug. This risk is if the cord was cut off in a hospital. Hospitals deal with cord and staph infections with drugs. The viruses are caused by tools with this bug on them. Viruses are just bacteria bugs existing in the air of hospitals. The drugs given to mother and child cause yeast infections as to their natural bacteria in their intestines being disturbed.

If there is good faith of hasty clamping and taking the baby's blood, it can be testified on film and shown to the world on television. So let us see the alleged facts of any benefit to the child for hasty clamping. Let the facts be presented on an education video on television. Good things can be put out in public, if there is no embarrassment on what the doctors and their experts have been teaching women and men to do. That, I think, is being a robot of past teachings, and not to think standing on their feet, in most instances, on this issue and debate.

The debate on the care and the treatment to another's child has mostly been an internal medical secret of care and sprung on many babies. The parents, today are advised to seek legal action, either criminal or civil, or both. The parents are busy trying to feed and care for their new addition (s). They will not know for years and years the full consequences of the care of the child's umbilical cord. They may wonder why each of their babies are different: One not early clamped, or drugged can do everything. The other, drugged and early clamped, may not even learn to tie his/her own shoe laces.

The disadvantaged child has as his/her fate the means to education help will be to get a professional expert label, such as: Attention Deficit Disorder, Dyslexia, Autism, or Schizophrenia. Or an IQ testing of 50 or less. This is if they are to get any financial assistance, at all. These are internal damages, that in the past, were often not supported by the court to determine iatrogenic caused disturbances by the care and treatment given the mother and the child during and after birth. The process of most risk taking is "active management" and this intervention of natural birth is the future challenge for the return for natural birth education and process.

We have the videos and the documentations and Declarations of no clamped or cut cords, ever, so lets get the debate out with all the facts, to see who is right. Both can't be right. Only reason to clamp a pulsating cord is if the cord tore or for placenta previa. Only these are the true reasons to clamp the cord and with a remedy in hand, quickly. This is to restore the child to any deprivation of oxygenated blood. And an investigation is also required if these two conditions were medical negligence, too.

To quote, again, Judith Mercer's research study, controlling the timing of the clamping of the infant's umbilical cord, the lifeline:

This baby was a 24 week (6-month gestation) and the baby's weight was estimated to be about 1 1/2

pounds. P2, ibid.

Judith Mercer's article, "A Cord of Prevention," Advance for Nurses, New England, August 5, 2002, page 3. ( www.advancefornurses.com )

This report is available at: http://www.cordclamping.com/mercer%20-%20advance%20for%20nurses.pdf It does not necessarily represent the views of the authors at www.cordclamping.com

OTHER THOUGHTS:

Was Judith Mercer's experiment legal if information was left out for true informed choices? The mothers in her study were not told about no clamping at all. Further, Judith's study on only 30-second clamping may be at risk of being used by other Nations to set only 30-second clamping as a standard for all babies. That is not sufficient time, and when the circulation system is interfered to the child it is, in my opinion, yet to be heard in a court of law as assault and battery. In some cases, where the child has died of shock, it is a homicide, maybe, even first degree murder. Policies are not legal that endanger another person, nor direct others to endangers others, animal or human beings.

This is if the judge agrees no medical associations and societies by policies or agreements between two or more persons, can take away the duty for the natural protection to the baby for Universal Declarations of equal protection and security of person. This is assured all such protection by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in 1948, by over 100 Nations. Babies are people. They must be protected not exploited for their placenta blood for science and research, as they have been for so long, but in secret.

This internal debate is within the medical circle. They have been discussing what they have done to another's baby--an agreed to interruption of another's family's child's fullest potential by stopping the oxygenated blood to the baby's lungs, and maintaining constant pressure and volume. We do not even do that to a water pump...we keep it primed. What corporation would stand with another interrupting their means of fullest profits. But that is what many medical persons have been doing to the baby, lessening his/her fullest genius potential. (See The Magical Child, Chapter, Time Bomb , pages 48-50, written in the 1970's by the educator, Joseph Chilton Pearce). It is not legal to risk harm to another. What are the substantiated benefit to the person, so put in risk?

Judith did ask for a "limited" informed consent form signed. But only two choices were told the mothers: immediate cord clamping or what was described as delayed, 30-second. There was no information provided of no clamping at all, the mother's right to know for all babies.

Technically, the mothers did not have true informed decisions as to natural birth. The fact is no clamping choice was provided as an no harm done option, and legal right to know and choose and by a signed Birth Contract.

The mothers were not told if they birthed their babies outside of a controlled institution, they would intuitively not clamp the baby's lifeline, in an emergency birth, while the cord was, red, firm and still pulsating; and the baby's birth was not completed, the placenta yet inside the mother's womb. Mother's just do not do that. They intuitively wait for the baby's placenta to be out, this is the completion of the baby's birth. The birthing mother, during this completion, is keeping herself and the birthed baby warm. This is essential for the survival of the child and the continuation of the blood transfusion, otherwise, hypothermia, may quickly stop the circulation of blood to the child. Thus, the pioneer's logic to birth in the warmest room possible, and sometimes that was in a warm water tub.

Here in a controlled institution, the mother are being treated like they were a prisoner, but with less rights. They are being manipulated and controlled, under a forced document, appropriate care. What does that mean, except a form was signed. And even in a hospital a mother has a legal right to an unassisted birth to look after herself with an aid of her choice, with a waiver to the hospital. The hospital then serves her needs, when and if needed. Hospitals cannot take ownership of the child, the placenta, or the placenta blood. They have been wrong to have done so in the past, and the medical persons.

HARVESTING PREMATURE BABIES FOR STEM CELL BLOOD, AND BLOOD-LETTING BABIES, EVERY 2ND AND 3RD DAYS:

Judith also shared with me that the premature babies have more quantity of stem cell blood. That may be the motive in the "harvesting" of most babies that are now victims of early umbilical cord clamping. The stem cells are being sold to research companies, or used by lab students of in large children hospitals, or sent to stem cell blood banks, or to cosmetic companies. Some placentas and blood, Judith, told me, she did not know what happened to them. Some placentas were burned. That may be to sickness or disease.

In Australia, they revealed the exact value of stem cells. Australia admitted to paying $30,000 for stem cells brought in from other Nations. Stem cell collection can pay big dividends to those medical institutions directing hasty clamping on all babies birthed in their premises. Harvesting of Babies at the Sydney children's Hospital http://www.sch.edu.au/articles.asp?type=3&doc=13

RETURNING TO NATURAL BIRTH MEANS PARENTAL RIGHTS TOLD FOR CHOICE

IN REFUSING OF THE TESTING OF THE BABIES IS THE PARENTAL RIGHT:

ONLY A COURT ORDER CAN TAKE THAT PARENTAL RIGHT AWAY, SO PKU TESTS ARE OUT, case law, Dublin, Ireland. Any needles inserted into the baby's skin or pricking of the skin in an institution is risk-taking of a virus getting in the baby's blood. It can be a slow virus or fast virus bug.
INJECTIONS OF VACCINATION TO NEWBORNS ARE OUT, too.
INJECTIONS OF VIT. K ARE OUT, too. Babies do not normally produce Vit K in their gut for 8 days.
INJECTIONS OF THE SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE VACCINATION, HEP B, cannot be imposed on the newborn child.

These injections are risk to mercury and other ingredients and trace elements put in the drugs and vaccinations. They are subjecting an anemic baby by early clamping to potential risks of autism, and later other mental and learning and behavior problems, speech, reading, writing, talking, muscle co-ordination. Class actions are now started for children victimized with autism for iatrogenic and drug related association as to even one cause connected to this illness, that cannot be proven inherited.

Healthy babyies do not need blood tests, at birth, and do not have to be weighed, measured, right away, either. These are handled like fire drill rituals. They are that -- rituals hospitals use to separate the mother and the child bonding. They are not important and not natural. Mothers are wiser to birth unassisted in their own homes. This may be even for an emergency birth child. I base this as to what I know and have read in my four year research on childbirth. There are so many babies being clamped early by midwives, doctors, nurses, and now even the ambulance medics carry the tools to clamp the pulsating cord. They have the least skills in reviving the baby, not having the means to do an umbilical cord vein transfusion back to the child, nor carry the proper blood to prevent shock by blood deprivation.

No clamping can be demonstrated to be harmless to the baby, when born, where born, and I'd recommend even a premature baby born in nice warm water, and no interventions of any kind to the child. When the child gets full blood volume transfusion at birth, these babies are not likely to have any lung problems...and they need lots of warmth and cuddling by their mother. (Ref.: Peltonen T. Placental Transfusion, Advantage - Disadvantage. Eur J Pediatr. 1981;137:141-146

Medical persons if they are not educated in this natural birth, hands off, then, perhaps, they should not be allowed to be around babies, during and after birth. From what I see of the rising need for parental support in raising compromised babies, their disorders are iatrogenic caused by drugs, hasty clamping, controlling and harmful birth positions, flat on the back and semi-sitting positions, and early vaccinations.

It is the medical person's decisions as to these interventions. Years later, when the child displays learning and behavior problems, the educators or the medical persons seldom ever go back and see the damages they caused the child, in long term studies, to ages of 20 years old. How did these early babies compare to full delayed clamped babies? How did they fair as to their birth care by a professional? Many of the studies, the mothers likely unaware they are being done, are done by observation, within the medical circles. They have access to the child's medical charts and the Apgar test scores. This is the first test of the child's observations at birth. The tests results are also recorded on the child's birth registration forms. Parents must make special application to see what was filed on their child's birth. (See Apgar scores ).

Mothers are wiser to birth in the wild or in a taxi, then to make it to the hospital on time for this medical intervention, "active management." At the hospital the expecting mother is misguided with some questions, "Do you want a painless birth or a natural birth? Painless is manipulation of the birth, drugging the mind with morphine. This means the mother is not feeling the harshness of her contractions, caused by another drug, oxytocin.

The mother is not aware the oxytocin is an abortion drug terminating her pregnancy outside of nature's design. The oxytocin lead up to many of the c-sections, as the monitors catch the child distressed. The womb is contracting harder, harsher, and in longer duration, and oxygen suffocation is a reality of many babies, some babies then being born, stillborn. Both the mother and child, while living, will likely have a lifetime of pain, thereafter, with this alleged choice of a "painless" birth. Warnings are to the mothers birthing tomorrow, "Go back to having blue ribbon babies, that most of the pioneers had, strong healthy babies, that are still alive to day, at ages 90 plus." This is best accomplished by power of knowledge of natural births doing no harm.

THE DOCTOR CONTROLLING THE CLAMPING IS CONTROLLING THE FATE OF THE CHILD'S DESTINY, IN MOST CASES:

These organized medical persons, from ambulance medics to the surgeon are risking the hope of fullest genius potential of another's child. Where there are no substantiated evidence for their decision to clamp the pulsating and functioning organ, that would stand up in a court of law (policies are followed by the individual choice and can be reported if false and outside of empirical science) a personal bias of the wielder of a medical tool, may be factors to their controlled decision. The factors of choice, they had the power to make, may be to another's color, sex, and race, even to another's religion or another's social or marital class. A professionally trained person cannot have as an excuse, ignorance, either in civil or criminal law. What good reason(s) of substance caused the medical person to early clamp another's child's pulsating and functioning organ?

MYTHS USED BY MEDICAL EXPERTS TO IMPOSE A DECISION OF A QUALITY OF LIFE ON THE INFANT:

There are many myths that women have used, such as:

Fear of the mother bleeding. The facts are all mothers may bleed after birth and up to 4 cups of blood (960 ml) is considered normal.
Fear of the child's blood being too thick, too thin, too fast in flowing. There are known other means to correct that problem, other than blood-letting. This is after facts of tests and reason for any altered chemistry of the blood, often caused to be that changed, by drugs.
Too short of a cord. One simply has patience in keeping the child warm with towels.
Multiple fears -- The wanting to take the first born away to make convenience for the second born, or thereafter. This is for the fear the first born will get too much of the shared placenta blood supply. First come first serve, is nature's rule. The babies made the blood, together, and nature will determine the needs of each, naturally, as to the shared blood supply.
Wanting to see and hold the baby. What is another few minutes, to have patience, after 9 months gestation?

The above are all myths. They are outside of empirical science and good medicine practice. They are not substantiated for good reason to interrupt the child's lifeline, the hopeline for the child's equal security and protection for a quality life and health, and longevity and other enjoyments of life, that depend on good health and abilities.

LITIGATION RIGHTS OF THE CHILD AND OF THE PARENTS TO FILE WRITS AND/OR

LAYING OF INFORMATION FOR CRIMINAL BATTERY:

Limiting another's child of rights of the best it might have been by interruption of the circulation system, needs justification in both civil and criminal courts. No medical group, even by policy, can organize to determine the fate of another's baby, if that is not best practice possible. That can be considered a conspiracy. It is criminal medical organization, even by policy. And, if the present is the key to the past, the motive is most likely associated to the harvesting of babies, in controlled institutions. It is now evident of placenta blood collection in home births, this is by the midwives, alleged to be about 65 percent who are indifferent on the time of the clamping of the pulsating cord. This, too, was evident in one of Judith Mercer's studies. Therefore, my conclusions, of my four years of volunteer research (no conflict of interest) are that the mothers must take charge. Knowledge is power. The mothers must stop trusting the medical persons, blindly, and of both sexes.

The faster we know of our grandmother's history in childbirth and return to those natural births, the safer the mothers and their children will be. The medical persons, then, are only called in true emergencies. Babies know where they are and when to come, and mothers will birth trusting in their abilities and knowledge, which must be truthfully taught. I would suggest that a child's birth, be explained as an art and science, with no shame, and at the mother's knee.

If you have benefited from my four years of research and documentation, I would greatly appreciate hearing from you, and if I influenced any changes in the care of your baby, or future babies by informed choice and legal rights you have by common logic and reason.

Contact: dyoung@pris.ca

www.lotusbirth/com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-435.htm

Studies on this issue and reference available at:

www.lotusbirth/com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-110.htm

Search this www.lotusbirth.com web site for : AAP policy, SOGC policy, ACOG policy; Placenta; Fetus to Neonate Circulation; 30-second clamping; World Health Organization and Dupont ; Circumcision ; Dr. Sarah Buckley's Declaration ; Canadian Criminal Codes and when a baby is a person; and any other subject you may be interested on child birth. Search Lotusbirth

(Reference from Protect Babies http://www.123-baby-birth.com) Search at Google this web site for the " No Policies " on equal protection to babies at from the various government officials who appointed representatives to protect the public on medical policies and practices; also the "No policies" of the various medical associations, societies, and colleges did not live up to no form of discrimination to women or the child of any kind. It is believed they had a duty to have a policy of equal protection and security of person, regardless of: age, mental or physical disadvantages ; race, color, social or marital status of the pregnant lady ; or belief or faith of the family, or genetic type of blood sought for by medical researchers, for stem cell matching, and use of white cells, mature red cells, platelets, enzymes, hormones, and plasma.

contact: Donna Young, Mother and Grandmother

Home: www.lotusbirth.com

References of research: www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-110.htm

A medical web site to visit:

www.cordclamping.com

Note: PETITION www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/102580814

Please ask this site to have a Medical Alert Petition Site: petitions@earth.case2.com

Author of Lotus birth, a mother and a grandmother contact: dyoung@pris.ca