bullet1 Dr. George M. Morley's Statement August 29, 2001

Statement of Dr. George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG  Umbilical Cord concerns see article below, in red titles.

 The original signed Declaration of Dr. George M. Morley is in the files of Mother and Grandmother, Donna Young, Natural Birth Education, Box 504, Dawson Creek, BC, V1G 4H4, Canada. Tel:  1-250-782-9223. To use this Medical Statement, in a court of law, please get the official permission of Dr. Morley, who has posted similar concerns and articles at www.cordclamping.com    Dr. Morley's position is only as stated in his own declaration and he does not necessarily share my "own" personal views for women's right of choice for primal birth traditions, or natural birth education, which is now called Lotus Birth.


As the professional experts (ACOG and SOGC) directed immediate umbilical cord clamping, an extreme of umbilical cord care and treatment, and risk of endangering to the child of shock and low blood volume and pressure (holes in the heart, murmurs, brain lesions with the drugs) I have gone to my own mother's unassisted birth experience and my fathers, both alive, ages 91 and 90.  They both were born by means of unassisted births on the rural farms of Canada.  I go totally to the rights to return to the protection of pioneer or primal birth traditions, as a right of all women to be so informed, the pioneers did not faint to see the placenta, and had it kept, untied with their child, put in a diaper.  The placenta feel off the next day or two, for a perfect uninfected navel.  This is a legal right, acknowledge no harm done, and can be required by a Signed Birth Contract, for an unassisted birth in a rented hospital room.  Or can be done by an unassisted birth right, even in in the home, where the midwife is not allowed to touch the mother's body or the baby, and perhaps, sits in another room, because midwives have been known to surprise the mother and interrupt and clamp the cord, taking a power control, as the same as some doctors, do, without authority to do so.  

These are legal and common rights of choice, from the traditions from the beginning of time for the true legal guardians of the child, so argue these rights in a Court of Law long before the child's birth day. The timing of the clamping of the cord should be no surprise assault on the child eh.  It is the parents choice if at all to ever clamp or cut the cord and they can clamp and cut the cord at their convenience after the completion of the child's birth. DO NOT LET the doctor or midwife quicken the third stage of labor for their convenience, or the birth of the child by drugs.  Morphine (spinals slow the birth down) and Oxytocin put the mother in pain of harsher and longer labor, done to manipulate the labor to be speeded up.  These drugs go into the baby's brain and kill cells or prevent new cells from developing, according to the warnings on Oxytocins by the World Health Organization.  These method of care are active management and they are totally opposite of natural birth education and practice, they are for time efficiency and only promise a "living" baby after revival of such manipulation, not a blue ribbon baby.


Primal birth traditions protects the newborn child from no risk of a navel hernia, and no blood toxins getting in a cut cord and the baby or babies, however, whenever or wherever born, do get their full supply of created blood and not science research. Active Management can conceal harvesting of the baby or babies by the institution's or the midwife's concealed policies of organ and blood discarding.


REMOVING THE PLACENTA FOR HARVESTING OF ITS CONTENTS, IF EARLY CLAMPED:

The placenta blood is valuable, particularly interferon extracted from the blood components.  The blood's raw materials may fetch $30,000 an ounces for stem cells or interferon.  This is the infant's blood type, even matched by race/color is desired.  It is a legal duty to protect the baby of an offenses against the person which no adult can agree to violate that protection to the child, not even the parent.  The duty is to report any parent or medical person that violates the child, as to endangering, or child abuse and exploitation.  YOU do not have babies provide for the sick, no judge would order that be done by any child, no matter, the size, the gestation period, or by sex, or by color, or by race, or by social status of the family.


The placenta is a placenta lung-bag, its purpose is to have the blood transfuse into the baby's expanding lungs, during and after birth, and this may take a full 20 minutes for some babies. The child's expanding lungs take a great deal of blood and clamping off the infant's circulation system, as to Dr. Morley's agreement, too, causes the risk of internal injury to the victimized child.


I say, only if the umbilical cord tore, or for placenta previa, need a cord be clamped, for the benefit of the child.  And, those rare chances require a quick remedy, of oxygenated blood revival.  Therefore, a parent can be wise to games and bogus alibis used, often in total surprise,  when a medical person alleges the cord had to early clamped for a c-section or for any baby's birth, or babies (twins).  If such a situation did happen, which is extremely rare, the cause of a torn cord or a nicked cord for a placenta previa, would require an investigation of any possible medical negligence or unnecessary rough handling and their training, their protocols, questioned to, and trainer of such interruption of the infant's circulation system

.  

Other concerns:

  • As an individual, as a mother and a grandmother, I take a position of legal rights that the mothers and fathers of the child being born must have informed choices and all risks known on any care and treatment to their child.

  • Informed choice means the parents-to-be must be truthfully told, as is supported by the World Health Organization, that there is no harm caused to the child to NOT clamp and remove the umbilical cord.  Many young folk, planning a family do NOT know this was the logical and wise custom of the Canadian pioneers, prior to the 1920's.  It spared the child of infections, navel hernias, and from being harvested for the placenta blood for experiments of the day.  Such are the risks of babies born in any medical institution, today.  

  • The removal of the placenta, of informed choice, need not be done, but is done as a trend of many trained medical persons as protocol. It makes no difference if the hospital and staff are wasting the child's deprived blood, or being pragmatic in its use.  By law, it is a matter that if unnecessary interruption of the child's circulation system were taken to a Judge, it would be considered battery.The facts are no protocol of any hospital or doctor can direct or order the placenta from the child.

  • The placenta if engorged with blood, deprived the child, can be far more valuable then the birth fees paid to the medical person. The value of the placenta and the placenta blood wrongfully trapped there can be worth, for example, $30,000 just for every ounce of stem cell or interferon hormones. Such facts can be discovered by the Court system, both criminal and civil.  The taking of the child's deprived blood is not discussed with the legal parents of the child, who may not want harvesting of their child for money, but to allow their baby to be the healthiest it can be.

  • The method of clamping and cutting off the placenta can risk the child to blood poison.  This is a fact of science that any cut of the cord can cause infections; or  even a nick in the child's skin; or any insertion of a needle into the child's skin, or by injections of any needle can allow the entry of a germ or virus. This virus can be either a slow or fast acting virus. It is a fact of research that over 500,000 babies die annually from infections from the cut cord.  (World Health Organization).

  • The most recent outbreak of blood infections endangering the new born babies was in British Columbia, at the Vancouver Children's Hospital, September 29, 2002, the Sunday Province, page 1 and PA3.  At that time, there were two babies endangered by MRSA, Methiclillin-Resistant Staphyloccus Aurerus. A total of 38 babies, all with their cords cut, had to be moved into special wards to try to stop the spread of MRSA .  In 1998, two babies died of MRSA and 47 had been infected.  

  • The truth is if you don't clamp the cord or cut the umbilical cord, there is little chance of a virus getting into the child blood stream, except by needles inserted into the baby for blood samples removed, and for injection questionable vaccinations of Hep B and Vit K at birth, as well.  Any injection or cut on the baby's skin, during birth, risk the child to blood poisoning.

  • The parents must be told by the prenatal class instructors, their family doctors, that their child is likely to be risked of being exploited of blood harvesting, the most valuable sought and released into the placenta is likely interferon.  Interferon fights all viruses and may sell for $30,000 an ounce, the same as stem cells.  Distress caused to children during labor by drugs, it the most advantageous ways the labs get the placenta, and by the doctors following protocols for collecting a fee for sending organs and tissues (blood samples) down to the labs.  

  • If the babies were born unassisted in their own homes, attended by their own family birth witness and not by the present training and trends of current licensed medical persons, the babies, of my own opinion, would not be endangered and harvested for 20 to 50 percent total blood volume, trapped in the placenta.  So the parents have a right to know of possible motives why doctors, nurses and midwives are being trained in questionable protocols of early umbilical cord clamping.  As to my own research of past medical manuals, available to the public, doctors waited at least 10 to 12 minutes before they tied off the placenta cord, if at all.(1)  The Home Physician and Guide to Health, Revised Edition, Editorial Staff, Newton Evans, B.S., M.D., F.A.C.P., Dean and Professor of Pathology, College of Medical Evangelists, Los Angeles, California, Volume II, Canadian Watchman Press, Oshawa, Ontario, page pages 648-694, 1920-1940.  (This medical textbook is part of my own private medical reference textbooks and is one of many that doctors have known, past and current, not to clamp the pulsating umbilical cord).

  • The home care directives, which should not change in any medical institution, were to keep the baby warm, wrapped in warm clean towels, and the placenta, too, and the mother was to have birthed in the warmest room possible, and all helpers hands were to be washed and they were to have clean clothes on. Those directives were known best practice possible, least risk of harm since 1865, for being clean, the string boiled, the scissors boiled and use of iodine.  Not clamping the umbilical cord, was known, as stated by Dr. George M. Morley, until all pulsation ceased, was known since 1801.

  • Today, because of questionable training and practices of the University Medical Training Hospitals, for example in Ontario, all their doctors and the nurses, too, are being trained in early umbilical cord clamping.  It may mean that the medical persons fear to NOT do no clamping or cutting of the cord. This may mean they are threatened by the Administration Policies or protocol set by each local hospital.  The hospital may have a conflict of interest in that they obtain extra billings or research funding money by allowing endangering of the child for harvesting of the placenta, not destroyed, until the benefits of the placenta are practically used however science and research permit. But all this is done without informed choice or the child protect to NO clamping or cutting off the placenta and cord.

  • Fact Finding:   All this can be discovered by Rules of the Court for fact finding what is going on in the community hospitals on the issue of the timing of the clamping of the umbilical cord and to whom the placenta and placenta blood and cord are sent for discarding or packaging to others who may purchase organs and tissue.  

  • PREVENTION:   The expecting parents must do what they can, even using the Courts to protect their child from doctors and nurses now trained in early cord clamping by knowing their legal rights and to have a signed Birth Contract.  The hospitals head surgeon, Chief of Staff and head nurse must be held accountable and the policy committee who set the guidelines of protocols and best practice possible of the standards of care of each community hospital. Others having a duty to protect the child are those that investigate any child who may be endangered, such as the Child and Family Officials.  An attempt to them to report professional  policies that are directing unnecessary risk taking protocols is a priority in each community.  The protocols that were set up by organized groups, societies, Colleges licensed groups, such as the Associations, Societies of the Obstetrician, Gynecologists, and Pediatricians.  Part of recommending of protocols and procedures have also been set by in Emergency Manuals by the Red Cross Associations, Workmen Compensation Boards, 9-1-1 Counsellors and ambulance medics. There are those directing boards of  heart, lung, and stroke prevention societies that lend approval on Emergency training on the care and treatment for a sudden birth.  Many of those mentioned have participated, directly or indirectly in the distributing of technical medical bulletins or information that directed early umbilical cord clamping, flat on the back birth positions, or semi sitting birth positions.  Included in misguided or harmful information or missing information, have also been the biology textbooks and encyclopedias, and some chemistry textbook that may have stated safety in the use of drugs to a pregnant lady, inferring no harm done to her or the developing or about to be born child.

  • Not only is the child under threat of early cord clamping if the mother births in any hospital of the State, Province, or Territory, the mother is in danger of calling the -9-1-1 medics too. This is because they too are being trained from endangering and false protocols.  The experts involved of the false protocols, are the Obstetricians, Gynecologists and Pediatricians.  They do not better because the evidence of deprived blood is visual, but the protocol is for the lab and the doctors and the nurse to destroy the evidence of the placenta and make sure the parents do not take the placenta for their own forensic testing of the drugs, they were told did not cross the placenta, but would be found by private forensic testing of the placenta, all the drugs and injections given the mother in the placenta.  The babies well being many never fully recover from these unnatural active management birth care of the mother and the child.  It is a economic choice for the reasons of the protocol, not for any real benefit for the mother or the child, it is time efficient and selling of the placenta and the components of blood, as I summarize this from my own independent research.  The legal system cannot give impunity to the doctors, nurses, medical persons for not having informed consent and imposing unnecessary medical care and treatment on anyone's baby or on the mother's person, that it cannot be alleged to be battery, or assault.

  • BIRTH CONTRACT :  Parents, birthing today, are wise to have a doctor sign a Birth Contract not to clamp or cut the cord, that the procedure will be looked after by the mother and the father, and that they want the baby held in a warm blanket until the placenta is expelled, and the mother and father will see to the cord at their own time convenience, and even babies have been operated on,yet remaining on their umbilical cord and placenta.  

  • Again, the clamping and cutting of the placenta, like circumcision, is merely a cosmetic procedure. Only if the cord tore, an almost impossibility, except for rough handling, or for a nick of the placenta or cord, might the cord have to be clamped with informed approval of the parent.  Such situations would require an investigation of negligence if either of those situations happened.   And, again, complications of low blood volume and pressure, and cord infections are the complications if the cord is clamped, or  hand-squeezed and then cut off by any medical person, including ambulance medics.  

  • My position to the parental right of knowledge  to know about that no harm is done to the child to leave the placenta and child intact and this fact was known and practiced of the early pioneers, who birthed privately in their own homes, prior to the 1920's.This was known and practiced for c-section premature babies, too. See the T. Peltonen research papers.  In studies done in back in 1981, no premature baby had the lung disorder when left on the placenta and cord to transfer all placenta blood into the infant's expanding lungs.  Much of the lung distress is not so much immature lungs, as alleged, but lack of volume of blood and maintaining volume pressure which is part of the purpose of the placenta, holding the pressure constant while the heart brings in the placenta blood into the expanding lungs.

  • The removal of the placenta risks the placenta and blood in it to be wrongfully used by the hospitals labs.  The placenta is drained of the nutrients and the components of the blood separated and sold on the open market for interferon and stem cell profits to those involved, and secretly, involved. The payment to medical persons are being covered by codes and are billed for as extra billings, not disclosed to the legal guardians of the child, in some situations or in the use of private labs, who have access to body organs, and blood tissue, and bones.  

  • The risk of the parents not paying attention to the placenta, the after birth, means that their child's placenta and others, can be  harvested for raw material.  Since they have no way of knowing the philosophy of the researcher or the lab, the parents are risking their own genetic background to be exposed to possible genetic manipulation and endangering to their own kind or to one sex over the other, being exposed to threat of target of diseases.

  • The duty of the State and Federal government levels, and in the community health care services are that no one person or a child is endangered, nor for research project to disregard or ever undermine the Nation's Laws, both civil and criminal.  At the present time, there has been no real investigation of the private stem cell blood banks operating privately on university campus grounds, and in other countries.  When we have no Medical Bill of Rights, we must rely on the Criminal and unwritten common laws of the right of the person to be a self-determiner of what is done to their body or their removed organs, that they are witnessed burned, and an authority of a witness can remain with the organ or blood seen, burned, "locally" or buried locally, with lime on it.

  • No protocol policies of any organized group, or any study group of randomized trials ever become an authority, ever, to undermine full informed choice and the duty of all adults to protect the child from being exploited. There are some parents who may, yet, find themselves before a court of civil or criminal law that directed or requested their baby be harvested for another's purpose and weakened their baby.  

  • Many children, while weakened after early umbilical cord clamping, injuries minor to serious, often then do not have their own families means to compensate them for more difficulties in life in learning and acquiring skills for self-sufficiency and independence.  Many children's hopes and dreams are minimized by early illness of cancers created by a low immunity system, their interferon taken away in blood trapped in the engorged placenta. The doctors allowed the placenta to be collected, no doubt for a fee, and sent to the labs.  They may or may not have participate with the hospital they work under contract for, to have sold the placenta and the placenta blood for profits, that benefitted that community hospital's operations, not fully disclosed to the public at large of that community.

  • In Canada the cancer deaths are greatest in the age groups of 4 to 40. Many persons have been weakened by injections of vaccinations of heavy metals, that enlarge the proteins or blood molecules.  All internal injuries are increased and the cost of medical costs of services in our communities are getting more and more difficult to monitor with secrets and codes not disclosed to the pubic at large.

  • One released report of statistics in Canada, was that the greatest amount of the health budget are spent on the two most vulnerable groups, Senior Citizens and the children under one year of age.  Old age cannot be prevented, but we can work to have healthy blue ribbon babies, so we must investigate the training and ethics of the medical persons involved in harvesting the babies at birth by doing early cord clamping and injecting babies with stuff soon after birth, and then every two months of age.

  • We must investigate the Corporations in charge of the vaccinations, how do they make the vaccination or drug, and what ingredients, trace elements (heavy metals mercury of any kind, organic, non-organic, solid, liquid, or gas form), are in them, and what preservatives* are used. The medical consumers have a right to know what is being offered to them or being injected in their body.  
  •      * For example, what type of salt do our drugs have and vaccinations.  Are they preserved with by regular salt, iodized salt, or MSG. The latter MSG can put a sensitive person into a diabetic shock, as the MSG increases insulin.


( The Url for this reference is:  www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-671.htm ).  Home page with Table of Contents:   www.lotusbirth.com   List of References with Comments (can't resist):   www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-110.htm   (See also no ethical medical policies or correct procedures at:   www.123-baby-birth.com  )

Revised:  July 29, 2004

_____________________________________________________


G. M. Morley, MB ChB FACOG

P. O. Box 181

Northport, MI 49670

                            

August 29, 2001


To Whom It May Concern:


Name:  GEORGE  MALCOLM  MORLEY, MB ChB FACOG


Curriculum. Vitae. I graduated from Edinburgh University medical School in 1957, completed a rotating membership in Michigan in 1958 and completed a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1962 when I began private practice.  I became board certified in obstetrics and gynecology in 1966 and am currently a member of Michigan State Medical Society and a Fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.  I retired from practice in 1999.


Publications:  A full review article entitled Cord Closure:  Can Hasty Clamping Injure the Newborn? In OBG MANAGEMENT, July 1998.  Two letters published in OBG MANAGEMENT in February 1998 and May 1999.  Four letters published in OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY in August 2000, January 2001, and in June 2001 (2).


The basic premises on which Ms Young's complaint is founded are:


1.        That immediately after the birth of all children, the cord and placenta continue to supply the child with oxygen and blood.

2.        That after the lungs are supplying the child with oxygen and after the child has received enough blood from the placenta for optimal survival, the cord vessels close naturally.

3.        That interruption of the placental supply of oxygen and blood by means of a cord clamp before the lungs are functioning and before the child has attained an optimal blood volume may cause permanent injury to the child.



My publications and all other publications in my possession support the truth of the above premises.


The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG Educational Bulletin 216, Nov. 1995) and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC Policy Statement No. 89, May 2000) advise immediate clamping of the cord at birth. Because of this advise and current early cord clamping habits fostered by the profession, few newborns today have optimal oxygenation or optimal blood volumes; many are needlessly injured by premature cord clamping.


I AM WILLING TO TESTIFY AND OFFER PROOF that immediate cord clamping at birth causes attention deficit disorders, learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, mental retardation, respiratory distress syndrome, and intraventricular hemorrhage, and cerebral palsy.


G. M. MORLEY, signature and date:  August 29, 2001


WITNESSED:


MARTHA  L.  ROBERTS, NOTARY PUBLIC

LEELANAU COUNTY, MICHIGAN

(My commission Expires: August 11, 2003)

_____________________________________________________


Dr. Morley's articles can be read at:   www.cordclamping.com

_____________________________________________________


PERSONAL STATEMENT OF DONNA YOUNG.

I am a mother and a grandmother, President of Natural Birth Education,

Box 504, Dawson Creek, BC V1G 4H4 Canada

Tel: 1-250-782-9223 email:   dyoung@pris.ca


    I began my research, in 1998 and to this date, June 24, 2004.  I shared my concerns to the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons. They assured me in a letter dated 1999, that all doctors were properly educated NOT to clamp off a pulsating umbilical cord. They lied, doctors were then being trained to clamp the cord as protocol, before all pulsation had ceases.  At that time, I was not aware of the work of others, but would come to know of their concerns, too, on the internet, after 2000.  

    These persons, some lay persons, some professionals, had been clued in on the early umbilical cord clamping, but had not advocated taking the matter to the Courts, criminal and civil, which I do advocate for such discipline measures to the leaders and policy makers, as well as advocating for financial compensation to the victims of early cord clamping, punitive damages because they made life harder for the victims, then life already is.  There are other harmful birth measures being imposed by the protocols followed by most medical persons and institutions for "active management."  


    There is perceivable harm caused internally to all children this unnecessary protocol, active management, being imposed on children and the parents could not stop the assault on their child. This was because doctors did not discuss the timing of the clamping of the umbilical cord.  And if asked, they simply lied, saying the amount of blood trapped in the placenta was not important.  They often used the alibi of their discretion when to clamp the cord, stated by Dr. Gabbes, at MD Consult.


    The mothers, were helpless, like turtles placed on their backs.  We could NOT see if the doctors were meddling with our baby's lifeline, the umbilical cord. Nor, could spouses see, as they were behind sheets, and were holding their wife's hand, not paying attention what doctors were doing with the umbilical cord in either a c-section or vaginal birth, or for multiple births.  (SEE T. Peltonen's research all babies, even c-sections can be removed as a sealed-unit).


     Some doctors hand-squeezed the cord off, and let it go, off and on.  Mothers, if they knew how their babies were being treated, experimented on, such as babies held high in a c-section procedure, causing the blood in the baby to run back into the placenta, making for even a weaker baby, and more blood in the placenta to be sold.  Or they held the baby very low, putting distress on the baby's heart to pump back up the blood into the placenta for gas exchange of the carbon dioxide.  


    Most mothers would not consent to that if we knew it was going on, nor any clamping or tying the cord before the completion of our child's birth, the placenta expelled, and the cord ceasing to pulsate. The condition of the umbilical cord, if the mothers agree to cosmetically removal of the placenta, ( a choice not a medical need) from the child, would be:    white/silver, limp and not pulsating .  The facts are true for all babies, even for the c-section babies. All babies can be removed from the womb, as what I call a biological, reciprocal, sealed unit.


    If the cord is rushed in the clamping, it is firm, red and pulsating. More blood is trapped in the placenta that otherwise ought to be in the owner/infant. This fact of record is never placed on the child's own medical charts by the nurses witnessing what the doctors did to a particular child.  ONLY if the cord tore or for placenta previa should a cord be tied off, and quick remedy to replace oxygenated blood is imperative if the child is not going to be damaged. (See Chow-case-law and Ing-case-law of over $22 million dollars for damaged children of interrupted circulation system at www.lotusbirth.com Table of Contents.  To give you an example of how much blood can be deprived a child by early clamping, a 9-pound baby, full term, only creates 10 ounces of blood (300 ml). The cord blood bank, Cells for Life, Ontario, Canada, states they receive up to 180 ml of blood from the average collection from babies, if hastily clamped (30-seconds).  That is more then half of the baby's created blood volume, if,  9 pounds. The average blood created by the babies are about one ounce more then its total weight. (Reference from, Joseph V. Simone, World Book Encyclopedia, Vol B (Blood) page 324, 1979).


    Babies, in recovery, in the Intensive Care Unites, are often continued to have samples of blood taken, every second and third day, of 10 to 15 percent total volume of blood, and infants are being revived 1 in 16 in Canada.  (see Reference pages, as stated above).


WHEN IN DOUBT, GO NATURAL:   NO INTERRUPTION OF THE LIFELINE, THE HOPE LINE, THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND LIFE, ITSELF, UMBILICAL CORD LINE:  

     The benefits of remaining a sealed unit is the child is not put into shock and not denied even one drop of blood. The facts are I was told when I was age 14 years, old, not even dating, that the pioneer mothers, my grandmother, who birthed my mother in her own home in 1913, NEVER tied or cut the cord.


    The pioneers and presently small villages not influenced by Western ways, in Third World Developing Nations, had left the placenta alone. Birth was simple, and no drugs (many pioneers birthed in warm water tubs).  The baby was wrapped in a nice warm towel, and then the placenta, when born, and the cord was NOT tied or cut.  The placenta was simply kept close to the baby.  In a day or two the cord was off. See the Signed Declaration of Dr. Sarah Buckley, she learned leave the placenta to air, and the cord was off in two day's time.


    The benefits to the baby was no navel hernias, as no weight was on a cut cord.  No infections in the cord, so no blood infections as a no cut cord allowed no possible chance of a germ getting into the baby's blood stream to cause a slow or fast acting Super bug or viruses.  The baby was assured all their nutrients, interferon stem cells, that I suspect are the key reasons doctors are following bogus protocols of early clamping.


    Records must be kept.  So evidence of fact of medical persons or the institutions selling the suspensions in the blood, for profits, can be found out. Or, the doctors are the agents for the Administration of the Hospitals and it is the hospitals labs that are involved in selling the placenta and the placenta contents. This is true for removed foreskins of circumcised boys, sent to skin tissue banks.  All this is done without true informed consent, approved by the policy makers at each community hospitals, that had lawyers on their boards.


    The records of fact are in the income and expenses of all hospitals and at all private cord stem cell blood banks, operating world wide.  This harvest of the babies, leaving them alive, and if they die not being investigated, is a billion dollar industry dealing in blood tissues, hormones, enzymes, minerals plasma and proteins of the blood.


     Interferon and stem cells are the most wanted and the most profitable to those who store and collect various blood suspensions. The most wanted of the blood types are Asian and European and any mixed ethnic group, such as Russian and Italian, as an example. See the Yurko Project, A SUSPECTED harvested child at birth, premature 5 weeks and premature babies have more stem cells and likely interferon that fights "all" viruses.  The child was then harvested at his death, 2 1/2 months later after the weakened early harvested child was injected with six (6) vaccinations, with mercury in some of the live viruses.  Mercury can cause a heart attack or stroke, as it links to other metals and creates larger molecule, and they cannot pass through the tiny capillary system.  


    See also that $3 billion dollars was earned for the development of the blood tissues and spleen organ taken from John Moore.  He sued, for no informed consent.  And, then settled out of court for breach of fiduciary trust.  The lab (not held accountable for not getting appropriate care informed Consent forms for them to do research) and the doctor (held accountable for breach of trust no informed consent)  received $3 billion dollars for interferon cells sold within 3 months "after"  they took the tissue without informed consent for research and cell developing.  


    The collaboration between the lab and the doctor did not have informed consent of the owner of the DNA genetic information, John Moore.  His settlement was believed to be for a mere one-half million dollars, (compared to $3 billion dollars that most people can't understand how much that money really is)  The bank accounts do leave a record, on speculation of damages in settlement to Constitutional violations to John Moore.


OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWN HARM TO INFANTS WAS PUBLISHED IN 1997 BY DORIS HAIRE.

Read Doris Haire's ARTICLE ON BIRTH WITHOUT BORDERS ON THE HARMS OF MEDICATION AND OTHER CONCERNS:

www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-499.htm


_____________________________________________________


Please sign the Petition :

Protect Babies and Mothers, Too:

www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/102580814

_____________________________________________________


    See the Birth Contract at www.lotusbirth.com.  I now advocate taking this issue if the hospital and all doctors that may be involved in the birth of a child in the community or even the firemen or ambulance medics, to be upheld at your local court, directing a duty of all medical doctors and nurses, or medics giving aid to a birthing mother, and /or who are working in maternity centers or the hospital who intend to do protocols for fear of losing their jobs, they can't risk injury to the mother or the child by following, with fear, bogus protocols.  This is even if the bogus policies have been set by experts.  The duty is to report the bogus policies and to hold those responsible for Common Nuisance for endangering even one child or birth mother.


    The court can set them straight what is child abuse or assault and battery to either the mother or the child, even with bogus policies.  The parents have a right to protect their child from any risk of internal damages by drugs, injections, gases, all that cross the placenta, and that the child receives "every drop of blood" the placenta will transfuse to the child, by the child's own heart's control of the circulation, and no rush ; and revival of all compromised children can be on the cord, not tied or clamped or cut from the baby, ever....unless, of course, the cord tore (dropped child), and/or a operation mistake, a c-section surgeon cut the cord or the placenta. All other reasons are bogus and written as alibis, but must be challenged in a court of law for possibly criminal assault, or battery on the child, of which even the parents, the legal guardians of the care and treatment given the child, cannot consent to endanger their baby.


    One of the bogus reasons to endanger a child by early clamping are fear of the mother bleeding. Generally, the mother does not bleed until "after" the placenta is expelled, so clamping the cord for no evidence of this fact, but an alleged bogus reason to clamp the functioning cord, must be considered, in my opinion, battery on the child.  And endangering without the benefit of the amputated cord to be a benefit to either the mother or the child, in fact risked the mother to leakage of the placenta by clamping on the full placenta, mixing two different blood types, or the risk of it.  

    by Donna Young


Originally posted:  June 24, 2004