DOCTORS CARE TO THEIR OWN OFFSPRING: As to hasty clamping and taking the child's blood (assault and robbery of the child's property, blood), it would be most interesting, to know how each of the doctors doing this to another's child, treated their own? I recall a conversation between nurses who said after a intern's baby was born, a boy, everyone was so excited for him, that they totally forgot to clamp the child's cord for over 15 minutes. Yeah Right, and the next little colored baby boy was clamped immediately, no excitement there, eh? Why not? A baby is a baby isn't it? Or is social status involved? I think so.
As to doctors failing/forgetting to clamp their own babies cord immediately, and we think what marvelous genes the doctor's children have, who proves/knows for sure but the nurses in that delivery room to know what is done for some and what is done to others? Why the difference of care and to whom?
There is another situation, which I will put up on the Internet, as soon as possible, where a female doctor went public that she gave her child's blood to a cord blood bank. But when written to, to confirm how much, she would not reply. I wondered if she actually existed?
What the doctor was doing was using her position as a doctor to encourage others to do the same, clamp early and donate their child's blood to a public cord blood bank. I have seen parents who have done that advocate others follow their lead.
Well, if so, if the parents want to be totally honest about such things, they ought to state how much blood was collected from their baby, and how soon the clamping was done, and if the baby was a normal birth or a c-section, too, all is helpful information, if they want to encourage clamping of a child's lifeline before the natural completion of the birth.
And how about a factual video of the early clamped babies and those babies the mother left on the placenta cord, for hours, if never clamping the cord until it fell of naturally?
Then show a baby getting all its blood, by full-delayed clamping and show the immediate clamped babies side by side, and you will see the visually stronger child to be what will be logical, without such tests, the baby having the longer time on blood transfusion is going to be the healthier baby. Premature babies, too. All babies.
Such evidence is being avoided in the current hospital births. A picture of the treatment to the child's umbilical cord is worth a 1000 words. Which of the mothers were informed no harm done by no clamping, and which of the mothers were lied to being told no difference between full-delayed clamping and immediate or clamping within 30 seconds? There will be lies to the mother and deceit which the doctor had a duty to get the facts, check the facts, and be truthful as to his /her intent to clamp a pulsating umbilical cord. When the facts are no harm done by no clamping, ever.
The difference in the child's appearance and strength is like night and day. The full delayed clamped babies have a healthy color at birth. In most cases there will be no jaundice if the mother is not drugged or diabetic, or the baby is NOT injected with Vitamin K, Heb B, and other shots preserved in toxic substances, like mercury and aluminum. The natural-birthed, no intervention baby, is stronger. This baby will have a high Apgar score, likely 10, the first time, given a moment for its lungs to expand after the blood correctly runs through them preparing for the air to come externally, logically. It will not need minute to minute observation when it sleeps. It will not be in an oxygen tent. It will be nursing about 1/2 hour after birth. It will not have been stressed with meconium that is excessively unnatural. Meconium caused by the baby fearing for its life not having a gentle birth.
Most of the birthing mothers nor the children were NOT respected -- but were, indeed, I say, exploited. Randomized trials of such experiments have proven the mother is none-the-wiser for the truth of the reasons for the testing. Seldom were they given choices of no harm done methods of care to the mother and child. Many mothers are simply conned by lack of factual information to consent to giving their baby's blood. They are told the blood draining is painless to both the mother and the child. True to the mother. A limp struggling child, I would call that painful, certainly stressfu, the child fighting to live. They are told the blood will be discarded if not given to private blood banks. Is that a fact? And if so what does discarded really mean? Who proves the trapped blood in the placenta is "always" burned? As to no pain to take the baby's blood, I am told a shark biting off one's limb is painless too. The side-effects after the fact of blood loss, while painless, may cause death. Doesn't take long or that much blood loss to put the human body into shock.
To get the mother to consent to hasty clamping, she is NEVER told no clamping or cutting ever the cord, is harmless to her or the baby. She is led to believe that clamping and cutting the cord are a necessary treatment. That is a lie in most instances. Where is the evidence in each case. If none exist, then it was a bold-faced medical lie. Are we going to have apologies from the medical associations involved in this cover-up? I would think all, directly or indirectly profited as to the spin-offs from turning the other cheek and pretending the problem didn't exist and that knowledge of it didn't exit within the medical circles. It seems from 1801, they all kept a very well organized secret from the greater majority of the public. They included the major press to be mum on what was going on to Mothers, world wide, in most instances. This is, to say the least, if all true, is a 200-year-old medical scam and disgrace.
My best guess how long some of the babies were assaulted by unethical doctors and nurses is to the First World War. While mum's the word on this one as to few survivors of those times, we know the doctors were involved in blood transfusions. And there is definite recordings of research and experiments that the use of the umbilical cord stem cell blood from babies was used in transfusions all the way back to 1939, during the Second World War. But the big trend in going public with cord stem cells was not until the 1980's. What really was going on all this time to many of our babies that we trusted to birth in the hospital for the best of care?