The Iron Clad Legal Defense to Protect Your Baby at the Hospital
Signed and notarized but still the nurses and doctors treat us like idiots. We'll see how long that lasts.
Hello again everyone! This comment I’m posting is a little dated. I put it together with a basic outline I found on the internet as well as some quotations from books and the Bible among other things. My purpose was to make a rock-solid case for the birth attendants to let my wife try to give birth without their ‘standard of care’ assistance. Of course, this was when there was still the pretense of free choice in medicine (pre-lockdown, pre-injection mandate). Nowadays, I recommend that everyone that is going to deliver a baby do so outside a hospital. When I say the medical industrial complex must be destroyed, I mean it.
Even though I had a basic outline already written, it took me forever to write this whole thing out with the quotations I had included from the books. If a natural birth interests you, or if you know someone planning to deliver in a hospital, you should read this manuscript. It gives solid reasoning for refusing just about every modern medical procedure (including shots that are not ‘vaxxes’) they want to throw at newborn babies right before they are born to when they are fresh out of the womb.
Don’t forget, although you may feel confident going into the labor and delivery lion’s den in your local hospital, the best thing to do is not play their game. Stay out of the hospitals!
**********************************************************************************
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT FOR NATURAL BIRTH IN HOSPITAL
(This was written before coronavirus and given to as many medical providers as possible before the birth of my third child, and NOT ONE OF THEM READ IT. We walked out of the hospital because they did not respect my wife or myself as an advocate for my wife. We were going to go to another hospital but stopped at home to get some water and use the bathroom, and my wife had our baby in the bathroom! It was so much less painful squatting than laying down according to her! The OBGYN medical profession has been killing and injuring mothers and babies during some of the most significant times of their lives and THE IGNORANCE HAS GOT TO STOP!!!!!
I wish I could transcribe the entire book by Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, but the gist of it is : he found out that his profession OBGYN causes more harm than good on a HUGE scale!
To my birth attendants:
As a mother, I, ________________________ understand and accept the fact that I am ultimately responsible for my own health and the health of my baby. I have made every effort to gain the knowledge and information that I need to make informed decisions. After a careful consideration of this knowledge as well as my own values and priorities, I have established some guidelines to help you care for me in a way which is not only the safest for me and my baby, but also honors my needs and beliefs about birth.
I have complete faith in my body's ability to give birth normally. I believe my body was designed to give birth, and that it can do so with very little assistance. I have prepared myself for what the birth experience will be like by taking classes and talking with mothers who have had a positive birth experience to find out what they did that was helpful. I do not expect to have a short labor or to have no discomfort. But I do expect to be allowed to labor in the way that is most helpful to me, even if that way is in conflict with routine procedures. With help from my labor support person, I will require very little of your time and attention.
I have chosen my husband, ________________________ to be my birth advocate, and I authorize him to see that my preferences as stated in this birth plan are carried out as closely as possible. This person will also provide physical and emotional support throughout the whole process of labor and delivery.
If at any time a physician feels that medical conditions warrant an intervention into the birth process, I am willing to discuss the proposed intervention as well as the possible alternatives.
After discussing the situation, my final decision is to be respected and honored, even if it is in opposition to the opinions of others.
The following guidelines are designed to help my birth attendants know what kind of birth experience I desire for myself and my baby. No deviations should be made from this plan without my consent:
1. It is my desire to receive no assistance of any kind with my birth unless I specifically ask for that assistance. I am at the hospital only so that emergency help is available if necessary. I will require no routine care of any kind.
2. I will not be separated from my support persons for any reason unless I request it.
3. I WILL NOT BE CONFINED TO A BED DURING MY LABOR
“A West German scientist, Albert Huch, measured what happened to the baby’s oxygen supply when the mother was kept on her back during labor. Within two minutes the fetal oxygen dropped to the danger point, and it took ten to twelve minutes to get it back to normal with vigorous exercise…..I am convinced that the high incidence of learning disabilities, hyperactivity, and similar problems observed in children in the United States is the result of fetal oxygen deprivation that doctors cause during labor.
As I suggested previously, the mothers suffer, too, when they are not allowed to sit up, stand, and walk around during labor. A controlled study of more than 300 women conducted by Dr. Caldeyro-Barcia in 1978 found that labor is shortened, forceps are needed less frequently, and mothers experience less pain and fewer complications if they are not confined to bed and delivered while lying on their backs. In addition, the cervix dilates much more rapidly during the first stage of labor and labor is 25 percent shorter.”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “Male Practice How Doctors Manipulate Women” p.161-162
I will be upright and active throughout my labor, walking as much or as little as I feel necessary, and assuming whatever position is most comfortable for me and helps assist the progress of labor.
IT IS NOT WORTH THE RISK TO MY BABY FOR ME TO BE CONFINED TO A BED DURING THE LABOR AND DELIVERY PROCESS
4. I will eat light, non-constipating foods during early labor and clear liquids during active labor, if I choose to do so.
5. MY AMNIOTIC MEMBRANES WILL BE ALLOWED TO RUPTURE SPONTANEOUSLY
“Natural rupture of the bag of waters normally occurs at the onset of the pushing stage of labor, when the cervix is fully dilated and ready to permit the baby to be born. Up to that point the fetus is protected from being damaged by the mother’s contractions because it is surrounded by the fluid in the amniotic sac. When the doctor ruptures the membranes and releases the amniotic fluid during the first stage of labor, the cervix is usually dilated to only four or five centimeters. The contractions, more severe than normal because of the Pitocin, ram the unprotected head of the fetus against the cervix and bony pelvis. The result can be brain damage and disalignment of the parietal bones. “
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “Male Practice How Doctors Manipulate Women” p. 173-174
6. IT IS MY CHOICE TO GIVE BIRTH IN THE SQUATTING POSITION
“Way back in 1933 Mengert and Murphy, in an extensive experimental study, recorded intra abdominal pressure at the height of maximum straining effort during labor. Their research involved more than 1000 observations of women placed in seven postures. They found that the greatest pressure was exerted in the sitting position. This was due to measured visceral weight and to increased muscular efficiency. In 1937, another researcher presented x rays and measurements that indicated that squatting alters the pelvic shape in a way that makes it advantageous for delivery. I know of no study that has ever negated this evidence that women should not be confined to the supine position during labor. Yet, with few exceptions, women in labor in the United States are still placed flat on their backs with their feet in stirrups.
Since it obviously has no legitimate medical basis, you are entitled to ask why doctors continue to force mothers to have their babies while strapped down flat on their backs. In the absence of any other rational explanation, I will give you the only answer that makes any sense. The position itself creates the pathology that makes normal births abnormal and provides the obstetrician with about 95 percent of his reason to exist. The trauma that the doctor created provides him with a succession of opportunities to appear necessary and satisfy his desire to intervene.”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “Male Practice How Doctors Manipulate Women” p.153-154
I will require very little help from doctors or nurses to give birth because the squatting position encourages proper rotation, as well as quick and painless expulsion of the baby.
7. When one gives birth in the squatting position, suctioning of the baby is rarely necessary due to the natural drainage of fluids.
If suction does prove to be necessary, DEEP SUCTIONING OF THE INFANT WILL BE DONE ONLY IF SUCTION WITH A BULB SYRINGE PROVES TO BE INADEQUATE
8. During labor and delivery, I will be using vocalization as one of my tools for coping with labor.
I find that it helps me to cope with the intensity of contractions while remaining totally relaxed. Hospital staff need to be aware that these vocalizations are constructive and that I am not making them because I am in pain, am distress, or need assistance.
9. ONLY EXHALE PUSHING WILL BE USED, AND ONLY WHEN I FEEL THE URGE TO DO SO
In order to allow the perineal tissues time to fan out so that no tearing takes place, and in order to reduce the risk of damage to the muscles of the pelvic floor, I will allow the baby to descend through the birth canal slowly and without sustained pushing efforts from me.
Delivery will not be rushed, but allowed to occur slowly and naturally.
10. PELVIC EXAMITNATIONS WILL BE PERFOMED ONLY AT MY REQUEST
11. I WILL HAVE NO PERINEAL SHAVE PREP
12. NO DRUGS OF ANY KIND WILL BE ADMINISTERED DURING THE LABOR AND DELIVERY PROCESS, THIS INCLUDES ANTIBIOTICS AND CHEMICALS FOR INDUCING LABOR
I have researched and assessed the risks of using drugs during the labor and delivery process, and I have decided that it is not worth it to risk any damage to my baby.
“Although many doctors will give the mother the false assurance that “this drug won’t reach your baby,” every doctor knows that almost any drug he gives her will cross the placenta and affect the fetus. There is ample evidence that this may produce physical and intellectual damage to the baby, who is ill prepared to deal with the chemicals that are transmitted from its mother. Even a full term, healthy newborn baby is not fully developed at the time of its birth. The brain continues to develop for nearly five years after birth, and drugs received before birth can adversely affect that development. The liver, needed for the metabolism of toxic materials, and the kidneys, which excrete them, are also not fully developed, and do not function as effectively as they do in adults. Thus, the newborn infant is incapable of dealing effectively with the drugs that have crossed the placenta and entered its bloodstream during labor and delivery.”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “Male Practice How Doctors Manipulate Women” p.168
“Another threat to a baby’s newly acquired resident microbes involves antibiotics given to the mother. Most doctors consider it safe to prescribe penicillins for all sorts of mild infections in pregnancy—coughs, sore throats, urinary tract infections. Sometimes when doctors think that the mother has a viral infection they also give antibiotics just in case it is actually a bacterial infection.
As we know, the antibiotics affect the mother’s resident microbes, inhibiting susceptible bacteria and selecting for resistance. The closer the dose is to birth, the greater the possibility that she will pass a skewed population of microbes to her baby.”
Adapted and excerpted from “Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues.” Martin J. Blaser, M.D.
“One reported side effect of IV antibiotics in women is a harmless rash. Another potential annoying but treatable consequence is a vaginal yeast infection, which can lead to thrush in baby’s mouth and on your nipples, and make breastfeeding painful for you until it resolves. A far more serious but fortunately very rare side effect is anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction which can be life threatening, but most often managed effectively with medication. What concerns us most is the effect Antibiotics can have on us and our little ones.
Microbiome disruption is the disturbance of the intestinal tract balance of normal flora in babies and mothers. More research is needed, but a recent Harvard magazine article tells us that this can cause lifelong complications in infants. It also ups the antibiotic resistance in adults and infants, another lifelong consequence and can lead to other serious infections for them both”
Source: https://homesweethomebirth/blog/group-b-strep-in-pregnancy
“Natural oxytocin is supplied by the pituitary gland in the amounts needed for the orderly progress of labor. When the doctor stimulates labor, he must determine how much Pitocin to use. The patient must be examined frequently, and the dosage must be controlled carefully so that the drug doesn’t produce contractions that are too severe, too frequent, or too long. If the dosage is too strong, it can have disastrous consequences for the mother and especially for her child…... Even normal contractions reduce the supply of oxygen to the baby, but there is an adequate recovery period in between them. When the contractions are longer, stronger, and more frequent because labor has been induced, the baby’s loss of oxygen is greater, and there is loss recovery time in between. As in the case of oxygen loss caused by other drugs, this may result in brain damage, learning disabilities, and psychotic disorders that will become evident later on. Anoxia can also result when the umbilical cord is compressed or descends before the baby is delivered, which often occurs in induced labor—a condition known as prolapsed cord
Other hazards of induced labor include malpositioning of the fetus, which makes delivery more difficult; rupture of the uterus; cranial hemorrhage in the baby; maternal hemorrhage after delivery; and caesarean sections performed because of fetal trauma caused by induced labor……If the reasons for inducing labor were valid, one could expect that such intervention would occur at a reasonably stable rate from one hospital to the next. They don’t, which confirms that it is the doctors rather than the patients who want labor induced…… A new Jersey study revealed hospital labor induction rates ranging from a low of .1 percent to a high of 25 percent. Labor was stimulated with drugs at a rate of 3 percent in the lowest case to a high of 71 percent in the hospital which induced labor the most. That institution must have had a lot of obstetricians who like to play golf!”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “Male Practice How Doctors Manipulate Women” p. 173-175
I request that no offers for anesthesia be made to me by any doctor, nurse, or other hospital staff person.
Only in the event that a cesarean section becomes necessary, and I will decide at that time what kind of anesthesia will be used.
13. ELECTRONIC FETAL MONITORS OR DOPPLERS WILL NOT BE USED
Due to the proof that Electronic Fetal Monitoring (EFM) is an unproven, unsafe technology, no electronic monitors or dopplers will be used.
“EFM was introduced in the 1960s having never been studied before its widespread use. Now that this intervention has been appropriately investigated, large, randomized controlled studies have shown it doesn’t improve outcomes for babies. EFM has not reduced the rates of cerebral palsy (CP), the very thing it was implemented to do. In addition, it fails to improve APGAR (newborn health assessment) scores; admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU); length of time spent in the NICU; or prevent fetal death. In extraordinarily rare, high-risk cases, it can reduce neonatal seizures but otherwise is a poor tool to predict or identify much of anything. To summarize, in over a half century, EFM has been an experiment that has failed.
EFM does not reduce rates of CP or generally improve outcomes for babies. Let me repeat that. EFM does not reduce CP or generally improve outcomes for babies. I’ll say it once more. EFM does not reduce rates of CP or generally improve outcomes for babies. This bears repeating because it goes against the standard of care in nearly all US hospitals. Women are subjected to this intervention, often without their consent, despite its lack of improved outcomes, and falsely told it is in the best interest of their baby. This practice remains despite the fact that the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology doesn’t endorse it for low-risk pregnancies and that for most women, EFM isn’t necessary or recommended.
What EFM does increase, however, is cesarean delivery (it also increases a mother’s risk of vacuum/forceps delivery and episiotomy). It is the second most common indication for a primary cesarean after arrest of labor. Continuous monitoring increases a woman’s chance of having a major abdominal surgery that comes with a two to four-fold greater risk of complications compared to vaginal birth. It is estimated by Ob/Gyn Neel Shah, MD, that the overuse of cesarean birth (currently at 33 percent, a 500 percent increase since the 1970s) results in about 20,000 major surgical complications annually such as hemorrhage, organ damage, infection and even death.
EFM has also been shown to increase the number of lawsuits filed against providers for cases of CP or other maladies. Some argue women wear EFM not to protect their babies against harm but to protect a doctor or midwife in court. Lawyer Thomas P. Sartwelle et. al say EFM is an “egregious failure,” and is “ineffectual, used without informed consent, and harmful to mothers and newborns alike.” MacLennan et al believe its readings should be inadmissible in court.”
“The first of the hazards common to both types of monitors, is the distressing fact that the mother must lie virtually motionless, flat on her back, to ensure the most accurate readings. In addition to retarding labor and making it more painful, this position interferes with the supply of nutrition and oxygen to the fetus, which can cause brain damage and, in some instances, death. This occurs because the weight of the uterus and the fetus causes occlusion of the common iliac artery. The blood supply to the placenta is reduced, making it less capable of providing oxygen and nourishment to the fetus during the critical hours before birth….
…. Studies have shown that women who are monitored receive three times as many vaginal examinations as those who are not. They are performed by a succession of nurses, interns, and residents, and they greatly increase the chances that the mother will suffer from infection after her child’s birth. The infection rate has been shown to be about three times higher.
The third major defect common to both types of monitors is their disgraceful inaccuracy. Investigators of external monitors find that they fail to produce accurate results from 44 to 63 percent of the time. I wonder whether the doctors who rely on them would keep on using an automobile that failed to work three days out of five.
Internal monitors are more accurate, but they, too, produce false results. They sometimes identify normal heart rates as fetal distress. Perhaps that is not surprising in the face of experiments that you can get brain wave readings by inserting electrodes into a bowl of lime gelatin….
…. The risks inherent in internal monitoring have been more clearly established than those that accompany the external type. The amniotic sac must be ruptured prematurely in order to attach the monitor. This disposes the fetus to cord accidents and also denies it the protection of the surrounding amniotic fluid during labor. As a result, damage may be done to the baby’s head and unnecessary pressure may be placed on its brain, which could lower the infant’s potential IQ.
Other complications, in the form of accidents and infections, may also ensue from the attachment of the monitor to the baby’s scalp. A scalp rash from the electrode occurs in 86 to 99 percent of newborns. Many infants subsequently develop scalp abscesses, which may cause permanent back spots, osteomyelitis, or generalized infection and death. Accidents that have been noted include broken points that require surgical removal, placing of the sharply pointed electrode in the baby’s eye, genitalia, or other parts of its body, piercing of the brain, dislodgement of the electrode with subsequent hemorrhage, and fetal death due to hemorrhage from a blood sampling site—a procedure that is sometimes performed……
…...In the case of routine electronic fetal monitoring, the patient is rarely consulted about its use, and there is no evidence that the benefits exceed the risks
Investigators at the University of Southern California and at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston analyzed 70,000 deliveries and found no difference in outcomes between monitored and unmonitored infants. Randomized clinical trials have also shown that the use of fetal monitors is unwarranted in normal pregnancies. Even in high risk pregnancies its use produces outcomes that are no better than those obtained by auscultation of fetal heart tones with a stethoscope and careful attention from the nursing staff.”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “Male Practice How Doctors Manipulate Women” p. 161-165
I have researched the information and have decided that Electronic Fetal Monitoring is not worth the risk of damage to my baby.
HEART TONES WILL BE MONITORED BY AUSCULTATION WITH A STETHOSCOPE ONLY
14. NO EPISIOTOMY WILL BE PREFORMED ON ME UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
“There are a lot of things obstetricians don’t tell the mother that she is entitled to know. They don’t tell the following facts:
Episiotomies require local anesthesia and increase the risk of damage from drugs.
Occasionally a needle is jammed into the baby’s brain when the anesthetic is administered, causing its death
Increase in episiotomies have been accompanied by an increase in accidents in which the knife goes too deep and the anal sphincter is slashed.
The perineum is so flexible that after delivery it will retract to its normal condition even though no episiotomy is performed. Sometimes, in fact, the vaginal muscles will grip more tightly than before.
When he performs an episiotomy, the doctor cuts through muscles and nerves, producing a numbness that sometimes persists for years.
The incision is two inches long on the inside and two inches long on the outside, so there are actually four inches of incision that stitches must be used to repair.
Repairing an episiotomy usually takes longer than the delivery itself. Natural tears are likely to be superficial, so only a few stitches are required most of the time.
The operation increases the risk of postpartum infection and is responsible for 20 percent of maternal deaths.
All of us want to feel needed, even when we are not. But should women pay with their lives so that obstetricians can feel better about their lot?”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “Male Practice How Doctors Manipulate Women” p. 179
Perineal massage with oil, hot compresses, and perineal support will be used instead to prepare the perineal tissues to stretch.
In the event that tearing of these tissues seems likely, the tissues are to be allowed to tear rather than be cut.
15. DO NOT CUT THE UMBILICAL CORD UNTIL IT HAS STOPPED PULSATING
“Cutting the cord before it has stopped pulsating will cause the infant’s blood to back up into the mother and that mixing is what produces erythroblastosis (Rh disease) in a subsequent child. “
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “Male Practice How Doctors Manipulate Women” p.156
The umbilical cord will not be cut until it has stopped pulsating, usually 3 to 4 minutes or longer.
16. THERE WILL BE NO TUGGING ON THE UMBILICAL CORD TO HASTEN THE DELIVERY OF THE PLACENTA, NOR ANY INJECTION MADE TO HASTEN PLACENTA DELIVERY
“He tugs the cord to expediate delivery of the placenta, increasing the mother’s risk of hemorrhage and possibly leaving some pieces behind. He must then invade the uterus to capture the fragments. The mother’s risk of infection, already increased over the previous hours by multiple vaginal examinations, becomes even greater.”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “Male Practice How Doctors Manipulate Women” p.156
The infant will be allowed to nurse as desired so as to hasten the detachment and delivery of the placenta.
17. ABSOLUTELY NO PROCEDURE WILL BE PERFORMED ON MY BABY WITHOUT MY AUTHORIZATION AND I WILL BE PRESENT FOR ANY PROCEDURE THAT IS PERFORMED.
18. AS SOON AS THE BABY IS DELIVERED IT IS TO BE PLACED ON MY CHEST and observed for APGAR there.
19. AT NO TIME WILL THE BABY BE SEPARATED FROM ME AND PLACED IN A WARMER
“If your low birth weight child is sent to intensive care, he will be separated from you immediately after birth and placed in a radiant warmer. This involves some element of risk, because babies have been burned in them. The risk that should cause the greatest concern, however arises when your child is given oxygen in the incubator.
Failure of your doctor to limit the flow rate of oxygen properly can result in a disease known as retrolental fibroplasia, the leading cause of blindness in children. To avoid this, the oxygen level in your baby’s blood must be closely monitored, which means drawing blood, and that in turn can produce a condition known as iatrogenic anemia. One intervention continues to lead to another, and the baby may need a blood transfusion, which exposes him to the risk of acquiring serum hepatitis or AIDS.”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “How to Raise a Healthy Child…In Spite of Your Doctor” p. 48
If the body temperature of the baby is of concern, the baby will be placed skin-to-skin with me and a blanket will be spread over us both.
20. ALL NEWBORN CARE WILL BE DONE IN THE SAME ROOM AS ME, and preferably with the baby in my arms.
At no time will my baby be separated from me.
21. MY BABY WILL BE GIVEN NO SUBSTANCE BY MOUTH OTHER THAN MY BREAST MILK OR COLOSTRUM.
“Once born, the baby instinctively reaches his mouth, now full of lactobacilli, toward his mother’s nipple and begins to suck. The birth process introduces lactobacilli to the first milk that goes into the baby. This interaction could not be more perfect.
Lactobacilli and other lactic acid–producing bacteria break down lactose, the major sugar in milk, to make energy. The baby’s first food is a form of milk called colostrum, which contains protective antibodies. The choreography of actions involving vagina, baby, mouth, nipple, and milk ensures that the founding bacteria in the baby’s intestinal tract include species that can digest milk for the baby.
These species are also armed with their own antibiotics that inhibit competing and possibly more dangerous bacteria from colonizing the newborn’s gut. The lactobacilli become the earliest organisms to dominate the infant’s formerly sterile gastrointestinal tract; they are the foundation of the microbial populations that succeed them. The baby now has everything it needs to begin independent life.
Breast milk, when it comes in a few days later, contains carbohydrates, called oligosaccharides, that babies cannot digest. But specific bacteria such as Bifidobacterium infantis, another foundational species in healthy babies, can eat the oligosaccharides. The breast milk is constituted to give favored bacteria a head start against competing bacteria…...
…….. Although babies are born into a world replete with diverse bacteria, the ones that colonize them are not accidental. These first microbes colonizing the newborn begin a dynamic process. We are born with innate immunity, a collection of proteins, cells, detergents, and junctions that guard our surfaces based on recognition of structures that are widely shared among classes of microbes. In contrast, we must develop adaptive immunity that will clearly distinguish self from non-self. Our early-life microbes are the first teachers in this process, instructing the developing immune system about what is dangerous and what is not.
In our first three years of life, a great diversity of microbes self-organizes into a life-support system with the complexity of the adult microbiota. This critical period lays the foundation for all the biological processes that unfold in our childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age—unless something comes along to disrupt it.”
Source: Adapted and excerpted from “Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues.” Martin J. Blaser, M.D.
The baby will be allowed to nurse on demand, and no rubber nipples or pacifiers will be given. If the baby's blood sugar level is of concern, more frequent nursing will be encouraged, since maternal colostrum provides a healthier and more stable blood sugar level than processed glucose.
AT NO TIME WILL STERILE WATER, GLUCOSE WATER, OR FORMULA OF ANY KIND BE GIVEN.
22. VITAMIN K SHOT WILL NOT BE GIVEN TO MY INFANT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
“Many doctors routinely give vitamin K to newborn babies because they have been taught that infants are born with a deficiency of this vitamin, which influences how rapidly the baby’s blood will clot. That’s nonsense, unless the mother is severely malnourished; but most doctors do it anyway. Administration of vitamin K to the newborn may produce jaundice, which prompts the pediatrician to treat it with bilirubin lights (phototherapy). These lights expose the baby to a dozen documented hazards that may require still further treatment and possibly affect him for the rest of his life.”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “How to Raise a Healthy Child…In Spite of Your Doctor” p.46
- Also, see attached Religious Objection
23. NO V@CCINE WILL BE GIVEN TO MY INFANT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
“Causal Link Between Mercury (Thimerosal) Contained in V@ccines, Neurological Disorders and Autism
Scientific research and CDC internal documents on the toxicity of mercury (thimerosal) in v@ccines reveal exposure to thimerosal during the first month of life increased the relative risk of autism by 7.6 (760%), 1.8 (180%) increased relative risk for a neurodevelopmental disorder; 2.1 (210%) relative risk for speech disorder; and 5-fold (500%) increased relative risk for a nonorganic sleep disorder.
The CDC also suppressed the original findings of another of its own studies that found a 340% (3.6) relative increased risk of autism for African American male babies following MMR v@ccination in accordance with the CDC-recommended Childhood V@ccination Schedule.
The alarming and damning scientific evidence, documents that infants exposed to v@ccines laced with thimerosal during the first month of life are at alarmingly high increased the relative risk of serious harm. “The data on its toxicity (shows) it can cause neurologic and renal toxicity, including death,” writes Dr. Richard Johnston, M.D., an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado.
Dr. Verstraeten also said: “what I will present to you is the study that nobody thought we should do.” The study categorized the cumulative effect of thimerosal-containing v@ccines administered to infants after one month of life and assessed the subsequent risk of degenerative and developmental neurologic disorders, and renal disorders before the age of six. Dr. Verstraeten stated that ALL of these relative risks were statistically significant.”
“V@ccines are routinely formulated with aborted human fetal cells known as MRC-5 and WI-38. The CDC openly lists some of the vaccines that use these “human diploid” cells, including Twinrix (Hep A / Hep B), ProQuad (MMRV) and Varivax (Varicella / chicken pox). FDA-published vaccine insert sheets such as this one for Varivax also openly admit to the use of aborted human fetal cell lines such as MRC-5:
The product also contains residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein and trace quantities of neomycin and bovine calf serum from MRC-5 culture media.
Even this GlaxoSmithKline v@ccine insert sheet openly discusses the use of aborted human fetal cells in its Priorix-Tetra v@ccine (MMRV):
Each virus strain is separately produced in either chick embryo cells (mumps and measles) or MRC5 human diploid cells (rubella and varicella).
Yet, amazingly, almost no member of the public is aware that aborted human fetal cells are routinely used in v@ccines. The lying fake news media insists such talk is a “conspiracy theory,” even as the CDC, FDA and v@ccine manufacturers openly declare the ingredient is being used in numerous v@ccines.
Now, a laboratory in Italy has carried out a complete genome sequencing of this MRC-5 cell line that’s deliberately inserted into multiple vaccines. What they’ve found in beyond shocking… it’s horrifying. As explained by Children’s Health Defense:
The Corvelva team summarized their findings as follows:
1- The fetal cell line was found to belong to a male fetus.
2- The cell line presents itself in such a way that it is likely to be very old, thus consistent with the declared line of the 1960s.
3- The fetal human DNA represented in this vaccine is a complete individual genome, that is, the genomic DNA of all the chromosomes of an individual is present in the vaccine.
4- The human genomic DNA contained in this vaccine is clearly, undoubtedly abnormal, presenting important inconsistencies with a typical human genome, that is, with that of a healthy individual.
5- 560 genes known to be associated with forms of cancer were tested and all underwent major modifications.
6- There are variations whose consequences are not even known, not yet appearing in the literature, but which still affect genes involved in the induction of human cancer.
7- What is also clearly abnormal is the genome excess showing changes in the number of copies and structural variants. “
Source:
https://www.naturalnews
.com/2019-10-04-medical-horror-genetic-sequencing-vaccines-mrc-5-cancer-genes-modified.html
-Also, see attached Religious Objection
24. THERE WILL BE NO ROUTINE SHOT OF ANTIBIOTICS INTO MY INFANT
“Germs are transmitted from one patient to another by careless doctors and nurses who don’t scrub often or well enough, and carry bacteria from one patient to another on their hands. For obvious reasons, hospitals are vacation spas for potentially lethal bacteria, and you’ll find them everywhere you turn…. In fact, you can’t be sure that any supposedly sterile bottle of anything is really pure. One curious health official tested the bottles of saline solution that were kept on bedside tables for cleaning wounds. He found potentially pathogenic bacteria in nearly one bottle out of four.
All of these germs are hazards to the mother, of course. They are even more threatening to newborn babies, whose immune systems are not fully developed……The diseases transmitted to the babies were also more serious than those found in the adult patients in other areas of the hospital. The infections were spread by contact with the nursing staff and with nursery equipment and through invasive procedures such as antibiotic shots.”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “Male Practice How Doctors Manipulate Women” p. 142-143
“In many hospitals, a second example of indiscriminate use of antibiotics may follow on the heels of the first one. In an effort to prevent the cross infection that threatens babies in hospital nurseries, many doctors are now giving routine injections of penicillin. Because every use of antibiotics contributes to the possibility of sensitization in later life, it should be avoided unless the treatment is appropriate and essential in dealing with a disease. There is also the risk, in some children, of an allergic shock reaction to antibiotics of all kinds.
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “How to Raise a Healthy Child…In Spite of Your Doctor” p. 44-45
THERE WILL BE NO ROUTINE SHOT OF ANTIBIOTICS INTO MY INFANT, AND THIS INCLUDES ANTIBIOTICS USED AGAINST GROUP B STREPTOCOCCUS (GBS)
It is foolhardy, in my judgement, to destroy all the beneficial microbes in a newborn child for the sake of preventing an infection from a bacterium (GBS) which only one half of one percent of newborns actually get ill from if they do get colonized, given that breast milk can kill the bacterium, and especially ridiculous given the fact that the Cochrane review on GBS found that the small sample of studies used to justify the practice of injecting antibiotics had bias, manipulation, and results which failed to be recorded.
The risks of routine administration of antibiotics into my child’s bloodstream has been evaluated by me and is NOT WORTH THE RISK TO MY NEWBORN CHILD
“Antibiotics are also used to prevent a serious infection in newborns caused by Group B strep, a bacterium that between a quarter and a third of U.S. pregnant women carry. It lives in the gut, mouth, skin, and sometimes the vagina and rarely causes any problem in the mother. But sometimes Group B strep can be lethal to newborns' fragile immune systems. While such infections are uncommon, professional groups recommend that all pregnant women be screened for the microbe near the time of delivery. If they are positive, they get a dose of an antibiotic shortly before the baby descends the birth canal.
Antibiotics are broad in their effects, not targeted. While they kill Group B strep, they also kill friendly bacteria, thus selecting for resistant ones.
Each year in the United States well over a million pregnant women are Group B strep–positive, and all will get intravenous penicillin during labor to protect their babies. But only one in 200 babies actually gets ill from the Group B strep acquired from his or her mother. To protect one child, we are exposing 199 others to antibiotics.
The problem, of course, is that we know antibiotics are broad in their effects, not targeted. While the antibiotic kills Group B strep, it also kills other often-friendly bacteria, thus selecting for resistant ones. This practice is altering the composition of the mother’s microbes in all compartments of her body just before the intergenerational transfer is slated to begin.
The baby also is affected in similar unintended ways. Any antibiotic that gets into the bloodstream of the fetus or into the mother’s milk will inevitably influence the composition of the baby’s resident microbes”
Adapted and excerpted from “Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues.” Martin J. Blaser, M.D.
“GBS is a natural presence in the gastrointestinal tract and vagina of one third of women and can be passed to a baby during childbirth. Even if a baby does pick up the bug, if it is fed its mother’s milk, and she produces particular oligosaccharides in her milk, friendly bacteria in the baby’s GI tract can use these sugars for fuel and prevent the growth of GBS.
Whether or not a woman produces certain types of oligosaccharides is controlled or influenced by a genetic system called the Lewis antigen system. Dr. Nicholas and colleagues tested the Lewis and GBS status of 183 women, their breast milk and babies in The Gambia. They found that women who produced the Lewis genes-associated sugars were less likely to have GBS in their GI tracts, as were their babies at birth.
Babies who did pick up GBS at birth were more likely to clear it from their systems by the time they were 2-3 months old, if their mothers produced a certain oligosaccharide (lacro-n-difucohexaose) in their milk. And in laboratory studies, breast milk containing that sugar was better at killing GBS than was breast milk without it.
Dr. Andreas was quoted as saying, "Although this is early-stage research it demonstrates the complexity of breast milk, and the benefits it may have for the baby. Increasingly, research is suggesting these breast milk sugars (human milk oligosaccharides) may protect against infections in the newborn, such as rotavirus and Group B streptococcus, as well as boosting a child's "friendly" gut bacteria."”
“because most babies do not become infected with GBS, Dr. Townsend and co-authors wanted to see if some women’s breast milk contained protective compounds that specifically fight that bacteria.
“As carbohydrate chemists, we knew from previous research that milk carbohydrates are protective against other bacteria, so we figured there would be a chance they would be active against GBS, too,” Dr. Townsend said.
To test their hypothesis, the researchers collected human milk oligosaccharides from a number of different donor samples and profiled them with a mass spectrometry technique that can identify thousands of large biomolecules simultaneously.
Then they added the compounds to strep cultures and observed the result under the microscope. This showed that not only do some of these oligosaccharides kill the bacteria directly but some also physically break down the biofilms that the bacteria form to protect themselves.
In a pilot study, the authors collected five samples. They found that the sugars from one sample nearly killed an entire strep colony……….
“When bacteria want to harm us, they produce this gooey protective substance called a biofilm, which allows them to thwart our defense mechanisms,” Dr. Townsend said.””
Source: http://www.sci-news.com/medicine/breast-milk-oligosaccharides-group-b-streptococcus-05148.html
“The Cochrane Collaboration is a highly respected organization that conducts meta-analyses on different topics related to healthcare…...
The researchers who wrote the Cochrane review on Group B Strep came to strong conclusions against the use of antibiotics for Group B Strep. After reviewing the three-existing randomized, controlled trials on Group B Strep, they stated “There is no valid information from these three small, old, and biased trials to inform clinical practice…It is remarkable that in North America the commonly implemented practice of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to GBS colonized women has been so poorly studied.”
……Cochrane Perspective
· None of the studies had a placebo treatment. The antibiotics were compared to no treatment.
· Patients, care providers, and researchers were not blinded to the group assignments.
· The researchers did not do an up-front “power analysis” to determine the appropriate sample size.
· The sample sizes were likely too small to detect differences in early GBS infection and mortality.
· Only one of the three studies specifically looked at mortality.
· Boyd et al. published their results and then announced that they only needed one more event in the control group to achieve statistical significance. After this one event happened, they re-published the study with the new “significant” finding. This indicates a high level of bias and possible manipulation of the study findings.
· Boyd et al. improperly tweaked their statistics (switched from a 2-tailed test to a 1-tailed test) so that the results were changed from “not significant” to “statistically significant.”
· Boyd et al. excluded all women who developed a fever from their statistics, which is incredible considering the fact that fever is a risk factor for early GBS infection.
· They were missing final results for 11% of women and infants in the study.”
Source: https://evidencebasedbirth.com/groupbstrep/
Antibiotics may only be used if my child is showing symptoms of infection with GBS or Meningitis, not for preventative routine!
“If I am GBS positive, and I don’t get the IV antibiotics for some reason, what kind of tests will my baby need to have?
As long as your baby appears to be doing well and you did not have any additional risk factors (<37 weeks, infection of the uterus, water broken >18 hours), then there is no need for your baby to have any special testing. There are some situations where the CDC recommends that a well-appearing infant have some blood tests. The CDC also recommends 48 hours of “observation” for infants who are born to GBS positive mothers, but there is no need to separate mom and baby for this observation period.”
Source: https://evidencebasedbirth.com/groupbstrep/
“In a study of 148,000 infants born between 2000 and 2008, almost all of the 94 infants who developed early GBS infection were diagnosed within an hour after birth—suggesting that early GBS infection probably begins before birth (Tudela et al. 2012).”
Source: https://evidencebasedbirth.com/groupbstrep/
“Early onset GBS occurs within the first week of life, most commonly within hours after birth. Signs and symptoms include: Lethargy; irritability; poor feeding; very slow or fast heart rate; abnormally high or low temperature; difficulty breathing such as flaring of the nostrils or grunting noises; too fast or slow breathing rate; blueness of the skin of baby's trunk, and/or pale or grey appearance. “
https://homesweethomebirth.com/blog/group-b-strep-in-pregnancy
“Although the death rate of GBS is relatively low, infants with early GBS infections can have long, expensive stays in the intensive care unit. Researchers have also found that up to 44% of infants who survive GBS with meningitis end up with long-term health problems, including developmental disabilities, paralysis, seizure disorder, hearing loss, vision loss, and small brains. Very little is known about the long-term health risks of infants who have GBS without meningitis, but some may have long-term developmental problems (Feigin, Cherry et al. 2009; Libster et al. 2012).”
Source: https://evidencebasedbirth.com/groupbstrep/
--Also, see attached Religious Objection
25. NO EYE DROPS, ANTIBIOTICS OR OINTMENTS ARE TO BE USED IN MY BABY’S EYES
“Doctors reject the argument that the mother could be tested for gonorrhea instead of inflicting silver nitrate on her baby, claiming that this won’t do because the test is not 100 percent accurate. That defense is pure nonsense, because the silver nitrate isn’t 100 percent effective either. Whether one is more effective than another is moot, because if your baby were to develop gonorrheal ophthalmia for either reason, the problem can and will be solved by using antibiotics to treat the disease.
The use of silver nitrate made some sense before antibiotics became available, but the price your baby pays because its use is continued today, when it is no longer needed, is not insignificant. Silver nitrate causes chemical conjunctivitis in 30 to 50 percent of the babies who receive it. Their eyes fill up with thick pus, making it impossible for them to see during the first week or so of life. No one knows what the long term psychological consequences of this temporary blindness may be. The treatment may also produce blocked tear ducts, which necessitates difficult surgical intervention to correct the damage done by a senseless procedure. Finally, some doctors—including me—believe that the high incidence of myopia and astigmatism in the United States may be related to the placing of this caustic agent into the delicate, tender membranes of your baby’s eyes.
In some states, doctors may now substitute antibiotics for the silver nitrate, although there is no evidence that this prophylactic use of antibiotics to prevent gonorrhea is effective. This does eliminate the immediate damage that may be done by silver nitrate, but it also provides the first example of indiscriminate use of antibiotics, which probably will be oft repeated by your pediatrician and may cause problems for your child later in life.”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “How to Raise a Healthy Child…In Spite of Your Doctor” p.43
Since my husband and I are in a monogamous relationship, and I do not have gonorrhea, no washing of baby eyes with chemicals is necessary
26. NO PKU TEST WILL BE ADMINISTERED IN THE HOSPITAL
“The PKU blood test itself is not dangerous, except that it does require insertion of a needle that will open a pathway for the bacteria that abound in every hospital. The problem lies with the test results, which are notoriously inaccurate and result in many false positive findings. If your child is diagnosed as a victim of PKU, he will be placed on a restricted diet composed of protein substitutes that have an offensive taste, tend to cause obesity, and become terribly monotonous. There is disagreement among doctors on how long the diet should be continued. The range is from three years to life. Most doctors who diagnose PKU will not permit the mother to breastfeed.
It is ridiculous, in my judgement, to condemn children to an obnoxious special diet based on a test that may be wrong, for a disease that rarely occurs, when the prescribed diet itself raises serious questions. Seven years ago, treatment centers in the United States, Australia, England and Germany revealed that some children with PKU showed progressive neurologic deterioration “even though their disorder had been diagnosed early and dietary treatment had been promptly instituted.” All of these children labeled as having “variant forms of PKU,” which differed from the classic form, died….
One of the unfortunate consequences of all forms of indiscriminate mass screening is the emotional trauma parents go through when a false positive reading is given. I have had more than one mother ask me years later, “Do you think ‘it’ (late talking, late toilet training, etc.) might be PKU?””
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “How to Raise a Healthy Child…In Spite of Your Doctor” p. 45
It will be my responsibility to see that the test (PKU) is performed by a pediatrician at a later time.
27. IF THE BABY IS A BOY, THERE WILL BE NO CIRCUMCISION.
“Every generation of doctors has found a new excuse for circumcision, despite the fact that even the American Academy of Pediatrics has advised that “there is no absolute medical indication for circumcision of the newborn.” If your doctor suggests circumcision for your baby boy, ask him why he wants to expose the poor kid to the pain, the possibility of infection and hemorrhage, and the risk of death from surgery that has no medical justification.”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “How to Raise a Healthy Child…In Spite of Your Doctor” p. 49
“Boy babies, shortly after birth, are subjected to a procedure that is a rare example of worthless intervention that little girls escape. The Pediatrician whips out his knife and performs a circumcision—a ceremony that has no legitimacy except as a religious rite. It provides no established medical benefit, is usually done without analgesics before it is safe to do it, and it entails plenty of risks. Next to the usually needless episiotomy performed on women, it is the most frequently performed surgical procedure. Doctors enriched themselves by lopping off the foreskins of nearly 15000000 penises in 1979. Now and then the knife slips and oops! They took the whole thing!”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “Male Practice How Doctors Manipulate Women” p. 191
“It is I, Paul, who am telling you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. “ Paul Galatians 5:2
“As for me, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case, the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. Would that those who are upsetting you might also castrate themselves!” Paul Galatians 5: 11-12
“Beware of the dogs! Beware of the evil-workers! Beware of the mutilation!” Paul Philippians 3:2
JUST SAY NO TO GENITAL MUTILATION!
28. No soaps or disinfecting agents will be used to wash the baby, and vernix on his skin will be massaged into the skin rather than removed through washing.
“When your baby reaches the nursery, he will be bathed immediately, and there is a strong probability that the nurse will use hexachlorophene soap. It has been known for many years that hexachlorophene is absorbed through the skin and that it can cause neurologic damage in some children. Yet hospitals continue to use it, despite the risk to your baby, to try to avoid the onus of a bacterial epidemic in their germ laden nurseries.
What makes this ridiculous, even reckless, is the fact that hexachlorophene soap and antiseptic preparations afford no advantage over bathing with plain tap water. In five carefully conducted trials involving 150 newborns, 25 infants were bathed with each of four different antiseptics and 50 were bathed in plain water. Bacteriologic samples taken from each group following the initial bath and on the third and fifth days showed all of the baths were equally effective.
Don’t let the hospital expose your baby to a potentially dangerous chemical to reduce the danger of infection when plain water will work just as well!”
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. “How to Raise a Healthy Child…In Spite of Your Doctor” p. 44
I request that a warm Leboyer bath be provided within one hour after birth to allow the baby to make a smooth and comfortable transition into the world.
Please help me make this a wonderful experience by being respectful and ethical. I would really appreciate it. Thanks!
Subscribed and sworn, without prejudice, and with all rights reserved,
_______________________________________________________________,
Principal, by Special Appearance, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris.
_______________________________
Signature of Affiant
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
state of ________________________ county of _________________: On this _______ day of ______________, 20___,
before me personally appeared __________________________________, to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed, for the purposes therein set forth.
_______________________________________ (Notary Public)
My Commission Expires ______________________________, 20___
{{{{{{{{{Further note, I put quotes from Paul arguing against circumcision in the paper as sort of a joke, if you read him seriously, please consider how the Pharisee Paul's words could be interpreted the wrong way as the Apostle Peter warned:
"just as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom that was given to him,
Just as in all of his letters he spoke about these things, in which are things difficult for the intellect, which those who are without teaching and unstable, pervert, as also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. " 2nd letter of Peter 3 15-16
I personally consider Paul's words as a slander against the circumcised and believe that it was purposefully written that way to make a divide between gentile and jew similar to the way that v@xxxed and unv@xxxed are being propagandized in the world today.}}}}}}}}}}}}}
*************************************************************************************
Those nurses and doctors really don’t have a clue….. in more ways than one.
It’s not going to be safe for ‘medical professionals’ to be working at hospitals in the near future. In fact, it is very dangerous now. I’ve got some proof for that, but as soon as I put it out, people are gonna copycat, so for now, any doctor and nurse ‘friends’ that have eyes to see and ears to hear, get ready to quit before the monkey see monkey do begins. Call it an ‘injection boycott’.
Speaking of health-related subjects, did you know that Chinese people consider the turtle not just as a delicious morsel but also a medicine? As in, if you eat a turtle, you ate some health food? I don’t know how that works, but tracing the culinary path of the turtle through history for the writing of my book has been personally fascinating for me. Apparently, the Chinese didn’t start eating ‘turtle’ until the English brought their recipes to Shanghai and Hong Kong. Those Orientals still had their freshwater turtles, it’s those huge 300-pound sea turtles we’re talking about here. I know the book I’m writing, Turtle Power Fishing, explains how to catch snapping turtles and it is not about catching 300-pound sea turtles (even though one or two historical techniques on how to do that are included inside). It’s just that in order to fully explore the culinary past of the snapping turtle, we should begin with the history of the sea turtle as a food for a foundation, and boy, what a forgotten history it is. If you live in the Caribbean or just visit there and you get an opportunity to taste the heavenly flavor of green sea turtle soup, I’ve found some proofs that green sea turtles aren’t really ‘endangered’ either. Don’t feel guilty about stuffing your face with as much as you can possibly gulp down. I hope I can fit it all in the book!
I wanted to end the commentary on a positive note. What do you think? Please let me know in the comments, I’d really appreciate it. Thanks!