THE HORRIFYING, CRIMINAL AND grotesque vaccination plot

THE HORRIFYING, CRIMINAL AND grotesque vaccination plots Ebooklet



Extract:Tetanus vaccines found spiked with sterilization chemical to carry out race-based genocide against Africans
Saturday, November 08, 2014 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: vaccines, sterilization, genocide
(NaturalNews) Tetanus vaccines given to millions of young women in Kenya have been confirmaed by laboratories to contain a sterilization chemical that causes miscarriages, reports the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, a pro-vaccine organization.
A whopping 2.3 million young girls and women are in the process of being given the vaccine, pushed by UNICEF and the World
Health Organization.
“We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews.
“They were all laced with HCG.”Chemical causes a woman’s body to destroy its own fetus with vaccine-induced antibodies HCG is a chemical developed by the World Health Organization for sterilization purposes. When injected into the body of a young woman, it causes a pregnancy to be destroyed by the body’s own antibody response to the HCG, resulting in a spontaneous abortion. Its effectiveness lasts for years, causing abortions in women up to three years after the injections.
Dr. Ngare explained “…this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine.”


Note by Umme ahmad :I myself had been vaccinated for years , since my childhood until early adulthood in my early twenties, with the mandatory Tetanus vaccine  in school vaccine programs in eastern Germany and mandatory Tetanus vaccines during my training to become a nurse and to be able to work as one.

One year after I became Muslim and left ,my job , I married and became pregnant , but had a miscarriage, and reacted severely ” allergic” Toward every pregnancy. I had an over all immune collapse and pregnancies have been for me always a near death experiences, ranging from liver damages, asthma attacks, hives, daily steroid inhaling, etc. Once the Pregnancy was over , i got better!
After the Delivery of my first child i suffered a tetanus vaccine related issues and throughout each pregnancy and further following misscarriages and meningitis infection! Thaaank you you dam western medical fraud I studied and believed wholeheartedly in!

Today I am not able to walk around, work out, take stress, etc.looooooooooooong list., the last couple of years had been so bad i was Only bed bound and not even able to walk in any way. Muscles weakened, could not breath….


What is tetanus?
Tetanus is a non-contagious bacterial disease that causes severe muscular contractions. It is also called lockjaw because some victims are unable to open their mouths or swallow. Other symptoms include depression, headaches, and spasms that interfere with breathing.(1,2)

Tetanus is caused by toxins produced by a bacterium called Clostridium tetani. The dormant germs (spores) live in soil, dust, and manure. They can enter the body through cuts and puncture wounds, but will only multiply in an anaerobic (oxygen-free) environment. The incubation period, from the time of the injury until the first symptoms appear, ranges from a few days to three weeks. However, careful attention to wound hygiene will eliminate the possibility of tetanus in most cases. Deep puncture wounds and wounds with a lot of dead tissue should be thoroughly cleaned and not allowed to close until healing has occurred beneath the skin.(3)

Adverse Reaction Reports:
Tetanus Vaccine
This section contains unsolicited adverse reaction reports associated with the tetanus vaccine. They are typical of the daily emails received by the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute. Additional reaction reports possibly associated with the tetanus toxoid may be found in the sections on DPT/DTaP and pertussis.[Tetanus 103] I developed reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) following a tetanus toxoid vaccine. I have very little use of the entire left side of my body, and the disease now appears to be moving into my right hip and leg.

[Tetanus 127] My 26-year-old friend was given a tetanus and diphtheria shot at work. About 4 or 5 hours later she developed neck pain, it was pulled to the left side, and she was unable to move it. Three days later she also developed swelling at the injection site.

[Tetanus 148] I received a tetanus shot because the doctors said it was way overdue. That night my arm hurt so bad I could not lay on it. My temperature was 104 degrees. The pain eventually spread to my upper back and neck.

[Tetanus 203] I had a tetanus shot in September and have been sick ever since. Where can I get information from someone who knows this is possible? My doctor just acted like I was an idiot, so I went untreated for four months.

[Tetanus 214] My friend has an immune disease and was given a tetanus shot, starting the onset of muscular degeneration. She and her mom attribute her rapid decline to the shot.

[Tetanus 245] Are there any studies on overdoses of the tetanus vaccine? My daughter had three tetanus shots within 1 1/2 years, and my son had two within this period. She was diagnosed with Lupus, and now he has asthma and an immune system disorder.

[Tetanus 284] When I was three months pregnant I cut myself and was “required” to get a tetanus shot. My son has been diagnosed with cerebral palsy and attention deficit disorder. He also has grand mal seizures, an enlarged liver and heart, and made no growth hormone at birth.

[Tetanus 294] I went to a health clinic for a check-up and was told I needed a tetanus shot. I soon became pregnant and miscarried in my second month. My husband and I were distraught. I became pregnant a short time later and miscarried again. Since that time, I had another miscarriage — my third in my first year of marriage.

[Tetanus 301] In October, I received a tetanus shot. In December, I became pregnant. Our beautiful son was born 9 months later quite suddenly by C-section after a severe bleeding episode. Unfortunately, he passed away two days later. He had a deformity that begins in the early days of pregnancy

Are New Vaccines
Laced with Birth-Control Drugs?

      During the early 1990s, the World Health Organization (WHO) had been overseeing massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in a number of countries, among them Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines. In October 1994, HLI received a communication from its Mexican affiliate, the Comite’ Pro Vida de Mexico, regarding that country’s anti-tetanus campaign. Suspicious of the campaign protocols, the Comite’ obtained several vials of the vaccine and had them analyzed by chemists. Some of the vials were found to contain human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a naturally occurring hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy.

hCG and Anti-hCG Antibodies

In nature the hCG hormone alerts the woman’s body that she is pregnant and causes the release of other hormones to prepare the uterine lining for the implantation of the fertilized egg. The rapid rise in hCG levels after conception makes it an excellent marker for confirmation of pregnancy: when a woman takes a pregnancy test she is not tested for the pregnancy itself, but for the elevated presence of hCG.

However, when introduced into the body coupled with a tetanus toxoid carrier, antibodies will be formed not only against tetanus but also against hCG. In this case the body fails to recognize hCG as a friend and will produce anti-hCG antibodies. The antibodies will attack subsequent pregnancies by killing the hCG which naturally sustains a pregnancy; when a woman has sufficient anti-hCG antibodies in her system, she is rendered incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.(1)

HLI reported the sketchy facts regarding the Mexican tetanus vaccines to its World Council members and affiliates in more than 60 countries.(2) Soon additional reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones began to drift in from the Philippines, where more than 3.4 million women were recently vaccinated. Similar reports came from Nicaragua, which had conducted its own vaccination campaign in 1993.

The Known Facts

Here are the known facts concerning the tetanus vaccination campaigns in Mexico and the Philippines:

* Only women are vaccinated, and only the women between the ages of 15 and 45. (In Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.) But aren’t men at least as likely as young women to come into contact with tetanus? And what of the children? Why are they excluded?

* Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone has been found in the vaccines. It does not belong there — in the parlance of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the vaccine has been “contaminated.”

* The vaccination protocols call for multiple injections — three within three months and a total of five altogether. But, since tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, why are multiple inoculations called for?(3)

* WHO has been actively involved for more than 20 years in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier — the exact same coupling as has been found in the Mexican-Philippine-Nicaragua vaccines.(4)

The Anti-Fertility Gang

Allied with the WHO in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine (AFV) using hCG with tetanus and other carriers have been UNFPA, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and a number of universities, including Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State.(5) The U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (part of NIH) was the supplier of the hCG hormone in some of the AFV experiments.(6)

The WHO begain its “Special Programme” in human reproduction in 1972, and by 1993 had spent more than $356 million on “reproductive health” research.(7) It is this “Programme” which has pioneered the development of the abortificant vaccine. Over $90 million of this Programme’s funds were contributed by Sweden; Great Britain donated more than $52 million, while Norway, Denmark and Germany kicked in for $41 million , $27 million, and $12 million, respectively. The U.S., thanks to the cut-off of such funding during the Reagan-Bush administrations, has contributed “only” $5.7 million, including a new payment in 1993 by the Clinton administration of $2.5 million. Other major contibutors to the WHO Programme include UNFPA, $61 million; the World Bank, $15.5 million; the Rockefeller Foundation, $2.5 million; the Ford Foundation, over $1 million; and the IDRC (International Research and Development Centre of Canada), $716.5 thousand.

WHO and Philippine Health Department Excuses

When the first reports surfaced in the Philippines of tetanus toxoid vaccine being laced with hCG hormones, the WHO and the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) immediately denied that the vaccine contained hCG. Confronted with the results of laboratory tests which detected its presence in three of the four vials of tetanus toxoid examined, the WHO and DOH scoffed at the evidence coming from “right-to-life and Catholic” sources. Four new vials of the tetanus vaccine were submitted by DOH to St. Luke’s (Lutheran) Medical Center in Manila — and all four vials tested positive for hCG!

From outright denial the stories now shifted to the allegedly “insignificant” quantity of the hCG present; the volume of hCG present is insufficient to produce anti-hCG antibodies.

But new tests designed to detect the presence of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of women vaccinated with the tetauns toxoid vaccine were undertaken by Philippine pro-life and Catholic groups. Of thirty women tested subsequent to receiving tetanus toxoid vaccine, twenty-six tested positive for high levels of anti-hCG! If there were no hCG in the vaccine, or if it were present in only “insignificant” quantities, why were the vaccinated women found to be harboring anti-hCG antibodies? The WHO and the DOH had no answers.

New arguments surfaced: hCG’s apparent presence in the vaccine was due to “false positives” resulting from the particular substances mixed in the vaccine or in the chemicals testing for hCG. And even if hCG was really there, its presence derived from the manufacturing process.

But the finding of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of vaccinated women obviated the need to get bogged down in such debates. It was no longer necessary to argue about what may or may not have been the cause of the hCG presence, when one now had the effect of the hCG. There is no known way for the vaccinated women to have hCG antibodies in their blood unless hCG had been artificially introduced into their bodies!

Why A Tetanus Toxoid “Carrier”?

Because the human body does not attack its own naturally occurring hormone hCG, the body has to be fooled into treating hCG as an invading enemy in order to develop a successful anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG antibodies. A paper delivered at the 4th International Congress of Reproductive Immunology (Kiel, West Germany, 26-29 July 1989) spelled it out: “Linkage to a carrier was done to overcome the immunological tolerance to hCG.”(8)

Vaccine Untested by Drug Bureau

After the vaccine controversy had reached a fever pitch, a new bombshell exploded; none of the three different brands of tetanus vaccine being used had ever been licensed for sale and distribution or registered with the Philippine Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), as required by law. The head of the BFAD lamely explained that the companies distributing these brands “did not apply for registration.”(9) The companies in question are Connaught Laboratories Ltd. and Intervex, both from Canada, and CSL Laboratories from Australia.

It seemed that the BFAD might belatedly require re-testing, but the idea was quickly rejected when the Secretary of Health declared that, since the vaccines had been certified by the WHO — there they are again! — there was assurance enough that the “vaccines come from reputable manufacturers.”(10)

Just how “reputable” one of the manufacturers might be is open to some question. In the mid-`80s Connaught Laboratories was found to be knowingly distributing vials of AIDS-contaminated blood products.(11)


At this juncture, evidence is beginning to appear from Africa.(12) HLI has called for a Congressional investigation of the situation, inasmuch as nearly every agency involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine is funded, at least in part, with U.S. monies.

NOTES:(1) “Abortifacient vaccines loom as new threat,” HLI Reports, November 1993, pp. 1-2.

(2) World Council Reports, 28 November 1994, pp. 4-5.

(3) A call placed by this writer on 5 May 1995 to the Montgomery County (Maryland) Health Department, Epidemology Division — Infectious Diseases — Adult Immunizations, elicited the following information:

Q. For how long a time does the tetanus vaccination offer protection?
A. 10 years.
Q. Have you ever heard of any adult requiring three tetanus vaccinations within a 3 or 4 month time period, and a total of 5 vaccinations in all within a year or so?
A. Whaaaat! Never. No way!

Reports from the Philippines appear to confirm the 10-year immunity afforded by tetanus toxoid vaccinations: prior to the campaigns begun in 1993, the so-called booster shots were given only every 10 years.(4) More than a score of articles, many written by WHO researchers, document WHO’s attempts to create an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing tetanus toxoid as a carrier. Some leading articles include:

“Clinical profile and Toxicology Studies on Four Women Immunized with Pr-B-hCG-TT,” Contraception, February, 1976, pp. 253-268.”Observations on the antigenicity and clinical effects of a candidate antipregnancy vaccine: B-subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin linked to tetanus toxoid,” Fertility and Sterility, October 1980, pp. 328-335.

“Phase 1 Clinical Trials of a World Health Organisation Birth Control Vaccine,” The Lancet, 11 June 1988, pp. 1295-1298. “Vaccines for Fertility Regulation,” Chapter 11, pp. 177-198, Research in Human Reproduction, Biennial Report (1986-1987), WHO Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (WHO, Geneva 1988).

“Anti-hCG Vaccines are in Clinical Trials,” Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, Vol. 36, 1992, pp. 123-126.

(5) These institutional names are garnered from the journal articles cited in the previous footnote.(6) Lancet, 11 June 1988, p. 1296.

(7) Challenges in Reproductive Health Research, Biennial Report 1992-1993, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1994, p. 186.

(8) G.P. Talwar, et al, “Prospects of an anti-hCG vaccine inducing antibodies of high affinity…(etc),” Reproductive Technology 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990, Amsterdam, New York, p. 231.

(9) “3 DOH vaccines untested by BFAD,” The Philippine Star, 4 April 1995, pp. 1, 12.

(10) “BFAD junks re-testing of controversial shot,” Manila Standard, 7 April 1995; “DOH: Toxoid vaccines are safe,” The Philippine Star, 7 April 1995.

(11) “Ottawa got blood tainted by HIV.” Ottawa Citizen, 4 April 1995.

(12) A nearly two-year old communique from Tanzania tells a familiar story: tetanus toxoid vaccinations, five in all, given only to women aged 15-45. Nigeria, too, may have been victimized; see The Lancet, 4 June 1988, p. 1273.

Credit: Copyright June/July 1995 by James A. Miller, special correspondent for Human Life International. This article was originally published in HLI Reports, Human Life International, Gaithersburg, Maryland; June/July 1995, Volume 13, Number 8. Permission to reprint granted to Thinktwice/New Atlantean Press.

Tetanus FDA Prescribing Information: Side Effects
(Adverse Reactions)



Adverse reactions may be local and include redness, warmth, edema,induration with or without tenderness as well as urticaria, and rash. Malaise, transient fever, pain, hypotension, nausea and arthralgia may develop in some patients after the injection. Arthus-type hypersensitivity reactions, characterized by severe local reactions (generally starting 2 to 8 hours after an injection) may occur, particularly in persons who have received multiple prior boosters.2 On rare occasions, anaphylaxis has been reported following administration of products containing tetanus (tetanus toxoid) toxoid. Upon review, a report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded the evidence established a causal relationship between tetanus toxoid (tetanus (tetanus toxoid) toxoid) and anaphylaxis.17 Deaths have been reported in temporalassociation with the administration of tetanus toxoid (tetanus (tetanus toxoid) toxoid) -containing vaccines.


The following neurologic illnesses have been reported as temporally associated with vaccines containing tetanus toxoid (tetanus (tetanus toxoid) toxoid) : neurological complications 18,19 including cochlear lesion, 20brachial plexus neuropathies, 20,21 paralysis of the radial nerve, 22paralysis of the recurrent nerve, 20 accommodation paresis, Guillain-Barrésyndrome, and EEG disturbances with encephalopathy. The IOM, following review of the reports of neurologic events following vaccination with tetanus toxoid (tetanus (tetanus toxoid) toxoid) , DT or Td, concluded the evidence favored acceptance of a causal relationship between tetanus toxoid (tetanus (tetanus toxoid) toxoid) and brachial neuritis and GBS.17,23

Reporting of Adverse Events

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, requires physicians and other health-care providers who administer vaccines to maintain permanent vaccination records and to report occurrences of certain adverse events to the US Department of Health and Human Services.11-13 Reportable events include those listed in the Act for each vaccine and events such as anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock within 7 days, brachial neuritis within 28 days; any acute complication or sequela (including death) of an illness, 5disability, injury, or condition referred to above, or any events that wouldcontraindicate further doses of vaccine, according to this Tetanus Toxoid (tetanus (tetanus toxoid) toxoid) for Booster Use Only package insert.

Adverse events following immunization with vaccine should be reported by health-care providers to the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Reporting forms and information about reporting requirements or completion of the form can be obtained from VAERS through a toll-free number 1-800-822-7967.11-13

Health-care providers also should report these events to the Pharmacovigilance Department, Aventis Pasteur Inc., Discovery Drive, Swiftwater, PA 18370 or call 1-800-822-2463.



Rat poison chemical found in pills linked to India sterilisation deaths( a common ingrideient in unani and homeopatic medicine

Umme Ahmad; Note the rat poison chemical is called  nux vomica/strychnine and a common ingredient in homeopathic, unani and Ayurveda medicines to treat circulation problems and polio, joint problems, arthritis, etc. I  too became a victim of this highly toxic substance during hakeem and homeopathic treatment leaving m,e  unable to walk, painful cramps all over my body, excessive uterine bleeding, kidney and spleen damage, severe weakness up to collapsing when trying to walk, vertigo, nausea, anxiety, stiff muscles, horrid cramps in arm and hand which was supposed to be treated for arthritis and gouty formations on one finger, inability to digest food, potassium depletion…

 I still try my best to recover with whatever resources available and diet changes from  the strychnine poising of homeopathic medics given to me to treat arthritis. Of course the doctor denied any harmful action of this and blamed other things and me. But what is rat poison? killing you slowly and painful !! look up its effects here!

Avoid any medicine containing nux vomica, strychnine,Strychninum…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Women, who underwent sterilization surgery at a government mass sterilisation camp, pose for pictures inside a hospital at Bilaspur district in the eastern Indian state of Chhattisgarh November 14, 2014. The doctor whose sterilisation of 83 women in less than three hours ended in at least a dozen deaths said on Thursday the express operations were his moral responsibility and blamed adulterated medicines for the tragedy. PHOTO: REUTERS

RAIPUR: Tablets linked to the deaths of more than a dozen women who visited a sterilization camp in India are likely to have contained a chemical compound commonly used in rat poison, two senior officials in Chhattisgarh state said on Saturday.

Preliminary tests of the antibiotic ciprocin tablets were found to contain zinc phosphide, Siddhartha Pardeshi, the chief administrator for the Bilaspur district, told Reuters.

The antibiotics were handed out at the mass sterilization held a week ago in the impoverished state. At least 15 women have died, most of who had attended the camp.

Authorities tested the tablets after being informed that zinc phosphide was found at the nearby factory of Mahawar Pharmaceuticals, the firm at the center of investigations into the deaths at a government-run family planning camp, Pardeshi and Chhattisgarh health minister Amar Agarwal said.

Samples of the drugs have now been sent to laboratories in Delhi and Kolkata to verify that the tablets were contaminated as the preliminary report suggested, Pardeshi said.

“But, this is what we anticipate,” he said. “Symptoms shown by the patients also conform with zinc phosphide (poisoning).”

Mahawar, run from an upscale residential street in state capital Raipur, had been barred from manufacturing medicines for 90 days back in 2012 after it was found in to have produced sub-standard drugs, but it did not lose its license.

An investigation is now under way into why the drugs were bought locally when there was enough stock of the medicine with the state’s central procurement agency, Agarwal said.

“There was no incentive to procure locally so we need to investigate why it was done. This means something is wrong,” he said.

More possible victims arrived at hospitals from villages on Thursday and Friday, some clutching medicine strips from Mahawar and complaining of vomiting, dizziness and swelling, a doctor at the district’s main public hospital said on Friday.

The new patients had not attended the sterilization camps, but had consumed the drugs separately, the doctor and another official said.

The state government said it had seized 200,000 tablets of Ciprocin 500 and over 4 million other tablets manufactured by Mahawar.

Police have arrested Ramesh Mahawar, the firm’s managing director, and his son. Mahawar has said both are innocent.

India is the world’s top sterilizer of women, and efforts to rein in population growth have been described as the most draconian after China. Indian birth rates fell in recent decades, but population growth remains among the world’s fastest.

Sterilisation is popular because it is cheap and effective, and sidesteps cultural resistance to and problems with distribution of other types of contraception in rural areas.

shaken bay syndrome seminar- vaccine damage or child abuse?

Shaken Baby Syndrome:
Vaccine Cover Up
That Can Land You in Jail

Ground Breaking Information You Need
To Keep Your Family Safe!

Register here to access all videos and receive your complementary copy of the 50+ page companion ebook and special Shaken Baby Syndrome Resource Guide.

Videos Included:

1. Shaken Baby Syndrome Webinar Introduction                         14:33
2. Shaken Baby Syndrome Webinar: Christina England             37:16
3. Shaken Baby Syndrome Webinar: Dr. Viera Scheibner         49:37
4. Shaken Baby Syndrome Webinar: Dr. Michael Innis               27:12
5a Shaken Baby Syndrome Webinar: Chris Savage                  18:26
5b. Shaken Baby Syndrome Webinar: Ralph Fucetola JD           7:09
5c. Shaken Baby Syndrome Webinar: Emily Zimmerman          12:43
5d. Shaken Baby Syndrome Webinar: Conclusion                        9:42

In addition you will also receive a complementary subscription to my information-packed Health Freedom Action eAlert Newsletter as my gift to you.

Visit us on FB: /NaturalSolutionsFoundation to Friend us, Like and Share this information and follow us on Twitter @NaSolFoundation

The information in this webinar protect your family and may keep you out of jail.

 Yours in health and freedom,

Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

Should Premature Babies Be Included In The One-Size-Fits-All Vaccination Policy?

According to a fact sheet published by the University of Auckland, premature babies weighing as little as seventeen ounces are supposed to be vaccinated with same dose of vaccines given to an adult. The vaccination schedule is not being adjusted in any way and does not take into consideration a premature baby’s fragility or their weight.

Their decision has left many professionals questioning whether or not the “one-size-fits-all” vaccination policy is really suitable for premature babies, given the fact that many of them are not yet medically stable.

The University of Auckland believes that no changes are needed and recommends that the vaccination schedule should not be adjusted. They insist that these fragile babies should be vaccinated according to their chronological age, rather than their due date, and that they should be vaccinated in line with the vaccination schedule set by the government.


Is The One-Size-Fits-All Policy Right For Premature Babies?

In the USA, approximately 500,000 babies are born prematurely each year. These are babies born before 37 weeks of completed pregnancy. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the earlier a baby is born, the more likely they are to suffer from severe health problems. Many of these babies die, while others may be severely disabled with learning disabilities, cerebral palsy, respiratory disorders, visual complications, hearing loss and feeding and digestive problems.

The CDC states:

“Although most babies born just a few weeks early do well and have no health issues, some do have more health problems than full term babies. For example, a baby born at 35 weeks is more likely to have—

  • jaundice
  • breathing problems
  • longer hospital stay” [1]

Many of these babies spend weeks, if not months, in incubators, while their lives hang in the balance. Is it really appropriate to vaccinate such fragile babies, regardless of their state of health?

No Changes Are Recommended for Preterm Babies!

Governments around the world are demanding a one-size-fits-all vaccination policy. The University of Auckland’s Fact Sheet for Health Professionals, titledImmunization for the Low Birth Weight and/or Preterm Infant, makes this policy very clear, stating that:

“Premature and low birth weight infants are at greater risk of increased mortality and morbidity from vaccine preventable disease.”

The university recommends that:

 “Immunizations should be given according to the National Immunization Schedule at the appropriate chronological age. Do not adjust age for preterm birth, i.e. National Immunization Schedule vaccines start at six weeks of age from the date of birth. The usual vaccine dosage should be used.” (emphasis added)

The university is so keen that these tiny babies are vaccinated on time that they state very clearly in their fact sheet that “vaccinations should not be withheld or delayed.” This policy applies even if the infant has suffered from episodes of apnea, a condition causing the baby to forget to breathe for short periods of time.

For infants born to hepatitis B carrier mothers, the university states:

“Give hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and a hepatitis B immunization (HBvaxPRO®) within 12 hours of birth regardless of birth weight.”(emphasis added)

Once again, this clearly indicates that the one-size-fits-all policy is being used regardless of the baby’s health.

The fact sheet continues:

“Infants of non-hepatitis B carrier mothers:

Three doses of hepatitis B containing vaccine beginning at six weeks of age, regardless of birth weight, are expected to provide protection.

• Administer DTaP-IPV-HepB/Hib (Infanrix®-hexa) vaccine.” (emphasis added) [2]

The fact sheet is sickening, especially when you consider that many of these babies are so small they can measure little more than 12.5 inches in length and suffer from life-threatening conditions requiring feeding tubes, heart monitors, oxygen therapy, infrared lamps and photo therapy to keep them alive.

Many Professionals Disagree With The One-Size-Fits-All Policy

Many professionals disagree with the one-size-fits-all policy.

One such professional is scientist Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD. In her letter to the editor of the journal Vaccine, titled One Size Fits All, written in 2012, she stated that:

“There is a general medical consensus that vaccines have revolutionized human health by significantly reducing morbidity and mortality due to infectious diseases, particularly those affecting children.”

She continued:

“Indeed, as Poland et al. note, ‘Vaccines are the only medical intervention that we attempt to deliver to every living human on earth.’ As with any medication, vaccines also carry risks of adverse reactions (ADRs). Although the temporal association between vaccinations and serious ADRs is clear, causality is rarely established.”

She followed this by adding:

“Nonetheless, Poland et al. rightly ask whether ‘with the advances coming from the new biology of the 21st Century,’ it is time to consider ‘how might new genetic and molecular biology information inform vaccinology practices of the future?’ In light of this question Poland et al. conclude that ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach for all vaccines and all persons should be abandoned. This legitimate conclusion should equally apply to vaccine efficacy, as well as safety. Regarding the latter, the widely held view that serious vaccine-related ADRs are rare may need revision, as current worldwide vaccination policies indeed operate on ‘one-size fits all’ assumption. This assumption persists despite the fact that historically, vaccine trials have routinely excluded vulnerable individuals with a variety of pre-existing conditions (e.g. premature birth, personal or family history of developmental delay or neurologic disorders including epilepsy/seizures, hypersensitivity to vaccine constituents, etc.” (emphasis added) [3]

If Dr. Tomljenovic is correct that premature babies have been excluded from vaccination trials due to their vulnerability, this would suggest that there is no data supporting that vaccinations can be safely administered to these infants.

Why do our governments not see this as an issue?

Vaccine Inserts Tell A Different Story

Reading through the various vaccination inserts, you will see that many state that the decision to vaccinate a preterm infant should be based upon the child’s medical status.

For example, the insert for the Merck’s hepatitis B vaccine states:

“Apnea following intramuscular vaccination has been observed in some infants born prematurely. Decisions about when to administer an intramuscular vaccine, including RECOMBIVAX HB, to infants born prematurely should be based on consideration of the individual infant’s medical status and the potential benefits and possible risks of vaccination.”(emphasis added) [4]

The insert for Sanofi Pasteur’s DTaP vaccine, Daptacel, states:

“Apnea following intramuscular vaccination has been observed in some infants born prematurely. The decision about when to administer an intramuscular vaccine, including DAPTACEL, to an infant born prematurelyshould be based on consideration of the individual infant’s medical statusand the potential benefits and possible risks of vaccination.” (emphasis added) [5]

And the insert for GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) Infanrix (DtaP-IPV-HepB/Hib) hexa-vaccine states:

“Limited data in 169 premature infants indicate that INFANRIX hexa® can be given to premature children. However, a lower immune response may be observed and the level of clinical protection remains unknown. The potential risk of apnea and the need for respiratory monitoring for 48 -72h should be considered when administering the primary immunization series to very premature infants (born ≤ 28 weeks of gestation) and particularly for those with a previous history of respiratory immaturity.” (emphasis added)

Despite their warnings and the fact that they have limited data, GSK continues by stating:

“As the benefit of vaccination is high in this group of infants, vaccination should not be withheld or delayed.” (emphasis added) [6]

Vaccinations Have Been Proven to Cause Stress-Induced Breathing Patterns In Children

Vaccinations have been proven beyond all doubt to lead to stress-induced breathing patterns in babies.

In 1985-1986, Cotwatch, a pioneering true breathing monitor was developed by Dr. Viera Scheibner and her late husband, Leif Karlsson, a Swedish electronics engineer specializing in patient monitoring systems. In a more detailed rewrite of her original paper published in 2004 by the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, she wrote:

Cotwatch was a true breathing monitor, meaning its electronics separated heartbeat and breathing and only breathing delayed the alarm. The feedback on breathing from the standard home monitor were alarms, while the microprocessor-based unit provided computer printouts of the record of breathing in the form of histograms stacked-up at an angle or vertical bars)the length of which directly reflected the stress level as integrals of the weighted apnoea-hypopnoea density (WAHD).” [7]


Dr. Scheibner says that this important feature means the difference between life and death and that, in a stress response in a baby, breathing stops first, while the heart is still beating. She explains that you must be alerted by an alarm before the heart stops in order to resuscitate the baby.

When Scheibner and Karlsson studied the histograms (printed data) of infants, they noticed that whenever the babies had received a vaccination, the charts showed clusters of stress-induced breathing patterns, proving conclusively that the vaccines that were causing the breathing problems.

In 1991, Dr. Viera Scheibner was invited to present the results of the data collection on babies’ breathing with the Cotwatch breathing monitor to the Second National Immunization Conference.

This information has been freely available ever since.

However, despite this information being freely available and many manufacturers stating that caution is needed when vaccinating premature babies, governments continue to insist that no changes to vaccination schedules are needed!

Dr. Viera Scheibner Has Strong Views on the Safety and Efficacy of Vaccinations

Dr. Scheibner believes that vaccinations are not only unsafe but also totally ineffective at preventing disease, not only for premature babies, but for everyone, and she has made her feelings abundantly clear in a five-page letter to Miss Pinkerton, a contact whose name appeared on an informational flyer received in regards to a Hearing on Safety of Hepatitis B Vaccine, held on May 18, 1999, titledHearings on Hepatitis B Vaccine.

She wrote:

“When they were testing the acellular whooping cough vaccine in Sweden, as soon as the test babies were given 3 doses of the trial vaccine (meaning they were fully vaccinated) they had a huge epidemic of whooping cough in the fully vaccinated. They discontinued the trial before the targeted time of 2 years. I also need to add that practically all Swedish children below the age of 1 year participated in the trial. They expected 20 deaths and observed 45 (plus one accidental death) and yet this very significant increase was glossed over by saying that all deaths were judged unrelated to vaccination, even though there were deaths there within 24 hours or a few days.”

She finished her strong letter, which was full of research, facts and figures, by stating:

“I think that I outlined to you some of the essential facts about vaccination. Mandatory vaccination in the USA is indeed an arrogant insult to the American Constitution, freedom of choice and to just plain human decency and represents medical tyranny. It must be discontinued if the U.S. wants to continue claiming to be the guarantor of freedom for all and from all forms of tyranny. Charity starts at home.” [8]

After reading through her letter, I asked her in an email what her views were on vaccinating premature babies. She replied:

“Vaccinating premature babies under this false notion of ‘care’ and believing that they must be protected against infectious diseases because they are premature is totally misplaced, or at least the lack of common sense. I am at a loss to understand why they do it.”


Clearly, the one-size-fits-all vaccination policy does not fit premature babies. How can it be considered lawful or indeed moral to vaccinate premature babies with the same vaccinations that are administered to adults?

We can see from the studies undertaken by Dr. Viera Scheibner and her late husband Leif Karlsson that many of the routine vaccinations used on premature babies today can cause them to suffer stress-induced breathing patterns. These studies are irrefutable and have been used worldwide to demonstrate the link between vaccinations and breathing difficulties in young babies.

Despite this information, vulnerable, fragile babies are being vaccinated with multiple vaccinations on a daily basis, regardless of the danger.

Why does the medical profession dictate that animals receive vaccinations calculated according to their weight, but the one-size-fits-all policy is recommended for our children?

Surely, it is time to change this policy, once and for all.

This article is dedicated to a very special little girl, Aurora~Phi, whose name means “to show beauty in truth.” Aurora~Phi was born prematurely seven weeks ago. She was born to parents who do not believe in vaccination. Aurora~Phi is vaccine-free and said to be doing exceptionally well. She no longer needs her incubator and has been moved to the nursery.

The Racism of the Arab countries

Pakistani couple incurs SR128,000 hospital bill in delivery of baby girl

A poor Pakistani farm worker in Taif is desperately trying to pay the mounting hospital bills which he incurred after his wife gave birth to a premature baby girl. He cannot take his baby home until he pays the money in full.
Mohammed Ishaq, a 26-year-old Pakistani, works as agriculture farm worker cum driver in Taif. His wife, Hasina Nader Mohammed had a premature delivery on Feb. 10 of this year giving birth to a baby girl weighing 1 kg and suffering from respiratory distress syndrome. Ishaq was billed a total of SR127,680 according to the medical records.
The Pakistani couple was unable to bear the huge cost as both are not covered by health insurance.
The baby was placed in an incubator at the Al Nahda Hospital in Taif for 22 days where she was treated with antifungal medication and supplied oxygen. She also spent 43 days in the ICU for respiratory treatment and given artificial ventilation.
“The hospital is demanding the payment of a sum of SR127,680 as their service charges before they agree to discharge my daughter,” Ishaq said.
He said that he worked on a farm and drove his sponsor’s vehicle. “My wages are not sufficient to pay such a large amount of money,” he said adding that he wouldn’t be able to raise this amount even he worked for another ten years in the Kingdom.
When asked about the medical insurance cover, he replied, “Domestic employees such as house drivers, maids and farm workers are not covered in the mandatory medical insurance cover.”
Ishaq said that he knew some Pakistani workers in Taif but that they were of the same social status as himself, and were

unable to raise the sum. “My wife and I are grief-stricken and at a loss as to where to go and whom to ask for help,” he said sorrowfully.

Science discovers the Sunnah,, The Wisdom behind Tahneek

‘Sugar gel’ helps premature babies

A dose of sugar given as a gel rubbed into the inside of the cheek is a cheap and effective way to protect premature babies against brain damage, say experts.

Dangerously low blood sugar affects about one in 10 babies born too early. Untreated, it can cause permanent harm.

Researchers from New Zealand tested the gel therapy in 242 babies under their care and, based on the results, say it should now be a first-line treatment.

Their work is published in The Lancet.

Sugar dose

Dextrose gel treatment costs just over £1 per baby and is simpler to administer than glucose via a drip, say Prof Jane Harding and her team at the University of Auckland.

This is a cost effective treatment and could reduce admissions to intensive care services which are already working at high capacity levels”

Current treatment typically involves extra feeding and repeated blood tests to measure blood sugar levels.

But many babies are admitted to intensive care and given intravenous glucose because their blood sugar remains low – a condition doctors call hypoglycaemia.

The study assessed whether treatment with dextrose gel was more effective than feeding alone at reversing hypoglycaemia.

Neil Marlow, from the Institute for Women’s Health at University College London, said that although dextrose gel had fallen into disuse, these findings suggested it should be resurrected as a treatment.

We now had high-quality evidence that it was of value, he said.

Andy Cole, chief executive of premature baby charity Bliss, said: “This is a very interesting piece of new research and we always welcome anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for babies born premature or sick.

“This is a cost-effective treatment and could reduce admissions to intensive care services, which are already working at high capacity levels.

“While the early results of this research show benefits to babies born with low blood sugars, it is clear there is more research to be done to implement this treatment.”

Pranic Pregnancy And Parenthood.. the natural way

To some, it may come as a surprise that Camila Salas only ate five solid meals throughout her entire pregnancy. But for Camila, nourishing her own mind, spirit and body, as well as the body of her unborn child, through fresh juice and the cosmic life energy of breath is part of her practice of Pranic Living. In this piece, Camila and her partner Akahi share how this state of consciousness results in love, joy and deep connection, as well as a healthy pregnancy and a new version of the parent-child relationship.

Pranic Consciousness is the awareness that the life source is co-creating in abundance through each being, in all of life, manifesting through us as life in physical form as well as the ability to create, interact, and experience on infinite levels. On larger scales, Prana is creating galaxies, planets, and sustaining the Universe breath by breath.

This state of consciousness is not only a lifestyle, way of thinking or being. It is the basic information that we as beings possess innately. When we surrender to being vessels to a Greater Intelligence, our lives take a course that goes beyond what we could have imagined, presenting us with opportunities, resources, people, and experiences that enrich us and fulfill this greater purpose that we came to explore. The basis is joy, a joyful understanding that everything that occurs is a perfect part of the journey, giving us new wisdom and integrating more this intelligence into our lives.

As Pranic/Breatharian beings, we live in unity with the Cosmic Energy, and as parents conscious that our children are light beings who come directly from the source, we are here to help them not forget who they are and experience the love, happiness, creativity, and magic of the life together, in balance with nature and all elements of creation. Each child comes to life already desiring to explore certain aspects, attracted to specific types of learning and interactions, just as we ourselves have been. We have the opportunity to observe how best to offer these abundant resources for a fluid and natural parent-child relationship and life experience.

Our transition into Pranic Living happened in 2008, two years before the conscious conception of our first son. The stabilizing of the Prana within made it so that in the moment we were ready to conceive, everything happened with ease and from the joyous state that we are permanently living in. The conception was immediate, the pregnancy developed smoothly and so enjoyably, and the natural birth of our son was an amazing initiation into this journey of conscious parenting that we are now deeply exploring.

During the pregnancy I, Camila, continued drinking only fruit juices and herbal teas. I didn’t feel the need or desire to eat solid foods and during the entire nine months I ate 5 times, all of which were in social situations where the experience catered to a beautiful exploration of the flavors. My blood tests during all three trimesters were impeccable, showing balance and purity. Iron levels remained stable and at the average level for even women who are not pregnant, never presenting signs of anemia or sugar imbalances and regular pregnancy check ups with the midwife and OBGYN confirmed the above average growth of a very healthy baby boy.

Pranic Living goes far beyond the food free aspect. It is an intelligent spirit that illuminates and heals our lives and our genetic lineage and the “hereditary” information that is generally passed on through the generations. This means the elimination of such things as thought and emotional cycles, behaviors, tendencies, habits, and the physical manifestations of these in the form of illness or other syndromes. Because of the profound reprogramming Pranic Living provides the reproductive systems, the sperm, and ovarian eggs are purified, opening the space for our children to grow in and be born through a place of no past energetic charge, and truly be the beginning of a new generation. We now observe this in our children and have also been able to observe ourselves through Breatharian/Pranic pregnancy, birth, and parenthood as we redefine family and love, the parent-child relationship, and the roles we all play in this team that we comprise. Beyond any “parenting label” we are instinctual parents, meaning that by knowing our children profoundly through our experiences and interactions of responsiveness, not being reactionary, we follow what feels the most natural and harmonious, parenting from the heart and not the theory, so we can continue to be creative and learn together as a family.

This topic of purification of the genetic lineage is very important because it is the basis of conscious parenting. When we as parents are aware that through us and our families we are refining the generations, refining the humanity, a deeper comprehension of our roles as parents is revealed to us, because automatically our consciousness guides us to refine our words, thoughts, actions, and emotions, giving us a valuable understanding of the information we share with our children, the way in which we do so, and the impact this can have on the development and evolution of that being.

To refine humanity also means to manifest the desire that our children have a life even more marvelous than our own has been, not only economically but also in terms of education, comprehension, support, and help. The best education exists within the parents. Children of all ages are constantly stimulated, learning from the actions that they observe in their parents, and with a brilliant intelligence they try to simulate and be a reflection of us. As parents we have the great honor of being the focus of attention of our children, to be that being who inspires them to learn about life. We are thus given the opportunity to bring this attention to the good things and conscious values that we know will be essential for their development within the humanity as limitless creative beings who count with a great source of energy and resources, the existential support from the cosmic intelligence.

From the Pranic Consciousness perspective, being parents we feel that we are refining the generations by filtering the information that we allow to reach our children with more care and precision. In this same way we let go of the obsolete information that we received from our own parents so as not to pass it on to our children.

We are in a flourishing new humanity in which the children who are being born at this time are, in many cases, souls who are experiencing Physical life for the first time. They come with pure DNA of light and love, so the integration of these beings into this dimension and physical form should be channeled softly with family fundamentals of love.

We refine humanity and the education in our homes by giving support and confidence to our children so they may develop their gifts and talents. The children of this era are born with a new spectrum of intelligence from which we will see flourish new sciences and technologies for the future of humanity. As parents aware of these energetic changes we must learn to observe, accept, and channel these energies within our families. It’s important that we empower ourselves with what we’ve learned from the past and now give back something new and fresh in our present. Beyond the fact that on our planet there have occurred natural and social catastrophes, the families of the world have the possibility to liberate themselves of the memories, traumas, and family karmas so that the DNA of our children and next generations continue on, being pure and divine.

Akahi and Camila Salas are parents and Pranic Breatharian teachers, who have been sharing processess of conscious evolution for over 15 years. Their work has involved children for the past nine years in projects in different countries throughout South America, specifically in Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. These projects have always been focused on artistic education leading towards the discovery and development of the talents and gifts unique to each being. Both professional artists, practitioners of natural and ceremonial medicine, having for many years experimented with vegan and raw foods diets, in 2008 they underwent the spritual initiation of the 21 Day Fast, a process to callibrate their bodies to the capacity to live from Light.

After this spiritual initiation they first experienced the non necessity of food, for the following two years they drank only juices, not eating any solid foods. After the integration of the prana as their energy source they entered into a new stage of profound and practical comprehension, receiving the channeled information that educated them on the conscious utilization of the Cosmic Energy.

Scientific research on the breathing therapies and processes that they currently share worldwide has proven an increase in the amount of life force in the energy field, resulting in longevity, in a balancing of the functions of the nervous system and internal body organs, as well as generating lasting mental and emotional clarity, and the healing of chronic physical diseases. They are most known for their work globally in the facilitating of the 8 Day Process, a transitional process for Living On Light.

Family planning in Islam

 Question: Assalam o Alekum,

I am a muslim from Delhi, I have few queries related to family planning and
abortion in Islam. I would be grateful to you if you kindly clarify the

1. Is family planning allowed in Islam? if so, what are the conditions?
2. Is Abortion is allowed in Islam? if so, what are conditions?
3. is it allowed in Islam to provide legal safe abortion  services?

As per Indian law Abortion is allowed in following four conditions, please
suggest if these are at par with Islamic laws:

1. if mother’s life is in danger
2. If child is detected as potential disable
3. if pregnancy is a result of rape
4. if family planning methods failed and family doesn’t want the child.


In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful *

Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatuh

We acknowledge receipt of your enquiries and the response follows


It is an unacceptable (in terms of Shar’iah) “excuse” for implementing *birth
control; Family planning is what the media generally bombards us with the

“global population explosion”. Western Media is very subtly indoctrinating
the minds of naïve people to think that if the growth of world population
is not curbed and stifled, the world could be shortly facing a food
shortage crisis.

As Muslims, we cannot ratify and accept the so-called “foregone
conclusions” and “projected forecasts” in the media that “ominously” warn
us about the world population reaching 5 billion in the next 40 years and
then increasing in leaps and bounds to reach alarming and astronomical
proportions in years to come. The reason for this is obvious to a Muslim;
it is our belief that Allah Ta’ala alone knows exactly what the future
holds for mankind at large. It does not necessarily mean that because the

world population has doubled in the last 40 years, it HAS to increase two
or three fold within the next 40 years as well. Some catastrophic event

“There is no living creature on earth but its sustenance depends entirely
upon Allah Ta’ala.” [Al-Qur’aan 11:6]

Our duty is to become law-abiding servants of Allah Ta’ala and then have
faith and trust in Him that He will create and provide enough food for all.
Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan: –

And if anyone puts his trust in Allah, sufficient is Allah for him.”

Islam in fact teaches us to practise the exact opposite of birth control
and family planning. In a Hadith Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam)

has encouraged us to increase *our progeny: –

“Marry those women who show great affection and who are highly fertile;

for surely I shall feel honoured (on the Day of Qiyamah) due to your large

numbers.” ( Mishkaat, Pg. 267).*

An inquiring mind may raise the question that if we are going to increase
our progeny, where are we going to get the food for the extra mouths? Well,
the solution to that question has also been provided by Rasulullah
(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam): –

“Sustenance is provided for you due to the barakah (blessings) of your
innocent and weak subordinates.” [Al-Hadeeth].

In other words, the more dependants one has, the more Allah Ta’ala
increases sustenance.

As far as the Western World’s so-called “solution” of abortion is
concerned, such a callous step would be tantamount to murdering one’s own
offspring. The Qur’aan says: –

“Kill not your children for fear of want; We shall provide for them as
well as for you. Surely, killing them is a great sin.” [Al-Qur’aan, 17:31].

In a similar vein, birth control has also been likened to burying a child
alive (as was quoted earlier on from a Hadeeth of Mishkaat), because one is
basically “killing” sperm that has the potential of initiating conception
in the womb of the mother.

Hence, to resort to birth control and abortion merely due to the fear that
one will not be able to provide for the extra mouths is something that is
severely condemned and shunned by Islam.

Islam does not provide solutions in the guise of barbaric and nonsensical
theories such as unwarranted abortions and birth-control policies. Islam’s
solutions are simple and forthright and those are that we should:-

(i) Strengthen our Imaan and carry out the commandments of Allah Ta’ala,
thereby attracting His Mercies and Bounties.

(ii) Continue to increase the numbers of the Muslim Ummah.

(iii) Make the effort on our part in earning income from Halaal sources.

(iv)Place our trust in Allah Ta’ala that He will give Barakah in our
earnings and allow it to suffice for all our dependants.

(v) Utilize whatever is left over in channels of Zakaat and Lillah so as to
assist those who are less fortunate.

If we were to implement this five-point strategy, we would Insha-Allah
bring about a better world to live in and there would be little or no
starving mouths left to feed.

Allah Ta’ala says in the Holy Qur’aan:-

“He who fears Allah Ta’ala, for him He prepares a way out, and He provides
for him from sources he could never imagine.”  [65:2]

Look at the unique power of having trust in Allah Ta’ala, as extolled in
the following Hadith:-

*” Surely if you will trust Allah Ta’ala as you really ought to, then He

will provide for you in the same way as He provides for the birds who rise
and leave early in the morning with hungry stomachs but return in the

evening fully nourished and satiated.” (Mishkaat, Pg. 452).*

“These are events of the Unseen which We reveal by inspiration unto thee.”
[Al-Qur’aan, Surah Yusuf, 12:102].

Let us rather ponder over the imminent signs of Qiyaamah so that we can
prepare ourselves adequately for the Aakhirah. The Western World’s  “probing”
into the future is based merely on speculation which creates unnecessary
panic and pandemonium and causes the masses to indulge in Haraam acts such
as unwarranted birth control exercises, abortions, etc.


(Al-Mahmood by Mufti Ebrahim Desai)

Almighty Allah Ta’ala says in the Quran: “Life is from a decree of my
Lord.” (Surah 12 Verse 85). The above verse is self explanatory on the

sanctity and significance of life. Generally every decree is from Allah
Ta’ala but the honour of attribution increases its sanctity and demands its
highest level of reverence. This command is mentioned in many verses of the

Noble Quran – Allah Ta’ala says: *”Whosoever has spared the life of a soul,

it is as though he has spared the life of all people. Whosoever has killed

a soul, it is as though he has murdered all of mankind.”* (Surah 5 Verse 32)

The above should suffice to express the sanctity of the Rooh (life). The
Noble Qur’an describes the various stages of man’s primordial development
but it does not specify the exact duration of each state. In one verse of

the Noble Qur’an, Almighty Allah Ta’ala says, *”Man, We did create from a

quintessence (of clay); then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place
of rest, firmly fixed; then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed
blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then We made out of that
lump bones, and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it

another creature: So blessed be Allah, the best to create.”* (Surah 23

Verses 12 and 14)

In a Hadith related by Bukhari and Muslim, our beloved Rasulullah
(Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, “Verily the creation of each one of you
is brought together in his mother’s belly for forty days in the form of a
seed, then he is a clot of blood for a like period, then an angel is sent
to him who blows the breath of life into him…”

Based on the above references, Muslim jurists have deduced that the first
four months (120 days) of gestation is the crucial time period. After this
the foetus is regarded as being ‘alive’ and an abortion is not permissible
for any reason whatsoever; and, should an abortion be done then it would
constitute murder. Thus an abortion may be performed within the 120 days

period only if there is a valid Shar’ee reason. (Family Planning and
Abortion, by Qaadhi Mujahidul Islam, published by the IMA of South Africa)

Ta’ala says, “And do not assist in sin”. (Surah 5 Aayat 2).

The Fuqaha have explained the extent of the prohibition in assisting in
sin. If the assistance is the motivating factor and the only reason for
committing the sin, then such assistance is prohibited. For example, a
person provokes a non- Muslim by speaking evil about his idols; he in turn
speaks evil of Allah (Allah forbid). The provocation was the motivating
factor of speaking evil of Allah. Similarly, if a person deals in such
things that are used only for committing sin, for example, the sale of
musical items, then that assistance is sinful and forbidden.

If the assistance is not the motivating factor for committing the sin but
the sin is committed by an independent perpetrator, for example, a hawker
sells grapes to a person who makes wine. The hawker does not know the
intention of the consumer; neither does he make the wine himself. The
selling of grapes by the hawker will not be assisting in sin.

A Muslim health professional is duty bound to obey the laws of Shari’ah in
his profession. The role of the doctor in abortion is analogous to a person
who deals in things used only to commit sin. Therefore he cannot perform an
abortion prohibited in the Shari’ah, for example, after 120 days or even
motivate such an abortion.

   1. If the patient is determined to have an abortion prohibited in the

   Shariah, then it is not permissible for the doctor to make any referrals.
By doing so, he/she will be assisting in sin.

   1. a) If the medical personnel are not aware that the patient requires

   abortion (which is prohibited in the Shari’ah), then these services will
not be regarded as assisting in sin. If they are aware of the patient’s
intention of having a prohibited abortion in the Shari’ah, then it is not
permissible for them to offer their services in clerking such patients.

b) Writing out a prescription for an abortifacient patient drug as well as
physically handing the drug for abortion is prohibited in the Shari’ah as
that will be assisting in sin, hence not permissible.

c) To evacuate the uterus after partial abortion and treating a patient
from sepsis shock, etc. after abortion is permissible. The service of the
doctor is after the patient has committed the sin.

   1. a) If the anaesthetist is aware that the patient is undergoing an

   abortion, he or she cannot provide his or her services.

b) A Muslim anaesthetist may offer his or her service in a miscarriage even
though he or she discovers that the miscarriage is due to a premeditated
termination. According to our understanding the anesthetist will not induce
the miscarriage.

   1. It is not permissible for a Muslim pharmacist to dispense medication

   prescribed to induce an abortion prohibited in the Shari’ah since it will
be assisting in a sinful act.

   1. It is permissible for Muslim nursing staff to nurse patients during

   the pain and bleeding following the abortion.

The second part of your queries about the Indian Laws of Abortion has
already been answered in detail above.

May Allah guide all of us to the straight path, and guide us to that which
pleases Him.

And Allah Ta’ala Knows Best *

Wassalamu Alaykum

Ml. Mohammad Ashhad bin Said

Correspondence Iftaa Student, Mauritius

Checked and Approved by:

Mufti Ebrahim Desai Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In’aamiyyah*


Woman’s Stomach Ache Really a 9-Pound Baby-


By Evann Gastaldo,  Newser Staff

(NEWSER) – Jennifer Scollin hadn’t been feeling well lately and chalked it up to a stomach bug that was going around. But when the Connecticut woman woke up Saturday morning with bad stomach pains, she called her boyfriend to come home—and minutes after he did, her water broke. They called 911, and she ended up delivering their second child in an ambulance parked in her driveway. “We didn’t know at first it was a baby coming, but once we did it happened fast,” she tells the Connecticut Post. “Two pushes and he was out.”

Scollin says she never suspected she might be pregnant: “I had been feeling fine until the past few days and I had been getting my ‘womanly thing’ every month until last month,” she says. And the 9-pound, 3-ounce Cole Michael Thomas Dillman is Scollin’s second child, so she is well versed in what pregnancy (usually) feels like. Scollin and her son are both doing well and were discharged from the hospital yesterday. Notes a hospital rep, “This sort of situation is uncommon, but we are always prepared for anything.” Indeed: A similar situation played out Feb. 28 in Indiana, where a mother-of-two went to the hospital (after putting in an 8-hour shift on her feet at her assembly line job) with what she feared was a burst appendix; Mandy Batchelor gave birth to a full-term baby boy, report theBanner-Graphic and WLS. (In this recent case, a woman knew she was pregnant but received a big surprise during delivery.)



Planned, Unplanned; Assisted or Unassisted

There has been a lot of interest in a homebirth section of Birthing Naturally. Several readers have made requests that I add home birth specific information. My first response is always, “What exactly do you want to know?”

You see, there isn’t really any difference in techniques or tools that may be useful, good positions for labor and giving birth, or even in the need for the mother to be comfortable and confident. Most of the information you need to give birth at home is listed in the other sections of the web site (see the comfort measuresjudging progress in labor and overcoming labor challenges).

However, I remember preparing for the possibility of a home birth with my son. I know I had a multitude of questions about what to do and how to stay safe. I wrote down all my questions and took them with me to my midwife visits. Her insight and encouragement helped me prepare for what ended up being an unassisted homebirth. You can read more about the story of my son’s birth, the decisions we made and why throughout this section.

The following pages are written to help you organize your thoughts as you consider or plan for your homebirth. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules about what a homebirth is like. This means I cannot quote from textbooks, I can only share what I learned from my experience. Remember, what worked in my situation may not be appropriate for you. Because my experience was in planning for the possabilty of a fast labor without help, most of my answers will reflect the mind set of an unassisted childbirth. If you are employing the services of a homebirth midwife she will be able to answer any of these questions in much greater detail for you.

Homebirth isn’t for everyone, but it should be an option for most women. Take the time to investigate this option, considering the advantages and disadvantages to you and your family, and make an informed decision regarding your child’s birth.

Unassisted Childbirth

Quote on Giving Birth

Men, you would never let another man between your wife’s legs while she is lying in bed half naked in your bedroom, right? Yet you give up that position when she’s in the hospital to have a baby and you don’t think twice. I think there is something wrong with that.

Bob Griesemer in Unassisted Homebirth

Since unassisted childbirth is a private experience chosen by few, there are no evidence-based scientific studies about this birth option. Most of the information below is sourced from resources we have read and from women who have chosen to give birth unassisted.


A woman giving birth unassisted determines the course of her labor and birth autonomously.Unassisted childbirth (UC) has been defined as the process of intentionally giving birth without the assistance of a doctor, midwife or other professional birth attendant.

Unassisted childbirth is also known as unassisted home birth, DIY (do-it-yourself) birth and freebirth.

It is a birth that is planned to take place in the home or other venue of the mother’s choice, distinct from an emergency birth, where the woman in labor didn’t make it to a hospital or birthing center on time.

Why do women choose unassisted child birth?

Most women who choose to birth unassisted believe that giving birth is a natural function of the female body and therefore should not be treated as an illness or a medical emergency. They believe that left undisturbed i.e. without the medical interventions commonly practiced by professional birth attendants, that giving birth is an uncomplicated process that will usually take its course without risk to the mother or her baby.

Quote on Giving Birth

Men, you would never let another man between your wife’s legs while she is lying in bed half naked in your bedroom, right? Yet you give up that position when she’s in the hospital to have a baby and you don’t think twice. I think there is something wrong with that.

Bob Griesemer in Unassisted Homebirth

Other couples regard giving birth as the culmination of the sexual act that brought about conception. They believe that giving birth is an intimate, private, sexual act that should not be intruded upon by any third parties.

Some women have even reported experiencing an orgasmic experience, brought about by the release of a cocktail of hormones, which similar to a sexual climax, would not easily be released if they were not in a private setting.

Some women have chosen unassisted birth as they were not able to find a midwife or birthing attendant who was willing to assist them in a home birth.

Others choose UC out of the desire for greater freedom and autonomy than they experienced with previous births, either in hospital or attended by midwives at home. For some, an unassisted childbirth brings emotional healing where a woman felt unempowered in a previous birth experience.


Unassisted childbirthers also share the views of many midwives that many interventions commonly used by the medical profession, particularly in hospitals, hinder the normal processes of labor and birth and cause many of the complications that arise as a result.

Couples who have had unassisted births believe that they are better able to bond with their newborns, without the typical routines and interventions that occur when others are present. The mother or the father is usually the first person to touch the baby and this first touch is usually loving and gentle.

Some couples include family, especially older siblings and grandparents and even close friends to be present to witness the birth of the baby.

As stated previously, other couples want to be intimate alone, while a small group of women choose to birth solo, without even a birthing partner.

Prenatal care and preparation for giving birth

Many women seek professional care and regular check-ups with a healthcare professional during their pregnancies, and undergo tests and ultrasound to confirm that there are no risk factors and that their pregnancy and baby’s development is progressing normally.

Others choose self-care in their belief that pregnancy is a normal part of life and provided women have healthy lifestyles, it should carry few risks.

Still others use a combination of a few check ups and self-care for the rest of the time.

Women who choose unassisted child birth often research and prepare themselves physically, emotionally and spiritually using online resources, such as websites and online UC support groups as well as books and DVDs.

They usually understand the perceived risks of UC and they are informed about the possible variations of ‘normal’ birth, such as unusual presentations. They are willing to deal with those and other possible eventualities should they arise.

For more resources on unassisted births, please look at the resources we recommend in the side column of this page.



Evidence-based maternity care means practices that have been shown by the highest-quality, most current medical research to be most beneficial to mothers and babies (reducing incidences of injuries, complications and death), with care tailored to the individual. “Standard” or “routine” care—the care that the vast majority of women in most hospitals in the United States receive—is not evidence-based. That is, it is not based on the most current reliable scientific research.

The answer is not simple. There is no single place to point your finger.Why don’t we practice evidence-based care?

Part of the problem is systemic.

It starts with medical and nursing education, where the focus is on what can go wrong during birth, not how to facilitate a normal, uncomplicated vaginal birth.

Here’s an example. Recently, a group of about 50 labor and delivery nurses from across the nation was asked how many had witnessed a natural, or physiologic, birth in their educational programs. About half raised their hands. But when natural birth was further defined as “undisturbed, without continuous electronic fetal monitoring, without I.V. fluids, with food or drink at will, freedom to move about and not confined to a bed,” the number of hands in the air dropped to one or two. This is standard education.

Part of the problem is public perception of birth.

For many people, “surviving” birth is the goal. They are not aware of the real benefits of normal (vaginal) birth for moms and babies, and that the effects of traumatic, out-of-control birth experiences—even when they result in a physically healthy baby—can be devastating. As one midwife and childbirth educator said, “The goal of emerging from birth with body and baby intact is a bit of a no-brainer, really. … [But also] it is completely possible to support a woman to birth a child so she feels mentally healthy afterwards, without compromising safety in any way.”

When we reduce birth to the extraction of a fetus from a womb, without regard to the physical, emotional and mental implications of how it happens, it can be seriously detrimental to the postpartum experience. This includes how women recover from birth, parent their newborns, relate to their partners, and make decisions about future births. Artificial induction and c-sections can be life-saving interventions when necessary. The more women who have these procedures unnecessarily or routinely, however, the more these procedures appear normal, instead of the medical procedures they are, with real risks and consequences. More and more, women consent to have painful procedures and major surgery, with real health consequences, instead of being confident in their bodies’ abilities to naturally start labor and give birth to their baby.

Many women head for birth uninformed, unprepared and afraid. And most women do not get the benefit of practices, drawn from reliable research, that are proven to manage the pain and ease the process of labor, making it as safe and smooth as possible.

Part of the problem is routines.

An example of this is routine electronic fetal monitoring—the hospital practice of hooking up a laboring woman to a machine that monitors the baby during labor, while limiting the mother’s movement and ability to manage pain.

Research shows that routine monitoring increases the risk of cesarean delivery, the risk of forceps/vacuum assistance, and the risk of needing pain medication—all without making birth safer for the mother or baby. The lower-cost, scientifically proven better option of intermittent auscultation is only used about 3 percent of the time. It’s just one example of what one researcher calls “high-tech, high-cost, low evidence–based care.”.

Do You Really Need One? California For-Profit Hospitals Are Performing More C-Sections

For-profit hospitals across the state of California are performing Cesarean sections at higher rates than nonprofit hospitals, a California Watch analysis has found.

A database compiled from state birthing records revealed that, all factors considered, women are at least 17 percent more likely to have a Cesarean section at a for-profit hospital than at one that operates as a non-profit. A surgical birth can bring in twice the revenue of a vaginal delivery.

In addition, some hospitals appear to be performing more C-sections for non-medical reasons —- including an individual doctor’s level of patience and the staffing schedules in maternity wards, according to interviews with health professionals.

Across the state, more women are having C-sections for a variety of reasons: a rise in obesity and the number of older mothers, fear of lawsuits among doctors and hospitals, and a growing cultural acceptance of the procedure. Rather than examine these well-known trends, California Watch looked at why individual hospitals are performing Cesarean sections at higher rates than others.

The statewide database revealed significant differences among 253 hospitals in California. Women, whose pregnancies were deemed to be low-risk, had a nine percent chance of giving birth by C-section at the nonprofit Kaiser Permanente Redwood City Medical Center, for example, while at the for-profit Los Angeles Community Hospital, women had a 47 percent chance of undergoing a surgical birth. When you factor in moms who needed to have C-sections for medical reasons, the Los Angeles hospital’s rate jumps to 59 percent.  In Riverside County, hospitals just miles apart had dramatically different rates, even though they serve essentially the same population.

Some critics say the numbers provide ammunition to those who have long suspected that unnecessary C-sections are performed to help pad the bottom line.

“This data is compelling and strongly suggests, as many childbirth advocates currently suspect, that there may be a provable connection between profit and the cesarean rate,” said Desirre Andrews, president of the International Cesarean Awareness Network, a nonprofit group that would like to see C-sections only in cases of medical need.

 To doctors and other health professionals, the results of the analysis were troubling.

 “We take this extremely seriously. The wide variation in C-section rates really is a cause for concern,” said Dr. Jeanne Conry, California district chairwoman of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

This was the first independent analysis of C-section rates at the 253 hospitals reporting birth statistics to state health authorities from 2005 through 2007 and the first showing for-profit hospitals with higher rates than nonprofit ones. Studies in other countries have shown the same relationship between for-profit health care institutions and C-sections.

The notion that hospitals could be pushing C-sections for money is “a wrong premise,” according to Tenet Healthcare representative Rick Black, who said the decision to perform the surgery is made by the doctor and patient, while the hospital exerts no direct influence.

“You don’t just come into a hospital and they say, ‘We want to give you a C-section so we can drive up profits.’ ”

In 2008, more than 180,000 C-sections were performed in California. It’s unclear what percentage of these procedures led to adverse outcomes because some injuries are the result of underlying conditions.

By comparing hospitals with similar demographics, the California Watch analysis revealed that rising C-section rates cannot be completely attributed to changes in patient health and preference.

“If you look at this variation among hospitals, it’s clear we can’t just blame women,” said Debra Bingham, president-elect of Lamaze International, a group that promotes natural birth.

Pressure for a C-Section

Even at nonprofit hospitals, some women say they felt pressured to have a C-section.

Rebecca Zavala, 29, a teacher and make-up artist in Ventura, was one.

Zavala consented to have her delivery induced a week early because the baby’s head seemed large and because the doctor was about to leave for vacation.

Zavala went to the nonprofit Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center, where nurses gave her drugs to dilate her cervix and start the contractions. After four hours, in which labor progressed slowly, Zavala’s doctor broke her water and turned up the drug, stimulating contractions.

Shortly thereafter, her doctor informed Zavala that her baby was showing signs of distress and recommended a C-section. Zavala agreed. Nurses congratulated Zavala on being an accommodating patient.

But Zavala said she felt manipulated. Her doctor hadn’t told her that induction increased the likelihood that she’d have a C-section and that C-sections came with health risks, she said. Now that she is pregnant again, she has learned that most hospitals are unlikely to allow a woman with a prior C-section to give birth naturally.

“She told me nothing,” Zavala said of her doctor, noting that the doctor left for her vacation shortly after the delivery.

The hospital could not discuss the specifics of the case due to patient privacy, but responded with the following statement:

“Many factors go into the decision to perform a C-section delivery, with mother and baby safety foremost among them. Our policy requires physicians to obtain informed consent from patients undergoing C-sections. The process, which we followed completely, involves discussing the risks, benefits and alternatives to the procedure and documenting that the discussion occurred and the patient opted to proceed.”

Zavala’s doctor did not wish to comment for attribution. Zavala did sign the consent but said it was impossible for her to interpret and assess the issues laid out in small print. Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center has one of the highest rates of C-section deliveries in the state, ranking 15th out of 253 hospitals, for women whose pregnancies were deemed to be low-risk.

For some, a C-section can have devastating consequences.

After Heather Kirwan had been in labor for a few hours her doctor at Rancho Springs Medical Center in Murrieta urged her to have a C-section, warning that the baby was too big for her birth canal. She reluctantly agreed to the procedure, but now questions that decision.

“She ended up being a 5-pound, 12-ounce baby,” said Kirwan, 26, a manager for The Home Depot who lives in Murrieta. “So that was obviously a lie.”

A year and a half later, Kirwan was pregnant again, but the doctors found that the embryo was developing outside the uterus. Before her C-section, Kirwan said no one had warned her that C-sections increase the risk of this life-threatening condition, called ectopic pregnancy. And if it were listed in her lengthy consent form at the time of her first delivery, Kirwan said, no one bothered to point it out.

The doctors removed the embryo, along with one of Kirwan’s ovaries and fallopian tubes. She has been unable to conceive since.

“I’ve been trying for years and years, and I still can’t get pregnant. It’s very heartbreaking,” Kirwan said. “I just want people to know the risks.”

In a recently published study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that a 27 percent increase in severe maternal injuries in the United States between 1998 and 2005 was associated with higher rates of Cesarean sections.

Kirwan’s doctor and Rancho Springs Medical Center didn’t respond to requests for comment. The hospital’s C-section rate is among the state’s lowest, ranking 207th out of 253 medical centers.

Searching for a Link

Medical experts have been unable to pinpoint exactly why some hospitals perform far more C-sections, or “operative deliveries,” than other medical facilities.

Yet, one important factor has always loomed over the debate about the rise in C-sections: the bottom line. In California, hospitals can increase their revenue by 82 percent on average by performing a C-section instead of a vaginal birth, according to a 2007 analysis by the Pacific Business Group on Health.

The group -– a coalition of business, education and government agencies –- estimated that average hospital profits on an uncomplicated C-section were $2,240, while profits for a comparable vaginal birth were $1,230.

California Watch examined the births least likely to require C-sections, those in which mothers without prior C-sections carry a single fetus –- positioned head down –- at full term, and found that, after adjusting for the age of the mothers, the average weighted C-section rate for nonprofit hospitals was 16 percent, while for-profit hospitals had a rate of 19 percent.

That may seem like a small percentage gap to the casual observer, but medical experts consider it a significant difference. It means women are 17 percent more likely to have a C-section if they give birth at a forprofit hospital.

“That’s a decentsized difference,” said Gene Declercq, professor of community health sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health.

Less than one in five maternity hospitals in the state is a forprofit institution, but among the 15 hospitals with the highest rates of C-sections, 10 are for-profit facilities. Among the 15 hospitals with the lowest rates, none are for-profit medical centers.

Riverside County Regional Medical Center in Moreno Valley has one of the lowest C-section rates at nine percent.

Guillermo Valenzuela, vice chairman of obstetrics at Riverside County Regional, attributes his hospital’s low rate to doctors working in shifts. Shift workers have no financial incentive to hurry a delivery along: The doctor is paid the same and can end a shift regardless of whether he or she delivers 10 babies or simply monitors the early stages of labor. The system increases accountability, he said.

“If I come in in the morning, look over the charts and see that one of the patients just had a C-section without medical indication,” Valenzuela said, “you can bet that I’m going to start asking questions.”

A few obstetricians, like Dr. Jeffrey Phelan, director of quality assurance for obstetrics at Citrus Valley Medical Center in West Covina, believe that a higher C-section rate might be beneficial, especially in preventing infant brain injuries. In rare cases, when a baby’s oxygen supply is cut off during birth, the baby may suffer brain damage. Because C-sections allow greater obstetrical control, Phelan says this problem might be alleviated by eliminating vaginal birth altogether.

However, most researchers agree that the rising number of birthing surgeries has done nothing to improve the health of mothers or babies, while exposing them to side effects. The accumulation of this data led The Joint Commission, the nation’s top hospital accreditation organization, to announce this year that it would begin using low-risk C-section rates to measure hospital quality.

Dr. David Lagrew, medical director of Saddleback Women’s Hospital in Orange County, spends about half his time delivering babies and says the change is welcome.

“The big problem, of course, is that a Cesarean section has a number of downsides, such as increasing the maternal death rate, infections, blood loss, and a lot of complications long-term that we are just now beginning to understand,” he said.

“The great debate is what should the C-section rate really be?” Lagrew added. “With things getting more complicated, as far as obesity and older women, it shouldn’t be 10 percent probably -– but it shouldn’t be 50 percent, either. You want to find the sweet spot.”

By Nathanael Johnson

This story was edited by Robert Salladay and Mark Katches. It was copy edited by Austin Fast.

The Real Danger in America: Hospital Birth

As tempting as it is to make emotional arguments against the safety of home birth, asFeministe did recently, it’s not home births that are driving America’s high rates of maternal and fetal death.

It’s hospital birth.

America has among the highest maternal mortality rate of any industrialized country.

Even more disturbingly, in the hospital there are 34,000 “near misses” a year (severe pregnancy-related events that nearly cause death), up 25 percent from 1998.

Our infant mortality rates, as this CIA World Fact book chart shows, are similarly ignominious, higher than in most of the developed world.

But Amy Tuteur, MD, and many practicing obstetricians would like women to believe home birth is dangerous.

“Dr. Amy” is a former physician who let her medical license lapse in 2003 and now spends her time heckling writers on-line. When I wrote a post on reasons to breastfeed, she commented that breastfeeding leads to newborn death and accused me of being anti-feminist.

Despite that she has become a go-to expert for journalists like the Daily Beast’s Michelle Goldberg. Tuteur is wrong.

Less than one percent of births in America take place at home; the tiny number of women having home births cannot be responsible for our poor outcomes. (Full disclosure: I’ve had two homebirths and one unassisted birth.)

As Jennifer Block mentions in her response to the Daily Beast, we know from more than half a dozen large-scale studies carried out in several different countries, includingEngland and the Netherlands (where almost a third of babies are born at home), that planned home birth with competent attendants is as safe as or safer than hospital birth.

It’s devastating when a baby dies in childbirth.

The stories on Amy’s Hurt by Homebirth blog are full of anguish.

They’re worth reading, especially because you’ll see when you do that as of July 10, 2012, the blog had not been updated in more than six months and that some problems in these heart-wrenching stories actually arose from hospital, not home birth, mistakes.

In this story the emergency room doctor denied the woman was in labor and told her to suck it up (“These are pregnancy symptoms. Get used to it”), despite the fact she was 40 weeks and 3 days pregnant, exhausted, and asking for help.

The doctor sent her home.

You’ll also read about neonatal deaths caused by midwife incompetence, which I’ve unfortunately experienced firsthand, which my husband—who serves on our state’s board that regulates midwifery—works to prevent, and which is often more publicized and certainly just as inexcusable as obstetrician incompetence.

A Lack of Evidence-Based Medicine

Still, more than 97 percent of American births take place in the hospital, as opposed to at home or a birthing center.

The question we really need to ask is: What’s going wrong with hospital birth and why?

Three years ago Cyndi Sellers had her son at Oregon’s Rogue Valley Medical Center. After her water broke two weeks before the estimated due date, Cyndi—29 years old, healthy, having a low-risk pregnancy—was induced with Cytotec.

 Cytotec, a drug to fight ulcers, has never been approved by the FDA for use to induce pregnancy.

In 2000 when the drug’s manufacturer realized it was being routinely used to jumpstart labor, they issued a warning to doctors against it.

According to the National Institutes of Health, Cytotec should not be used in pregnancy as it “may cause miscarriage, premature labor, or birth defects.”

Cytotec can also cause uterine rupture, uterine hyperstimulation, and amniotic fluid embolism, a rare but often fatal complication.

Then Cyndi was given Pitocin, a synthetic hormone that, according to the manufacturer’s insert, has never been tested for safety in pregnancy.

Going from having no contractions to being slammed with contractions with no break was excruciating. So Cyndi accepted an epidural, dilating quickly after that.

When it was time to push her baby out, Cyndi lay on her back with little feeling in her pelvis or legs.

The two nurses in the room, along with her husband and mom, looked at a monitor to see when Cyndi was having contractions to instruct her to push.

When the doctor on call finally bolted into the room after being repeatedly paged (Cyndi overheard the nurses say Dr. King was taking forever because of family visiting from out of town), she was wearing a Tie-dye T-shirt and her hair was wet as if she’d just been swimming.

The doctor immediately cut an episiotomy.

One cut wasn’t enough so she made a second.

Cyndi’s mom, who was watching, told Cyndi later that she was horrified at the length.

It took weeks for Cyndi to urinate without extreme pain.

Even now things still “don’t feel right” down there.

For over 25 years obstetricians routinely did episiotomies on laboring women.

“A number of observational studies and randomized trials, however, showed that routine episiotomy is associated with an increased incident of anal sphincter and rectal tears,” write the authors of Williams Obstetrics (23rd edition, p. 401, their emphasis), including a four to sixfold risk of fecal or flatus incontinence.

The evidence is abundant and unequivocal: episiotomies are proven to be more painful and more damaging to women than spontaneous tears. But despite the evidence, hurried doctors continue to perform them.

By Jennifer Margulis

The Real Problems: Skyrocketing Cesareans, For-Profit Medicine, Lack of Choice

Stuart Fischbein, M.D., an obstetrician with 30 years experience who runs a robust home birth practice in collaboration with midwives in Southern California, believes the obsession with home birth is a smoke screen to mask our C-section and maternal mortality rates.

“It’s a distraction from the real problems,” Fischbein says.

The real problems: A dangerously and unacceptably high doctor-endorsed C-section rate (over 32 percent), a for-profit medical system that puts money over moms, and a lack of childbirth choices, especially for women who have had previous C-sections, so severe it drives some families to choose unassisted VBAC birth.

When you do the research yourself, you’ll find the most scientific birth is the least technological, that midwife-assisted birth is actually associated with safer outcomes than obstetrician-assisted birth, and that countries with lower fetal and maternal mortality rates are also places where medicine is not a for-profit institution.

Scaring women from home birth and arresting midwives will not make our birth system safer. Encouraging collaboration between doctors and midwives, practicing evidence-based medicine, and taking the profit out of obstetrics will.

Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D.
Co-author, The Baby Bonding Book for Dads and author, The Business of Baby: What Doctors Don’t Tell You, What Corporations Try to Sell You, and How to Put Your Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Baby Before Their Bottom Line (forthcoming from Scribner, April 2013). Learn more at her website, follow her on Twitter (at JenniferMarguli, no “s.”)

Dangers of Hospital Births: Why Birthing in a Hospital Can Cause More Problem’s than it Solves – SEPARATION ANXIETY

Separation Anxiety

Perhaps the most egregious and unnecessary interference with the normal birth sequence is the separation of mother and baby immediately after birth. Even a ten-minute separation is too long during this critical first hour after birth—it prevents the natural nipple stimulation that increases the mother’s oxytocin, which will contract the uterus and prevent a postpartum hemorrhage. Instead of baby-provided nipple stimulation, hospitals are now routinely using synthetic oxytocin by IV or injection after the birth to control bleeding.

Similarly, early cuddling of mother and baby stimulates oxytocin production in the newborn, thus raising the baby’s body temperature to help with the adaptation to the extrauterine environment. A mother’s body is a newborn’s best warmer.

Because different personnel are involved in providing piecemeal care for mothers and babies, providers do not always see how their actions in one area may cause problems in another. For example, because obstetricians are not involved in breastfeeding issues, they may not realize that cutting an episiotomy hampers a woman’s ability to sit comfortably in order to nurse her baby. Likewise, pediatricians may not realize that separating the mother and baby right after the birth in order to do a routine newborn exam also interferes with breastfeeding. Nursery nurses often do not seem to appreciate the importance of minimizing the separation of mother and baby, and thus also unwittingly interfere with breastfeeding. They tend to ignore the World Health Organization’s recommendations to delay initial bathing of the baby until at least six hours after the birth, even though bathing can cause a baby’s temperature to drop so dangerously low that they do not return him to his mother for an hour or more.

I emphasize the hazards to the breastfeeding relationship because breastfeeding is so vital to a newborn’s well-being, reducing infant mortality by 20 percent. This is a huge health benefit, and hospitals should be taking the lead in tailoring their routines to support breastfeeding. But because the functions of caring for mother and baby are separated into the roles of maternity nurses (who care for the mothers) and nursery nurses (who care for the babies), sometimes the mother and baby are also physically separated. Most of the time, there are no lactation consultants in the hospital—they are often only available during weekday business hours. But babies need to be fed around the clock, and if a lactation consultant isn’t available to help a struggling mother/baby pair, it might become necessary to feed the baby artificial breastmilk with a bottle, which further interferes with successful breastfeeding.

Because the entire model of hospital birth is based on birth as a medical procedure, hospital staff seem to miss the fact that they are interfering in a delicate time in a new baby’s life. Perinatal psychologists describe the first hour after birth as the “critical period,” during which the baby will learn how to learn and whether or not it is safe to relax and to trust the outer world. This has tremendous implications for mental health and stressrelated disorders.

A Natural Process

There was a time when cesareans were acknowledged to be a risky surgery reserved to save the life of the mother or baby. Now even cesarean surgery has become almost routine. Some obstetricians and hospital administrators are advocating for a 100 percent cesarean rate as a solution to liability and scheduling problems that are inherent in providing maternity care. Unfortunately, cesarean surgeries increase risks for the mother and child. They also increase the risk for subsequent pregnancies, with higher rates of placenta previa and placenta accreta, and introduce a small but non-zero risk that a pre-labor uterine rupture could result in the baby’s or even the mother’s death.

When someone needs to be in the hospital receiving medical treatment for a lifethreatening condition, the risk-benefit trade-off comes in heavily on the side of benefit. But for women who are hoping to have a drug-free birth, it makes no sense to expose themselves and their baby to the various infection risks associated with simply being in the hospital.

Most people know that it is unwise to take a newborn baby out and about in public because of the risk of exposing the baby even to ordinary germs. It is an even worse idea to expose the baby to the antibiotic-resistant strains of germs commonly found in hospitals.

When a woman planning a homebirth needs medical care and care is transferred to a hospital-based provider, the phrase “failed homebirth” is often written in her chart, even if she goes on to have an outcome that is better than if she had started out in the hospital. I would like to propose the concept of a “failed hospital birth” as any birth where hospital procedures specifically cause more problems than they solve. When you consider hospital infection rates, surgical complications and the damage to the breastfeeding relationship caused by routine separation of mother and baby, we might find that close to 95 percent of planned hospital births are failed hospital births. They failed to support the mother in an empowering birth experience to better prepare her for motherhood, and they failed to satisfy the baby’s overwhelming need and desire to enter and adapt to the outside world as nature intended.

Our society has an obligation to improve maternity care services as much as possible. Consider that the countries with the safest maternity care rely on midwives as the guardians of normal birth, reserving risky medical procedures for cases of true need. “In the five European countries with the lowest infant mortality rates, midwives preside at more than 70 percent of all births,” reported Caroline Hall Otis for the Utne Reader. “More than half of all Dutch babies are born at home with midwives in attendance, and Holland’s maternal and infant mortality rates are far lower than in the United States…”

A Return To Midwives

The United States needs to return to a model of midwives as the default maternity care providers, reserving the surgical specialists for the highest-risk patients. We need to educate pregnant women so that they understand that the choices they make about drugs during labor affect their baby, just like the choices they make about drugs during pregnancy. We need to offer women realistic pain relief alternatives to dangerous pharmaceuticals; warm water immersion during labor provides risk-free pain relief that many women find as satisfactory as an epidural. (Mothers who are uncomfortable with the idea of water birth can easily leave the tub to give birth “on land,” while still deriving the tremendous comfort and safety benefits of laboring in water.) Hospitals need to develop new routines that protect mother-baby bonding and the breastfeeding relationship as if they are a matter of life and death, because they are.

Obstetricians would do well to practice according to the wisdom contained in the phrase, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This means supporting healthy women with normal pregnancies in birthing at home if they choose, and encouraging women planning hospital births to work with them to minimize interventions that turn normal births into risky medical procedures.


About the Author:

Ronnie Falcão, LM, MS, is a homebirth midwife practicing for twelve years in and around Mountain View, California. A direct-entry midwife trained through a homebirth apprenticeship and a residential internship at Casa de Nacimiento birth center in El Paso, Texas, she was licensed in 1997 under the California Challenge Process through the Seattle School of Midwifery. Ronnie is editor of the Midwife Archives at

Her personal web page is


Home Birth and Out-of-Hospital Birth: Is it Safe?

How Safe is that Hospital Anyway?

Information compiled by Jennifer L. Griebenow 4/97

    In the past, most Americans were born at home with lay midwives attending. The mortality rate for both mothers and babies was higher in 1900, at 700 maternal deaths per 100,000 births (Korte and Scaer 97), than it is now. Babies also died at a significantly higher rate at that time, which decreased to 28.9 births per thousand by 1960 (Korte and Scaer 98). Obstetricians tend to emphasize that many women used to die in childbirth, implying that we should be grateful for current obstetric practice. However, even in 1900, the percent of women who died giving birth was only 7/10ths of one percent! One has to wonder how this percentage compares with our country’s current cesarean section rate of 22%. Are the surgeries performed on these mothers actually saving them from imminent death? Maternal and infant mortality are lower now than they were 40 years ago. But the assumption that hospital birth is safer for mother and baby has never been supported (Jones 6). Prenatal care, better nutrition, antibiotics and blood transfusion have played more of a part in the relative safety of birth now.

    Sheila Kitzinger, British childbirth expert, states that planned home birth with an experienced lay midwife has a perinatal death rate of 3-4 babies per 1,000 births (51). Hospital births, by contrast, carry a perinatal mortality rate of 9-10/1,000. [Perinatal death rates include fetal deaths on and after 28 weeks gestation, whereas neonatal mortality rates only include deaths occurring in the first 28 days after birth (Jones 96,98)].

      • A study in Australia found a perinatal mortality rate of 5.9/1,000 out of 3400 planned home births (Kitzinger 41).
      • Joseph C. Pearce states in his landmark book Evolution’s End that homebirthed babies have a six to one better chance of survival than a hospital-birthed child (117).
      • A study in the Netherlands done in 1986 on women who were having their first babies showed these results: out of 41,861 women who delivered in the hospital, the perinatal mortality rate was 20.2/1,000. Of 15,031 women who delivered at home with a trained midwife, the rate was 1.5/1,000 (Kitzinger 44). I know, I thought it must be a typo too.
      • Marsden Wagner, formerly of the World Health Organization, states that every country in the European Region that has infant mortality rates better than the US uses midwives as the principal and only attendant for at least 70% of the births (Jones 2). He also states that the countries with the lowest perinatal mortality rates in the world have cesarean section rates below 10% (Jones 13). How does this compare with the US rate? Miserably.

      Cesarean section and hospital birth is not doing for women and their newborns what doctors and hospitals claim it is! Ask for statistics and studies when your doctor claims hospital birth is safer than planned (not accidental, unattended) home birth. I would be interested to see them. If your doctor says, “That’s common knowledge,” you would be wise to seek another health care provider. I have only heard of one study done that claimed hospital birth was safer. It included deaths caused by unplanned, unattended births which occurred at home, and was backed by (guess who?) ACOG (The American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists).

    Other studies:

      • Dr. Lewis Mehl did a study comparing home and hospital birth with mothers from California and Wisconsin with matched populations of 2,092 mothers for each group. Midwives and family doctors attended the homebirths; OBGYNs and family doctors attended hospital births. Within the hospital group, the fetal distress rate was 6 times higher. Maternal hemorrhage was 3 times higher. Limp, unresponsive newborns arrived 3 times more often. Neonatal infections were 4 times as common. There were 30 permanent birth injuries caused by doctors (Jones 99).
      • Dr. Mehl did another study comparing 1,046 home births with 1,046 hospital births. The groups were matched for age, risk factors, etc. There was no difference in infant mortality. None! However the hospital births caused more fetal distress, lacerations to the mother, neonatal infections and so on. There was a higher rate of forceps and C-section delivery and nine times as many episiotomies (Jones 110).
      • Robert C. Goodlin reported in the Lancet on 1,000 births, half occurring in a hospital, half in a birth center. There were no IVs, monitors or anesthesia used in the birth center, but the babies were born in better condition. Besides that, three times as many cesareans were performed in the hospital (Korte and Scaer 37-38).
      • In 1982, Anita Bennett and Ruth Lubic evaluated 2000 births that had happened in 11 freestanding birth centers. The neonatal death rate was 4.6/1,000. The authors were denied information on low-risk women delivering in hospitals (Korte and Scaer 45). One wonders why….
      • I found these comments very interesting. A British research statistician, Marjorie Tew, did long term studies of the safety of birth in various settings during the 1980s. She found that among a sample of 16,200 births, the perinatal mortality rate was lower for out-of-hospital births, even for very high risk mothers! At a relatively high risk level, perinatal mortality was three times higher in hospital (Korte and Scaer 49). Tew then expanded her research by using information from the Netherlands, a nation where both obstetricians and midwives practice. The perinatal mortality rate was ten times higher in the hospital births there, even though the risk status of the mothers at the time of delivery was not much higher than that of mothers who chose midwives (Korte and Scaer 50).
      • In the Netherlands, which has a significantly lower infant mortality rate than ours, the C-section rate is 7% (Jones 20). The episiotomy rate is 6%, whereas ours is 90% (Jones 19). Midwives attend most of the births in the Netherlands. (Midwives tend to allow time for the woman’s tissues to stretch and to use perineal massage, warm compresses, and good head flexion to avoid both episiotomies and tearing; hence the lower Netherlands rate.)
      • In 1988, the US ranked 19th among industrialized nations for low infant mortality rates. By comparison, Sweden, where all mothers receive midwifery care, even when they are high risk and may also require physician care, ranked second (Jones 95).
      • Between 1978 and 1985, licensed midwives in Arizona had a perinatal mortality rate of 2.2/1,000 and a neonatal mortality rate of 1.1/1,000 (Jones 96).
      • This stat is priceless. Read on: In Madera County Hospital in California, where there is a transient, high risk population, midwives did the best job. In 1959, when doctors did the deliveries the neonatal mortality rate was 23.9/1,000. During 1960-1963, midwives had a rate of 10.3/1,000. When OBGYNs took over again in 1964, the rate skyrocketed to 32.1/1,000 (Jones 98).

      Carl Jones says, and I concur, “No one can tell a mother she is perfectly safe giving birth at home. Whether she is safer at home than in a hospital, however, is another question” (113). There is always going to be some risk when giving birth, as in all of life, and women should be carefully screened for any health problems that could be dangerous during labor and delivery. For certain women in rare instances, obstetric care is essential. However, for most women, better, healthier results are seen when mothers chose birth centers or home births. As far as the risk of home birth goes, Our Bodies, Ourselves states, “The times when hospital care unexpectedly becomes instantaneously necessary are rare” (341). In A Good Birth, A Safe Birth, Diana Korte and Roberta Scaer quote Tew, the research statistician, who says, “The danger of home as a place of birth does not lie in its threat to the healthy survival of mothers and babies, but in its threat to the healthy survival of obstetricians and obstetric practice” (50).

    Another factor that is important in making the choice about where to give birth may surprise you. It makes common sense, but has also been documented by several studies. Women who give birth in a hospital are much more likely to experience postpartum depression or even post traumatic stress disorder. Kitzinger states that the more interventions a woman experiences, the more likely she is to be depressed, with C-sections obviously carrying the greatest risk of depression (193). She quotes 5 or 6 studies documenting the effects of this “institutional violence.”

    Aidan McFarlane, a British physician, notes that while 68% of hospital mothers experience postpartum depression , only 16% of home birth mothers do (Jones 24). On the Farm, a self-contained, alternative lifestyle community in Tennessee, the rate of postpartum depression was .03 percent (Korte and Scaer 183). Almost all mothers on the Farm had both a homebirth and a supportive, loving community of women to assist them postpartum. Depression, in itself, would be a major reason for mothers to consider giving birth in their own homes, if that is where they are most comfortable, especially if they had previously experienced postpartum depression and thus were at high risk for a repeat episode.

    Aspects of hospital birth that may strongly contribute to the incidence of postpartum depression in our country are the way the moment of birth is handled and the routine separation of baby and mother. In a study which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1972, Marshall Klaus, the “bonding” expert, found that holding the baby close released “dormant intelligences” in the mother and caused “precise shifts of brain functioning and permanent behavior changes” (Pearce 115). In other words, bonding is not just an emotional thing that only mothers think happens. It is a biochemical process that forever changes the mother, so that she knows more instinctively how to relate to her baby. In the hospital, baby cannot see mom with all the bright lights and is often inspected and observed for several hours before mother can hold it for any length of time. This is not to say love can’t make up for this loss, but motherhood might come easier if we had those natural body changes to help us. Then babies are still routinely kept in the nursery, if not most of the time, at least part of the time. The routine separation of mom and infant makes baby frightened and mom depressed (Pearce 124). This may be why postpartum depression and difficult adjustments are so common in the US and rare elsewhere. Japan moved from midwifery to obstetrical handling of births approximately 25 years ago. When older Japanese recently asked Joseph Pearce why their mothers no longer “know what to do with their children,” (129) one has to wonder how much the new hospital setting has to do with it.

    Most homebirth studies also show a significantly lower rate of C-section than hospitals have. Most stats I have seen show a rate between 1-5%, with the above quoted lower mortality rates as well. Cesarean sections themselves carry a far greater risk of additional illness or death than most people realize. I think because they have become so routine in our society, everyone feels “It’s no big deal.” However, C-sections carry a 2 to 4 times greater risk of death than do vaginal deliveries (Boston Women’s Health Book Collective 341).

    Several studies on the risk of death from the surgery alone (i.e. factoring out the conditions the surgery was done for) have shown varying, yet consistently depressing, results. Errard and Gold found with eleven years of statistics that the risk of death from cesarean section was 26 times greater than from vaginal birth (Cohen and Estner 26). Cohen and Estner also cite a study done in Georgia showing a maternal death rate of 59.3 per 100,000 women who had cesarean section versus 9.7/100.000 for women who delivered vaginally (26). A California study showed a maternal death rate 2-3 times greater from C-section. Korte and Scaer state that obstetricians admit a maternal death rate four to six times higher with cesareans (162), and add that many believe the rate is higher, giving 1 in 1,000 as the true odds of death for a c-section mother (163). You should also be aware that death is not the only complication caused by cesareans; mothers commonly experience infection after a section. Infertility problems, organ damage, and paralysis from anesthesia complications are rare but possible risks. The pain at the incision site is no picnic either.

    Another thing to think about is how a surgery like this will affect you, your child, and your society in the long run. When mothers “fail” to give birth naturally in hospitals, as they so often do these days, their self image is harmed despite well meaning friends telling them it doesn’t matter how baby came out. Especially if mothers are not certain their sections were absolutely necessary, there is often a hidden anger that can’t be overtly expressed in our culture. Mothers may take this unacceptable anger out on the only people they can–their children. “In 1979, the government of California funded the first scientific study ever made of the root causes of crime and violence. Their first report three years later stated that the first and foremost cause of the epidemic increase of violence in America was the violence done to infants and mothers at birth” (Pearce 126). The “little things” really do matter, just as a small pebble thrown in a pond makes ripples that travel a long, long way.

    If you are a woman with no health problems or contraindications to safe labor and delivery, consider very carefully your place of birth. Your chance of having major surgery is one in four if you choose a hospital, regardless of your current health status. Those are very good odds. If you had the opportunity to buy a million dollar lottery ticket with odds that good, you would, wouldn’t you? Don’t assume that it won’t happen to you. Since the risks to you and your baby are lower at home, and your risks of having surgery are greater if you go to a hospital, please consider homebirth as an option.

    Wherever you decide to give birth is up to you; just remember that you can make the decisions that need to be made when you have true information. It is your body, your baby, your money, and your life on the line, not the doctor’s or anyone else’s. You have the right to accurate information and the right to decide what is best for your baby. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Also, when you ask for information, beware of health care providers who say they judge each case individually, so they can’t really give you their statistics. It probably means either they don’t know or they don’t want you to know. You will have to live with the consequences of decisions made during your labor, for better or worse. For more information or support, call me at 606/625-0185 or email me at

    The author disclaims any liability resulting from the use of this information, and strongly urges you to use your own mind.


    1. Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. The New Our Bodies, Ourselves. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.
    2. Cohen, Nancy Wainer and Lois J. Estner. Silent Knife: Cesarean Prevention and Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. New York: Bergin and Garvey, 1983.
    3. Davis, Elizabeth. Heart and Hands: A Guide to Midwifery. 2nd edition. Berkeley: Celestial Arts, 1992.
    4. Jones, Carl. Alternative Birth. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 1990.
    5. Kitzinger, Sheila. Home Birth. London: Dorling Kindersley, 1991.
    6. Korte, Diana and Roberta Scaer. A Good Birth, A Safe Birth. Boston: Harvard Common Press, 1992.
    7. Mitford, Jessica. The American Way of Birth. New York: Dutton, 1992.
    8. Pearce, Joseph Chilton. Evolution’s End: Claiming the Potential of Our Intelligence. San Francisco: Harper, 1992.
    9. New Our Bodies, Ourselves. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.
    10. Cohen, Nancy

    How to discard blood, blood soiled lady napkins , umbilical cord, hair, placenta…..

    Assalamu alaykum respected hadhrat.

    I have a delicate question. I asked local ulema, their wives and referred the question to aalima. But sadly i just do not receive any replies. Its very frustrating.

    Anyway. Since any part of t human body, i.e. Placenta, the dried umbilical cord, hair, nails, blood, blood  soiled bandages and alike have to be buried in the ground, should soiled lady napkins be buried also? My husbands sheikhul hadith said in a speech that the witches and evil jinn do use blood soiled lady napkins from haidh to put evil spells on women. Also  hair- nails- blood soiled clothe are used for this purpose. I learned that to protect more against such issues is to buried the mentioned things in t earth on which people normally do not walk on. Also could it be thrown into t sea, river , lake and alike?  Can hair and nails from brushing and clipping or waxing the body of women or men be placed in a plastic bag and them buried? Or should be removed out a plastic bag and buried plain



    16 Jamadith Thaani 1435 (16 April 2014)

    Umm Muhammad

    Respected Sister,

    Your e-mail dated 15 April 2014 refers.

    Although blood is najis (impure), it is advisable to bury the soiled
    napkins/pads as well. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had
    instructed that the blood extracted  by cupping (hijaamah) should be
    buried. What the Shaikhul Hadith said is correct. If there is really
    no place to bury these items, then only should it be thrown into the
    sea. But  burial is the first option. The hairs and nails can be
    buried with the plastic bag.

    Nails and hair  could be collected and buried after any length of
    time. But filthy napkins with blood should be buried almost
    immediately. It should not be kept in the house as it may prevent the
    Angels of Mercy from entering. If there is no time to bury  the
    impurities immediately, keep it in a closed bin outside the house.

    There is no Dua or Tasmiyah to recite when burying impurities.
    Faeces-soild napkins  should be thrown into the trash. The bloodied
    pads should not be thrown in the trash.

    It is Waajib for parents to demand the afterbirth and bury it. Never
    allow them to keep it.


    A.S. Desai


    Mujlisul Ulama of S.A.

    Daughters are a blessing in Islam

    Assalaamu alaykum.

    Below is an article which made me and my husband break down crying. How merciful is Allah Ta’ala and how evil and ungrateful are we as an ummat!!??
    We have 4 daughters and were christian, and me an atheist, before our conversion. We are a mixed couple with an age gap of more the 15 years! So having now the assurance by our Lord Ta’ala that all the pains, efforts, trials we are running through , within in a short time,and raising them in accordance of Islam will pay out .
    Lately a sister had her 3rd child through c-section. As she recovered in her room another mother broke down crying. The doctor came ion and assured that her baby girl and her are very healthy and all is fine. The woman said that the problem is her husband as he will be very angry ate her as she did not deliver a baby boy!
    Sad issue of affairs.
    Are we still like pagan Arabs and Hindus that we raise our sons to hate women and baby girls?
    Here in Pakistan many in laws put magic spells on a woman if she does not bear a son, female infanticide is increasing, new born baby girls are thrown regular in the sewer gutter or on walking paths, maltreatment of women is increasing, men and in laws accuse women of zina and through her in the river to drown, burn her alive or bury her alive or throw acid in her faces..

    Dangerous vitamin D deficiency caused pregnancy related problem, thyroid problem, weight gain, infantile rickets, osteoporosis, paralyzes– I am one of many victims

    By Dr. Mercola

    Child abuse is a terrible thing. But as evidenced by the work of a select few, including Dr. David Ayoub, thousands of child abuse cases may in fact be misdiagnosed cases of rickets, caused by either vitamin D deficiency or aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, or both.

    Vitamin D deficiency is a hidden problem that can actually cause bones to appear as if they’ve been broken on an x-ray, which is a sure diagnosis of abuse to the inexperienced eye.

    This is the other side of the child abuse drama, and I believe it is critical for this information to become more widely known. Being better informed about how infantile rickets mimics cases of child abuse can help prevent traumatic injustice to parents who really have done nothing wrong, besides listening to and trusting conventional medical advice, which still does not place sufficient weight on the importance of vitamin D.

    Dr. Ayoub is a practicing radiologist in Springfield, Illinois, working for one of the largest radiology groups in the country. He’s also a volunteer faculty member at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, where he instructs medical students and radiology residents.

    He’s been involved in hundreds of misdiagnosed rickets cases over the past six years, testifying on innocent parents’ behalf. He also consults and reviews cases for other experts.

    Dr. Ayoub has compiled a robust body of evidence to support his position, some of which was recently published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Roentgenology.1 The paper was co-authored by Dr. Chuck Hyman, a child abuse pediatrician, and Marvin Miller, a pediatric bone specialist and geneticist at Dayton Children’s Hospital.

    Based on this work, they’re also submitting a second paper that addresses the risk factors in pregnancy that set up the baby with rickets, such as low vitamin D, poor calcium status, heavy antacid use, excess body weight, and other factors which I’ll list further below.

    “The last interview I did for you was really the link to my current work in infantile rickets,” he says. “I was looking closely at aluminum adjuvants in vaccines and their association with diseases in early infancy. One of the classic diseases that aluminum is linked to is rickets.

    It’s also plausible that aluminum is anticoagulant. In other words, it can induce bleeding conditions. What comes to mind is fractures and bleeding (what do you think of) in infants – shaken baby syndrome (SBS).

    The other link was my good friend, Dr. Ed Yazbak, who’s been on your program before… We have worked together, writing a paper on the influence of vaccine in pregnancy. Ed called me one day and asked me to look at some of his cases. He goes, ‘I know these kids weren’t abused. They have bleeds in their brain. But some of them have fractures, and I can’t figure it out. You’re a radiologist. Would you look at these bones? Let me know what you see.'”

    Is It Child Abuse, or Rickets?

    Since that fateful phone call, Dr. Ayoub has reviewed upwards of 3,000 pieces of medical literature, ultimately revealing to him that a great number of child abuse cases may in fact be instances of misdiagnosed metabolic dysfunction.

    Healing rickets can show up on an x-ray as what looks like a fracture, which immediately casts suspicion on the parents. But upon further analysis, it’s not actually an injury to the child’s growth plate at all.

    In his estimation, there may be literally tens of thousands of misdiagnosed cases of child abuse around the country. The trend of misdiagnosis goes back at least 25 years or more.

    As Dr. Ayoub points out, modern textbooks simply do not cover rickets as textbooks of the past did, and flawed research has been used as the basis to perpetuate the misdiagnosis of healing rickets as an inflicted injury.

    “There’s over a 95 percent reduction in our textbooks from what was in the textbooks 50 years ago,” he says. “Radiologists and clinicians today do not know the full range of what you see in a radiograph in rickets.

    The cases we’re seeing are 100 percent healing-phase rickets. I believe it’s the healing phase that makes these bones more susceptible to fractures. [It’s] not the active phase but the recovery that is the state of susceptibility.”

    Radiologists Kathy Keller and Patrick Barnes have published a four-case series in the Pediatric Radiology journal, describing what Dr. Ayoub is seeing as well. The bulk of the information can be found in older radiology literature, however. Interestingly, it’s not the rickets most modern doctors are familiar with.

    “There’s no fraying,” he explains. “You probably remember in med school what rickets looked like; it’s a classic they teach to medical students—the end of the bones looks like the end of a broom or a brush.

    It’s a frayed or irregular border. We don’t see that. We didn’t see that in any of the cases, because rickets in infancy is much, much different from rickets in the classical age group, which is between one and two years of age.” [Emphasis mine]

    Sadly, once a suspected child abuse case makes it to court, the prosecution usually wants to win at virtually any cost, even if it means sidestepping truth and medical fact. One argument that is frequently made is that vitamin D deficiency is rare. Clearly that’s not true. Another common argument is that vitamin D deficiency is common, but rickets is rare, even though the scientific data tells us this isn’t true either.

    “I had a horrible case in Ohio in which a young baby with multiple fractures – the typical presentation – had a very, very low vitamin D, and one of the forms of vitamin D, which is 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, was remarkably elevated.

    If you know anything about these pathways, that form of vitamin D pulls calcium from bones. An elevated form of this vitamin D is bad for bone. It’s a marker of calcium deficiency or vitamin D deficiency rickets.

    The expert told the court that this [vitamin] D level is the active form. It is high, which means it’s healthy for the baby, and the child can’t have rickets based on this.

    Now, any good endocrinologist, pediatric endocrinologist, who heard the statement would realize that this was absolutely, completely, and utterly false. It means the exact opposite. You could look at any lab manual and realize that that form of vitamin D is detrimental to bone. That woman [the baby’s mother] is in prison.”

    How Metabolic Bone Disease in Infants Gets Confused with Child Abuse

    Whenever rickets occurs in the first couple of months of life, it’s not really an infantile issue per se; it actually originates in the mother. Therefore, you have to look carefully at the mother’s characteristics. According to Dr. Ayoub, mothers of children who end up displaying fractures due to infant rickets have a variety of signs and symptoms in common, including the following

    Most live in northern latitudes, where the population tends to have lower vitamin D levels. The average vitamin D level in this maternal population was about 18-19 ng/ml, which is a  significant deficiency state Twin pregnancies are overrepresented, which is another risk factor. The risk of rickets in a twin pregnancy is 25 times higher than in a single pregnancy
    More often than not, she was pregnant during early spring, when vitamin D levels tend to be at their lowest (March-May) Higher than background rates of gestational diabetes and difficult labor
    80 percent of the mothers Dr. Ayoub reviewed had a body mass index of 30 or greater. Overweight or obesity is yet another risk factor for vitamin D deficiency Half of the mothers he reviewed had severe musculoskeletal symptoms that were undiagnosed by their clinicians. Some were even on narcotic drugs because of severe musculoskeletal pain, which is a feature of adult rickets (osteomalacia)
    About 30 percent smoked cigarettes prior to or during pregnancy Debilitating acid reflux was very common in these pregnant women, and about 75 percent of the mothers were taking excessive amounts of TUMS, which is a calcium carbonate-based antacid that binds phosphate and makes bone density MUCH worse


    Oddly enough, a significant percentage of the mothers in these cases are also diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), a connective tissue disease characterized by hypermobile skin and hypermobile joints. Dr. Ayoub notes that vitamin D deficiency can actually mimic Ehlers-Danlos as well, because it’s associated with joint hypermobility.

    “We know that collagen requires vitamin D as well. We didn’t know that traditionally, but research in the last 10 years has shown it’s important for collagen pathways, just like vitamin C is. It may just be a manifestation of vitamin D deficiency, or it may be a comorbidity. But it’s useful for the mother to get worked up for metabolic bone disease as well,” he says.

    Pregnant Women: Beware of Taking TUMS!

    I want to make special note of the acid reflux connection here, as this is a MAJOR point that can so easily be overlooked. TUMS, a commonly used over-the-counter antacid, just like many other OTC antacids, contains calcium carbonate to neutralize the acid.  What has now been found is that calcium carbonate can actually wreak havoc on both vitamin D levels and your bone density. And, if you’re pregnant, may severely weaken the bones of your child.

    “I was surprised that the antacids were promoted by their obstetrician,” Dr. Ayoub says. “I had a couple of people taking hundreds of TUMS over a course of two or three days! It was way above the maximum recommended dose. That was one of the odd things. It was an outlier.”

    While generally considered safe, calcium carbonate was actually the active ingredient given to rats during research studies in the 1920s-1950s to produce rickets in the mice! Crazy but true—TUMS’s active ingredient (calcium carbonate) is a rickets-causing chemical due to its phosphate-binding properties (calcium carbonate is even used in dialysis patients to bind phosphate).

    Additionally, the majority of the population is under the mistaken belief that they need to take calcium to prevent osteoporosis. Calcium carbonate is one of the most popular calcium supplements. Tragically, rather than prevent osteoporosis, the carbonate form of calcium actually decreases bone density. Normally, you might think of it as a source of calcium, which would decrease rickets, but as Dr. Ayoub explains, your bones need more than calcium to remineralize.

    “It’s really the calcium-phosphorus ratio in the diet that optimizes mineralization. It has been known since the ’20s that if you have high calcium and low phosphorus, high phosphorus and low calcium, or either of those imbalances from the normal ratio, which is about 2:1 calcium to phosphorus, when you go one way or the other too much, you don’t mineralize. In other words, you can absorb the calcium but it’s just not going into bone. There’s not enough phosphorus to make the matrix, the mineralized matrix, to proceed to the mineralization, which is deficient in rickets.”

    According to Dr. Ayoub, commercial calcium carbonate products are also contaminated with heavy metals, including lead and aluminum, both of which are known to cause both rickets and bone disease.

    Acid Reflux—An Overlooked Sign of Vitamin D Deficiency

    Another important point is that acid reflux is actually a sign of vitamin D deficiency. Your upper GI tract, from your pharynx to the lower third of your esophagus, is skeletal muscle. Vitamin D is important for muscle strength. The medical literature Dr. Ayoub reviewed revealed that dyspepsia, bloating, constipation, and reflux symptoms are all quite common among those with vitamin D deficiency because of reduced esophageal motility and sphincter dysfunction.

    As stated earlier, in the list above, testing revealed that the mothers in these cases averaged a mere 18-19 ng/ml of vitamin D, which is a severe deficiency state. And babies are born with about 60-70 percent of the mother’s vitamin D level.

    “We don’t have a control group here, but we do have population values,” Dr. Ayoub says. “The vitamin D levels in these moms are about 50 percent lower than what’s been reported in general populations. That was, I think, the first epiphany that this is a unique population. We actually had more Caucasians than blacks, but the Caucasians were very light-skinned, Fitzpatrick Class I (which is a dermatology term). These are the pale women who avoid sun or use sunblock, which is, of course, a major risk factor for vitamin D deficiency.

    The mothers also tended to have really poor diets: a lot of caffeine consumption, a very high prevalence of lactose intolerance, or just disliked dairy. Over 90 percent of the women avoided dairy products. [They] did not meet the minimum requirement of one cup of dairy a day. So you add calcium deficiency, you add vitamin D deficiency, and finally you add calcium carbonate in TUMS in 75 percent of these mothers…”

    Tragically, infant rickets perfectly mimics child abuse. Making matters worse, the baby will have virtually no symptoms—until their bones fracture. One symptom, however, reported in the older rickets literature is head-sweating.

    “I would be very concerned if a baby is perspiring heavily at night, especially around the face, head, and neck,” Dr. Ayoub says. “They’re described as soaking their pillows. They had to change the sheets, because they’re so wet. That’s one of the odd, lesser-known signs of infantile rickets. Upper respiratory tract infections and sinus infections are very prevalent in this group of babies as well.”

    Vitamin D Is Critical During Pregnancy

    If you’re pregnant, or planning to become pregnant, it’s absolutely vital to make sure you’re getting enough vitamin D. Everything Dr. Ayoub is describing is virtually 100 percent preventable from the implementation of one simple measure, which is to optimize your vitamin D levels during pregnancy. Everyone should have normal vitamin D levels, but one of the most at-risk populations is a pregnant woman. To me, it’s reprehensible medical malpractice not to test an expectant woman’s vitamin D level.

    Unfortunately, politics and policy has done a great deal of harm here. In Dr. Ayoub’s presentation “Rickets by Policy?,” he highlights how fear-mongering has led to dwindling vitamin D levels, as parents are constantly told to cover up their child and avoid sun exposure. Women are also told to use liberal amounts of sunscreen as a general rule, pregnant or not. As a result, studies show that, in northern latitudes, only about 1 in 10 black women, and 1 in 3 white women, have normal vitamin D levels.



    Most Infant Formulas Have an Adverse Effect on Baby’s Bones

    Feeding your child commercial infant formula can also exacerbate the problem. A 2006 study published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition2 found that palm olein found in the fat blend of infant formulas (a synthetic triglyceride meant to mimic palmitic acid in breast milk) has “unintentional physiological consequences, including diminished intestinal absorption of fat, palmitic acid and calcium and lower bone mass.”

    Subsequent studies have confirmed these effects34. In fact, virtually every paper that looks at the effects of palm olein-containing infant formulas on bone show osteopenia or diminished mineralization! Yet, palm olein is found in most commercial infant formulas. Interestingly, early research papers from the 1920s implicate formula feeding as a risk factor in rickets.

    “They didn’t implicate breastfeeding. They said that obviously these patients are artificially fed. Across the board, they recognized that formula feeding was a risk factor. That’s been flip-flopped. Why? It’s because mothers are now vitamin D deficient, so their milk is D deficient,” Dr. Ayoub says.

    “My wife breast-fed our last and third baby. For two months, we tested his vitamin D levels. He’s 100 percent breastfed, and his vitamin D levels were 55 nanograms per milliliter on breast milk… We supplemented that with the sun. We measured my wife’s vitamin D levels. I think she’s right at about 74 nanograms per milliliter.”

    What About Babies with Bleeding in the Brain?

    A number of child abuse cases also involve a situation where the child has bleeding in the brain. This is a typical presentation of shaken baby syndrome.

    “Obviously, the child abuse pediatricians just say, ‘There are fractures, but there are bleeds in the head. This is obviously head injury. You must be wrong that the bleeds indicating a violent attack to the whole body, including the head, can have anything to do with bone disease.'”

    “That absolutely turns out to be untrue,” Dr. Ayoub says. “There is a link between risks of bleeding in the brain and rickets. It’s a little bit more than just bone health. Again, it’s not one thing; it’s not so straightforward. But the old pathology literature, even pre-1900 in the French literature, [indicate] hemorrhage in the brain, over the convexities of the brain, the subdural compartment. They didn’t use [the term] ‘subdural hematomas.’ They used ‘pachymeningitis hemorrhagica interna.” It was the term from the old literature. It was very common in rickets.”

    Why do you get brain bleeds in children with rickets? Dr. Ayoub points out a number of factors:

    1. Autopsy studies on babies that died of natural causes in the first few months of life show that about 20 percent of those babies have bleeds in the head – subclinical, undetected bleeds from normal birth trauma. Others can develop bleeds linked to hypoxic events such as seizures or other acute life-threatening events such as choking. In other words, if you diminish perfusion of blood and oxygen delivery to the brain, you can predispose that brain to bleeding. That can occur very acutely, and some hypoxic events are associated with rickets such as laryngospasm.
    2. During coughing or feeding¸ because of the low calcium state, an airway spasm may be triggered, and the child chokes to death. The hypoxia, diminished oxygenation of the brain, causes hemorrhage.
    3. Vitamin C deficiency can also play a role. An estimated 90 percent of children with rickets have vitamin C deficiency.
    4. Vitamin K metabolism occurs through vitamin D pathways as well, and clotting also occurs more exuberantly in cases of vitamin D deficiency. The veins in the head can clot in vitamin D deficiency, which will cause bleeding in the brain.
    5. There’s a condition where water builds up in the brain, called external hydrocephalus. Dr. Ayoub cites a Chinese paper published a few years ago that reported 73 cases of rickets with this condition. It causes enlargement of the head, and about 10 to 20 percent of those children get subdural hemorrhages, just like what we see in shaken baby syndrome.

    Widespread Systemic Changes Are Desperately Needed

    As you can see, vitamin D deficiency can cause physiological symptoms that cleverly mimic child abuse. The challenge that we have in contemporary society is that an entire industry has been built up around protecting children from child abuse, and it’s firmly entrenched in these flawed views. Many times they’re operating under insufficient or inadequate information, outdated information, or a combination of all of them.

    So, what can be done to change that system, and what can parents do to protect themselves if they or someone they know or love is accused of child abuse when they know that’s not the case and it’s more likely a result of vitamin D insufficiency? Dr. Ayoub replies:

    “I think the legal system is relying heavily on the existing science, which is flawed. Physicians have to be responsible. We have to do research. And it is being done. Number one: we’ve got to get the papers out that establish what these diagnoses really are. We certainly have to be sensitive of the fact that abuse does occur. We have to be sensitive that when you have a broken bone, you can still abuse a child with rickets.

    “There still needs to be a process in which these families are evaluated for mishandling and real child abuse. But in my experience and the cases I’ve seen, I have not seen any high-risk family. I don’t believe any case of fractures I’ve seen has been a result of real physical child abuse.

    “Now, as you know, there’s science that links vaccines with autism. Why isn’t that science believed? Well, it’s attacked. It’s marginalized because there are competing papers, generally very flawed papers, which refute their claims. [They] design studies in order to give the answer that they want. That’s going to happen when you have an industry this strong. The government is a big industry. Child Protection Services (CPS) is a behemoth, believe me. There’s a lot of money generated from the job of protecting children from abuse.”

    I consider vitamin D education of professionals as one of the successes we’ve been able to catalyze through our sharing of information. More physicians are aware of it today than ever before. But I still think there’s a significant number, especially in the field of obstetrics, who obviously don’t get it, or else these tragic cases of infantile rickets would not be occurring. Unfortunately, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has not made any updated recommendations to protect the health of pregnant women and children.

    “Their recommendations are abysmal. They basically acknowledge that vitamin D deficiency is prevalent. They acknowledge that vitamin D deficiency is linked to a number of conditions in pregnancy, including gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, hypertension, preterm labor, difficult labors, and increased C-section rates. But they turned around and stated that they needed more randomized studies before they change the recommendations, which is absurd. You don’t need randomized study. This isn’t a drug trial. Health is at stake. We have to improve these abysmal vitamin D deficiency rates. Their policy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever,” Dr. Ayoub says.

    What You Can Do to Prevent This Horrible Tragedy

    My message to you is that you can significantly make a difference. You can really change someone’s life with the information provided by Dr. Ayoub in this interview. The professional organizations are reluctant to have this widely disseminated as the standard of care. Until that happens, we’re going to need people who understand the truth to spread this message to save both parents and children from this needless, and absolutely tragic, pain and suffering.

    To learn more, you can review the presentation Dr. Ayoub gave at the 2010 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research5 (ASBMR). Last but certainly not least, the following are Dr. Ayoub’s general recommendations when he gets a phone call from a defense attorney or is contacted directly by a caregiver or parent:

    • Go to your obstetrician and get a vitamin D test immediately, because your baby’s vitamin D levels increase dramatically after birth. The vitamin D level in a baby in the first 15 months of life can go up three, four, or five-fold.  The vitamin D level your baby presents several months or a year after birth does not reflect what he or she was developing with. A mother’s level stays relatively constant unless you’re actively trying to optimize it through sun exposure or supplementation. Getting the mother’s level will tell you what the baby was born with and what the baby had to work with in the first few weeks of life.
    • Seek out a pediatric endocrinologist, because those specialists are the best specialists to assess the clinical circumstances – biochemical assessment, clinical assessment – of vitamin D deficiency metabolic bone disease.


    vitamin d levels

    Cord Clamping: Give Me All My Blood!

    As midwives, it is essential that we understand the importance of the “Third Stage” of labor, and in particular when and how to cut the umbilical cord. In this informative guest post fromBirth Without Fear, Mama Bice gives an in-depth overview of the reasons delayed cord clamping is so critical, including the importance of immediate skin-to-skin contact, prevention of blood loss and avoidance of oxygen deprivation. She also calls into question the myth that delayed cord cutting causes jaundice in newborns.

    The “Third Stage” of labor is one that is often forgotten. This is the span of time between the birth of the baby and the expulsion of the placenta. The typical medical birth looks like this for the third stage: baby emerges, cord is clamped immediately, baby is taken by a nurse to a warmer, mother is injected with pitocin, cord is tugged and the placenta is pushed out through force such as a nurse or the doctor pushing on the abdomen.

    While I find a lot wrong with that whole picture I want to focus on the part that really effects your baby the most (in my opinion) – immediate cord clamping.

    First, and fundamentally – when the cord is cut within seconds this allows that baby to be taken from the mother. It is proven that skin-to-skin directly after birth, and for the first hours, is best for mother and baby barring medical emergency. If the baby is still connected to you, they can’t take baby and you get skin-to-skin.

    But the most important aspect of cord clamping to me is the loss of blood to your newborn. “Blood Loss?” you might say – after all the cord is clamped off at both ends, this is not a messy process. The blood loss I am talking about is all the blood that has been left in the cord and placenta and that belongs to your baby – up to HALF of your newborn’s blood is still waiting to go into the body when the cord is clamped immediately.

    Let us get a quick education in how the cord reacts if left alone. The cord will normally pulse (deliver blood to the baby) for about 3 minutes after the birth – sometimes longer. The cord then clamps itself. Yep, that’s right – it does the job for you.

    This amazing cord contains Wharton’s Jelly. During pregnancy and the birth this jelly protects the arteries and veins in the cord – this is why knots and tangled babies are fine the majority of the time – the Wharton’s Jelly keeps the cord firm and unable to collapse. After the birth the Jelly slowly “clamps” down on the arteries first, then the umbilical vein. The cord will slowly turn from heavy and firm (and colored) to limp and white. At this point it can be cut with little to no mess at all – no medical clamps needed!

    Now back to the immediate clamping of the cord – which is common medical practice.

    The immediate effects of this are pretty common sense – after all, what would you do with half your blood missing? Your body could not move oxygen as well, could not clean out impurities as fast, and your iron levels would be horrible. Oh, and you would most likely need major medical care. Luckily newborns are pretty tough – but why do we take the risk?

    To get the “visual” of this issue, here is a great and quick video that shows visually the blood volumes we are talking about here. I also have found an amazing resource in this group of videos by an OB/GYN who lectured on this subject during Grand Rounds. It is in four parts and long, but very worth the time to watch. (And perhaps to pass along to your OB/GYN?)

    Jaundice is one of the big questions that comes up with delayed clamping. After all, doesn’t more blood mean more blood to “clean” to get rid of bilirubin? In fact, when women talk with me about what their doctors have to say about delayed cord clamping, they normally say this is brought up as the #1 reason to not delay.

    However, studies show that while jaundice is slightly increased, it is a benign increase. In other words – more “tan” babies but no increase in SICK babies. After all, not all jaundice is harmful, in fact it is pretty normal. There was no increase in the amount of babies needing phototherapy or other clinical issues relating to jaundice.

    Blood iron levels are something that pediatricians watch in little ones. Many parents are told that infants need extra iron during the first six months, be that from formula (which has added iron) or from drops given to the breastfed infant.

    However, one has to wonder if this issue has cropped up due to the practice of immediate cord clamping, since studies show better iron levels in infants who have delayed cord clamping. Even better – this effect lasts until about six months of age – the age many babies are ready to start solids and therefore get more iron in a natural way.

    When studies looked at infants within 24 hours after birth, at 2-3 months of age, and at six months, all the studies showed higher iron and ferritin levels for those with late-clamping. This seems to say that our babies were made by design to store enough iron to keep themselves healthy until they start solid foods. Of course, this only happens if we let nature take its course as intended.

    Another effect of early cord clamping is less oxygen. This makes sense – after all, your blood carries your oxygen. If you don’t have enough blood, you don’t have enough oxygen. This is why many midwives will call the cord/placental unit a “resuscitation kit” – if baby is having trouble starting up right away that extra blood and oxygen from the placenta and cord can help the lungs get to work – and provide the baby with oxygen in the meantime (like the placenta has been doing for the past 40 or so weeks).

    These studies even show that preterm infants are better off getting delayed clamping if at all possible. Cesarean section births were included and the benefit is pronounced for these infants as well – no doubt due to the higher instance of resuscitation needed after cesarean sections.

    Loss of oxygen and proper blood flow at birth could also be a risk factor for Autism later, though no major studies have been done relating to cord clamping and Autism.

    With all the evidence pointing to leaving the cord alone for at least 3 minutes (or heck, why not until the placenta emerges – or longer!) – even for a cesarean section or preterm infants – why are we still cutting cords willy nilly? Your guess is as good as mine. But the good news – we can change this – talk to your care provider, show them the information. Change some minds – and maybe some births.

    Resources used for this post:

    Third Stage of Labour – Benefits of A Natural Approach; By Dr Sarah J Buckley, (c) 2005

    Late vs Early Clamping of the Umbilical Cord in Full-term Neonates – Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Controlled Trials; By Eileen K. Hutton, PhD; Eman S. Hassan, MBBCh, 2007

    Effect of delayed versus early umbilical cord clamping on neonatal outcomes and iron status at 4 months: a randomized controlled trial; Ola Andersson, consultant in neonatology, Lena Hellström-Westas, professor of perinatal medicine, Dan Andersson, head of departments of pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, Magnus Domellöf, associate professor, head of pediatrics; 2011

    Mama Bice, writer for Birth Without Fear, is a wife, mother, and aspiring midwife. Her personal areas of interest are in birth, breastfeeding, and Harry Potter. Having had a natural out-of-hospital birth already, and planning home births for her future children, she believes that an empowering birth experience (no matter where it takes place) is important for every mother and family. Her feisty side comes out at times, but compassionate support is her goal. Birth Without Fear is a place for women to share how they overcame fears to have a great birth, to heal from traumatic birth, and to prepare to birth without fear!

    See the original post on the Birth Without Fear Blog.