03/19/2018
Wait wait wait.
Fun fact: What modern obstetrics is calling "delayed" cord clamping is still not the optimal timeline to clamp a newborn's umbilical cord.
•
Check out the amount of blood still within the cord on the left versus the cord on the right in this image. All of that blood still contained in the cord on the left is biologically intended to be in the newborn's body post-birth if we left things to Mother Nature. Newborns whose cord is left intact after birth until all of the blood is transferred to baby have up to 32% MORE blood volume than newborns who have immediate cord clamping! And that comes without any increased risks despite what some care providers are telling women... and we know that based on a study done all the way back in 1995. Another one came out in 2010 stating that early clamping may interfere with 'nature's first stem cell transplant'. Once more, in 2013, a study published in the Cochrane database further supports the practice of allowing a newborn's umbilical cord to fully transfer all blood before clamping. And yet immediate cord clamping is still common practice in most hospitals today.
•
Newborns whose cord is left intact after birth have higher levels of iron, a lower risk of anemia, fewer transfusions, and fewer incidence of hemorrhage. Even waiting just two minutes before clamping an umbilical cord will increase that baby's iron reserve by 27 to 47 mg of iron! You guys, that is equivalent to 1 to 2 months of what an infant requires in iron. Does anyone find it interesting how pediatricians recommend supplementing with iron when you have a newborn…? What if we just allowed nature to take it's perfectly planned course and that baby already had the iron s/he needed thus no need for supplementation? Hmmm...