Why are they stealing our childrens blood?

reply to post by amari


Everybody consumes somebody. Even the vegetarians unknowingly by way of the smaller bacterias or insects that come acrossed in the harvesting process.

reply to post by brooklyn87


What do I think?

I think

1. It's real. It's really happening--widely--supposedly in every hospital, every birth.

2. It's criminal.

3. It's evil.

4. It's for DNA monitoring, screening, !!!!!CONTROL!!!!!

5. There's not much that one will be able to do about it this side of the literal Armageddon.

I think what you are thinking of is the "Guthrie Test" (Metabolic Screening) Google it. It is a standard test procedure that every child goes through when born. In North America, Europe and Australia, New Zealand.

The conditions screened for are:

Congenital hypothyroidism (CH)
Cystic fibrosis (CF)
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH)
Galactosaemia
Phenylketonuria
Fatty acid oxidation disorders including MCAD
Some organic acidopathies (e.g. methymalonic acidaemia)
Some amino acidopathies ( e.g. MSUD, homocystinuria, and some urea cycle disorders)

As for the vial of blood taken, probably taken for other blood tests. I suppose the vial would look big????





[edit on 10-4-2009 by greenfruit]

[edit on 10-4-2009 by greenfruit]

I'm genuinely surprised no one here has mentioned this yet!

Did no one notice the almost unanimous voting of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 (S.1858/H.R. 3825) that was signed into law on April 24 2008 that made the retention of blood samples of all newborns Federal Law?

At present, all states store blood from all newborns, and some, like California, store it indefinitely. The NSASLA of 2007 appointed a new committee that would oversee the blood sample retention and currently is recommending that it be stored indefinitely.

I haven't read the full Act, so I'm not sure what kinds of protocols and procedures it requires of Hospitals, but it is a practice that certainly is not optional and does not allow for, or require, the consent of the parents.

There are numerous legitimate medical reasons for doing such, but all of those reasons should never be mandatory and required by Federal Law.

I think the fears that these Blood Samples that can be stored indefinitely that are taken from all newborns could be misused as a Criminal DNA Database, or as a DNA Databank, or for sale to Private Researchers as a way to subsidize funding for Hospitals and to decrease the cost of Medical Research, are all valid concerns that were failed to be addressed by our Congresspersons in 2007 when this Act became a Bill.

Wired Article

S.1858

HR.3825

EDIT: Added Links to References.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by fraterormus]

[edit on 10-4-2009 by fraterormus]

This is just my personal opinion, but an entire vial of blood taken from your child?

That just seems very, very, very unlikely, considering your baby doesnt have a large supply of blood to begin with. I think your source is a little ...misguided for lack of a better word.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When my niece was born approx. 7-8 months ago, they took her blood. Oh indeed they did, but it was only about 3 drops of blood just to make sure everything was fine.

they used a needle to prick the heel of her foot.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by mhinsey

Originally posted by Albertarocks

Originally posted by brooklyn87
She still had a bruise from her vaccinations on her hand.

Don't allow any more vaccinations. They contain a preservative called Thimerisol that is made of mercury (an extreme poison). The reason for the Thimerisol (supposedly) is to prolong the shelf life of the vaccine. Isn't that funny, the Thimerisol prolongs the shelf life of the vaccine, but sure does nothing to prolong the life of the person getting vaccinated.

The cases of autism in the United States are 500 times as common now as they were only 30 years ago, and it's been linked DIRECTLY to mercury in the vaccines. If they're gonna force vaccinations upon you or your children, time to get the gun out or move outta the States. As I understand it, the schools will tell parents that the vaccinations are mandatory. But they are not mandatory... the parents are being lied to. No more vaccinations.... ever, ok?

You are behind the times. The Thimerisol (for children anyway) has been removed from the vaccines. No more mercury in CHILDREN's vaccines, however, it might still be in adults. For that matter, you can verify with the doctor(s) to see if thimerisol is in the vaccine. As far as I know, the children's vaccines are without Thimerisol now. They use a different version.

Yes, you are completely right about that. Vaccinations have no heavy metal in them. This is true of adult vaccinations and childrens vaccinations. Nowadays seafood has more mercury in it than vaccinations. That is one point the anti-vaccination nuts try to focus on, namely the ingredients. Due to immunizations we have largely wiped out some of these diseases. However, they can and will make a frightening comeback if we slip on immunizations.

The blood draw is more than likely for standard testing. In my opinion though the mandatory draws by the government are for a DNA database. They started with state prisoners, expanded it to people arrested for a crime (guilty or not) and add whomever else they please. Infants in my opinion are next.

In my country they do not usually do it because parents do not even know this is possible but like 20% of them let doctors take a small vial of childs blood for storage. Im not really sure what exactly is it for but there is a deadly child disease and it is only possible to heal with a cure made from the blood sample. Thats what it is used for, no blood drinking, no reptilians OH MY GOD MONITORING OUR CHILDREN. You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Peace!

-sorry for my english

[edit on 11-4-2009 by Patox]

Originally posted by brooklyn87
Yes apparent;y they take a whole vial of blood not to check Iron or anything else just cause they can I guess. my little girl was NI CU for 4 days so I never saw them do it but a few months later, I spoke to a nurse and she told me that it is standard procedure to take a whole vial of the newborns blood and they do not have to notify the parents about it, I think it is kind of scary to imagine that her blood is being used on who knows what right now.

My opinion on this is simply that the governement ( i know ... i already sound like a wack job) and the hospitals collect the blood for multiple reasons. A primary one that stands out in my mind is to obtain a DNA sample of every person born in north america. Why a whole vial of blood? Why not ... the more they have the more they can use it for.

My father is x-military and pretty patriotic but as children we were never allowed to be vaccinated at hospitals or at the schools. He would not accept vaccinations in th emilitary either ... which from what he tells me you usually don't have a choice. Whatever he knew he has never told me but he always said they may very well be giving you what they say they are but nothing says they aren't giving you other stuff at the same time.

I suspect the taking of a childs blood when they are born would give them a pure blood sample for that person. Good for the government agencies and such to have access to. Little sally is born (blood taken) ... 35 years later a Jane Doe with a bomb strapped to her chest is shot down and the DNA evidence collected 35 years ago identifies the would be bomber as Little Sally.

I'm not saying it's right but i'm just saying ... do you really think that the government wouldn't collect the DNA of every person that they can if given the oppertunity?

[edit on 11-4-2009 by Shunsu]

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by bobbylove321

 

Or, perhaps they are running standard testing necessary to monitor infants who are in need of neonatal intensive care.

Friend, don't even bother

These people are already so entrenched in this 'conspiracy' that they refuse to see common sense. Let them have their paranoia and take this common sense that they see as heresy to a thread that will listen.

Maybe they are doing standard testing I just wish I would have known about it.

reply to post by brooklyn87


That's really bad.

Both my kids were delivered by C-section, but even if they were from a vaginal birth, i made a promise to myself and my wife, that at NO time, even for an instant, would those babies be out of either my or my wife's sight. I went everywhere those babies went, and watched everything like a hawk. If they had tried jabbing anything into either of my kids, they would have had to get through me first, 'standard practice' or not.
As has been mentioned, there is more than enough cord blood to take samples from.

I would be camped out inches from my babies, regardless of where they went.

I have to say though, our local NHS hospital maternity staff, where they were both born, were on both occasions absolutely first rate. The only thing that got me complaining was to a ward cleaner, who didn't seem to understand the importance of cleaning the area around the cot and my wife's bed properly. I actually had to direct her and her mop to get the area spick and span. But the maternity staff were faultless.

spikey.

[edit on 11/4/2009 by spikey]

[edit on 11/4/2009 by spikey]

I am glad they treated her well there, I had a good hospital but like I said before, I was so out of it after the c-section and I was on magnesium sulfate and was confined to my bed for 24 hours because of it and she was in NICU so I only saw her for a minute right after I had her and then they took her to NICU and then I didn't see her again until the next day, mu husband and family continually checked on her but they didn't think to worry about what kind of tests they were doing we were just wanting her to get better at the time. I am glad she is fine now and I am sure there is nothing to worry about, but you know the kind of thoughts that run through your head when your mother, I am constantly worrying about her well being, which is normal.

Originally posted by brooklyn87
well she is six months now, but what about the clay packs they draw out metals?

You may want to look around, but here is one spot;

magneticclay.com...

Originally posted by dee132423
With my first I didn't take the papers home and with the other 3 we did.That away we knew exactly what we were signing.I will tell you something that still bothers me to this day when my son had his circumcision they do not numb them first.A nurse told us this and said don't let the doctor know I told ya.Now when I signed for his circumcision it even stated what numbing agent would be used.

I don't have a link, but the 8th day the babies body has the right stuff to heal it from a circumcision.

Somebody proved it but I don't recall where I read about it.

Personally I think the little critter went through enuf for the day, let him get settled abit before another trauma.

I know, the doctors rationalize getting it over with....it's really a convenience for them...

I'll defer to the baby, not the doc

[edit on 11-4-2009 by toasted]

Just a couple of thoughts here.

1) If you child was sick enough to require time in the NICU they no doubt drew blood on several occasions. The usual time is between 4-6am and that insures the results are there when the MD round. If anything is grossly abnormal like say a high or low potassium then its usally dealt with as soon as the result are back.

With fluid on the lungs you child was at risk for an infection so no doubt blood cultures and the like were also drawn. Mind you I have no specifics of your childs stay but this would be routine.

2) Im not sure of your location but most states require blood be drawn of every newbord to screen for easily treated conditions like PKU which could severly disable you child if untreated.



You are entitled to see your childs records. Get them, which is a good practice anyway and see what tests were run.

Originally posted by mhinsey

Originally posted by Albertarocks

Originally posted by brooklyn87
She still had a bruise from her vaccinations on her hand.

Don't allow any more vaccinations. They contain a preservative called Thimerisol that is made of mercury (an extreme poison). The reason for the Thimerisol (supposedly) is to prolong the shelf life of the vaccine. Isn't that funny, the Thimerisol prolongs the shelf life of the vaccine, but sure does nothing to prolong the life of the person getting vaccinated.

The cases of autism in the United States are 500 times as common now as they were only 30 years ago, and it's been linked DIRECTLY to mercury in the vaccines. If they're gonna force vaccinations upon you or your children, time to get the gun out or move outta the States. As I understand it, the schools will tell parents that the vaccinations are mandatory. But they are not mandatory... the parents are being lied to. No more vaccinations.... ever, ok?

You are behind the times. The Thimerisol (for children anyway) has been removed from the vaccines. No more mercury in CHILDREN's vaccines, however, it might still be in adults. For that matter, you can verify with the doctor(s) to see if thimerisol is in the vaccine. As far as I know, the children's vaccines are without Thimerisol now. They use a different version.

Correction, Thiomersal is used in Hep B and DaTP. Aluminium is used in ALL vaccines and instead of thiomersal, they use a substance called 2-phenoxyethanol, this is a TOXIC substance to your immune system.

As well as NMR having LIVE viruses and I can see no pathogen safety testing and HPV vaccines are dangerous as have the testing hasn't been done, if there is any vaccine testing, they are done company only - this is a preparation which bypasses the normal route of drugs yet the safety testing is less stringent.

Also I must say you can get forms to allow Drs not to immunise, if I have kids I WILL NOT VACCINATE. I have suffered vaccine damage myself and to hell with my kids having drugs in them which is totally not needed in the 1st place!

reply to post by spikey


ok - 2 points

first - umbilical cord blood is usefull - but it ONLY gives data on the infants condition at the time of birth + conjenital defects etc

you need venous blood to check ONGOING health / condition of the baby - like fredt said - umbilical blood will not tell you if the baby has developed an infection , or if its liver is defective - or 101 other potential complications that are only apparent once the baby is fully independant of its mother

and breathing for itself using its own lungs - processing its own waist , attempting to digest its mothers milk and process protiens fats and sugars etc etc

second - if you were not going to allow the medical staff to do anything to your babies - why the hell did you stay in the hospital ??????

reply to post by brooklyn87


If you're talking about cord blood that is because it carries stem cells that might serve at a later date to save her life.

reply to post by amari


maybe theyre vampires not reptilians..



i didnt know they took a whole vial full of blood. hmm. i think they should have to get the parents permission first, regardless if its used for testing or whatever. some people might object on religious grounds?