My Birth, My Way | Hannah Kelesis

Scott

Verified User
I really liked this article from a mother going through her pregnancy. It can be seen here:

Here's the forward to Hannah's article:
**
In 2024, my very close friends Chris and Hannah began their pregnancy journey. By that time, I had studied enough to recognise how the medical system—predatory in design—disguises coercion as care, particularly for pregnant women. Knowing its relentless push for compliance, I referred them to Jennifer Margulis’s The Business of Baby (also published as Your Baby, Your Way), a book that had recently shaped my own understanding during an interview with its wonderful author (Interview with Jennifer Margulis). The book armed Hannah with the knowledge to question routine interventions, from the Non-Invasive Prenatal Test (NIPT) to preeclampsia screenings, revealing a clinical machine that prioritizes protocol over individual need (Cesarean C-Section). Each step of her journey exposed the system’s hunger for control: nurses pressed for vaccines like whooping cough with rehearsed urgency, while doctors dismissed her refusals as defiance. “We’ve done our research,” Hannah told a skeptical GP, her resolve unshaken. Her story, which I share with admiration, underscores a truth I’ve long held: the system, Cartel Medicine, preferentially preys on women, especially pregnant women, exploiting their vulnerability unless fortified by informed resistance.

Hannah’s triumph—a natural, intervention-free birth at The Royal Women’s Hospital—stands as a beacon for expectant mothers, natural birth advocates, and skeptics of medical overreach, proving that knowledge can dismantle systemic predation. Guided by Margulis’s insights, she embraced delayed cord clamping to optimize her daughter’s health (Delayed Cord Clamping) and approached ultrasounds cautiously, wary of their unstudied long-term effects (Ultrasound). She declined the Vitamin K injection, the GBS swab, and the Newborn Blood Screening, each refusal a deliberate act of agency against a one-size-fits-all paradigm. The pediatrician’s claim that she was “endangering” her child rang hollow—she hadn’t endangered anyone; she had empowered herself. Her journey, sparked by the Margulis’s book, is a testament to the clarity that comes from understanding the system’s hunger and tactics. It’s a call to others to arm themselves with knowledge, question relentlessly, and reclaim their autonomy in a system that demands submission over sovereignty.

With thanks to Hannah Kelesis.

**
 
Even mainstream outlets acknowledge their are cons to the GBS swab, as well as the recommended treatments if it comes back positive. One example:
yes and too much water is deadly. but again, I find it crazy to not want to know
 
Even mainstream outlets acknowledge their are cons to the GBS swab, as well as the recommended treatments if it comes back positive. One example:
yes and too much water is deadly. but again, I find it crazy to not want to know

I have a feeling you never clicked on the above link. I'll quote it for you instead:
**
Pros:

1. Prevention of Neonatal Infections: The primary benefit of GBS screening is the prevention of early-onset GBS infections in newborns. If a pregnant woman tests positive for GBS and receives appropriate intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP), it significantly reduces the risk of transmitting the bacteria to the baby during birth.

2. Reduction in Serious Complications: Early-onset GBS infections can lead to serious complications in newborns, including pneumonia, sepsis, and meningitis. GBS screening and subsequent treatment with antibiotics can help prevent these life-threatening conditions.

3. Improved Neonatal Outcomes: By identifying GBS-positive mothers and administering antibiotics during labor, healthcare providers can greatly improve neonatal outcomes. This reduces the risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with GBS infection.

4. Timely Treatment: GBS screening allows for the timely administration of antibiotics during labor, as opposed to waiting for clinical signs of infection in the newborn, which can delay treatment.

Cons:

1. False Positives and False Negatives: GBS screening is not foolproof. There can be false-positive and false-negative results. False positives can lead to unnecessary antibiotic use, while false negatives may miss cases where the baby is at risk.

2. Overuse of Antibiotics: Some argue that routine GBS screening has led to the overuse of antibiotics in laboring women. Overuse of antibiotics can contribute to antibiotic resistance and other potential health risks.

3. Cost: GBS screening can add to the overall cost of prenatal care and childbirth, including the cost of the screening test itself and the antibiotics administered during labor.

4. Anxiety: A positive GBS screening result can cause anxiety and stress for expectant mothers. The knowledge that they are carriers of GBS may lead to concerns about the health of their newborn.

5. Invasive Nature of Testing: GBS screening typically involves a rectal and a vaginal swab which some women may find uncomfortable or invasive.

6. Variability in Protocols: GBS screening and management protocols can vary between healthcare providers and institutions. This can lead to inconsistencies in how GBS-positive cases are handled.

Conclusion

In conclusion, GBS screening during pregnancy offers significant benefits in reducing the risk of GBS-related infections in newborns. However, it is not without its limitations, including the potential for false results and concerns about antibiotic overuse. The decision to undergo GBS screening should be made in consultation with a healthcare provider, taking into account individual circumstances, preferences, and the potential risks and benefits. Additionally, expectant mothers should be well-informed about GBS and its implications to make informed decisions regarding screening and treatment.

**
 
I read the link.

false negatives is the most bullshit con of all. All the cons come off as pathetic

Imagine not wanting to know because in a very very small percent of the time you get it wrong

also - worrying about how uncomfortable a swab is prior to giving birth is even a more idiotic concern
 
I read the link.

false negatives is the most bullshit con of all. All the cons come off as pathetic

Imagine not wanting to know because in a very very small percent of the time you get it wrong

also - worrying about how uncomfortable a swab is prior to giving birth is even a more idiotic concern

There were 6 cons listed. You only referenced what might be called 2 halfs of 2 of the cons. To whit, false negatives part of con #1 and discomfort part of con #5. In response, I'm not sure why you think that false negatives is "bs". And while you may find discomfort an "idiotic" concern, other women may not. The other 4 cons, plus the other half cons that you didn't address at all:
***
1. False Positives...: GBS screening is not foolproof. There can be false-positive... results. False positives can lead to unnecessary antibiotic use...

2. Overuse of Antibiotics: Some argue that routine GBS screening has led to the overuse of antibiotics in laboring women. Overuse of antibiotics can contribute to antibiotic resistance and other potential health risks.

3. Cost: GBS screening can add to the overall cost of prenatal care and childbirth, including the cost of the screening test itself and the antibiotics administered during labor.

4. Anxiety: A positive GBS screening result can cause anxiety and stress for expectant mothers. The knowledge that they are carriers of GBS may lead to concerns about the health of their newborn.

5. Invasive Nature of Testing: GBS screening typically involves a rectal and a vaginal swab which some women may find... invasive.

6. Variability in Protocols: GBS screening and management protocols can vary between healthcare providers and institutions. This can lead to inconsistencies in how GBS-positive cases are handled.
**
 
Back
Top