The electronic monitoring of babies.
Photo: SMU

The medical model of birthing is flawed and dangerous.

HEART MONITOR CONCERNS

Australia’s medical watchdog is warning pregnant women against using popular portable foetal heart monitors, after multiple baby deaths have been linked to the devices.

Foetal heart monitors are handheld devices used to detect or monitor the heartbeat of a baby during pregnancy.

They are commonly used by health professionals during antenatal visits, but in recent years, home-use foetal heart monitors have become widely available for members of the public.

The devices originally promised to ‘safely’ check a foetus’ heart, but these monitors have since been banned and authorities fear illegal sales to unaware mothers are continuing online.

As a result, multiple baby deaths have been linked to these “dangerously misleading” at-home monitors, amid concerns the banned items are still being sold to parents.

The sale of handheld foetal heart monitors – also known as portable foetal dopplers – was banned in Australia in September 2024, but retailers have continued to sell the devices to would-be Australian parents.

Following the post-market review of all home-use foetal dopplers completed in September 2024, all home-use foetal heart monitors were cancelled from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG).

This means they are no longer approved for advertising or supply in Australia.

However, despite this banning, there appears to be ongoing illegal sales of both new and second-hand devices.

“We have received reports of instances where they have provided false reassurance, leading to delayed medical attention and deaths”, said the TGA.

“These devices are not a substitute for professional care. We advise consumers to exercise extreme caution when considering using home-use foetal heart monitors to check their baby’s wellbeing.”

Yet another monitoring device in the headlines causing death and injury, courtesy of the medical establishment.

Why am I not surprised to see a story like this emerge?

Yes, we all know the TGA are crooks, but there is a bigger story underneath the surface here.

For you see, when examining whether or not monitors are even a good method to use in the first place, we find there are more established and safer ways of going about things.

Most would be shocked to learn even “professional care” has a dark side, so the fact they say this device should only be used in this type of setting is a bit troubling.

Like most technological advancements in the medical industry, electronic monitoring devices have caused nothing but problems for the generations that have been subjected to them.

The Cult of Scientism has convinced mothers that heart monitors and ultrasounds are a good thing for their bodies and growing babies. A good thing that is ‘needed’ as part of the ritualistic nature of modern hospital birthing.

Can you blame a parent for grabbing a device online when they have been told this is how it needs to happen?

ELECTRONIC MONITORING

Over the last five decades, women have been acculturated to continuous electronic foetal monitoring (EFM) during childbirth, and accept this type of birthing management as part of the normal process.

Continuous EFM is associated with many known medical risks to women, without providing any benefit to the foetus in low-risk pregnancies.

While the first commercial monitor was introduced in 1968, its use was initially limited, primarily to high-risk pregnancies and individual institutions. By 1978, however, its use had surged dramatically.

In just a decade, EFM was in routine use in 50% of all labours.

By 2002, however, 85% of all women were assessed with EFM.

In 30 years, this practice went from non-existent/very rare, to widespread/common.

Although the evidence does not support this type of technology being used in low-risk pregnancies, EFM has become a standard of care in childbirth practice for women.

Computer algorithms and ‘non-ionising radiation’, using electromagnetic fields to transmit data wirelessly. And, despite the potential for negative long-term effects ‘still a subject of ongoing research’, people still use this system.

An alternative option for healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies is intermittent auscultation (IA). IA is the midwifery skill of listening to the baby’s heart rate for short periods during labour using a Pinard stethoscope.

IA is a safe and acceptable foetal monitoring method that is recommended during labor with low-risk pregnancies.

There is limited research exploring a woman’s ability to give informed choice regarding which method of foetal monitoring to use, with many barriers exist preventing nurses from implementing IA during the intrapartum period.

Consensus among professional and governmental groups is that, based on the evidence, intermittent auscultation is safer to use in healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies than electronic foetal monitoring (EFM).

It is strikingly similar to other techniques like ultrasounds.

Since the 1970s, pregnant women have been repeatedly told that ultrasounds are ‘just sound waves’ and, therefore, ‘perfectly safe’ during pregnancy. But this is far from the truth.

Many researchers have exposed how DNA-damaged foetal cells due to ultrasound can quickly replicate and multiply during cell division, leaving babies susceptible to mutated development, and/or cancerous tumours, leukaemia and other life-threatening illnesses over time.

Prenatal ultrasound has also being linked to intrauterine growth retardation, low birth weight, foetal abnormalities, foetal demise, miscarriage, premature birth, infertility, heart defects, autism, childhood hearing loss, speech problems, leukaemia, and more.

Why you should NEVER trust the ‘experts’..
RELATED ARTICLE

Indeed, the dominant culture in labour and birth has become the medical model, not the midwifery model of woman-centered care. It is a shame to see, and most just go along with it because the ‘experts know best’.

This all creates barriers impacting the labouring woman’s ability to give informed choice regarding foetal monitoring, in an environment where they already have little control (c-section ’emergencies’, etc).

The Medical Industry: Barbaric Eugenics 101
RELATED ARTICLE

Lack of informed choice denies a woman her right to be in control of her birth experience, and is in opposition to a woman’s right to autonomy and self-determination.

It is good to see homebirth rates continue to climb in Australia, which we will do an article on very shortly, to try and navigate this system of medical biofascism.

Electronic monitoring is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Medical Hoax, one of the four major Phantoms of Reality that keeps our species in a state of disconnection from the true natural world.