Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Science

Cutting Umbilical Cord Early Eliminates Stem Cells 139

Posted by timothy
from the just-leave-it-on-a-few-years dept.
GeneralSoh writes "Delaying clamping the umbilical cord at birth may have far-reaching benefits for your baby, according to researchers at the University of South Florida's Center of Excellence for Aging and Brain Repair — and should be delayed for at least a few minutes longer after birth. This new recommendation published in the most recent Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine (14:3) notes that delaying clamping the umbilical cord allows more umbilical cord blood and crucial stem cells to transfer from mama to baby."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cutting Umbilical Cord Early Eliminates Stem Cells

Comments Filter:
  • ORLY? (Score:1, Informative)

    The kid's been attached to it for 9 months, and the last 2 minutes make _THAT_ much difference?
    • Re:ORLY? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by canajin56 (660655) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @02:46PM (#32351470)
      Oh, if only they had done extensive research on it, instead of just saying "Sounds reasonable, lets publish!" then they would have caught that major flaw! Too bad you weren't around to keep them honest!
    • Re:ORLY? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by asukasoryu (1804858) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @02:46PM (#32351480)
      I would think that newborns are at a critical developmental stage and need all the help they can get. If I sucked out a significant portion of your blood, it would set you back a bit and you've been around more than 9 months.
    • Re:ORLY? (Score:4, Informative)

      by JoshuaZ (1134087) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @02:51PM (#32351548) Homepage

      The kid's been attached to it for 9 months, and the last 2 minutes make _THAT_ much difference?

      The cord is then under very different circumstances. At that point it is no longer bathed in a protective moistening medium and it is no longer getting nearly as much oxygen. Cutting the cord further reduces the oxygen level and gives it more surface area to dry out.

    • Re:ORLY? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Itninja (937614) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @02:53PM (#32351576) Homepage
      There are quite a few things relating to circulation that don't happen until a few moments after birth (i.e. blood pressure, heart rate, heart valve changes). Perhaps a stem cell transference has something to do with that...
      • Re:ORLY? (Score:5, Informative)

        by interkin3tic (1469267) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @05:16PM (#32353424)

        There are quite a few things relating to circulation that don't happen until a few moments after birth (i.e. blood pressure, heart rate, heart valve changes). Perhaps a stem cell transference has something to do with that...

        There are several valves in the embryo's heart (such as the foramen ovale) which allows a lot of the blood passing through the heart to avoid the lungs. A lot of the blood coming into the heart before birth is oxygenated from the umbilical cord, so it can get pumped right out without going to the lungs.

        When the lungs become functional, pressure changes cause at least some of those valves to close immediately, so that the blood is now forced to go through the lungs before getting pumped back out to the body. These valves should close almost immediately to avoid deoxygenated blood being pumped out. That's really too quick to be directly affected by the stem cells. They -might- have something to do with later changes, where those valves permanently fuse shut, I don't know.

    • Re:ORLY? (Score:5, Funny)

      by couchslug (175151) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @02:57PM (#32351630)

      "The kid's been attached to it for 9 months, and the last 2 minutes make _THAT_ much difference?"

      To be safe, use the Helicopter Parent method and leave it on until age 18.

    • Re:ORLY? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @02:58PM (#32351642)

      Yes!

      When the baby is pushed out through the birth canal it is *compressed* and blood is *sqeezed out* from the baby into the umbilical and placenta. I can't believe it took researchers so fucking long to figure out *basic physics*.

      I was born premature and apparently needed a blood transfusion. The reason for the latter is probably because some doctor didn't want to wait a minute or so and wanted to be more "efficient". So DO NOT allow a doctor to clamp the chord for a minute or two after the baby is born. The baby needs that blood to thrive.

      • Re:ORLY? (Score:4, Informative)

        by wringles (12507) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @06:59PM (#32354708)

        "Probably" just doesn't cut it. While delayed clamping of the umbilical cord may have a number of benefits to premature newborns, there are several other reasons for neonatal anemia (and hence, your need for a transfusion of RBCs) that have nothing to do with the timing of clamping.

        Also, several of the reasons for prematurity may cause birth with low Apgar scores. When a baby is born with low/zero heart rate or does not breathe soon after delivery, keeping it attached to the placenta is not going to give you better results than prompt clamping and institution of proper resuscitation.

        Please try to exercise more common sense when you leave your opinions in a public forum. Oh, forget that last sentence, this is slashdot, after all.

      • by jim_v2000 (818799)
        Really? You're using yourself as the standard for births? If there was a problem as straight forward as you are saying, the practice would already be to wait before clamping. Reality is that you were the exception, not the rule. There's no evidence that keeping you attached to mom would have done anything.
    • by kcornia (152859)

      We saved cord blood for both our kids and and I remember the cord blood folks saying "we like to get at least 100 million cells for a good sample."

      So of course I asked how many they got for ours and the answers were like 3 and 4 BILLION.

      So while this may be true, it doesn't seem like they're exactly hurting for cells, based on my totally anecdotal account anyway...

    • by RichiH (749257)

      I don't know specifics or anything, but I would argue that:

      a) birth makes quite an impression on both mother and child. It's reasonable to assume that this may trigger some reactions. Note that I said "may".

      b) historically, a child would be lower than the mother for some time.

  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @02:43PM (#32351428) Homepage Journal

    Is there an upload progress bar on the umbilical cord?

    • by crow (16139) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @02:52PM (#32351562) Homepage Journal

      Yes, there is. It will stop pulsing. I've heard of cases where the baby was having trouble breathing, so they kept it going for half an hour until the breathing was right. As long as the cord is pulsing, the baby is still getting everything he needs through it. In most cases, the cord will shut down on its own in a minute or two.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by planckscale (579258)
        Will it continue to pulse while only attached to the placenta? For example, is it possible or beneficial for both the baby and placenta to be outside the mother for a while?
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anomalyx (1731404)
          I would assume the pulse is a result of the mother's heartbeat, and therefore would require everything to stay attached in order to continue to do so.
          • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @06:54PM (#32354646)
            No - it has its own pulse - there is no direct connection of the maternal/foetal blood vessels.

            And I held and cut my own kids' cords - home births both of them, and the midwife said to leave clamping & cutting until the cord stopped pulsing, so I had to hold the cord until I felt it stop.

            Surprisingly tough, too - it's like a rope of three blood vessels strengthened with gristle.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              Actually, it is connected to the baby's blood vessels. The branch vessels that they connect to collapse shortly after birth to seal off the cord.

              Just after the birth of my daughter, the blood continued flowing in the cord for several minutes, leaving mother and child connected. Once the flow stopped, my wife's body started to try to expel the placenta even as I was trying to cut the cord.

        • For example, is it possible or beneficial for both the baby and placenta to be outside the mother for a while?

          I don't know whether it's beneficial for the baby, but it's certainly detrimental at least to some fathers [bilkent.edu.tr]. I sentence you to look at three placentas for making such silly suggestions!

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by ParanoiaBOTS (903635)

          Will it continue to pulse while only attached to the placenta? For example, is it possible or beneficial for both the baby and placenta to be outside the mother for a while?

          Yes, it only pulses while attached. Basically everything is still hooked in to the mothers circulatory system at that point, and the pulsing you are seeing is actually the mothers heart pumping blood through the cord. There is something called Wharton's jelly that exists within the umbilical cord which, if left alone, will cause the cord to "clamp" itself off anywhere from 5-20 minutes after the birth. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbilical_cord#Physiological_postnatal_occlusion [wikipedia.org]

          • by tobiah (308208)

            I could see the cord to my daughter pulsing after the placenta was delivered. I'm sure it's not hard to find a youtube video of this.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by wringles (12507)

          There's actually a pulse even after the umbilical cord is clamped. Pulse in the umbilical cord is generated by the fetus' or baby's heartbeat, not by the placenta. The placenta has no pumping motion.

          After the baby is delivered, it is actually not "getting everything it needs" through the placenta. Even were the placenta still attached to the uterine wall, blood flow to that organ diminishes greatly soon after delivery -- otherwise, life threatening maternal blood loss might occur. Of course, an unattached p

      • by sudog (101964)

        That's pretty cool..!

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @02:45PM (#32351464)
    And they said she was crazy for keeping me attached for a year and breastfeeding me until I was 9. WHO'S LAUGHING NOW, NOSY SOCIAL WORKERS???
    • by rev_sanchez (691443) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @03:06PM (#32351732)
      My sister's cat is going to feel pretty silly about gnawing through all of her umbilical cords and eating the placentas. Next time I'll be sure to let Mittens know about the stem cells.
    • WHO'S LAUGHING NOW

      Your runaway father, apparently.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I was breastfed until 4 or so. Not that it's necessarily the cause, but I have been quite healthy. Well, except the psychological damage due to my mother's attempts to prevent me from growing up and becoming independent. So yeah, I guess it was a mixed bag for me. :(
  • But if you cut it earlier, you can keep those stem cells and benefit from them, right? You're saying we should start giving all of that up?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by asukasoryu (1804858)
      Is it more important to get your kid of to a good start or save those stem cells in case you need them later? Besides, there should still be some left over.
    • by HiThere (15173)

      The thing about stem cells is that they can reproduce and indefinite number of times. It's not until they specialize that you start running into things like the 50 generation limit.

      (Though the cells being talked about probably aren't toti-potent stem cells, so who knows. Perhaps they do have some limit. But that's not the way to bet.)

      So think of it as accepting a temporary weakness to strengthen your child.

  • by willoughby (1367773) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @02:47PM (#32351490)
    A few minutes longer than.. what?
  • Also: Jaundice! (Score:5, Informative)

    by LanMan04 (790429) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @02:48PM (#32351510)

    When my son was born a few years ago, the Doc didn't clamp the cord very quickly. Our baby also ended with a pretty decent case of jaundice and had to be under the "bili lights" for a few days, extending our hospital stay.

    This can sometimes happen when the baby gets a big dose of red blood cells because he's a lot lower than the placenta (gravity) or because the cord isn't clamped very quickly. All those red blood cells die in a day or two, baby cannot break down/metabolize the dead RBCs correctly, and POOF, jaundice.

    Just be careful. Jaundice can cause pleasant things like brain damage in neonates (due to immature blood/brain barrier).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilirubin#Toxicity [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernicterus [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jtorkbob (885054)

      Interesting correlation. My daughter stayed unclamped for a couple of minutes, I think mainly due to the chaos of a very rapid labor, and she also had to be treated for jaundice. Have you read any studies on this correlation? I would hope this study would have spotted something like that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by maxume (22995)

        Apparently it is pretty common:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_jaundice [wikipedia.org]

        (first paragraph says 70% of the time. Other reading says 50% of the time for full term newborns.)

        • by JWRose (139221)

          There is no correlation to the clamping or not of the cord. Both of my kids were born at home with a Midwife who did not clamp the cord until it stopped pulsing. Neither kid had any sign of jaundice.

          • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Ditto... and I was born in a hospital and hand my cord clamped immediately... and I had jaundice.

            The funny thing is, I knew about the stem cell transfer 4 years ago; it's part of the reason my kids didn't get clamped until the pulsing stopped. That extra bit of time with an operational cord also increases the length of time until nursing is required in a significant way, and reduces the effects of any trauma to the baby during birth.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by skelterjohn (1389343)

            I hope you are not presenting your anecdotal evidence as proof of your claim... because...it's not.

          • by corbettw (214229)

            My guess would be the midwife kept the child elevated more in this case than the other two, avoiding the problem of excess red blood cells entering the child. Did she lay the baby on your wife's breast or anything like that?

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by drinkypoo (153816)

              My guess would be the midwife kept the child elevated more in this case than the other two, avoiding the problem of excess red blood cells entering the child. Did she lay the baby on your wife's breast or anything like that?

              It's kind of amazing (and by kind of I mean not at all) how when you do what is natural, it all works out. It's almost like we evolved to have live birth or something.

    • Re:Also: Jaundice! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @03:13PM (#32351818)

      Really?? Funny causation.

      I was born premature and needed a blood transfusion due to *insufficient* RBC. I also apparently had a decent case of jaundice. Funny how low RBC seems to have "caused" same jaundice as high RBC you are talking about? Or maybe there is another reasons?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_jaundice

      Now if you just read that you would have *maybe* figured out that there are multiple causes of neonatal jaundice and what your doctor did or didn't do probably had *nothing* to do with it.

      Just be careful. Not enough RBC can cause pleasant things like brain damage in neonates.

      • by Dahamma (304068)

        I was born premature and needed a blood transfusion due to *insufficient* RBC. I also apparently had a decent case of jaundice. Funny how low RBC seems to have "caused" same jaundice as high RBC you are talking about? Or maybe there is another reasons?

        It's definitely possible form both cases.

        Jaundice is caused by high bilirubin levels, usually caused by more dead RBC than the liver can process. Two of the ways that this can happen are too many RBC in general (where a normal percentage die), or too many RBC

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yes, and that's why babies are born with a clamp, it follows after the baby and before the placenta.

      Kidding aside, expose your baby to sunlight to assist in clearing up the jaundice.

      My wife and I just had a very healthy son and decided on Lotus birth (i.e. keep the placenta until the cord detaches naturally, which in this case was 5 days). I have 3 other kids and never have seen such a happy, content baby as this time.

    • by kdawgud (915237)
      Other than personal experience, have you found any studies or other evidence that correlate longer clamp times with jaundice?
      • by LanMan04 (790429)

        Actually it was my mother who's been a RN for forever (has a Masters in Nursing) that told me that was the probable cause.

        Not sure about an actually study, I'll ask her and see if she can dig one up.

    • by eparusel (321350)

      I was thinking the same thing -- my son, born recently had a high hemoglobin count that contributed to his Jaundice and a night under a few sets of blue lights.... Quite a high count, scary for a parent.
      The doctor said it was likely due to an excess of blood through the cord at birth.

      • by dwarfsoft (461760)

        My daughter was born and was expected to have severe Jaundice due to an Rh-D isoimmunisation of my wife (due to mismatching bloodtypes of baby Rh+ and Mother Rh-) and she was also expected to require a blood transfusion (we had managed to avoid needing a transfusion in utero somehow).

        She did not have the cord clamped down very quickly at all (at least 3 minutes after birth), though gravity was not much of a factor though. She did require the Biliblanket for 4 weeks after birth, but she didn't have to be tak

  • The time it takes for the mother to chew it off.
  • that I wrapped it around my neck in utero. [wikipedia.org] My siblings claim that this explains a lot about me.
  • by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @03:15PM (#32351846) Homepage Journal
    You can access the actual research paper through this pubmed (national institutes of health) link [nih.gov]. You may need to access it through your local university library to get further than the abstract. If you follow through as far as the link from the publisher (Wiley Interscience) [wiley.com] you'll see that the paper was actually accepted and published online back in February.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Also, while you're on the pubmed site, you might be interested in searching for other papers about the benefits of "delayed cord clamping" vs "early cord clamping." There are only a few cases where early cord clamping is beneficial, apparently. I was able to find many more articles on why delayed cord clamping is beneficial than I was on why early cord clamping is beneficial.

      For those who like evolution: It's also interesting to think that for millions of years, man did not clamp immediately after birth. U

  • Allowing junior to get those extra stem cells means the placenta won't be as delicious.

  • Seems like when they do finally clamp it, it might be a good idea to clamp it as close to the mother as possible. Let the kid still absorb whatever is in the cord.

  • Oh great (Score:3, Funny)

    by tweek (18111) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @03:27PM (#32352000) Homepage Journal

    I find this out 6 weeks late. When did having kids become like buying technology?

    Seriously though, there are some cases where that might not be possible. My first son was an emergency c-section. I don't know how long it was before he started breathing but it felt like forever.

    Thing2 was a scheduled c-section and I had him in my arms almost immediately. I honestly don't know how quickly they clamped.

    • I find this out 6 weeks late. When did having kids become like buying technology?

      Ha ha, your kid's obsolete! He/she won't be able to run crysis 2!

      (Kidding, congratulations!)

  • This is rather old news.
    My son is almost 14. We had in our birth plan to leave the cord alone for a while so he would get the stem cells.
    Unfortunately, it was wrapped around his neck, and additionally tied in a true knot, so when he came out pale and lifeless, the doctor clamped it off and handed me the scissors.
    He turned out fine, BTW.
  • Isn't this really old news? When my son was born last August they did exactly this for exactly these reasons..
    • by tobiah (308208) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @04:24PM (#32352750)

      It's also old news that giving birth on your back without moving around is just about the most painful and inconvenient way to do it, but birth wards continue to promote this because it is also the most convenient position for the doctor.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I think that's a pretty important consideration, given the high incidence and terrible consequences of complications during childbirth.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Lumpy (12016)

          United states has one of the highest infant mortality rate in the world. Sounds like our Best medicine money can buy, actually sucks pretty bad.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by whizzard (177251)

            United states has one of the highest infant mortality rate in the world

            You may want to check some actual facts [wikipedia.org]. As of 2009, the US was 46th out of 224. This definitely isn't something to brag about, but it's nowhere near the "highest". It's not even 3x the lowest...

          • by Draconius42 (751172) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @05:59PM (#32353980)
            could it be because our doctors have the skill to allow babies to be born that would be stillborn elsewhere, but then subsequently die from complications? This is a misleading statistic that doesn't take the whole picture into account.
          • by psnyder (1326089)
            The US also counts "infant mortality" as showing any signs of life while outside the womb. Many other countries have less strict standards, and count similar deaths as not having been born.

            Comparing Infant Mortality Rates [wikipedia.org]
  • Move along. Doctors have known about this for a long time. Real doctors, even.

  • by MobyDisk (75490) * on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @03:42PM (#32352194) Homepage

    My wife and I decided to have our child at a birthing center, and this was one of the reasons.

    I was very skeptical of not delivering in a hospital, but after doing some research I was intrigued. We went to the orientations at both a local hospital, and at a local birthing center. In both orientations I asked how long they leave the umbilical cord attached. The hospital doctors didn't see any reason not to cut it immediately, and kind of looked at me like "oh, you are one of THOSE people." The midwife at the birthing center said something like "We follow the most recent lifelong study completed by in which recommends leaving the cord on for due to the increased supply of stem cells." where X was something between 2 and 5 minutes, I forget the number now.

    The linked article does a great job of pointing out that this isn't new. What is shocking is that most OBs don't know it. The only disadvantage of this is that it makes it harder to harvest fetal stem cells from the placenta. In our case, I don't think our donation met the minimum requirements (although we sent it in anyway). I love the idea that our son got a head start because we did what science has already known to be correct, and that perhaps someone else's life could be saved by the donation.

    If you plan on having a child, it is worth every moment to do your research. And don't blindly trust the doctors.

    • by kd5zex (1030436) on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @04:42PM (#32352990)

      What is shocking is that most OBs don't know it.

      It's not that they don't know, it's more likely most don't give a damn.

      And don't blindly trust the doctors.

      Fantastic advice, OBs often capitalize on the stressful situation and play the "dead baby card" quite often to do things their way.

    • by Johnno74 (252399)

      Our 3 kids were born in hospitals, delivered by Midwives - the first in New Zealand, the other two in Australia All 3 times they waited until the cord stopped pulsing before they claped it and invited me to cut it.

      IMHO getting your baby delivered by a midwife, at the hospital gives you the best of both worlds. Obstetricians can be a little gung-ho about intervening in the process of childbirth instead of letting things progress naturally, With our first the obstetrician was concerned at how slowly things

    • Doctors can be idiots. Just look above at the comment titled "Also: Jaundice!"

      This can sometimes happen when the baby gets a big dose of red blood cells because he's a lot lower than the placenta (gravity) or because the cord isn't clamped very quickly. All those red blood cells die in a day or two, baby cannot break down/metabolize the dead RBCs correctly, and POOF, jaundice.

      I bet midwives from centuries past wouldn't have made that mistake. When did all this common knowledge (keep placenta at the same elevation or slightly lower) start vanishing?

      You probably made a good choice.

      And don't blindly trust the doctors.

      That's the best advice. Never forget it.

  • It is safe to assume that this news has arrived too late for anyone reading this.

    Mom owes me some stem cells!!!

  • Many years ago, when I was a Usenet junkie, I frequented the abortion newsgroups and argued endlessly, pro-choice of course. (hey it was the 90's..I was bored.) I did some research and wrote this treatise [250x.com] on the incredible changes that occur in the circulatory system at birth.

    For example, did you know that first expansion of the lungs actually reverses blood flow in sections of the central circulation? It's actually quite cool. In fact, as I wrote.."Immediately following birth, the umbilical vessels constri

  • It was during my traEMS education, around 1996 that I was told to always squeeze the umbilical cord between two fingers in order to empty it and transfer all blood in it to the child before clamping and cutting it...
  • it works both ways, for the mother too

    you carry some cells of your mother's genetic profile, and your mother carries some cells of your genetic profile

    i wonder how long after birth these genetic transfers persist?

    years maybe? a cell or two here and there?

    weird for the father too: have a child with a woman, and something with half of your genetic profile persists in her body

    a little in the spleen there... a little in the brain here

    creepy

    • Would the immune system kick in?
    • I also find the mitochondrial situation to be pretty weird. I mean, even if you get past the weirdness of bacteria with their own genes living in and dividing in almost all of your cells, in many cases even releasing factors which convince your cells to commit suicide, there's a whole other layer of weirdness that they all came from your mother.

  • One of the reasons a baby is given a vitamin K shot at birth is to address their low blood levels at birth, which can also be addressed by leaving the cord attached until the placenta stops pumping and the cord turns white. This of course helps with other issues, particularly in having enough red blood cells to adequately transport oxygen to the organs. I hadn't heard the stem cell argument, which I'd be less concerned about but sounds like another good reason to wait.

    Of course the main reason vitamin K is

  • Damn, I know plenty of people in their 30s who mothers still haven't cut the umbilical cord! Those guys must be chock full of stem cells and nutrients.
  • by Dunbal (464142) *

    more umbilical cord blood and crucial stem cells to transfer from mama to baby

          Who wrote this crap? Transfer from PLACENTA to baby, yes. From MAMA to baby, no. Absolutely not, under normal circumstances.

  • And she has been saying this for years. Along with, don't take the baby away right after birth, skin to skin contact right after birth is important and let the kid nurse. Have your babies at home, you go to the hospital when you are sick and pregnancy is not a disease.

    • Couldn't agree more. My wife became a doula after our first child was born, and we had our second at home with a midwife. So many comments on this board are completely ignorant, and makes me wonder how this is good topic for Slashdot. The vast majority of this country is uneducated about childbirth, and just relies on the factory system in hospitals. I avoid birthing discussions in general, because people just want to be validated, not educated.
  • Humans are the only animals with navels, grotesque intentional scars.

    • That is simply false, as 30 seconds with google will tell you. All placental mammals have navels. Human ones are more pronounced than most other species, but we also have other oddities (like a really big brain, and prolonged development before maturity). They are also much more noticeable because other mammals are much hairier than we are around there. Take a look here [talkbass.com] or here [monkeymatters.com].

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Working...