Feeling a big anxious about induction vs. c-section
Joybelle
but this has been going on in my head the last week.
Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were told a
c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said (less chance
of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing that.
Well, the next three or physicians said there was no reason I couldn't do a
vaginal birth. I was really ecstatic about that, and they pretty much laid
any anxieties about injury to the site to rest. Or so I thought. This
week, I keep thinking about this. What if I damage my baby more by having a
vaginal birth? Are these other doctors right? How do I KNOW? Obviously,
I'm worrying. Didn't think I'd do that after I made up my mind!
We are also facing an induction now rather than being "allowed" to go into
labor on my own. I really, really dread, fear, despise the idea of an
induction. I'm just afraid that I'll go through the induction, end up with
a c-section, and have a harder recovery than if I go for a c-section in the
first place. We still haven't been scheduled for an induction, so I might
still have a chance to go into labor on my own. That is what I want the
most, but I've all of a sudden got a ton of worries heaping up on me! I'm
sure it's a bit normal, but I figured I'd post here. If I talk about it, I
just end up crying and getting the other people in my life anxious. They
are probably the ones causing that anxiety in a way because some people are
questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a vaginal
birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's talked to who think
a c-section is absolutely warranted. A couple of these are nurses and
chiropracters or people who've had kids with sb (she knows a lot of
people!).
I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for listening.
:)
--
Joy
Rose 1-99
Iris 2-01
Spencer 3-03
# 4 Sept 2005
Todd Gastaldo
> Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were told a
> c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said (less chance
> of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing that.
>
> Well, the next three or [sic] physicians said there was no reason I couldn't
do a
> vaginal birth. I was really ecstatic about that, and they pretty much laid
> any anxieties about injury to the site to rest. Or so I thought. This
> week, I keep thinking about this. What if I damage my baby more by having a
> vaginal birth? Are these other doctors right? How do I KNOW? Obviously,
> I'm worrying. Didn't think I'd do that after I made up my mind!
>
I was glad to see that Joybelle's "next three or [sic] physicians said there
was no reason I couldn't do a vaginal birth."
Any research that supports vaginal birthing of babies with spina bifida is
only going to be buttressed by the fact that most statistics about injuries
to babies from vaginal births (like the recent fraudulent Hannah et al.
c-section-in-all-breeches promotion) are derived from vaginal births where
the birth canal was senselessly closed the "extra" up to 30%.
CHIROPRACTORS...
Joybelle also wrote:
> My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's talked to who think
> a c-section is absolutely warranted. A couple of these are nurses and
> chiropracters or people who've had kids with sb (she knows a lot of
> people!).
>
Chiropractors offering advice regarding birthing babies - birthing babies
with or without spina bifida - should be pointing out that obstetricians are
senselessly closing birth canals up to 30% and senselessly KEEPING birth
canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.
NOTE: Talk to a licensed chiro about this...
I am unlicensed - voluntarily...
See Chiro x-ray fraud (also: Why Dr. Gastaldo is unlicensed -
voluntarily...)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3899
For some reason, the just cited "Chiro x-ray fraud" post lost some letters
in transmission, but it is still legible.
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com
mcm...@cup.hp.com
Disclaimers: I don't know anything about your diagnosis of spina
bifida, and I don't know anything about birthing spina bifida babies.
But...
How and when was the spina bifida diagnosed? Ultrasound? when? Has
the diagnosis been confirmed? Another ultrasound? When? Have you
gotten a second opinion? I think this is too serious a question to
leave up to the judgement of a single care provider. I strongly
recommend a second opinion.
Next, I know little about the dangers about birthing a spina bifida
baby. I would suspect, however that there must be degrees of the
condition, and that is what your caregivers are talking about when
they talk about the safety of vaginal birth versus c-section. It
would help to know just to what degree they have diagnosed the seriousness
of the condition. Yet another reason for a second opinion.
Finally, I am *really* suspicious about the induction talk. If they
think that it is safe to birth vaginally rather than by c-section,
what possible advantage could there be to induction? I would ask for
study results that show that induction provides better outcomes. I
would doubt that they can produce them. I might even ask Ericka to
see if she could find any information on vaginally birthing spina bifida
babies.
Wishing you the best,
Larry
Joybelle <joybe...@hotmail.com> writes:
: I shouldn't be posting, I should really be getting things DONE around here,
Circe
> How and when was the spina bifida diagnosed? Ultrasound? when? Has
> the diagnosis been confirmed? Another ultrasound? When? Have you
> gotten a second opinion? I think this is too serious a question to
> leave up to the judgement of a single care provider. I strongly
> recommend a second opinion.
>
clearly HAS spina bifida, along with hydrocephalus. Multiple ultrasounds
have confirmed it (I think it was initially diagnosed around mid-pregnancy),
and Joy has seen many specialists throughout her pregnancy. I think it's
pretty safe to say that the degree of spina bifida is well known at this
point. The last thing she needs is to see any more!
> Finally, I am *really* suspicious about the induction talk. If they
> think that it is safe to birth vaginally rather than by c-section,
> what possible advantage could there be to induction? I would ask for
> study results that show that induction provides better outcomes. I
> would doubt that they can produce them. I might even ask Ericka to
> see if she could find any information on vaginally birthing spina bifida
> babies.
Yes, this is where I'm confused, too. Given that induction tends to produce
more likelihood of uterine hyperstimulation and thereby produces greater
risk of fetal distress, you'd think inducing would be a bad idea. I'm
suspecting that it has something to do with the hydrocephalus (the longer
the baby stay in, the greater the likelihood of true CPD caused by the
hydrocephalus), but that's only a guess.
--
Be well, Barbara
Welches
>
> Disclaimers: I don't know anything about your diagnosis of spina
> bifida, and I don't know anything about birthing spina bifida babies.
>
> But...
>
> How and when was the spina bifida diagnosed? Ultrasound? when? Has
> the diagnosis been confirmed? Another ultrasound? When? Have you
> gotten a second opinion? I think this is too serious a question to
> leave up to the judgement of a single care provider. I strongly
> recommend a second opinion.
>
it thoroughly checked. Not meaning to be rude, but, having had a problem
picked up at the scan, it is very irritating the number of people who keep
telling you that it's probably not right, and all is actually fine, as if
they know better than the 101 consultants that have scanned etc. It also
keeps up a false hope that "maybe" all will be well, which isn't really
helpful, although I'm sure most of them think it is.
Debbie
Welches
"Joybelle" <joybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cLOdnY0By49...@bright.net...
>I shouldn't be posting, I should really be getting things DONE around here,
> but this has been going on in my head the last week.
>
> Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were told
> a
> c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said (less
> chance
> of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing that.
>
> questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a vaginal
> birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's talked to who
> think
> a c-section is absolutely warranted. A couple of these are nurses and
> chiropracters or people who've had kids with sb (she knows a lot of
> people!).
>
> I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for listening.
> :)
had spina bifida. They did know before hand, but couldn't tell how bad she
was. I think she's just got leg problems now, but they had no idea how bad
it was going to be-they were talking about what stage the ventilator would
be turned off before the birth. She was a big baby too-nearly 10lb, I think.
She's a gorgeous child too. Smiley and so happy. The family say she's such a
gift to them.
Debbie
Ericka Kammerer
> Yes, this is where I'm confused, too. Given that induction tends to produce
> more likelihood of uterine hyperstimulation and thereby produces greater
> risk of fetal distress, you'd think inducing would be a bad idea. I'm
> suspecting that it has something to do with the hydrocephalus (the longer
> the baby stay in, the greater the likelihood of true CPD caused by the
> hydrocephalus), but that's only a guess.
That's what I'd be wondering. If it's safe to have a
vaginal birth and the issue is possible CPD, then you are
not likely to end up with a crash c-section because of it.
That's likely to be a situation where you have plenty of
time to realize things aren't progressing well and
moving to a c-section if that seems warranted. And really,
you don't have to go to the mat to avoid the c-section if
you don't want to. You can have pretty liberal criteria
for throwing in the towel with the vaginal birth, if that
seems to make sense to you and you want to avoid going into
an emergent c-section already wiped out. If the decision
is elective c-section vs. trying for a vaginal birth, then
you're certainly no worse off if you try for a vaginal birth
and decide that you'll opt for the c-section if things aren't
going swimmingly.
As far as the safety of vaginal birth with spina
bifida, it really seems to get down to precisely where the
lesion is, and how exposed it is, and such. When I looked
at it, it seems like you just really needed to sit down
the the test results and a specialist and make a decision.
It certainly doesn't seem like vaginal birth is a bad
idea per se, but the details really matter in this case.
If I were in that situation, I'd just put my concerns in
front of the specialist and say, "I want a vaginal birth,
but I hear lots of conflicting things and I'm scared.
Convince me that I am not unduly risking my baby by attempting
a vaginal birth." A good specialist should be able to
back up his or her recommendation with some solid facts
that should put your mind at ease.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Jamie Clark
The problem here is that you'll never really know the correct answer ahead
of time. You have additional risk factors that most people don't have --
risk to your baby's lesion. I think you need to factor in every possible
issue -- baby's health, your recovery, etc, and then make the best decision
that you can. If you feel like you will blame your delivery choice if your
baby is more or less damaged than you've been told, then perhaps you chose a
planned c-section. Whatever choice you make, try not to beat yourself up
over it. You are in a very strange and specific situation -- this is not
just a normal pregnancy and a healthy baby. Hugs my friend.
--
Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it!
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to
go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password
Anne Rogers
your baby's condition I did look up a little bit on line, from what I read
it seemed that c-section was only recommended if things were really severe
and the spinal cord was actually bulging. I recall something about
infections to the lesion, but it seemed that treating the infection rather
than preventing it was preferred. None of these was research results, but
that was the impression I got from what I read, I hope someone comes up with
something more concrete. From your posts I haven't seen anything that makes
induction a good idea, other than the distance you have to travel to the
hospital, in all honesty I think I'd be hanging on and waiting to go
naturally, knowing your baby is going to be having surgery and needing extra
care, I'd be wanting to be as well a possible myself, which would mean no
c-section.
Anne
Joybelle
>
> Disclaimers: I don't know anything about your diagnosis of spina
> bifida, and I don't know anything about birthing spina bifida babies.
>
> But...
>
> How and when was the spina bifida diagnosed? Ultrasound? when? Has
> the diagnosis been confirmed? Another ultrasound? When? Have you
> gotten a second opinion? I think this is too serious a question to
> leave up to the judgement of a single care provider. I strongly
> recommend a second opinion.
Hi, Larry,
I think you might have been on vacation when I was posting about this. Baby
was diagnosed at 25 weeks to have sb by u/s. Amniocentisis and subsequent
u/s (I've had a total of three level 2 u/s) have confirmed it. I haven't
gone to a different hospital to get a second opinion, but I've seen a
different doctor each visit. It is a group of about 20 perinatologists and
they love to have you see each and every one. :)
> Next, I know little about the dangers about birthing a spina bifida
> baby. I would suspect, however that there must be degrees of the
> condition, and that is what your caregivers are talking about when
> they talk about the safety of vaginal birth versus c-section. It
> would help to know just to what degree they have diagnosed the seriousness
> of the condition. Yet another reason for a second opinion.
It is considered L-4, which is relatively a medium severity of the defect.
The baby also has been diagnosed as to have hydrocephalus. It has been only
one doctor so far who has recommended a c-section. The other doctors (about
4-5 of them) have told me a vaginal delivery is a very viable option. Their
reasons have been this is my third baby, I've delivered a 10-pounder, and
the hydrocephalus hasn't gotten severe. I think I just need my fears set to
rest! Birthing horror stories have never bothered me, but this is unknown
territory for me, and they are definitely affecting me more than I thought
they would.
> Finally, I am *really* suspicious about the induction talk. If they
> think that it is safe to birth vaginally rather than by c-section,
> what possible advantage could there be to induction? I would ask for
> study results that show that induction provides better outcomes. I
> would doubt that they can produce them. I might even ask Ericka to
> see if she could find any information on vaginally birthing spina bifida
> babies.
Well, I did have some issues with my amniotic fluid lowering for a couple of
weeks, and that is when the induction talk began. Otherwise, they seemed to
be fine with just having me go into labor on my own despite the distance
(about 2 hours). The last visit, though, the amniotic fluid had improved
from 6.24 to 8.37, so that really doesn't seem to be an issue anymore. I
see a doctor again on Friday, and I think I'm working myself up into battle
mode. :) I want to be fully armed if there is no definite reason for
induction. I just wish I could see the one perinatologist again who
explained things so well in the first place. I feel I need a bit of
reassurance on all fronts. Probably typical at this stage in the pregnancy,
right? Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, Larry.
Joybelle
"Circe" <gua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gyXXe.24204$sx2.1882@fed1read02...
> Larry, you haven't been following Joy's pregnancy very closely, but her
baby
> clearly HAS spina bifida, along with hydrocephalus. Multiple ultrasounds
> have confirmed it (I think it was initially diagnosed around
mid-pregnancy),
> and Joy has seen many specialists throughout her pregnancy. I think it's
> pretty safe to say that the degree of spina bifida is well known at this
> point. The last thing she needs is to see any more!
Gotta agree. :)
> > Finally, I am *really* suspicious about the induction talk. If they
> > think that it is safe to birth vaginally rather than by c-section,
> > what possible advantage could there be to induction? I would ask for
> > study results that show that induction provides better outcomes. I
> > would doubt that they can produce them. I might even ask Ericka to
> > see if she could find any information on vaginally birthing spina bifida
> > babies.
>
> Yes, this is where I'm confused, too. Given that induction tends to
produce
> more likelihood of uterine hyperstimulation and thereby produces greater
> risk of fetal distress, you'd think inducing would be a bad idea. I'm
> suspecting that it has something to do with the hydrocephalus (the longer
> the baby stay in, the greater the likelihood of true CPD caused by the
> hydrocephalus), but that's only a guess.
I do think the hydrocephalus may be a bit of a factor (but at this point it
isn't-baby is measuring up consistently 7days behind and the head is
measuring up along with that), but I did have some lowering of my amniotic
fluid index. That's when I was told I wouldn't be allowed to go to 40
weeks. I'm finding that I'm fine with the idea of a vaginal birth if I go
into labor, and I'm fine with a c-section if it's indicated I need one, but
I'm not very fine with the idea of an induction. The AFI did go up last
time, so I have to think that gives me some bargaining room.
Ericka Kammerer
> I do think the hydrocephalus may be a bit of a factor (but at this point it
> isn't-baby is measuring up consistently 7days behind and the head is
> measuring up along with that), but I did have some lowering of my amniotic
> fluid index. That's when I was told I wouldn't be allowed to go to 40
> weeks. I'm finding that I'm fine with the idea of a vaginal birth if I go
> into labor, and I'm fine with a c-section if it's indicated I need one, but
> I'm not very fine with the idea of an induction. The AFI did go up last
> time, so I have to think that gives me some bargaining room.
With that one, you can also ask for a clear description
of risks vs. benefits. On the one hand, we know that in general,
the tests are less than definitive. If one doesn't look so great,
try another the next day and see if you get a different reading.
Two bad readings are far more indicative of problems than one
bad reading.
I don't think you ever need to schedule an induction
in advance. Either there's evidence that it's necessary *now*,
or there isn't. If there isn't, you can wait and look for
more evidence tomorrow (or next week, or whenever would be
appropriate). So, just take it one day, and one set of
tests at a time and deal with the issue of induction when
you have evidence that you need to get the baby out now.
When/if that happens, *that* is the time to evaluate
the likelihood of success of an induction. What is your
Bishop score then?
If you go step by step, it makes a lot of the
"what ifs" easier to deal with.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Joybelle
"Welches" <debbie....@SPAMntlworldPLEASE.com> wrote in message
news:WFXXe.15108$QU3....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Really I think it's okay. A friend's child was born by normal delivery who
> had spina bifida. They did know before hand, but couldn't tell how bad she
> was. I think she's just got leg problems now, but they had no idea how bad
> it was going to be-they were talking about what stage the ventilator would
> be turned off before the birth. She was a big baby too-nearly 10lb, I
think.
> She's a gorgeous child too. Smiley and so happy. The family say she's such
a
> gift to them.
Thank you, Debbie! That is a very good success story! I've been hanging
out on a support board for sb, and it seems some have vag births and some
have c-sections. It's just the whole, "what is right for my baby!!" thing
going on, and I think I'm panicking a little. :)
Nikki
> Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were
> told a c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said
> (less chance of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing
> that.
>
> Well, the next three or physicians said there was no reason I
> couldn't do a vaginal birth. I was really ecstatic about that, and
> they pretty much laid any anxieties about injury to the site to rest.
> Or so I thought. This week, I keep thinking about this. What if I
> damage my baby more by having a vaginal birth? Are these other
> doctors right? How do I KNOW? Obviously, I'm worrying. Didn't
> think I'd do that after I made up my mind!
I don't have any advice - I don't know anything ;-). I just wanted to offer
you some support. I imagine it is totally natural in your situation to be
worrying about things. Everything. This is something to pin your worries
on because it is something you have some power over. I think it makes
perfect sense to speak with one of the doctors again about your worries to
help ease your mind. In these types of situations I try to seperate the
facts from my worries. In your case 3-4 specialists said a vaginal birth
was safe. That seems legit to me!!
> We are also facing an induction now rather than being "allowed" to go
> into labor on my own. I really, really dread, fear, despise the idea
> of an induction. I'm just afraid that I'll go through the induction,
> end up with a c-section, and have a harder recovery than if I go for
> a c-section in the first place.
I'm with you in that I'd want some concrete reasons to schedule the
induction. I did finally consent to one for less then concrete reasons
because they succeeded in freaking me out. The good news is that it was
completely successful and I was told they mostly are for woman that have
already had babies.
They are probably the
> ones causing that anxiety in a way because some people are
> questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a
> vaginal birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's
> talked to who think a c-section is absolutely warranted.
Ugh - I think at this point you should kindly ask everyone to just not tell
you what to do anymore or question anything. At this late date they just
need to be supportive. I know that is easier said then done and I need to
take my own advice on that front ;-)
> I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for
> listening. :)
Wishing you the best and post as much as you want/need!
--
Nikki
Hunter 4/99
Luke 4/01
EDD 4/06
Joybelle
"Jamie Clark" <jami...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LfidnWvJZJT...@comcast.com...
> Hugs Joybelle.
>
> The problem here is that you'll never really know the correct answer ahead
> of time. You have additional risk factors that most people don't have --
> risk to your baby's lesion. I think you need to factor in every possible
> issue -- baby's health, your recovery, etc, and then make the best
decision
> that you can. If you feel like you will blame your delivery choice if
your
> baby is more or less damaged than you've been told, then perhaps you chose
a
> planned c-section. Whatever choice you make, try not to beat yourself up
> over it. You are in a very strange and specific situation -- this is not
> just a normal pregnancy and a healthy baby. Hugs my friend.
Thank you very much, Jamie. It is such a weird place to be in. I think
it's really hitting me that I'm not going to have a "normal" baby or a
"normal" delivery, and I really am having to work out the kinks before we
get there. I'm sure there'll be plenty to work out afterward, also! :) I
think a lot of this stuff is re-surfacing due to my sister's birth and my
healthy little nephew. I'm so thrilled and ecstatic for her, but I'm sad
it's not going to be that way for us. Thanks for the hugs.
Joybelle
"Anne Rogers" <anne...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3pb05mF...@individual.net...
Thanks, Anne, for your reassurance! I'm glad I posted about the induction
because so far what's been said has validated how I've felt about an
induction. I want to have a vag birth, but without the induction. I'll
have to make that clearer to the doctors this next visit. My hubby has been
very supportive, but it's just other people like my mother and sister who
are giving me doubts.
Todd Gastaldo
attentionn to the chiro x-ray fraud mentioned at the end of this post.
Chiro x-ray fraud may be perpetuating obstetric fraud.
(CHIROS: Obstetricians are senselessly closing birth canals up to 30% and
keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck - as
they pull with hands, forceps and vacuums - sometimes pulling so hard they
rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords.)
BABIES AND "CPD" - FOR NEW READERS...
> Circe wrote:
>
>> Yes, this is where I'm confused, too. Given that induction tends to produce
>> more likelihood of uterine hyperstimulation and thereby produces greater
>> risk of fetal distress, you'd think inducing would be a bad idea. I'm
>> suspecting that it has something to do with the hydrocephalus (the longer
>> the baby stay in, the greater the likelihood of true CPD caused by the
>> hydrocephalus), but that's only a guess.
New readers,
CPD is the acronym for cephalopelvic disproportion (sometimes called
"fetopelvic disproportion")...
Obstetricians focus exclusively on the CEPHALO part (the baby) and pretend
that they aren't grossly influencing the PELVIC part - routinely closing
mothers' pelves up to 30% and routinely KEEPING birth canals closed the
"extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.
Barbara's (Circe's) phrase "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus" is
meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal -
closing the birth canal the "extra" up 30%.
Ericka replied:
>
> That's what I'd be wondering. If it's safe to have a
> vaginal birth and the issue is possible CPD, then you are
> not likely to end up with a crash c-section because of it.
Again, this is for new readers...
If the issue is "possible CPD" - with obstetricians CAUSING CPD - the
necessity of any c-section - crash or otherwise - is suspect.
.
Good specialists (and good childbirth educators) would work to stop
obstetricians from closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30% - esp. when
they are worried about CPD - even and especially when they are worried about
"true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus."
Compelling obstetricians to open birth canals the "extra" up to 30% is not
going to prevent all c-sections - but obstetricians have no business closing
birth canals the "extra" up to 30%.
NEW READERS: Please note that obstetricians are LYING to cover-up the
obvious birth crime.
For the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers)...
See Dents in babies' skulls (and SJ Doc)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3897
Please note also...
Unnecessary c-sections were alluded to above but I must mention them again -
along with unnecessary episiotomies...
UNNECESSARY C-SECTIONS/UNNECESSARY EPISIOTOMIES
Obstetricians are slicing vaginas/abdomens en masse (episiotomy/c-section) -
surgically fraudulently inferring they are doing/have done everything
possible to open birth canals - even as they close birth canals the "extra"
up to 30%.
ANOTHER OBVIOUS OBSTETRIC CRIME - American medicine's most frequent surgery
- obviously criminal the way MDs do it...
IMMEDIATE cord clamping...
The obstetric professionn routinely asphyxiates babies and causes them to
breathe with their lungs before they are ready - as it robs babies of up to
50% of their blood volume...
Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG says this is
happening to EVERY CESAREAN BABY (it also happens with most "cord blood
banking")...
See Cord clamping baby asphyxiation: Pediatrician not cheering so loud
now...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3896
Dr. Morley recommends an obviously illegal TEMPORARY baby asphyxiation
experiment to help obstetricians demonstrate to themselves that they
shouldn't permanently asphyxiate/deny babies umbilical cord oxygen and rob
them of massive amounts of blood:
"[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The
[fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color
will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue
(vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be
able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on
a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon
release the finger and thumb."
http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm
Again, CPD means cephaloPELVIC disproportion and obstetricians are closing
pelves up to 30% and keeping them closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies
get stuck...
Be careful out there.
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com
PS I think the whole chiropractic profession would be supporting me this
work - but the chiro associations and boards are mostly silent - likely
because I am also pointing out CHIRO fraud.
For details regarding the ongoing chiro x-ray fraud/crime - MOST (all?)
boards of chiropractic examiners are silently perpetuating it...
Circe
news:BF55B20D.B7CC%tgas...@earthlink.net...
> Barbara's (Circe's) phrase "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus" is
> meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal -
> closing the birth canal the "extra" up 30%.
Todd, I beg to differ. Hydrocephalus *can* result in a head circumference
that will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position
during pushing. Since Joy has had all of her babies unmedicated and has had
three home births, I know she knows that she can push in any position she
likes. That does not eliminate the possibility that her baby's hydrocephalus
could progress to a point where the head would be too large to deliver
vaginally. Fortunately, it sounds like that is not the case!
--
Be well, Barbara
Mary W.
Joybelle wrote:
> I shouldn't be posting, I should really be getting things DONE around here,
> but this has been going on in my head the last week.
>
> Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were told a
> c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said (less chance
> of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing that.
>
> Well, the next three or physicians said there was no reason I couldn't do a
> vaginal birth. I was really ecstatic about that, and they pretty much laid
> any anxieties about injury to the site to rest. Or so I thought. This
> week, I keep thinking about this. What if I damage my baby more by having a
> vaginal birth? Are these other doctors right? How do I KNOW? Obviously,
> I'm worrying. Didn't think I'd do that after I made up my mind!
>
Hi Joy,
I just wanted to say that I had alot of the same thoughts with my
last birth, because it was a VBAC. I was even weighing some induction
talk too. Most people thought I should just have a scheduled section,
etc. VBAC is dangerous, etc. Thankfully my husband, doula and midwives
were very supportive so when those doubts started creeping in I was
able to remind myself of why I wanted a VBAC (which I got).
So, although our situations are very different, I had some very
similar worries and doubts - I think its really normal.
I hope you find a peaceful place and concentrate on good labor
thoughts. And I hope you go into labor on your own :)
I agree with Ericka that its kind of silly to schedule an induction.
You either need one now, or you can wait.
Good luck!
Mary W.
Anne Rogers
> because so far what's been said has validated how I've felt about an
> induction. I want to have a vag birth, but without the induction. I'll
> have to make that clearer to the doctors this next visit. My hubby has
> been
> very supportive, but it's just other people like my mother and sister who
> are giving me doubts.
remember that they never have the full information only you and probably
your husband has it straight from the doctors mouths, however well you try
and explain it to other people, they get your interpretation and then make
their own interpretation of that, which means they can miss some of the
risks, or blow them up.
I think what Ericka says about taking things one day at a time is really
excellent advice, an induction would be for the sake of the baby's health,
so wait til the baby's condition warrents it. I think there are very few
conditions where scheduling a date well in advance is the best course of
treatment, cholestasis would be the only one I can think of right now.
Anne
mcm...@cup.hp.com
: I do think the hydrocephalus may be a bit of a factor (but at this point it
: isn't-baby is measuring up consistently 7days behind and the head is
: measuring up along with that), but I did have some lowering of my amniotic
: fluid index. That's when I was told I wouldn't be allowed to go to 40
: weeks. I'm finding that I'm fine with the idea of a vaginal birth if I go
: into labor, and I'm fine with a c-section if it's indicated I need one, but
: I'm not very fine with the idea of an induction. The AFI did go up last
: time, so I have to think that gives me some bargaining room.
First, sorry for not paying attention earlier on. Second, given this
respone from you, IMHO you have this one well understood and you don't
need any help from us!
Still, best wishes and we'll keep thinking about you,
Larry
Todd Gastaldo
See the very end of this post...
in article nxZXe.24213$sx2.19533@fed1read02, Circe at gua...@yahoo.com
wrote on 9/20/05 12:35 PM:
Barbara
I am well, thank you.
My post was for "new readers and chiros" - not Joybelle necessarily.
But since you mentioned Joybelle's homebirth - and inferred a guarantee - I
should mention (for the benefit of new readers) that having a homebirth is
NOT a guarantee that one will be allowed and encouraged to push with the
birth canal opened the "extra" up to 30%.
Some homebirth midwives ape MDs in closing birth canal the "extra" up to 30%
- Dagny reported that she ran into one - and homebirth midwife Jan Tritten,
editor of Midwifery Today, actually PROMOTED closing the birth canal the
"extra' up to 30% as a "midwifery trick of the trade" (!) (after cancelling
my full length article on the subject!).
CNMwives also ape MDs - with Yale CNMwifery Prof. Helen Varney promoting
semisitting/birth-canal-closing after I asked her not to...
Regarding your statement, "Hydrocephalus *can* result in a head
circumference that will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the
mother's position during pushing."
I did not say hydrocephalus could NOT result in a head circumference that
will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position during
pushing.
I said: "Barbara's (Circe's) phrase 'true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus'
is meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal -
closing the birth canal the 'extra' up 30%."
I stand by that statement in the context of the discussion - three
physicians saying a vaginal birth would be OK in Joybelle's case.
Thank you though for making the point that if the hydrocephalus is even too
big for a birth canal opened the "extra" up to 30% - then true cephalopelvic
disproportion has occurred.
Unfortunately, obstetricians still close birth canals the "extra" up to 30%
even as they warn women about cephalopelvic disproportion - even when babies
are suspected of hydrocephalus and a vaginal birth is to be attempted.
One last note...
No need to "beg" to differ with me - people differ with me all the time -
like for example the time that Ericka Kammerer pretended publicly -
ERRONEOUSLY - that childbirth educator Henci Goer warns that obstetricians
are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed the
"extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.
I welcome ALL differing; though obviously, I still think Ericka's (and
Henci's!) behavior bizarre - like Larry McMahan's notion that the massive
obstetric crimes are just standard "substandard" care and not crimes.
Speaking of obstetric crime...
Barbara, you snipped Dr. Morley's temporary baby asphyxiation experiment.
Here it is again:
"[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The
[fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color
will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue
(vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be
able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on
a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon
release the finger and thumb."
http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm
Barbara, do you think it is a crime for obstetricians to temporarily
asphyxiate babies to demonstrate to themselves that they should not
PERMANENTLY asphyxiate umbilical cord oxygen and rob babies of up to 50% of
their blood volume?
Or do we differ on that point too?
Just curious.
Joybelle
Barbara,
I agree with you. The did say if the hydrocephalus was severe enough,
they'd definitely recommend a c-section due to CPD. It certainly makes sense
to me. I also think one of the doctors said something about if the hydro
was severe enough, and I tried a vaginal birth, I could be risking brain
damage to the baby. Wouldn't want to do that. Sounds like that isn't a
risk with this baby, though.
Also, I wanted to clarify I've had only two homebirths. My first was in the
hospital and was medicated. And, yes, Todd, I am aware of pushing in the
optimal positions! My pelvis had plenty of room to birth my last two as I
was squatting in my living room. :)
Jamie Clark
news:1uydnRpdgYt...@comcast.com...
I think Ericka may have hit the nail on the head. My guess is that part of
the reason why Joybelle would be not okay with the idea of induction is that
they are usually so random -- throw a dart at the calendar and pick a date,
any date. Why Tuesday instead of Thursday? Why 39w3d instead of 39w6d?
I like the idea of taking it one day, and one test at a time, at least in
regards to induction verses letting your body go into labor on it's own. If
there are persistent and compelling reasons to induce, I don't think the
idea will both you any more, as the reasons will be compelling and
persistent. If there are no compelling reasons, then there really isn't a
reason to start labor artificially, now is there?
Of course that doesn't deal with the whole "should you have a c-section" or
not issue. But again, I agree with Ericka -- talk to your specialists and
keep gathering information. Eventually the decision should become clear.
You should be able to be convinced of the safety of a vaginal birth, or
convinced of the need for a c-section.
Jamie Clark
Yeah, that makes perfect sense, the fact that your nephews birth would be
bringing stuff up.
Although we didn't take Nathan to term, there was also a large denial
factor -- I could sort of pretend that I was just normal and pregnant for a
little bit, since I had no direct evidence in front of me that my baby was
not healthy and okay. So, maybe there is a little bit of that going on --
you found out midway through your pregnancy, but there wasn't much you could
do about it, and your pregnancy sort of continued on, much like your other
3, except the GD diagnoses (and tons more doctors appointments). But now
that delivery is immenent, all of a sudden, you really have to deal with it.
Or maybe not. I could be off base...it's been known to happen! ; )
Joybelle
>
> > I do think the hydrocephalus may be a bit of a factor (but at this point
it
> > isn't-baby is measuring up consistently 7days behind and the head is
> > measuring up along with that), but I did have some lowering of my
amniotic
> > fluid index. That's when I was told I wouldn't be allowed to go to 40
> > weeks. I'm finding that I'm fine with the idea of a vaginal birth if I
go
> > into labor, and I'm fine with a c-section if it's indicated I need one,
but
> > I'm not very fine with the idea of an induction. The AFI did go up last
> > time, so I have to think that gives me some bargaining room.
>
> With that one, you can also ask for a clear description
> of risks vs. benefits. On the one hand, we know that in general,
> the tests are less than definitive. If one doesn't look so great,
> try another the next day and see if you get a different reading.
> Two bad readings are far more indicative of problems than one
> bad reading.
Absolutely, and they've even said the measuring isn't all that accurate.
The risks we've been given are cord compression and difficulty delivering.
That is with an AFI of 4 or under. We have been above that, thankfully.
> I don't think you ever need to schedule an induction
> in advance. Either there's evidence that it's necessary *now*,
> or there isn't. If there isn't, you can wait and look for
> more evidence tomorrow (or next week, or whenever would be
> appropriate). So, just take it one day, and one set of
> tests at a time and deal with the issue of induction when
> you have evidence that you need to get the baby out now.
> When/if that happens, *that* is the time to evaluate
> the likelihood of success of an induction. What is your
> Bishop score then?
Yep, that sounds really good. Thanks, Ericka.
> If you go step by step, it makes a lot of the
> "what ifs" easier to deal with.
Thanks for that piece of advice! I think I need to give it to the people
around me, also. :) There's been a bit of pressure to get things set up
because of accomodations and what to do with the kids. It WOULD be easier
to know the date, but still I don't want to do something just for the sake
of convenience (though, it is a little more involved than that, obviously!).
Joybelle
"Nikki" <kava...@iw.net> wrote in message
news:GJ-dne7U0Mj...@prairiewave.com...
> I don't have any advice - I don't know anything ;-). I just wanted to
offer
> you some support. I imagine it is totally natural in your situation to be
> worrying about things. Everything. This is something to pin your worries
> on because it is something you have some power over. I think it makes
> perfect sense to speak with one of the doctors again about your worries to
> help ease your mind. In these types of situations I try to seperate the
> facts from my worries. In your case 3-4 specialists said a vaginal birth
> was safe. That seems legit to me!!
Thanks for the support, Nikki! I think I just need to hear it one more
time. :)
> > We are also facing an induction now rather than being "allowed" to go
> > into labor on my own. I really, really dread, fear, despise the idea
> > of an induction. I'm just afraid that I'll go through the induction,
> > end up with a c-section, and have a harder recovery than if I go for
> > a c-section in the first place.
>
> I'm with you in that I'd want some concrete reasons to schedule the
> induction. I did finally consent to one for less then concrete reasons
> because they succeeded in freaking me out. The good news is that it was
> completely successful and I was told they mostly are for woman that have
> already had babies.
My other sister who had her first baby in May had an induction for no reason
at 39 weeks. She had a very positive and successful experience. I think I'm
just going to do what Ericka said and only have an induction if it is needed
Now.
> They are probably the
> > ones causing that anxiety in a way because some people are
> > questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a
> > vaginal birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's
> > talked to who think a c-section is absolutely warranted.
>
> Ugh - I think at this point you should kindly ask everyone to just not
tell
> you what to do anymore or question anything. At this late date they just
> need to be supportive. I know that is easier said then done and I need to
> take my own advice on that front ;-)
I think you are right. I feel like just avoiding everybody. :)
> > I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for
> > listening. :)
>
> Wishing you the best and post as much as you want/need!
Thanks, Nikki!! It's been very helpful posting about it! I'm feeling
better about facing the doctor on Friday.
Joybelle
"Mary W." <mbwa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_GZXe.1885$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I just wanted to say that I had alot of the same thoughts with my
> last birth, because it was a VBAC. I was even weighing some induction
> talk too. Most people thought I should just have a scheduled section,
> etc. VBAC is dangerous, etc. Thankfully my husband, doula and midwives
> were very supportive so when those doubts started creeping in I was
> able to remind myself of why I wanted a VBAC (which I got).
Thanks, Mary. I'm glad you got your VBAC!!
> So, although our situations are very different, I had some very
> similar worries and doubts - I think its really normal.
It definitely helps to hear it's normal.
> I hope you find a peaceful place and concentrate on good labor
> thoughts. And I hope you go into labor on your own :)
I hope I do, too! I'm what I call a 41-weeker, and I'm just hoping this
little one decides it would like to be earlier than that. :)
> I agree with Ericka that its kind of silly to schedule an induction.
> You either need one now, or you can wait.
>
> Good luck!
Thank you! I agree with Ericka and you, and I'm going to do my best to
stand up for that.
Joybelle
> remember that they never have the full information only you and probably
> your husband has it straight from the doctors mouths, however well you try
> and explain it to other people, they get your interpretation and then make
> their own interpretation of that, which means they can miss some of the
> risks, or blow them up.
So true.
> I think what Ericka says about taking things one day at a time is really
> excellent advice, an induction would be for the sake of the baby's health,
> so wait til the baby's condition warrents it. I think there are very few
> conditions where scheduling a date well in advance is the best course of
> treatment, cholestasis would be the only one I can think of right now.
It is excellent advice, and I feel "armed" now, so to speak. :)
Thanks, Anne!
Joybelle
Thanks, Larry. The support helps Tremendously. :)
> Still, best wishes and we'll keep thinking about you,
Thank you!
Circe
> It is excellent advice, and I feel "armed" now, so to speak. :)
>
trimester of pregnancy <g>...
--
Be well, Barbara (just lightening the mood a litt!e)
Todd Gastaldo
See the very end of this post.
>
> "Circe" <gua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nxZXe.24213$sx2.19533@fed1read02...
>> "Todd Gastaldo" <tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:BF55B20D.B7CC%tgas...@earthlink.net...
>>> Barbara's (Circe's) phrase "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus" is
>>> meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal -
>>> closing the birth canal the "extra" up 30%.
>>
>> Todd, I beg to differ. Hydrocephalus *can* result in a head circumference
>> that will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position
>> during pushing.
Joybelle quoted Barbara (Circe) back without correcting Barbara's
inference...
...so I repeat what I wrote in my reply to Barbara (Circe)...
I did not say hydrocephalus could NOT result in a head circumference that
will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position during
pushing.
I said: "Barbara's (Circe's) phrase 'true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus'
is meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal -
closing the birth canal the 'extra' up 30%."
I stand by that statement in the context of the discussion - three
physicians saying a vaginal birth would be OK in Joybelle's case.
[I thank Barbara] though for making the point that if the hydrocephalus is
even too
big for a birth canal opened the "extra" up to 30% - then true cephalopelvic
disproportion has occurred.
Unfortunately, obstetricians still close birth canals the "extra" up to 30%
even as they warn women about cephalopelvic disproportion - even when babies
are suspected of hydrocephalus and a vaginal birth is to be attempted.
See Is this child abuse? - was Re: Babies and 'CPD' - for new readers (and
chiros)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3906
>> Since Joy has had all of her babies unmedicated and has
> had
>> three home births, I know she knows that she can push in any position she
>> likes.
New readers: There are no guarantees just because one births at home with a
homebirth midwife that one is going to be allowed and encouraged to open
one's birth canal the "extra" up to 30%.
Again see: Is this child abuse? - was Re: Babies and 'CPD' - for new
readers (and chiros)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3906
> That does not eliminate the possibility that her baby's
> hydrocephalus
>> could progress to a point where the head would be too large to deliver
>> vaginally. Fortunately, it sounds like that is not the case!
Again I thank Barbara (Circe) for making the point that if the hydrocephalus
is even too
big for a birth canal opened the "extra" up to 30% - then true cephalopelvic
disproportion has occurred.
Joybelle replied:
>
> Barbara,
> I agree with you. The did say if the hydrocephalus was severe enough,
> they'd definitely recommend a c-section due to CPD. It certainly makes sense
> to me. I also think one of the doctors said something about if the hydro
> was severe enough, and I tried a vaginal birth, I could be risking brain
> damage to the baby. Wouldn't want to do that. Sounds like that isn't a
> risk with this baby, though.
>
Yep. That's why I stand by my statement in response to Barbara. See above.
Joybelle, it is good that you are posting all of this to usenet. Assuming
the Google usenet archive stays up and running, years from now women you
don't even know will benefit from your having dealt with this.
> Also, I wanted to clarify I've had only two homebirths. My first was in the
> hospital and was medicated. And, yes, Todd, I am aware of pushing in the
> optimal positions! My pelvis had plenty of room to birth my last two as I
> was squatting in my living room. :)
>
COOL! I think this coming birth will go just fine.
As always, my public service announcement:
New readers: Joybelle squatted - many women squat - but you do NOT have to
squat to allow your birth canal to open the "extra" up to 30% at delivery.
Kneeling, hands-and-knees, knee-chest (lowering your chest to the bed from
hands-and-knees), crouching on one knee, standing, side-lying - there are
LOTS of birth positions that allow the birth canal to open the "extra" up to
30%.
Todd
mcm...@cup.hp.com
: My post was for "new readers and chiros" - not Joybelle necessarily.
That's the problem. Responses in a thread started by a regular poster
should remain directed to that poster, and remain OT and limited to
mostly to that poster's needs.
posts for "new readers and" any others should start a new thread.
You may post as you wish, just start a new thread when your post is
OT to or not directed to the OP.
Thanks,
Larry
mcm...@cup.hp.com
: Thanks,
: Larry
Oooh, and finally (didn't see this one until I hit send and saw the
list of ng's I was posting to. Grrrr)
Last piece of netiquitte is don't add newsgroups when when responding
to a post. Leave it in the orignal poster's newsgroup(s) only. You
can add the other newsgroups when you start your own thread.
TIA for being courteous.
Larry
Todd Gastaldo
I mentioned Larry McMahan when I asked Barbara (Circe) is she thinks
temporary baby asphyxiation is child abuse...
I wrote to Barbara:
> No need to "beg" to differ with me - people differ with me all the time -
> like for example the time that Ericka Kammerer pretended publicly -
> ERRONEOUSLY - that childbirth educator Henci Goer warns that obstetricians
> are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed the
> "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.
>
> I welcome ALL differing; though obviously, I still think Ericka's (and
> Henci's!) behavior bizarre - like Larry McMahan's notion that the massive
> obstetric crimes are just standard "substandard" care and not crimes.
>
> Speaking of obstetric crime...
>
> Barbara, you snipped Dr. Morley's temporary baby asphyxiation experiment.
>
> Here it is again:
>
> "[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The
> [fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color
> will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue
> (vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be
> able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on
> a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon
> release the finger and thumb."
> http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm
>
> Barbara, do you think it is a crime for obstetricians to temporarily
> asphyxiate babies to demonstrate to themselves that they should not
> PERMANENTLY asphyxiate umbilical cord oxygen and rob babies of up to 50% of
> their blood volume?
>
> Or do we differ on that point too?
>
Larry McMahan replied:
> In misc.kids.pregnancy mcm...@cup.hp.com wrote:
> : In misc.kids.pregnancy Todd Gastaldo <tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> : : My post was for "new readers and chiros" - not Joybelle necessarily.
>
> : That's the problem. Responses in a thread started by a regular poster
> : should remain directed to that poster, and remain OT and limited to
> : mostly to that poster's needs.
Larry,
There is no problem except your attempted use of "netiquette" concerns to
cover-up your embarrassment at euphemizing mass child abuse by MDs as
standard "substandard" care.
Law enforcement is looking the other way - babies be damned - and you are
pretending that means that no crime is occurring.
When mass child abuse is suspected - EVERYONE hears about it - everyone has
a chance to PREVENT it - that's what I would want if I was a child being
abused.
By creating a new subject line, everyone reading the thread instantly knew
there was a change.
Larry, you are publicly pretending otherwise - just like you are publicly
pretending that obstetricians are only practicing standard "substandard"
care and not committing obvious crimes.
>
> : posts for "new readers and" any others should start a new thread.
>
> : You may post as you wish, just start a new thread when your post is
> : OT to or not directed to the OP.
>
> : Thanks,
> : Larry
>
> Oooh, and finally (didn't see this one until I hit send and saw the
> list of ng's I was posting to. Grrrr)
>
> Last piece of netiquitte is don't add newsgroups when when responding
> to a post. Leave it in the orignal poster's newsgroup(s) only. You
> can add the other newsgroups when you start your own thread.
>
> TIA for being courteous.
>
> Larry
Babies are being abused en masse - sometimes killed.
You are preaching "netiquette" as MDs perform mass child abuse.
It's about as useful to babies as you claiming that the mass child abuse is
standard "substandard" care.
I will add back the newsgroups you deleted.
Todd
Ericka Kammerer
> Thanks for that piece of advice! I think I need to give it to the people
> around me, also. :) There's been a bit of pressure to get things set up
> because of accomodations and what to do with the kids. It WOULD be easier
> to know the date, but still I don't want to do something just for the sake
> of convenience (though, it is a little more involved than that, obviously!).
I'm sure that the scheduling issues are enough to drive
anyone nuts. And, if when you take it all together, you decide
an elective c-section is what you need to do in order to make
everything work out okay for you, then there's no shame in doing
that. But if what makes you feel better is to give it the best
possible shot at avoiding the c-section, then everyone else can
just learn to cope ;-) You're the pregnant woman. There aren't
many times in your life when you get to be selfish, but this is
one of them!
Best wishes,
Ericka
Elle
> They
> are probably the ones causing that anxiety in a way because some people are
> questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a vaginal
> birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's talked to who think
> chiropracters or people who've had kids with sb (she knows a lot of
> people!).
>
> I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for listening.
I will add an anecdote from the other side to counteract the ones your
mom has been sharing -- my cousin has a little boy with spina bifida
and he was born vaginally. He was her first birth too, she didn't even
have a "proven pelvis" like you do. It didn't make the SB any worse. I
don't really know too much about SB but I do know that his is not a
mild case and the recommendation was still to have him vaginally. Good
luck with all your decisions Joy.
Elle
Mum of Two
offer that's relevant to Joy, by all means, include it in the thread.
Considering what Joy has been through already in her pregnancy, I don't
think she needs it to be the subject of debate on misc.health.alternative
and sci.med. I don't think anyone likes to see the personal lives of MKPers
become pawns in a cause in such a blatantly obvious manner, no matter how
important the cause is. Until recently you responded on a more human levels
to individual posters and showed more respect for that thin line in the sand
that is netiquette, and I appreciated that.
I also don't understand your constant attacks on Ericka and Larry (and
Barbara too?). Perhaps their methods are different from yours, but I think
they want the same things for MKPers and labouring women that you do. Larry
is crunchier than the balls on a brass monkey!
After a point - and anyone who knows me will know how alien it is to me to
say this - it all becomes semantics. Can't people agree to disagree on some
points, and admit they have a common goal or two? Who is the enemy?
--
Amy
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/
My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/
"Todd Gastaldo" <tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BF55DD64.B808%tgas...@earthlink.net...
Mum of Two
want, whatever that ends up being! Does that make sense?
--
Amy
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/
My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/
"Joybelle" <joybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cLOdnY0By49...@bright.net...
Joybelle
> I think Ericka may have hit the nail on the head. My guess is that part
of
> the reason why Joybelle would be not okay with the idea of induction is
that
> they are usually so random -- throw a dart at the calendar and pick a
date,
> any date. Why Tuesday instead of Thursday? Why 39w3d instead of 39w6d?
Exactly. Part of the reason we were given for a Monday or Tuesday is it's
easier for them because the neurosurgeons and staff would all be there
rather than being on call. Honestly, I'd be more willing to schedule an
induction AFTER 40 weeks. I think I'd be much more likely to have a
successful induction if they were to wait. The doctor we saw, though, was
quite adament about how this baby had to come out by 40 weeks. I guess
we'll just wait and see what this doctor has to say on Friday!
> I like the idea of taking it one day, and one test at a time, at least in
> regards to induction verses letting your body go into labor on it's own.
If
> there are persistent and compelling reasons to induce, I don't think the
> idea will both you any more, as the reasons will be compelling and
> persistent. If there are no compelling reasons, then there really isn't a
> reason to start labor artificially, now is there?
Absolutely.
> Of course that doesn't deal with the whole "should you have a c-section"
or
> not issue. But again, I agree with Ericka -- talk to your specialists and
> keep gathering information. Eventually the decision should become clear.
> You should be able to be convinced of the safety of a vaginal birth, or
> convinced of the need for a c-section.
Thanks, Jamie. Compiling my notes for Friday. :)
Joybelle
Thanks, Ericka! There are a few stressors beyond my pregnancy/baby issues
that are contributing to the pressure. One of my sisters is having
laproscopic surgery on Oct 3, and that is really bad timing, though it can't
be helped, y'know?? It's obviously putting my mom under a lot of stress.
My other sister just had her baby, so she's got that going on. My husband's
parents own a business, so they are always busy. I wish I could make it
easier for them, but I agree I have to be a bit selfish, if not for me, for
this baby. I think all of them understand, but the pressure is there.
From the beginning of this pregnancy, I have felt that Oct 5 was a
significant date, so maybe... I do know I'm not going to be pressured into
an induction for next week, unless there is some very good evidence I need
one. Thanks for your help!
Joybelle
> Yeah, that makes perfect sense, the fact that your nephews birth would be
> bringing stuff up.
I really think so. I feel like I'm mourning the loss of my homebirth and
"normal" baby all over again. Seeing my nephew born was amazing, but
seeing his perfection makes me afraid of how different mine might be. It's
that unknown again, and I HATE that!
> Although we didn't take Nathan to term, there was also a large denial
> factor -- I could sort of pretend that I was just normal and pregnant for
a
> little bit, since I had no direct evidence in front of me that my baby was
> not healthy and okay. So, maybe there is a little bit of that going on --
> you found out midway through your pregnancy, but there wasn't much you
could
> do about it, and your pregnancy sort of continued on, much like your other
> 3, except the GD diagnoses (and tons more doctors appointments). But now
> that delivery is immenent, all of a sudden, you really have to deal with
it.
I think you are right, Jamie. Hugs to you and thank you.
> Or maybe not. I could be off base...it's been known to happen! ; )
I don't think you are off base at all, Jamie. Thank you so much for your
thoughts.
Joybelle
What a great visual, huh?!! :)
Joybelle
"Elle" <snapdr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127274788.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I will add an anecdote from the other side to counteract the ones your
> mom has been sharing -- my cousin has a little boy with spina bifida
> and he was born vaginally. He was her first birth too, she didn't even
> have a "proven pelvis" like you do. It didn't make the SB any worse. I
> don't really know too much about SB but I do know that his is not a
> mild case and the recommendation was still to have him vaginally. Good
> luck with all your decisions Joy.
That is a great story, Elle. Thank you!
Joybelle
"Mum of Two" <don't_sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4331...@clear.net.nz...
> No experience here and nothing to add, but I hope you get the birth you
> want, whatever that ends up being! Does that make sense?
Thanks, Amy! Makes sense to me. :) I do think it will all work out in the
end, I guess it's just getting there...
sharalyns
to it. I just wanted to say that you are a smart woman, and you'll make
a great decision for you and this little guy. Will it be hard? Yes--the
whole situation is difficult, but you are a strong, caring, loving
woman who does her best to be informed, and that's all that anyone can
ask of you--including yourself. :-)
((hugs))
Todd Gastaldo
WHO IS THE ENEMY?
SEMANTICS AREN'T IMPORTANT?
Amy (Mum of Two),
Semantics are ALL important when massive crimes are being committed against
babies obstetricians.
Larry McMahan employs semantics which help perpetuate the crimes - saying
the crimes are mere standard "substandard" care.
LARRY - DO YOU **SUSPECT** CHILD ABUSE IS OCCURRING AS OBSTETRICIANS
EXPERIMENT WITH ASPHYXIATING NEWBORN BABIES?
EMERGENCY! (And it's one of MANY obstetric emergencies/crimes.)
See below.
Amy "attacked" - nicely - civilly...
> IMO, you're overstepping the boundaries here Todd.
>
We disagree; but I'm glad you spoke up and offered criticism.
> If you have anything to
> offer that's relevant to Joy, by all means, include it in the thread.
What I post about is relevant to the CONDITION - spina bifida in babies and
the way vaginal birth of these and other babies is treated by obstetricians
- including bizarre birth-canal-closing behavior and cover-up lies.
Nowadays I always include mention of routine asphyxiation/denial of
umbilical oxygen and routine robbery of massive amounts of baby blood.
Both the mass birth-canal-closing and mass asphyxiation/baby blood robbery
are crying emergencies.
> Considering what Joy has been through already in her pregnancy, I don't
> think she needs it to be the subject of debate on misc.health.alternative
> and sci.med.
My primary concern is what BABIES are going through - NOW - by the thousands
per day.
I am sorry if my posts have offended Joybelle. That is not my intent.
> I don't think anyone likes to see the personal lives of MKPers
> become pawns in a cause in such a blatantly obvious manner, no matter how
> important the cause is.
MKP/misc.kids.pregnancy is a usenet newsgroup NOT a private list.
People have the option of posting anonymously if they wish.
Again, I am sorry if my posts have offended Joybelle. That is not my
intent.
> Until recently you responded on a more human levels
> to individual posters and showed more respect for that thin line in the sand
> that is netiquette, and I appreciated that.
Included in "netiquette" is intellectually HONEST argumentation.
When THAT "thin line in the sand" of netiquette is crossed - I responed
accordingly and point out the intellectually dishonest argumentation as I
did in response to Barbara/Circe's reply to me.
So far Barbara/Circe has not yet acknowledged having falsely inferred that I
said something which I did not say.
Larry snipped my correction along with my mention of his bizarre "obstetric
crime is substandard care" came - and jumped in with his concern for
netiquette.
(Incidentally, Joybelle agreed with Barbara/Circe's intellectual dishonesty.
But it's not Joybelle's job to defend me - so I (again) defended me - in
response to Joybelle's post.)
> I also don't understand your constant attacks on Ericka and Larry (and
> Barbara too?).
I say again: Larry is blithely calling massive obstetric crimes against
babies mere standard "substandard" care.
So far as I can see, the only leg Larry has to stand on is the sordid fact
that law enforcement is failing to enforce.
As Steve B. Harris, MD arrogantly notes:
"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
That is the problem! No enforcement!
With people failing to speak out...
With ostensibly "crunchy" people like Larry (your term; see below) publicly
pretending that the massive obstetric crimes are mere standard "substandard"
care...
That just puts off the day that law enforcement stops looking the other way.
Similarly, when prominent childbirth education authors like Henci "the other
side" Goer FAIL TO MENTION massive obstetric crime - people are further
distanced from speaking out.
Ericka publicly lied - said that Henci Goer discusses in her books the fact
that obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth
canals closed when babies get stuck - and lying to cover-up.
ERICKA attacked.
My attacks in response are self-defense - protests of Ericka's bizarre lie.
WHY is she lying about that?
Intellectual dishonesty is THE "line in the sand of good netiquette."
Ericka blatantly crossed it and now sits on her lie silently.
Since silence of childbirth educators like Henci Goer perpetuates the crimes
- I speak up about that and Ericka's bizarre attempt to cover-up Henci's
silence.
Regarding Barbara (Circe), I always kind of liked the fact that she said she
doesn't killfile anyone, as in,
"I don't killfile anyone, even Gastaldo. I just don't bother to read his
posts (they give me a headache!)."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/2a2c5843d4c7d280
Barbara read my post and falsely inferred that I said something I did not.
Again, in correcting, I mentioned the bizarre public behaviors of Ericka and
Larry.
THAT'S when Larry started tooting the horn on the "good netiquette"
bandwagon - as he engages is BAD netiquette - babies be damned.
> Perhaps their methods are different from yours
>
Ericka's method is lying - quite different from mine.
I can prove that Ericka is lying.
I cannot prove that Larry is lying. Maybe he really DOES believe that the
obvious obstetric crimes are just standard "substandard" care?
Does he think Dr. Morley's baby asphyxiation experiment is a crime?
See below.
> but I think
> they want the same things for MKPers and labouring women that you do. Larry
> is crunchier than the balls on a brass monkey!
I don't think I've ever seen a brass monkey let alone the balls thereon.
"Crunchier" refers to counterculture?
If so, I disagree. Larry gives cultural authorities/MDs a pass where it
counts.
With everyone giving MDs a pass, the massive MD crimes continue.
I'll ask Larry again:
LARRY - IS THIS CHILD ABUSE?
Is the temporary baby asphyxiation experiment child abuse?
I wrote to Barbara:
Larry McMahan replied:
Larry,
>>>>>END Todd's response to Larry
JUST SEMANTICS?
AMY CONCLUDED...
> After a point - and anyone who knows me will know how alien it is to me to
> say this - it all becomes semantics. Can't people agree to disagree on some
> points, and admit they have a common goal or two? Who is the enemy?
>
se·man·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-mntks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and
what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other
language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.
Amy,
When babies are being asphyxiated en masse and robbed of massive amounts of
blood....
As I indicated above...
Semantics are all important.
When "substandard" care is occurring - there isn't nearly as much urgency...
When CRIME is occurring - crime is stopped immediately - ESPECIALLY when
babies are being harmed.
When crime/abuse of babies is so much as SUSPECTED - health professionals
are MANDATED to report - but ANYONE may report.
Indeed, the State of Oregon ENCOURAGES people who are not required to report
to report suspected child abuse, as in,
"ALL OREGON CITIZENS ARE ENCOURAGED TO REPORT SUSPECTED [CHILD ABUSE] TO DHS
OR LAW ENFORCEMENT. Over 25 percent of the substantiated cases of child
abuse are reported by concerned citizens who are not required to report.
Failure to report is a violation and carries a maximum penalty of $1,000.00.
Mandatory reporters have also been successfully sued for damages in civil
court for failing to report.©—
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/children/abuse/cps/report.shtml
WHO IS THE ENEMY?
Obstetric criminals/MDs are the "enemy" because they are routinely
asphyxiating babies and robbing massive amounts of blood from them, etc.
As always, I am in favor of pardons in advance. As medical students, MDs
are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.
The crimes are so massive, it would not surprise me to learn that usenet
newsgroups are salted with knowledgeable people who will lie to buttress the
authority of - for example - child birth educators claiming to be "the other
side."
Remember when a certain woman appeared suddenly, swearing that I was wrong
about the mass baby asphyxiation/mass baby blood robbery - right after my
post in reply to immediate cord clamping/baby asphyxiation proponent/baby
blood robber Peter Hollands, PhD?
She violated "netiquette" all over the place - and people CHEERED her - and
it turned out she was "just joking."
That was weird.
Prominent childbirth educator Henci "the other side" Goer's failure to
mention the spectacle of obstetricians keeping birth canals closed the
"extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck is only exceeded in strangeness by
Ericka's bald-faced lie that Henci is not silent about this massive
obstetric crime.
WHY are people giving MDs a pass? Obvious CRIMES are being committed
against babies en masse - obvious cover-up lies are being told.
Why has Larry not yet acknowledged that MDs are mostly anti-immunization
given their bald lie of omission - their failure to state that
breastfeedings include IMMUNIZATIONS manufactured by mothers?
Back in 2001, when Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:
"I didn't say there aren't benefits to breastfeeding - but the antibodies
in the milk are not an 'immunization.'"
Larry replied:
"Aha! Now I understand. :-) Uh, that's not my arugment, but the
good doctor Todd's, one which I have not completely bought into."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/
msg/9cbd531c0a4a4cc0?hl=en&
Larry, have you bought into it yet - after patronizing me as being "the good
doctor Todd"?
For my 2001 response to Larry (and others)...
See Breastmilk eyedrops/Gastaldo corrects McMahan, Laing, Goble,
Sessions, Fiona, Kate and Dave...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1242
Once Larry has "completely bought into" the notion that breastfeedings are
immunizations - maybe he will not be so eager to give MDs a pass as they
parade themselves as being pro-immunization.
MDs are mostly ANTI-immunization - and on top that they are fraudulently
promoting their needle vaccinations....
See MD crimes vs. that kidder Larry... Was - Re: Forced Vaccination
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/bcd4dfbe39bf9cca
From mass physical child abuse to mass IMMUNOLOGIC child abuse - Larry gives
lying MDs a pass.
They are merely offering standard "substandard" care, he says.
I say again Amy:
Semantics are ALL important when massive crimes are being committed against
babies obstetricians.
Larry McMahan employs semantics which help perpetuate the crimes - saying
the crimes are mere standard "substandard" care.
I am sorry if I offended Joybelle. That is not my intent.
MKP is a usenet newsgroup - NOT a private list on usenet.
Thanks for speaking up.
Sincerely,
Todd ("the good doctor Todd")
Anne Rogers
> From the beginning of this pregnancy, I have felt that Oct 5 was a
> significant date, so maybe... I do know I'm not going to be pressured
> into
> an induction for next week, unless there is some very good evidence I need
> one. Thanks for your help!
of course it's significant, it's my birthday!
Anne
Joybelle
Well, that would be cool! :) I also love that it would 10-05-05 (or
05-10-05). I like those numbers a lot!
Joybelle
"sharalyns" <shar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127321462.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thank you for the encouragement, Sharalyn!! Sometimes, I feel okay with all
of this, and then I guess I get hit by all these emotions I didn't know I
had buried.
Jamie Clark
> offer that's relevant to Joy, by all means, include it in the thread.
> Considering what Joy has been through already in her pregnancy, I don't
> think she needs it to be the subject of debate on misc.health.alternative
> and sci.med. I don't think anyone likes to see the personal lives of
> MKPers become pawns in a cause in such a blatantly obvious manner, no
> matter how important the cause is. Until recently you responded on a more
> human levels to individual posters and showed more respect for that thin
> line in the sand that is netiquette, and I appreciated that.
> I also don't understand your constant attacks on Ericka and Larry (and
> Barbara too?). Perhaps their methods are different from yours, but I think
> they want the same things for MKPers and labouring women that you do.
> Larry is crunchier than the balls on a brass monkey!
> After a point - and anyone who knows me will know how alien it is to me to
> say this - it all becomes semantics. Can't people agree to disagree on
> some points, and admit they have a common goal or two? Who is the enemy?
>
>
> --
> Amy
> Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
> & Ana born screaming 30/06/04
> http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/
> http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/
> My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/
>
You are now, Amy!
Disagree with Todd and find your name in a subject line and in his posts!
--
Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it!
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to
go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password
Mum of Two
Whoo hoo, that must be my 15 minute claim to fame. What's disturbing is that
he reminds me of my father - mildly eccentric, mostly fanatical, usually
right, and incessantly repetitive ad nauseum.
"Amy,....ssst....I am your father...ssst"
Mum of Two
> LARRY "CRUNCHIER" THAN BRASS MONKEY BALLS? (see below)
>
> WHO IS THE ENEMY?
>
> SEMANTICS AREN'T IMPORTANT?
>
>
> Amy (Mum of Two),
>
> Semantics are ALL important when massive crimes are being committed
> against
> babies obstetricians.
>
> Larry McMahan employs semantics which help perpetuate the crimes - saying
> the crimes are mere standard "substandard" care.
>
>
>
> LARRY - DO YOU **SUSPECT** CHILD ABUSE IS OCCURRING AS OBSTETRICIANS
> EXPERIMENT WITH ASPHYXIATING NEWBORN BABIES?
>
> EMERGENCY! (And it's one of MANY obstetric emergencies/crimes.)
>
> See below.
>
>
>
>
> Amy "attacked" - nicely - civilly...
>
>> IMO, you're overstepping the boundaries here Todd.
>>
>
> We disagree; but I'm glad you spoke up and offered criticism.
>
>> If you have anything to
>> offer that's relevant to Joy, by all means, include it in the thread.
>
> What I post about is relevant to the CONDITION - spina bifida in babies
> and
> the way vaginal birth of these and other babies is treated by
> obstetricians
> - including bizarre birth-canal-closing behavior and cover-up lies.
I think your original post was helpful and polite. As usual, the thread got
way off track and descended into personal attacks. Mind you, I'm not the
usenet posting police, so I'm going to shut up now.
> Nowadays I always include mention of routine asphyxiation/denial of
> umbilical oxygen and routine robbery of massive amounts of baby blood.
>
> Both the mass birth-canal-closing and mass asphyxiation/baby blood robbery
> are crying emergencies.
>
>> Considering what Joy has been through already in her pregnancy, I don't
>> think she needs it to be the subject of debate on misc.health.alternative
>> and sci.med.
>
> My primary concern is what BABIES are going through - NOW - by the
> thousands
> per day.
>
> I am sorry if my posts have offended Joybelle. That is not my intent.
>
>> I don't think anyone likes to see the personal lives of MKPers
>> become pawns in a cause in such a blatantly obvious manner, no matter how
>> important the cause is.
>
> MKP/misc.kids.pregnancy is a usenet newsgroup NOT a private list.
>
> People have the option of posting anonymously if they wish.
Of course. But IMO manners have a place here, as they do in most public
forums. Perhaps you could consider a career in politics?
> Again, I am sorry if my posts have offended Joybelle. That is not my
> intent.
I wouldn't know, you'd have to ask Joy.
>> Until recently you responded on a more human levels
>> to individual posters and showed more respect for that thin line in the
>> sand
>> that is netiquette, and I appreciated that.
>
> Included in "netiquette" is intellectually HONEST argumentation.
>
> When THAT "thin line in the sand" of netiquette is crossed - I responed
> accordingly and point out the intellectually dishonest argumentation as I
> did in response to Barbara/Circe's reply to me.
>
> So far Barbara/Circe has not yet acknowledged having falsely inferred that
> I
> said something which I did not say.
She probably didn't want to appear in the "Gastaldo Times".
And what would that acheive? Truly?
> I cannot prove that Larry is lying. Maybe he really DOES believe that the
> obvious obstetric crimes are just standard "substandard" care?
>
> Does he think Dr. Morley's baby asphyxiation experiment is a crime?
>
> See below.
>
>> but I think
>> they want the same things for MKPers and labouring women that you do.
>> Larry
>> is crunchier than the balls on a brass monkey!
>
> I don't think I've ever seen a brass monkey let alone the balls thereon.
A 'brass monkey' was used to hold cannonballs. When it was extremely cold,
the monkey would contract, releasing the cannonballs - hence freezing the
balls off a brass monkey. I'm surprised you didn't google it ;-)
> court for failing to report.©-
I agree with most everything in your posts. I agree with what you're trying
to achieve. I don't _always_ agree with the way you do it. Do you want to be
a one man army? Do you suppose public opinion of you as an anti-social kook
helps your cause? FWIW, I think you're a pleasant person and your material
is well-researched - *but* you have a knack of alienating people. It's your
battle, but IMO attacking Ericka and Larry who hold similar opinions to your
own in a culture where formula feeding, circumcision and surgical birth are
the norm is counterproductive. Disagree, by all means, but do you have to
try to publicly discredit them?
I'm afraid to respond to a thread of yours for ending up quoted out of
context in the headlines. I don't feel like debating this any further, as
I'm getting one of Barbara's headaches. If you were my father, I would have
thrown a lemon at your head by now. I love him dearly, but I had to take
migraine medication for years to be able to live with him. I don't want to
have to resort to that again.
Circe
> "Todd Gastaldo" <tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BF56F5DC.B8C2%tgas...@earthlink.net...
>> that I said something which I did not say.
>
> She probably didn't want to appear in the "Gastaldo Times".
>
Todd, the reason I wrote the words "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus"
was to distinguish from CPD bought on by iatrogenic causes, including poor
maternal positioning during the second stage. Maybe I should I have been
clearer about that, but that's what I meant and I know that most posters
understood it that way. It's only you, Todd, who assumes that no one but you
knows that pushing in a semi-sitting or dorsal position is bad idea!
'Nuff said.
--
Be well, Barbara
Todd Gastaldo
CARE GAG...
(Jamie may still be hiding behind her filter - so I would appreciate it if
someone she is not filtering would respond to this post and quote it back.)
Prefatory note:
From the National Center for Victims of Crime:
"In most jurisdictions, the term sexual assault has replaced the term rape
in the state statutes... The law generally assumes that a person does not
consent to sexual conduct if...she...believe[s she is]...undergoing a
medical procedure...Some examples of sexual assault include...A doctor,
nurse, or other health care professional giving you an unnecessary internal
examination or touching your sexual organs in an unprofessional, unwarranted
and inappropriate manner..."
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32369
http://www.uwp.edu/departments/student.health/sexassault.cfm
QUESTION FOR JAMIE
Jamie, if you are reading...
Do you agree it is sexual assault (unprofessional, unwarranted and
inappropriate) for MDs to close birth canals up to 30% and then use scissors
to SLICE vaginas - sometimes clear to the anus - thereby
surgically/fraudulently claiming to be doing everything possible to open
birth canals?
When I asked Larry McMahan the same question, he replied:
"No. It is substandard care, but it is NOT sexual assault."
http://groups-beta.google.com/ťgroup/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ťb3638c6df...
Routine episiotomy is rather OBVIOUS sexual assault.
Shiono et al. at NIH demonstrated in 1991 that episiotomized women suffer 50
times MORE severe tears clear to the anus than women who are not
episiotomized.
Yet "the OB guys" are STILL (in 2005) promoting the fraud that their
episiotomies are preventing severe tears clear to the anus - i.e. - they are
STILL fraudulently indicating that routine vagina slicing is a legitimate
medical procedure...
Obstetricians know they are committing sexual assault routinely...
Four UCLA physicians (DeCherney, Nathan, Lu and Lu) write:
"Sexual assault includes genital...penetration by part of the accused's body
or by an object...It may result from...the victim's inability to give
appropriate consent."^^^
Obstetricians are not only penetrating vaginas, they are SLICING vaginas.
Victims (pregnant women) obviously can't give appropriate consent if
obstetricians are lying to them.
^^^In DeCherney AH, Nathan L (eds). Current
Obstetric & Gynecologic Diagnosis & Treatment. NY: Lange Medical
Books/McGraw-Hill. Ninth Edition. 2003:1089
Of course, this isn't the only mass assault and battery committed by
obstetricians....
See ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3606
Amy (Mum of Two) recently asked:
"Who is the enemy?"
Jamie Clark replied:
> You are now, Amy!
>
> Disagree with Todd and find your name in a subject line and in his posts!
If Amy (Mum of Two) is my enemy now, she is one of the nicest enemies one
could have. (Actually, I regard enemies as friends. Enemies can be counted
on to tell/say things that friends would shy away from. In that sense, they
are best friends.)
Coincidentally, I mentioned Jamie in the same post where I criticized Larry
for indicating that American medicine's mass vagina slicing is standard
"substandard" care and not crime/sexual assault.
See below.
Here's the post with Larry and Jamie in it...
Todd Gastaldo Mar 11, 9:53 am
Newsgroups: misc.kids.pregnancy
From: "Todd Gastaldo" <tgasta...@earthlink.net> -
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:53:33 GMT
Local: Fri, Mar 11 2005 9:53 am
Subject: Birth under a tree vs. Birthrape
BIRTH UNDER A TREE VS. BIRTHRAPE
(For Birth under a tree, see the very end of this post.)
<snip>
"Jamie Clark" <jamiel...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lPudnawmC-l...@comcast.com...
> Dagny,
> I think you are overly harsh on this. I don't know exactly what you
> experienced, only that you label it a birthrape, but that was one
> instance,
> not all medical providers, be them OB's, midwives, etc, are going to
> perpetrate birthrape.
I don't think Dagny is being overly harsh at all.
Here is Dagny briefly describing her birthrape...
"Remember, I'm the one who she told sarcastically, as she started the
violence over my
protest, 'Been reading Todd Gastaldo eh?' (I call it a birthrape because
she went in me over and over after I told her to GET HER FINGERS OUT OF MY
VAGINA.)"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/80c48...
MOST women are subjected to a rape of their birth - closure of their birth
canals the "extra" up to 30% - with prominent OBs, CNMwives and direct entry
midwives PROMOTING closure of birth canals the "extra" up to 30%.
Prominent professionals also promote KEEPING the birth canal closed the
"extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck!
I will agree with Jamie that most OB's midwives, etc. are not going to
override OVERT PROTESTS like Dagny reports she made...
But most women don't know to protest!
Birth is being raped - routinely!
American medicine's most frequent surgical behavior toward females -
euphemism "routine episiotomy" - involves mass slicing of vaginas - OBs
surgically inferring that everything possible is being to open the birth
canal - as they close the birth canal up to 30%.
In most jurisdictions, this is mass SEXUAL ASSAULT ("the term sexual assault
has replaced the term rape")...
The National Center for Victims of Crime says:
"In most jurisdictions, the term sexual assault has replaced the term rape
in the state statutes...Some examples of sexual assault include...A doctor,
nurse, or other health care professional giving you an unnecessary internal
examination or touching your sexual organs in an unprofessional, unwarranted
and inappropriate manner..."
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.ťťaspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocťťumentID=3...
Jamie, if you are reading,
Do you agree it is sexual assault (unprofessional, unwarranted and
inappropriate) for MDs to close birth canals up to 30% and then use scissors
to SLICE vaginas - sometimes clear to the anus - thereby
surgically/fraudulently claiming to be doing everything possible to open
birth canals?
When I asked Larry McMahan the same question, he replied:
"No. It is substandard care, but it is NOT sexual assault."
http://groups-beta.google.com/ťgroup/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ťb3638c6df...
OBs are LYING to cover-up - and that DEFINITELY makes it sexual assault - or
so I say.
In Larry's defense, law enforcement is not prosecuting - but then again -
law enforcement often didn't prosecute assault and battery against women
("wife-beating") even though it was an obvious crime.
[Steve B. Harris, MD arrogantly told me: "Without enforcement, there is no
law. Without law, there is no crime. These are elementary principles. Get
an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9]
Sometimes slicing the vagina is necessary - but OBs closing birth canals up
to 30% and slicing vaginas pretending to be doing everything possible to
open birth canals as they LIE - that is sexual assault - or so I say (I say
again)...
As usual, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs.
As medical students, MDs are TRAINED to perform this and other obvious
felonies.
See Homebirth (also: AMA: Is it illegal for OBs to lie?
http://groups-beta.google.com/ťgroup/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ť0af4b794f...
Jamie wrote to Dagny...
> I'm not disregarding what you experienced AT ALL, or
> challenging the validity of it.
Here, again is that excerpt of what Dagny said she experienced:
"Remember, I'm the one who she told sarcastically, as she started the
violence over my
protest, 'Been reading Todd Gastaldo eh?' (I call it a birthrape because
she went in me over and over after I told her to GET HER FINGERS OUT OF MY
VAGINA.)"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/80c48...
Jamie continued...
> I am so incredibly sorry that you
> experienced what you did.
Yes, I too am sorry that Dagny was subjected to birthrape. But look at what
that experience empowered her to do the next time! She had an unassisted
birth with "only" her mom there. Awesome birth story!
> But it's like saying that no man could ever be a
> good husband or father, because someone was raped or molested as a child.
> It's just not true.
No Jamie, it's not like this at all. MOST women are having their birth
canals closed up to 30% - and prominent OBs and CNMwives and direct entry
midwives are PROMOTING this bizarre behavior.
In addition, routine vagina slicing is occurring - OBs are
surgically/fraudulently inferring they are doing everything possible to open
birth canals even as they close birth canals up to 30%.
Birth is being raped. Sexual assault is ROUTINE.
Also...
An estimated 4.6% of "healthy" term babies are suffering brain bleeds - not
to mention the fact that some babies are suffering unexplained deaths and
unexplained paralysis - not to mention lesser motor and perceptual
difficulties later in life.
NOTE: There is also the matter of OBs temporarily asphyxiating/robbing
massive amounts of blood from EVERY CESAREAN BABY, according to retired
obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG.
Just because babies live is NOT a reason to let OBs close birth canals up to
30% and rob babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
Birth is being raped - en masse - by OBs and CNMwives - and direct entry
midwives too (my thanks to Dagny for her input in regard to her direct entry
midwife; see above).
> There are tons of good men out there, and tons of good
> medical professionals.
Good medical professionals are ignoring my pleas that they stop ignoring the
medical literature and stop closing birth canals up to 30% - and stop
KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.
Here is one of my latest pleas...
See Dr. Gastaldo corrects BRITISH GRAY'S ANATOMY...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/44c2b0485...
Jamie continued...
> There are also some bad ones, I'll give you that,
> but I don't think it's fair to paint them all with the same brush,
> especially in answer to a random person asking for birthing assistance for
> his wife.
The Four OB Lies are obvious - yet "good medical professionals" - the vast
majority who read them - IGNORE them - make no protest!
> My experience in the ngs tells me that if his wife is the average
> woman, she'll likely have a relatively medically assisted pregnancy and
> birth, likely with an epidural, and be pleased with the fact that it all
> turned out okay and she got a baby in the end.
Jamie describes the majority of births - birth canal closed up to 30%.
Many women will have cesareans - EVERY CESAREAN BABY is temporarily
asphyxiated and robbed of up to 50% of its blood volume.
Birth is being raped.
> I don't believe that the
> average woman is a candidate for an unassisted home birth.
BIRTH UNDER A TREE
Interestingly, at least one medical doctor suggests that if women were
informed of the full details and mortality and morbidity related to cesarean
section, "most of them would get up and go out and have their baby under a
tree," as in,
"Dr. Dermot W. McDonald of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin Ireland
suggested that the medicolegal pressure to perform a cesarean may abate only
when mothers begin suing physicians for assault, alleging that they were not
given fully informed consent...
"'If one went to the extreme of giving the patient the full details of
mortality and morbidity related to cesarean section, most of them would get
up and go out and have their baby under a tree,' [Dr. McDonald] said."
[Neel J. Medicolegal pressure, MDs' lack of patience cited in cesarean
'epidemic.' Ob.Gyn. News Vol 22 No 10]
Irish physician McDonald's remarks accord with the 1990 findings of British
research statistician Marjorie Tew who concluded that the British maternity
system is run by obstetricians who "withhold and pervert knowledge in order
to maintain public ignorance and delusion." [Tew M. Safer childbirth? A
critical history of maternity care. London: Chapman and Hall, 1990.]
Todd
>>>>>END Todd's post first asking Jamie the question above...
Thanks for reading everyone.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com
Todd Gastaldo
The simple question is at the very end of this post.
Barbara (Circe) wrote:
> Todd, the reason I wrote the words "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus"
> was to distinguish from CPD bought on by iatrogenic causes, including poor
> maternal positioning during the second stage. Maybe I should I have been
> clearer about that, but that's what I meant and I know that most posters
> understood it that way. It's only you, Todd, who assumes that no one but you
> knows that pushing in a semi-sitting or dorsal position is bad idea!
>
> 'Nuff said.
Yet again Barbara (Circe) falsely infers something I do not believe/did
not/have not ever said.
Regarding Barbara (Circe's) allegation that I assume that no one but me
knows that pushing in a semi-sitting or dorsal position is bad idea...
This is totally false.
I know for a fact that a woman calling herself Henci Goer answering a
telephone number for Henci Goer years ago learned from me that semisitting
and dorsal delivery close the birth canal up to 30%.
I know for a fact that Henci Goer's books do not state that semisitting and
dorsal delivery close the birth canal up to 30% or that obstetricians are
KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.
I know for a fact that Ericka Kammerer is lying when she publicly swears
that Henci Goer DOES say these things.
The question is - WHY is Ericka Kammerer lying about this?
The more important question - why is HENCI GOER silent about the obvious
obstetric crime?
Amy (Mum of Two) asked me (in replying to the same post): "What purpose does
it serve to demonstrate that Ericka is lying?" - or words to that effect.
I was responding to Amy's statement that Ericka and Larry use a different
method.
I was underscoring/AGREEING with Amy's statement - noting that Ericka's
method includes lying - a very different method from my method.
When one alleges that someone is lying, it is important that one can
demonstrate the lie.
In addition, in demonstrating Ericka's lie, one can immediately see that
childbirth educator Henci Goer is silent about the obvious obstetric crime.
Silence about crime perpetuates crime.
EXPOSING silence about crime - demonstrating bizarre, related lies - helps
expose and end crime - which is my purpose here.
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com
PS Barbara failed to answer a simple question...
See below.
I wrote:
>>> Barbara's (Circe's) phrase "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus" is
>>> meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal -
>>> closing the birth canal the "extra" up 30%.
Barbara (Circe) replied:
>>
>> Todd, I beg to differ. Hydrocephalus *can* result in a head circumference
>> that will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position
>> during pushing. Since Joy has had all of her babies unmedicated and has had
>> three home births, I know she knows that she can push in any position she
>> likes. That does not eliminate the possibility that her baby's hydrocephalus
>> could progress to a point where the head would be too large to deliver
>> vaginally. Fortunately, it sounds like that is not the case!
>> --
>> Be well, Barbara
>>
>>
To which I replied...
>
> Barbara
>
> I am well, thank you.
>
> My post was for "new readers and chiros" - not Joybelle necessarily.
>
> But since you mentioned Joybelle's homebirth - and inferred a guarantee - I
> should mention (for the benefit of new readers) that having a homebirth is NOT
> a guarantee that one will be allowed and encouraged to push with the birth
> canal opened the "extra" up to 30%.
>
> Some homebirth midwives ape MDs in closing birth canal the "extra" up to 30% -
> Dagny reported that she ran into one - and homebirth midwife Jan Tritten,
> editor of Midwifery Today, actually PROMOTED closing the birth canal the
> "extra' up to 30% as a "midwifery trick of the trade" (!) (after cancelling my
> full length article on the subject!).
>
> CNMwives also ape MDs - with Yale CNMwifery Prof. Helen Varney promoting
> semisitting/birth-canal-closing after I asked her not to...
>
> Regarding your statement, "Hydrocephalus *can* result in a head circumference
> that will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position
> during pushing."
>
> I did not say hydrocephalus could NOT result in a head circumference that will
> not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position during pushing.
>
> I said: "Barbara's (Circe's) phrase 'true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus' is
> meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal -
> closing the birth canal the 'extra' up 30%."
>
> I stand by that statement in the context of the discussion - three physicians
> saying a vaginal birth would be OK in Joybelle's case.
>
> Thank you though for making the point that if the hydrocephalus is even too
> big for a birth canal opened the "extra" up to 30% - then true cephalopelvic
> disproportion has occurred.
>
> Unfortunately, obstetricians still close birth canals the "extra" up to 30%
> even as they warn women about cephalopelvic disproportion - even when babies
> are suspected of hydrocephalus and a vaginal birth is to be attempted.
>
> One last note...
>
> No need to "beg" to differ with me - people differ with me all the time - like
> for example the time that Ericka Kammerer pretended publicly - ERRONEOUSLY -
> that childbirth educator Henci Goer warns that obstetricians are closing birth
> canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when
> babies get stuck.
>
> I welcome ALL differing; though obviously, I still think Ericka's (and
> Henci's!) behavior bizarre - like Larry McMahan's notion that the massive
> obstetric crimes are just standard "substandard" care and not crimes.
>
> Speaking of obstetric crime...
>
> Barbara, you snipped Dr. Morley's temporary baby asphyxiation experiment.
>
> Here it is again:
>
> "[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The
> [fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color
> will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue
> (vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be
> able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on
> a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon
> release the finger and thumb."
> http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm
>
> Barbara, do you think it is a crime for obstetricians to temporarily
> asphyxiate babies to demonstrate to themselves that they should not
> PERMANENTLY asphyxiate umbilical cord oxygen and rob babies of up to 50% of
> their blood volume?
>
> Or do we differ on that point too?
>
> Just curious.
Elle
> That is a great story, Elle. Thank you!
The thing is I think she also got a lot of remarks questioning why she
didn't have a c-section, inferring her doctors somehow didn't handle it
right. I don't know why on earth lay people, with no experience
whatsoever with spina bifida or labour/delivery would say such things
(as if she, and you too, don't have enough to worry about)... The
parents are the ones who have consulted the experts and laid awake at
night mulling over all the scenarios. I don't know why folks don't
respect that.
Best of luck Joy.
Jenrose
>> Barbara's (Circe's) phrase "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus" is
>> meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal -
>> closing the birth canal the "extra" up 30%.
>
> that will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position
> during pushing.
And having given birth to a big-headed baby in an optimal position and
dealing with the aftermath of that (which lasted about 4 1/2 months), I can
honestly say that yes, I think there are some circumstances in which just
because you can get the baby out vaginally, it may NOT be the best, even for
mom. There was NOTHING that could have been done to give me more room to
open, and I *did* open, but at the cost of severe spd, sciatica, sacrum and
tailbone pain lasting MONTHS. Every part of my pelvis that could separate,
did... and hurt like hell. Do I wish I'd done it another way? Not really--I
know how much more emotional difficulty I would have had with deciding to do
a c-section or an earlier induction via any method. But I do now truly
believe that there are some heads which just don't fit--dd's was almost one
of them. (And before anyone argues with me about it, I have a body memory of
how a "normal" baby head feels coming down through the pelvis. This head was
entirely different. For a picture of HOW different... this is *still* how
her head is proportioned, months later, and it was pretty much the same at
birth, though a bit smaller. It just didn't mold.
http://www.jenrose.com/shiny/PICT1836.jpg
Even if the pelvis can move, there's a limit to how far, I personally am
willing to damage it. With a normal baby whose head molds, it's rarely an
issue. But when you add in something like hydrocephalus (which Shiny doens't
have... her macrocephalus is only "borderline" and not caused by hydro... ),
yes, there is a limit to what a pelvis can do.
That said, the only reason I could open up that far was that I was in water
and able to move through about 6 positions in quick succession to find the
one that would let me open the farthest.
Jenrose
Jenrose
>
> "Jamie Clark" <jami...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:8dednax1Gtl...@comcast.com...
>
>
>> Yeah, that makes perfect sense, the fact that your nephews birth would be
>> bringing stuff up.
>
> I really think so. I feel like I'm mourning the loss of my homebirth and
> "normal" baby all over again. Seeing my nephew born was amazing, but
> seeing his perfection makes me afraid of how different mine might be.
> It's
> that unknown again, and I HATE that!
It doesn't really stop with birth... hell, in our case it just *started*
with birth. She's 6 months old and in some ways amazing and I still wonder
day-to-day what today's "strangeness" will be. She still doesn't babble but
says, "MOM!" clearly and with intent. She *just* discovered toys and
developed an opinion that toys should be present during all waking times
when she is not actively being played with. She can balance sitting up for
about 45 seconds, but still has "head lag" when you sit her up by her arms.
We just don't know how fast or how far she will progress, and take it day by
day.
Jenrose
Todd Gastaldo
See below.
I wrote:
>>> Barbara's (Circe's) phrase "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus" is
>>> meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal -
>>> closing the birth canal the "extra" up 30%.
Barbara (Circe) replied:
>>
>> Todd, I beg to differ. Hydrocephalus *can* result in a head circumference
>> that will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position
>> during pushing.
I replied to Barbara (Circe):
>
> I did not say hydrocephalus could NOT result in a head circumference that will
> not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position during pushing.
<snip>
>
> I stand by [my] statement in the context of the discussion - three physicians
> saying a vaginal birth would be OK in Joybelle's case.
>
> Thank you though for making the point that if the hydrocephalus is even too
> big for a birth canal opened the "extra" up to 30% - then true cephalopelvic
> disproportion has occurred.
>
> Unfortunately, obstetricians still close birth canals the "extra" up to 30%
> even as they warn women about cephalopelvic disproportion - even when babies
> are suspected of hydrocephalus and a vaginal birth is to be attempted.
>
>
MACROCEPHALUS and HYDROCEPHALUS
Jenrose is glad she knew how to allow her pelvis to open maximally...
But she says there are times when vaginal birth is not best - even if the
mother can get the baby out...
As has often been noted - women are made to birth babies.
There may be reasons not to birth vaginally.
But there is NO reason for obstetricians to close birth canals up to 30%.
Women should not have to ASK for the "extra" up 30%.
Most women don't KNOW to ask.
It is a crime for obstetricians to knowingly close birth canals up to 30%.
It is also a crime for obstetricians to knowingly KEEP birth canals closed
the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.
If obstetricians simply don't know they are doing these things - then the
criminal negligence lies at the medical school level.
Whoever is responsible, it is time to stop the obvious obstetric crime.
Thanks for reading.
Joybelle
I don't know either. I've had several people tell me I should have a
c-section because of some scenario or somebody they know. *sigh* I still
might have a c-section, but it isn't going to be out of fear! It is
interesting how many people tell you to listen to the doctors only when the
agree with what the doctor has to say. :) I sometimes feel like I have to
defend my choice, though I don't usually try to. At this point, people
haven't been too bad. I'd say my mom and sister have been the worst, and I
have to wonder if that's because a lot of people are making comments to them
rather than me.
> Best of luck Joy.
Thank you, Elle!
Joybelle
"Jenrose" <jen...@nospamjenrose.com> wrote in message
news:1127595080.14153116d3524c35b44ee29ced98048b@teranews...
>
> "Joybelle" <joybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:M7idnbfY6-C...@bright.net...
> >
> > "Jamie Clark" <jami...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:8dednax1Gtl...@comcast.com...
> >
> >
> >> Yeah, that makes perfect sense, the fact that your nephews birth would
be
> >> bringing stuff up.
> >
> > I really think so. I feel like I'm mourning the loss of my homebirth
and
> > "normal" baby all over again. Seeing my nephew born was amazing, but
> > seeing his perfection makes me afraid of how different mine might be.
> > It's
> > that unknown again, and I HATE that!
>
> It doesn't really stop with birth... hell, in our case it just *started*
> with birth.
Oh, I believe that!! My oldest was born with a clubfoot. A pretty minor
defect in comparison to spina bifida, but I still worry about her foot, its
development, and every little comment she makes about her foot, ankle, knee
or hip hurting. Is it related? Is it normal? I don't expect the unknowns
to disappear, I guess, I just get downright frustrated with them now and
then! :)
> She's 6 months old and in some ways amazing and I still wonder
> day-to-day what today's "strangeness" will be. She still doesn't babble
but
> says, "MOM!" clearly and with intent. She *just* discovered toys and
> developed an opinion that toys should be present during all waking times
> when she is not actively being played with. She can balance sitting up for
> about 45 seconds, but still has "head lag" when you sit her up by her
arms.
> We just don't know how fast or how far she will progress, and take it day
by
> day.
Day by day is good advice. It's hard to do and takes effort, but it is what
works!
--
Joy
Rose 1-99
Iris 2-01
Spencer 3-03
# 4 Sept/Oct 2005
Todd Gastaldo
Amy (Mum of Two),
I just realized that I never responded directly to this...
You are very wrong regarding Ericka and Larry.
See below.
Todd
in article 4332...@clear.net.nz, Mum of Two at don't_sp...@hotmail.com
wrote on 9/21/05 10:00 PM:
I am not the usenet posting police either - but I say in my usenet posting
that obstetricians ARE committing major crimes against mothers and babies.
Larry McMahan says in his usenet posting that obstetricians are NOT
committing major crimes against mothers and babies.
I'm assuming that Larry is referring to more than "just" the mass vagina
slicing to open birth canals even as obstetricians close birth canals the
"extra" up to 30%.
Here it is 2005 and obstetricians are still fraudulently telling women they
are preventing severe tears.
Ignoring research - slicing vaginas and telling lies instead of obtaining
informed consent - that is MASS BATTERY.
The ONLY thing sustaining it is law enforcement looking the other way.
Law enforcement is looking the other way because LOTS of people are failing
to identify the obvious crime as crime.
Larry could have simply remained silent. Instead he decided to state
affirmatively that crime is NOT occurring.
Larry is indirectly aiding and abetting in the senseless mass vagina
slicing.
>> Nowadays I always include mention of routine asphyxiation/denial of
>> umbilical oxygen and routine robbery of massive amounts of baby blood.
>>
>> Both the mass birth-canal-closing and mass asphyxiation/baby blood robbery
>> are crying emergencies.
>>
>>> Considering what Joy has been through already in her pregnancy, I don't
>>> think she needs it to be the subject of debate on misc.health.alternative
>>> and sci.med.
>>
>> My primary concern is what BABIES are going through - NOW - by the
>> thousands
>> per day.
>>
>> I am sorry if my posts have offended Joybelle. That is not my intent.
>>
>>> I don't think anyone likes to see the personal lives of MKPers
>>> become pawns in a cause in such a blatantly obvious manner, no matter how
>>> important the cause is.
>>
>> MKP/misc.kids.pregnancy is a usenet newsgroup NOT a private list.
>>
>> People have the option of posting anonymously if they wish.
>
> Of course. But IMO manners have a place here, as they do in most public
> forums. Perhaps you could consider a career in politics?
>
Politics is part of the problem. Law enforcement is engaging in
foot-dragging politics as women are assaulted en masse; and Larry is
pretending that law enforcement foot-dragging politics means that no crime
is occurring.
>> Again, I am sorry if my posts have offended Joybelle. That is not my
>> intent.
>
> I wouldn't know, you'd have to ask Joy.
>
Joy, I am sorry if I have offended you. That is not my intent. My intent
is to discuss the obstetric crimes as often as possible in hopes that some
women will read and avoid the obstetric crimes.
>>> Until recently you responded on a more human levels
>>> to individual posters and showed more respect for that thin line in the
>>> sand
>>> that is netiquette, and I appreciated that.
>>
>> Included in "netiquette" is intellectually HONEST argumentation.
>>
>> When THAT "thin line in the sand" of netiquette is crossed - I responed
>> accordingly and point out the intellectually dishonest argumentation as I
>> did in response to Barbara/Circe's reply to me.
>>
>> So far Barbara/Circe has not yet acknowledged having falsely inferred that
>> I
>> said something which I did not say.
>
> She probably didn't want to appear in the "Gastaldo Times".
>
LOL! Gastaldo Times!
What does Ericka hope to achieve by lying?!
Why not ask about THAT breach of "netiquette"?
And - more importantly - why is prominent childbirth educator Henci Goer
silent about obstetricians closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth
canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck?
WHY is Ericka publicly pretending that Henci addresses this?
Inquiring minds - this one at least - wants to know!
I appreciate this, Amy.
But law enforcement is looking the other way.
That does NOT mean that obstetricians aren't committing the crimes I allege.
Larry has publicly indicated that the obstetric crimes I allege are NOT
crimes. With law enforcement looking the other way, Larry is not only not
helping to identify the crimes as crimes - he is - without offering
substantive critism - encouraging OTHERS to look the other way - thereby
FURTHER concealing the crimes.
Ericka has LIED in response to my point about prominent childbirth educator
Henci Goer failing to address the fact that obstetricians are closing birth
canals up to 30%, etc.
Larry and Ericka are engaging in CRAPPY "netiquette" - intellectually
dishonest argumentation.
Larry and Ericka are sometimes named as having influenced decisions/helped
people - their opinions count - they are well-liked - and I am saying -
frankly - I don't care whether they are well-liked - CRIME is being
committed - law enforcement is looking the other way - and these two
well-liked people aren't helping.
> I don't _always_ agree with the way you do it. Do you want to be
> a one man army?
NO! But if I am the only one calling Ericka and Larry on their bullshit -
so be it. I believe 100% of babies would NOT want me "being political" -
ignoring their bullshit. Rather, I believe 100% would want me calling
attention to it - as long as the obstetric crime is ongoing.
> Do you suppose public opinion of you as an anti-social kook
> helps your cause?
When you ignore Ericka's silence and Larry's blithe "NOT" - and criticize ME
as "an anti-social kook" because I won't let it slide - you are contributing
to that public perception of me.
It was nice, though, that you followed up with...
> FWIW, I think you're a pleasant person and your material
> is well-researched - *but* you have a knack of alienating people.
I have a knack of speaking truth to power to stop power from committing
crime - and Ericka and Larry have a knack of behaving as if power has the
right to commit crime.
> It's your
> battle,
I sincerely believe 100% of babies would want EVERYONE saying:
GASTALDO'S RIGHT - MASSIVE OBSTETRIC CRIME **IS** BEING COMMITTED AGAINST
MOTHERS AND BABIES - AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND HENCI "THE-OTHER-SIDE" GOER ARE
LOOKING THE OTHER WAY - WITH LARRY McMAHAN PRETENDING OTHERWISE REGARDING
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ERICKA PRETENDING OTHERWISE REGARDING HENCI...
If it weren't for the obstetric lies and the fact that vaginas and infant
penises were being sliced not to mention babies experiencing unexplained
brain bleeds, unexplained paralyses, and unexplained deaths - I would not be
so tenacious.
Why IS Erickka lying?
Where DOES Larry get off blithely saying crime is NOT occurring and offering
no substantive criticism and only (in effect) saying what Steve B. Harris,
MD so arrogantly says:
"Without enforcement, there is no
law. Without law, there is no crime. These are elementary principles. Get
an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
> but IMO attacking Ericka and Larry who hold similar opinions to your
> own
Bullshit!
Ericka is LYING. Why?
Where DOES Larry get off blithely saying crime is NOT occurring and offering
no substantive criticism and only (in effect) saying what Steve B. Harris,
MD so arrogantly says:
"Without enforcement, there is no
law. Without law, there is no crime. These are elementary principles. Get
an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
Ericka and Larry are (respectively) DIAMETRICALLY opposed to KEY opinions I
hold: Prominent childbirth educators should not fail to mention that
obstetricians are keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when
babies get stuck - and such crime should be identified as crime and
stopped/NOW.
Again, I sincerely believe 100% of babies would agree. They are not here -
they are being harmed senselessly. Until that stops, I will be here to
persistently protest.
> in a culture where formula feeding, circumcision and surgical birth are
> the norm is counterproductive. Disagree, by all means, but do you have to
> try to publicly discredit them?
Sorry to repeat myself but...
Why IS Erickka lying?
Where DOES Larry get off blithely saying crime is NOT occurring and offering
no substantive criticism and only (in effect) saying what Steve B. Harris,
MD so arrogantly says:
"Without enforcement, there is no
law. Without law, there is no crime. These are elementary principles. Get
an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
> I'm afraid to respond to a thread of yours for ending up quoted out of
> context in the headlines.
> I don't feel like debating this any further, as
> I'm getting one of Barbara's headaches.
Barbara (Circe) has TWICE falsely inferred that I have said something I did
not say.
I am sorry she got a headache. I am sorry you got a headache.
I do not take kindly to falsehoods - or to people suggesting that people who
express falsehoods are stating opinions similar to my own.
> If you were my father, I would have
> thrown a lemon at your head by now. I love him dearly, but I had to take
> migraine medication for years to be able to live with him. I don't want to
> have to resort to that again.
>
I know nothing about your father except that thanks in part to him you are
here to speak up when you feel the need to do so.
I take the same liberty.
Women should not have to ASK for the "extra" room in the birth canal.
Women should not have to ask not to have their vaginas sliced to open birth
canals even as obstetricians close birth canals the "extra" up to 30%.
Women don't know to ask.
Obstetricians are committing rather obvious mass sexual assault (by their
own definition!) - and Larry says crime is NOT occurring.
Bullshit.
Todd
PS Hitchhiking on your headache theme...
I am thinking that slicing the vagina does often get the baby out quicker...
So from the perspective of reducing literal headache pain - slicing vaginas
is good with birth canals senselessly closed the "extra" up to 30%.
Mum of Two
censored ;-)
>> I think your original post was helpful and polite. As usual, the thread
>> got
>> way off track and descended into personal attacks. Mind you, I'm not the
>> usenet posting police, so I'm going to shut up now.
>>
>
> I am not the usenet posting police either - but I say in my usenet posting
> that obstetricians ARE committing major crimes against mothers and babies.
>
> Larry McMahan says in his usenet posting that obstetricians are NOT
> committing major crimes against mothers and babies.
On a technicality, going by current USA law and the enforcement of said law,
Larry is probably right. On moral terms, you're right. Morally, Larry may
agree with you - I'm not sure, you'd have to ask him. That's why I find
arguing the point a little senseless.
> I'm assuming that Larry is referring to more than "just" the mass vagina
> slicing to open birth canals even as obstetricians close birth canals the
> "extra" up to 30%.
>
> Here it is 2005 and obstetricians are still fraudulently telling women
> they
> are preventing severe tears.
>
> Ignoring research - slicing vaginas and telling lies instead of obtaining
> informed consent - that is MASS BATTERY.
>
> The ONLY thing sustaining it is law enforcement looking the other way.
>
> Law enforcement is looking the other way because LOTS of people are
> failing
> to identify the obvious crime as crime.
>
> Larry could have simply remained silent. Instead he decided to state
> affirmatively that crime is NOT occurring.
He said it was substandard care, didn't he? Unfortunately, at many hospitals
and in parts of the USA that care probably *is* standard. I believe calling
it substandard may be an understatement, but it's accurate. If it's
standard, then there's a real problem with what we're setting our standards
by.
> Larry is indirectly aiding and abetting in the senseless mass vagina
> slicing.
PMSL! I know this is a serious subject, but do you realise how funny that
line looks?
>>> MKP/misc.kids.pregnancy is a usenet newsgroup NOT a private list.
>>>
>>> People have the option of posting anonymously if they wish.
>>
>> Of course. But IMO manners have a place here, as they do in most public
>> forums. Perhaps you could consider a career in politics?
>>
>
> Politics is part of the problem. Law enforcement is engaging in
> foot-dragging politics as women are assaulted en masse; and Larry is
> pretending that law enforcement foot-dragging politics means that no crime
> is occurring.
I was being facetious and mildly insulting.
>>> Larry snipped my correction along with my mention of his bizarre
>>> "obstetric
>>> crime is substandard care" came - and jumped in with his concern for
>>> netiquette.
I don't think usenetters always snip with the intent of being intellectually
dishonest. Sometimes they snip because it's just too darn long for everyone
to re-read. The original post is still there for others to read. I sometimes
snip indiscriminately if the part snipped is irrrelevant to the point I'm
replying to, as you can see.
>>> I say again: Larry is blithely calling massive obstetric crimes against
>>> babies mere standard "substandard" care.
>>>
>>> So far as I can see, the only leg Larry has to stand on is the sordid
>>> fact
>>> that law enforcement is failing to enforce.
>>>
>>> As Steve B. Harris, MD arrogantly notes:
>>>
>>> "Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
>>> These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
Steve may be arrogant, but he may also be an arrogant correct asshole. The
fact that he's correct *is* the problem in this case. And as far as I can
see, it also makes Larry technically correct.
>>> That is the problem! No enforcement!
See above.
>>> Ericka publicly lied - said that Henci Goer discusses in her books the
>>> fact
>>> that obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth
>>> canals closed when babies get stuck - and lying to cover-up.
Lying is a strong word. I think to prove that Ericka lied, you'd have to
prove that she was consciously aware that the statement she made was
incorrect at the time she made it. I don't see how you could do that. I have
not read Henci Goer, but if Ericka is incorrect about her books, my first
thought would be that Ericka had mixed up Henci's book with another, or
recalled incorrectly. Why would she set out to deliberately deceive the
readers of MKP, and how can you prove that?
I'm not - intentionally - criticising you with that statement, and I don't
think you're an anti-social kook. I've seen words to that effect bandied
about a bit here recently in regards to your posts.
> It was nice, though, that you followed up with...
>
>> FWIW, I think you're a pleasant person and your material
>> is well-researched - *but* you have a knack of alienating people.
>
> I have a knack of speaking truth to power to stop power from committing
> crime - and Ericka and Larry have a knack of behaving as if power has the
> right to commit crime.
People in power around the world commit all kinds of heinous crimes. Perhaps
Ericka & Larry have just picked their battles, and that wasn't one of them?
That doesn't, in my opinion, constitute the condoning of the rights of those
in power to commit crimes.
Ericka Kammerer
> Lying is a strong word. I think to prove that Ericka lied, you'd have to
> prove that she was consciously aware that the statement she made was
> incorrect at the time she made it. I don't see how you could do that. I have
> not read Henci Goer, but if Ericka is incorrect about her books, my first
> thought would be that Ericka had mixed up Henci's book with another, or
> recalled incorrectly. Why would she set out to deliberately deceive the
> readers of MKP, and how can you prove that?
No, Ericka is quite clear on what Henci Goer has
written, and anyone short of a two year old would clearly
understand that Henci promotes optimal birthing positions.
But, because she doesn't use precisely the words that Todd
prefers and because she doesn't go around screeching about
crimes and calling people names, and because she doesn't
say it on every page of every book or article she writes,
he refuses to acknowledge that she does so. Todd is free
to call that "lying" if he chooses, but I don't have to
play along.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Todd Gastaldo
30% and it is easy for you to allow your birth canals to OPEN the "extra" up
to 30%.
See Dents in babies' skulls (and SJ Doc)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3897
BABIES AND LARRY McMAHAN'S NONSENSE
Standard care cannot be "substandard"...
Larry pretends that obstetric crime is NOT occurring (NOT is Larry's
emphasis) - even though obstetricians are lying and slicing vaginas en
masse.
In fact, obvious battery is occurring.
ERICKA'S HENCI GOER JOKE - AGAIN
Maybe Amy (Mum of Two) is right - maybe Ericka is just mixed up (see below).
I kind of hope that's the case - but I doubt it.
Maybe Larry is just mixed up too...
The question is: Why is prominent childbirth educator HENCI GOER silent
about obstetricians closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals
closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck?
Henci would STRENGTHEN her arguments by stating these simple facts - yet
Larry pretends otherwise - further nonsense from Larry...
See below.
AMY (MUM OF TWO) WROTE:
>>> I think your original post was helpful and polite. As usual, the thread
>>> got
>>> way off track and descended into personal attacks. Mind you, I'm not the
>>> usenet posting police, so I'm going to shut up now.
>>>
I REPLIED:
>>
>> I am not the usenet posting police either - but I say in my usenet posting
>> that obstetricians ARE committing major crimes against mothers and babies.
>>
>> Larry McMahan says in his usenet posting that obstetricians are NOT
>> committing major crimes against mothers and babies.
AMY NOW SAYS:
>
> On a technicality, going by current USA law and the enforcement of said law,
> Larry is probably right. On moral terms, you're right. Morally, Larry may
> agree with you - I'm not sure, you'd have to ask him. That's why I find
> arguing the point a little senseless.
>
Larry has indicated that no crime is being committed.
Obstetricians are fraudulently telling women that their vaginas are being
sliced to prevent severe tears - when the evidence is that episiotomized
women suffer 50X more severe tears than women who are not episiotomized...
Obstetricians are fraudulently claiming to be slicing vaginas to open birth
canals - even as birth canals are being senselessly closed up to 30%...
It's obvious crime - obvious battery.
The "technicality" - law enforcement failing to enforce the crime - does NOT
mean a crime is not being committed.
Larry is simply wrong.
>> I'm assuming that Larry is referring to more than "just" the mass vagina
>> slicing to open birth canals even as obstetricians close birth canals the
>> "extra" up to 30%.
>>
>> Here it is 2005 and obstetricians are still fraudulently telling women
>> they
>> are preventing severe tears.
>>
>> Ignoring research - slicing vaginas and telling lies instead of obtaining
>> informed consent - that is MASS BATTERY.
>>
>> The ONLY thing sustaining it is law enforcement looking the other way.
>>
>> Law enforcement is looking the other way because LOTS of people are
>> failing
>> to identify the obvious crime as crime.
>>
>> Larry could have simply remained silent. Instead he decided to state
>> affirmatively that crime is NOT occurring.
>
> He said it was substandard care, didn't he?
>
Thank you for bring up this aspect of Larry's error.
As you note:
> Unfortunately, at many hospitals
> and in parts of the USA that care probably *is* standard.
> I believe calling
> it substandard may be an understatement, but it's accurate.
Calling something that is standard "substandard" is error.
> If it's
> standard, then there's a real problem with what we're setting our standards
> by.
>
If it's standard care, then it's not substandard care.
>> Larry is indirectly aiding and abetting in the senseless mass vagina
>> slicing.
>
> PMSL! I know this is a serious subject, but do you realise how funny that
> line looks?
>
I don't know what PMSL means - but as long as people fail to identify
obvious crime - law enforcement will continue to look the other way - and
obstetricians will continue to commit it.
>>>> MKP/misc.kids.pregnancy is a usenet newsgroup NOT a private list.
>>>>
>>>> People have the option of posting anonymously if they wish.
>>>
>>> Of course. But IMO manners have a place here, as they do in most public
>>> forums. Perhaps you could consider a career in politics?
>>>
>>
>> Politics is part of the problem. Law enforcement is engaging in
>> foot-dragging politics as women are assaulted en masse; and Larry is
>> pretending that law enforcement foot-dragging politics means that no crime
>> is occurring.
>
> I was being facetious and mildly insulting.
>
LOL! Insulting me after saying "Manners have a place here."
>>>> Larry snipped my correction along with my mention of his bizarre
>>>> "obstetric
>>>> crime is substandard care" came - and jumped in with his concern for
>>>> netiquette.
>
> I don't think usenetters always snip with the intent of being intellectually
> dishonest.
Larry snipped my mention of his intellectual dishonesty - his standard
"substandard" care nonsense - then embellished with further intellectual
dishonesty by tooting the "netiquette" bandwagon horn.
You just supported his standard "substandard" care nonsense.
If care is standard, it cannot be substandard.
> Sometimes they snip because it's just too darn long for everyone
> to re-read.
Re-reading is not necessary. With the quote-back system one can QUICKLY
scroll and read interspersions in the original full text.
> The original post is still there for others to read. I sometimes
> snip indiscriminately if the part snipped is irrrelevant to the point I'm
> replying to, as you can see.
>
Larry snipping my criticism of his standard "substandard" care nonsense was
either indiscriminate snipping - or - as I am assuming - it was quite
discriminate - he wanted to toot the "netiquette" bandwagon horn to cover-up
HIS bad "netiquette" (intellectual dishonesty) - thereby engaging in further
intellectual dishonesty.
>>>> I say again: Larry is blithely calling massive obstetric crimes against
>>>> babies mere standard "substandard" care.
>>>>
>>>> So far as I can see, the only leg Larry has to stand on is the sordid
>>>> fact
>>>> that law enforcement is failing to enforce.
>>>>
>>>> As Steve B. Harris, MD arrogantly notes:
>>>>
>>>> "Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
>>>> These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
>
> Steve may be arrogant, but he may also be an arrogant correct asshole.
I don't think there is any question that Steve B. Harris, MD is an arrogant
asshole. He is also committing crime. He acknowledges crime is being
committed against children and fails to report it. Failure to report child
abuse is a child abuse crime because it can perpetuate child abuse.
Larry is similarly engaging in failing to report child abuse - but unlike
Steve, I don't think Larry is mandated to report it.
> The
> fact that [Steve B. Harris, MD is] correct *is* the problem in this case.
We agree to this point.
> And as far as I can
> see, it also makes Larry technically correct.
>
No, Larry is not saying what Steve B. Harris, MD is saying.
Rather, Larry is saying that the mass vagina slicing is NOT crime - PERIOD.
Larry's standard "substandard" care nonsense embellishes his false
assertion.
>>>> That is the problem! No enforcement!
>
> See above.
>
>>>> Ericka publicly lied - said that Henci Goer discusses in her books the
>>>> fact
>>>> that obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth
>>>> canals closed when babies get stuck - and lying to cover-up.
>
> Lying is a strong word. I think to prove that Ericka lied, you'd have to
> prove that she was consciously aware that the statement she made was
> incorrect at the time she made it. I don't see how you could do that.
Ericka is either stupid or she is lying/intentionally deceiving.
When I noted that Henci is failing to mention the OB lies...
Ericka replied:
"You keep harping on this, but she says clear as can be
(in OMvRR) 'The lithotomy position is the worst position because
it increases the incidence of fetal distress, the mother pushes
the baby uphill, and her pelvis, made flexible by the influence
of pregnancy hormones, is fixed in position by the delivery
table.' She also cites several studies and reviews promoting
upright positions. Heck, she even uses your favorite term
'lying' when describing the mismanagement of labor and 'CPD.'"
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/e01438b50a337c72
I replied:
"Good one Ericka!...NOWHERE (in your quoting of her) does she say lithotomy
CLOSES...Nowhere does she say that SEMISITTING closes...Nowhere does she say
that OBs are KEEPING birth canals closed the 'extra' 30% when babies get
stuck...These are key lies of omission....I will keep harping until she
stops lying by omission...Good joke, though!"
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/aa16e8654b160ba2
> I have
> not read Henci Goer,
I have - I was hoping that Ericka was right - that I somehow missed Henci
mentioning that obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping
birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.
> but if Ericka is incorrect about her books, my first
> thought would be that Ericka had mixed up Henci's book with another, or
> recalled incorrectly.
Yes, and that would be a good first thought.
> Why would she set out to deliberately deceive the
> readers of MKP, and how can you prove that?
>
Let's assume for argument's sake that Ericka is just mixed up.
Why would prominent childbirth educator HENCI GOER fail to tell readers that
obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals
closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck?
Why would Henci fail to mention the Four OB Lies? (They are whoppers!)
Here is my exchange with Larry McMahan on this very subject...
>>>>>BEGIN Gastaldo's Feb. 26, 2004 post: Larry McMahan and Henci Goer and The
White Elephant Fact...
5. Todd Gastaldo Feb 26 2004, 3:41 pm show options
Newsgroups: misc.kids.pregnancy, misc.health.alternative, sci.med
From: "Todd Gastaldo" <tgasta...@earthlink.net> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:41:03 GMT
Local: Thurs, Feb 26 2004 3:41 pm
Subject: Larry McMahan and Henci Goer and The White Elephant Fact...
Reply to Author| Forward| Print| Individual Message| Show original| Report
Abuse
MDs are CAUSING cephalopelvic disproportion then performing cesareans
BEcause of cephalopelvic disproportion.
Yet Henci Goer left this important fact out of her article on OB
disinformation about cesareans, oxytocin and prostaglandins, etc. (!)
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/disinformation.asp
INTENTIONAL SILENCE on a key point = DISINFORMATION
Could Henci Goer be engaging in a disinformation campaign (silence on a key
point) to help OBs in THEIR disinformation campaign - to HELP OBs COVER UP a
fact that could quickly expose and stop the grisly behaviors that OBs are
trying to cover-up with their disinformation campaign?
How much would the obstetric trade unions and obstetrician-owned malpractice
liability insurers pay under the table to experts for the "other side" who
intentionally remain silent about a key point?
We must ask ourselves...
WHY - in her article about cesareans, oxytocin, prostaglandins *did* Henci
fail to mention THE WHITE ELEPHANT FACT that Larry McMahan indicates she has
stated elsewhere (see below)...
Why did Henci fail to mention that MDs are routinely closing birth canals up
to 30%?
Why did Henci fail to mention that MDs are CAUSING cephalopelvic
disproportion then performing cesareans BEcause of cephalopelvic
disproportion?
Why Henci fail to tell women that it is EASY for women to allow their birth
canals to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%?
Shouldn't the key point mentioned above - the fact that MDs are senselessly
closing birth canals - and how to OPEN the birth canal - be in EVERY article
about birth until MDs stop their bizarre birth-canal-closing behavior?
I'm asking these questions in reply to Larry McMahan's response to:
Henci Goer's mysterious silence about a White Elephant Fact
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2336
I reply further below...
Interspersions #####
[Gastaldo quoted Henci Goer writing:]
> : "We seem to have spent the last few years reeling from assault after
assault
> : on the concept of normal birth. Have you wondered, as I have, what is
going
> : on? Why is our side of the story nowhere to be heard?"
> : --The Assault on Normal Birth: The OB Disinformation Campaign
> : by HENCI GOER Midwifery Today, August 2002
> : http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/disinformation.asp
> : PREGNANT WOMEN....Most all of Henci Goer's work is EXCELLENT - but I'm
Larry McMahan replied:
> You are damned right about that. I would say that she has been more
> effective in taking on the medical obstetric complex and exposing
> their lies and disinformation than any other single human being!
> : wondering WHY - in an article about cesareans, oxytocin,
prostaglandins -
> : she failed to mention THE WHITE ELEPHANT FACT that MDs are routinely
closing
> : birth canals up to 30%...
Larry replied:
> Todd. I think I can answer this question. There are several reasons.
> 1. Fewer OBs are doing this than, say, 20 years ago.
### False. Semisitting is now routine and closes the birth canal JUST like
dorsal - just with more force. Just the fact that there are more OBs than
20 years ago suggests there are more OBs closing birth canals **with more
force** "than, say, 20 years ago." (!) Semisitting and dorsal are the most
common medical delivery positions!
> 2. OBs are doing other disingenuous things, such as waging
disinformation
> campaigns that distort the truth. These get more of her attention.
### MOST "other disingenuous things" OBs do - the very things OBs wage
disinformation campaigns to cover-up - are affected by OBs closing birth
canals!
> 3. It isn't the only questionable OB practice, and perhaps not the most
> horrific, compared, say to the use of cytotec, early inductions,
etc.
### See ARRGGGHHH! below...
> 4. She has spoken out about position, she just doesn't make it the
> centerpiece of her campaign like you do.
### My bet is that Henci has never stated explicitly that OBs are
senselessly closing birth canals. My bet is that she has stated that
"squatting opens" - or something like it - but never "semisitting closes"...
I would *love* to hear otherwise Larry - but regardless - your explanation
does not explain. I'm STILL (now more than ever) wondering WHY - in her
article about cesareans, oxytocin, prostaglandins -
Henci failed to mention THE WHITE ELEPHANT FACT (that you indicate she has
stated) that MDs are routinely closing birth canals up to 30%... Why would
she fail to STRENGTHEN HER ARGUMENT by mentioning this bizarre obstetric
behavior?
> When there are so many bad things to combat, you have to pick your
battles.
### ARRGGGHHH! Sorry to get E-motional but Henci's "bad things to combat"
are MADE WORSE by the "bad thing" called "OBs senselessly closing birth
canals." (!) This is MOST horrific.
### WHY would she ignore a SIMPLE way to strengthen her own argument?!
### I'm STILL (now more than ever) wondering WHY - in her article about
cesareans, oxytocin, prostaglandins -
Henci failed to mention THE WHITE ELEPHANT FACT (that you indicate she has
stated) that MDs are routinely closing birth canals up to 30%...
### Larry concluded...
> I personally give Henci a great deal of credit for picking the right
> battles to have the most positive effect. Maybe you should, too.
### Larry, EACH of Henci's "right battles" would only be STRENGTHENED were
she to join "my" battle and explicitly state in all of her articles that MDs
are routinely closing birth canals up to 30%!
### Again, I pose the following questions...
### COULD Henci Goer be engaging in a disinformation campaign of silence on
a key point to help OBs in THEIR disinformation campaign - to HELP COVER UP
a fact that could quickly expose and stop the grisly behaviors that OBs are
trying to cover-up with their disinformation campaign?
### Why did Henci fail to mention that MDs are routinely closing birth
canals up to 30%?
### Why - in an article about cesarean sections - did Henci fail to mention
that MDs are CAUSING cephalopelvic disproportion then performing cesareans
BEcause of cephalopelvic disproportion?
### Why did Henci fail to tell women that it is EASY for women to allow
their birth canals to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%?
### With MDs senselessly closing birth canals - shouldn't this fact - and
how to OPEN the birth canal - be in EVERY article about birth until MDs stop
their bizarre birth-canal-closing behavior?
### I think 100% of babies would answer with an emphatic YES.
### Sincerely,
### Todd
### Dr. Gastaldo (t...@chiromotion.com)
### I'll copy this post to to Henci at goers...@aol.com
PS Larry didn't respond to a point I made in the post to which he
responded...
I wrote:
Henci isn't the only silent party!
See again: ICAN and The Pink Kit: a dark side (Wintergreen is wrong)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2279
And CNMwifery Prof. Helen Varny PROMOTES closing the birth canal!
See again: UNM CNMwife: 'If a woman panics at any time...'
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2320
Obstetricians couldn't PAY for better "opponents"/"cesarean opposition." (!)
>>>>END excerpt of my note to Larry...
Larry, how do you account for CNMwifery Prof. Varny ignoring my pleas and
PROMOTING closing the birth canal?
I urge everyone to put this question to CNMwives everywhere.
How hard can it really be to cause MDs and CNMwives to stop closing birth
canals?
How hard can it really be for experts on "our side" (Henci's phrase) to at
least MENTION that MDs (and CNMwives!) are closing birth canals and how EASY
it is for women to allow their birth canals to OPEN maximally?
Ericka Kammerer wrote on Feb. 25, 2004:
"[Henci Goer is] speaking just down the road from me tomorrow..."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=403D...
Apparently, Henci is giving a presentation today.
Again...
How much would the obstetric trade unions and obstetrician-owned malpractice
liability insurers pay under the table to experts for the "other side" who
intentionally remain silent about a key point?
Shouldn't the key point - the fact that MDs are senselessly closing birth
canals - and how to OPEN the birth canal - be in EVERY article (every
presentation too!) until MDs stop their bizarre birth-canal-closing
behavior?
I think 100% of babies would answer with an emphatic YES.
Larry may be right about Henci "picking the right battles to have the most
positive effect" - but the positive effect of silence about MDs closing
birth canals is on OBSTETRICIANS - not babies!
Hopefully Henci just FORGOT what Larry says she has stated elsewhere.
If so, she will no doubt be GLAD I've copied her - GLAD I've reminded her to
finally join a "battle" so pertinent to the battles she has picked (see
above)...
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
t...@chiromotion.com
Again, I'm copying Henci via goers...@aol.com.
Maybe she will see this post (and my previous one) before her presentation
in Ericka Kammerer's area tonite (see above)...
This post will be archived for global access at:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2337
Within 24 hours it will be in the Google groups archive. Search
http://groups.google.com for "Larry McMahan and Henci Goer and The White
Elephant Fact"
>>>>>>END Larry McMahan and Henci Goer and The White Elephant Fact...
BACK TO AMY (MUM OF TWO)...
I wrote:
Thank you for clarifying. I do not think I am an anti-social kook either.
:)
>> It was nice, though, that you followed up with...
>>
>>> FWIW, I think you're a pleasant person and your material
>>> is well-researched - *but* you have a knack of alienating people.
>>
>> I have a knack of speaking truth to power to stop power from committing
>> crime - and Ericka and Larry have a knack of behaving as if power has the
>> right to commit crime.
>
> People in power around the world commit all kinds of heinous crimes. Perhaps
> Ericka & Larry have just picked their battles, and that wasn't one of them?
Larry said it is NOT crime when obstetricians lie to women and slice their
vaginas.
Larry embellished with standard "substandard" care nonsense.
And regarding your notion that "Ericka & Larry have just picked their
battles" - check out Larry's FURTHER nonsense above: Larry pretends that
pointing out the Four OB Lies would detract from Henci Goer's arguments!
That is pure poppycock - pointing out the Four OB Lies would only strengthen
Henci Goer's arguments.
> That doesn't, in my opinion, constitute the condoning of the rights of those
> in power to commit crimes.
>
Failing to IDENTIFY crime as crime does not help solve the problem - law
enforcement looking the other way.
Larry could have remained silent.
Larry chose instead to say it is NOT crime.
Since the crime is ongoing.
Since the crime is related to OTHER crimes - i.e. - closing birth canals up
to 30% and obstetricians lying about THAT...
Since there are unexplained baby deaths, etc.
Since women should not have to ASK for the "extra" up to 30%.
Since most women don't KNOW to ask...
I keep identifying the crime.
Larry's nonsense helps me do that.
In that sense (and that sense only) I appreciate Larry's nonsense.
It would be better though if both Larry and Ericka acknowledged the obvious
obstetric crimes and joined me in urging EVERYONE to do so.
Obstetricians are LYING and babies are DYING.
Again, to read the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers)...
See Dents in babies' skulls (and SJ Doc)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3897
Law enforcement cannot keep looking the other way forever - and the more
people who are publicly identifying the crimes as crimes will speed an end
to the bizarre law enforcement behavior.
As always, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical
students, MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.
Thanks for reading everyone.
Sincerely,
Todd
Todd Gastaldo
Amy (Mum of Two) wrote:
>
>> Lying is a strong word. I think to prove that Ericka lied, you'd have to
>> prove that she was consciously aware that the statement she made was
>> incorrect at the time she made it. I don't see how you could do that. I have
>> not read Henci Goer, but if Ericka is incorrect about her books, my first
>> thought would be that Ericka had mixed up Henci's book with another, or
>> recalled incorrectly. Why would she set out to deliberately deceive the
>> readers of MKP, and how can you prove that?
Ericka Kammerer replied:
>
> No, Ericka is quite clear on what Henci Goer has
> written, and anyone short of a two year old would clearly
> understand that Henci promotes optimal birthing positions.
> But, because she doesn't use precisely the words that Todd
> prefers and because she doesn't go around screeching about
> crimes and calling people names, and because she doesn't
> say it on every page of every book or article she writes,
> he refuses to acknowledge that she does so. Todd is free
> to call that "lying" if he chooses, but I don't have to
> play along.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ericka
Arrggghhh.
See Ericka's quote from Henci's book below.
Henci Goer does NOT say that semisitting closes the birth canal up to 30%
and that obstetricians KEEP women semisitting (keep birth canals closed the
"extra" up to 30%) when babies get stuck!
Ericka takes me to task for "screeching"...
I "screech" about this obvious obstetric crime because it IS a crime.
BABIES "screech" into electronic fetal heart rate monitors - and sometimes
die unexplained deaths - with women totally unaware that their birth canals
are being senselessly closed the "extra" up to 30%.
This is so sad.
Arrggghhhh.
Todd
PS Here is my recent post - which includes Larry McMahan's standard
"substandard" care nonsense - and his further nonsense - about Henci
Goer....
PREGNANT WOMEN: Obstetricians are senselessly closing birth canals up to
30% and it is easy for you to allow your birth canals to OPEN the "extra" up
to 30%.
See Dents in babies' skulls (and SJ Doc)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3897
BABIES AND LARRY McMAHAN'S NONSENSE
Standard care cannot be "substandard"...
Larry pretends that obstetric crime is NOT occurring (NOT is Larry's
emphasis) - even though obstetricians are lying and slicing vaginas en
masse.
In fact, obvious battery is occurring.
ERICKA'S HENCI GOER JOKE - AGAIN
Maybe Amy (Mum of Two) is right - maybe Ericka is just mixed up (see below).
I kind of hope that's the case - but I doubt it.
Maybe Larry is just mixed up too...
The question is: Why is prominent childbirth educator HENCI GOER silent
about obstetricians closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals
closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck?
Henci would STRENGTHEN her arguments by stating these simple facts - yet
Larry pretends otherwise - further nonsense from Larry...
See below.
AMY (MUM OF TWO) WROTE:
>>> I think your original post was helpful and polite. As usual, the thread
>>> got
>>> way off track and descended into personal attacks. Mind you, I'm not the
>>> usenet posting police, so I'm going to shut up now.
>>>
I REPLIED:
>>
>> I am not the usenet posting police either - but I say in my usenet posting
>> that obstetricians ARE committing major crimes against mothers and babies.
>>
>> Larry McMahan says in his usenet posting that obstetricians are NOT
>> committing major crimes against mothers and babies.
AMY NOW SAYS:
>
> On a technicality, going by current USA law and the enforcement of said law,
> Larry is probably right. On moral terms, you're right. Morally, Larry may
> agree with you - I'm not sure, you'd have to ask him. That's why I find
> arguing the point a little senseless.
>
Larry has indicated that no crime is being committed.
Obstetricians are fraudulently telling women that their vaginas are being
sliced to prevent severe tears - when the evidence is that episiotomized
women suffer 50X more severe tears than women who are not episiotomized...
Obstetricians are fraudulently claiming to be slicing vaginas to open birth
canals - even as birth canals are being senselessly closed up to 30%...
It's obvious crime - obvious battery.
The "technicality" - law enforcement failing to enforce the crime - does NOT
mean a crime is not being committed.
Larry is simply wrong.
>> I'm assuming that Larry is referring to more than "just" the mass vagina
>> slicing to open birth canals even as obstetricians close birth canals the
>> "extra" up to 30%.
>>
>> Here it is 2005 and obstetricians are still fraudulently telling women
>> they
>> are preventing severe tears.
>>
>> Ignoring research - slicing vaginas and telling lies instead of obtaining
>> informed consent - that is MASS BATTERY.
>>
>> The ONLY thing sustaining it is law enforcement looking the other way.
>>
>> Law enforcement is looking the other way because LOTS of people are
>> failing
>> to identify the obvious crime as crime.
>>
>> Larry could have simply remained silent. Instead he decided to state
>> affirmatively that crime is NOT occurring.
>
> He said it was substandard care, didn't he?
>
Thank you for bring up this aspect of Larry's error.
As you note:
> Unfortunately, at many hospitals
> and in parts of the USA that care probably *is* standard.
> I believe calling
> it substandard may be an understatement, but it's accurate.
Calling something that is standard "substandard" is error.
> If it's
> standard, then there's a real problem with what we're setting our standards
> by.
>
If it's standard care, then it's not substandard care.
>> Larry is indirectly aiding and abetting in the senseless mass vagina
>> slicing.
>
> PMSL! I know this is a serious subject, but do you realise how funny that
> line looks?
>
I don't know what PMSL means - but as long as people fail to identify
obvious crime - law enforcement will continue to look the other way - and
obstetricians will continue to commit it.
>>>> MKP/misc.kids.pregnancy is a usenet newsgroup NOT a private list.
>>>>
>>>> People have the option of posting anonymously if they wish.
>>>
>>> Of course. But IMO manners have a place here, as they do in most public
>>> forums. Perhaps you could consider a career in politics?
>>>
>>
>> Politics is part of the problem. Law enforcement is engaging in
>> foot-dragging politics as women are assaulted en masse; and Larry is
>> pretending that law enforcement foot-dragging politics means that no crime
>> is occurring.
>
> I was being facetious and mildly insulting.
>
LOL! Insulting me after saying "Manners have a place here."
>>>> Larry snipped my correction along with my mention of his bizarre
>>>> "obstetric
>>>> crime is substandard care" came - and jumped in with his concern for
>>>> netiquette.
>
> I don't think usenetters always snip with the intent of being intellectually
> dishonest.
Larry snipped my mention of his intellectual dishonesty - his standard
"substandard" care nonsense - then embellished with further intellectual
dishonesty by tooting the "netiquette" bandwagon horn.
You just supported his standard "substandard" care nonsense.
If care is standard, it cannot be substandard.
> Sometimes they snip because it's just too darn long for everyone
> to re-read.
Re-reading is not necessary. With the quote-back system one can QUICKLY
scroll and read interspersions in the original full text.
> The original post is still there for others to read. I sometimes
> snip indiscriminately if the part snipped is irrrelevant to the point I'm
> replying to, as you can see.
>
Larry snipping my criticism of his standard "substandard" care nonsense was
either indiscriminate snipping - or - as I am assuming - it was quite
discriminate - he wanted to toot the "netiquette" bandwagon horn to cover-up
HIS bad "netiquette" (intellectual dishonesty) - thereby engaging in further
intellectual dishonesty.
>>>> I say again: Larry is blithely calling massive obstetric crimes against
>>>> babies mere standard "substandard" care.
>>>>
>>>> So far as I can see, the only leg Larry has to stand on is the sordid
>>>> fact
>>>> that law enforcement is failing to enforce.
>>>>
>>>> As Steve B. Harris, MD arrogantly notes:
>>>>
>>>> "Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
>>>> These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
>
> Steve may be arrogant, but he may also be an arrogant correct asshole.
I don't think there is any question that Steve B. Harris, MD is an arrogant
asshole. He is also committing crime. He acknowledges crime is being
committed against children and fails to report it. Failure to report child
abuse is a child abuse crime because it can perpetuate child abuse.
Larry is similarly engaging in failing to report child abuse - but unlike
Steve, I don't think Larry is mandated to report it.
> The
> fact that [Steve B. Harris, MD is] correct *is* the problem in this case.
We agree to this point.
> And as far as I can
> see, it also makes Larry technically correct.
>
No, Larry is not saying what Steve B. Harris, MD is saying.
Rather, Larry is saying that the mass vagina slicing is NOT crime - PERIOD.
Larry's standard "substandard" care nonsense embellishes his false
assertion.
>>>> That is the problem! No enforcement!
>
> See above.
>
>>>> Ericka publicly lied - said that Henci Goer discusses in her books the
>>>> fact
>>>> that obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth
>>>> canals closed when babies get stuck - and lying to cover-up.
>
> Lying is a strong word. I think to prove that Ericka lied, you'd have to
> prove that she was consciously aware that the statement she made was
> incorrect at the time she made it. I don't see how you could do that.
Ericka is either stupid or she is lying/intentionally deceiving.
When I noted that Henci is failing to mention the OB lies...
Ericka replied:
"You keep harping on this, but she says clear as can be
(in OMvRR) 'The lithotomy position is the worst position because
it increases the incidence of fetal distress, the mother pushes
the baby uphill, and her pelvis, made flexible by the influence
of pregnancy hormones, is fixed in position by the delivery
table.' She also cites several studies and reviews promoting
upright positions. Heck, she even uses your favorite term
'lying' when describing the mismanagement of labor and 'CPD.'"
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/e01438b50a337c72
I replied:
"Good one Ericka!...NOWHERE (in your quoting of her) does she say lithotomy
CLOSES...Nowhere does she say that SEMISITTING closes...Nowhere does she say
that OBs are KEEPING birth canals closed the 'extra' 30% when babies get
stuck...These are key lies of omission....I will keep harping until she
stops lying by omission...Good joke, though!"
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/aa16e8654b160ba2
> I have
> not read Henci Goer,
I have - I was hoping that Ericka was right - that I somehow missed Henci
mentioning that obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping
birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.
> but if Ericka is incorrect about her books, my first
> thought would be that Ericka had mixed up Henci's book with another, or
> recalled incorrectly.
Yes, and that would be a good first thought.
> Why would she set out to deliberately deceive the
> readers of MKP, and how can you prove that?
>
Let's assume for argument's sake that Ericka is just mixed up.
Why would prominent childbirth educator HENCI GOER fail to tell readers that
obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals
closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck?
Why would Henci fail to mention the Four OB Lies? (They are whoppers!)
We must ask ourselves...
I reply further below...
Interspersions #####
Larry McMahan replied:
closing
Larry replied:
etc.
### See ARRGGGHHH! below...
### Larry concluded...
### Sincerely,
### Todd
### Dr. Gastaldo (t...@chiromotion.com)
I wrote:
Again...
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
t...@chiromotion.com
I wrote:
Thank you for clarifying. I do not think I am an anti-social kook either.
:)
>> It was nice, though, that you followed up with...
>>
>>> FWIW, I think you're a pleasant person and your material
>>> is well-researched - *but* you have a knack of alienating people.
>>
>> I have a knack of speaking truth to power to stop power from committing
>> crime - and Ericka and Larry have a knack of behaving as if power has the
>> right to commit crime.
>
> People in power around the world commit all kinds of heinous crimes. Perhaps
> Ericka & Larry have just picked their battles, and that wasn't one of them?
Larry said it is NOT crime when obstetricians lie to women and slice their
vaginas.
Larry embellished with standard "substandard" care nonsense.
And regarding your notion that "Ericka & Larry have just picked their
battles" - check out Larry's FURTHER nonsense above: Larry pretends that
pointing out the Four OB Lies would detract from Henci Goer's arguments!
That is pure poppycock - pointing out the Four OB Lies would only strengthen
Henci Goer's arguments.
> That doesn't, in my opinion, constitute the condoning of the rights of those
> in power to commit crimes.
>
Failing to IDENTIFY crime as crime does not help solve the problem - law
enforcement looking the other way.
Larry could have remained silent.
Larry chose instead to say it is NOT crime.
Since the crime is ongoing.
Since the crime is related to OTHER crimes - i.e. - closing birth canals up
to 30% and obstetricians lying about THAT...
Since there are unexplained baby deaths, etc.
Since women should not have to ASK for the "extra" up to 30%.
Since most women don't KNOW to ask...
I keep identifying the crime.
Larry's nonsense helps me do that.
In that sense (and that sense only) I appreciate Larry's nonsense.
It would be better though if both Larry and Ericka acknowledged the obvious
obstetric crimes and joined me in urging EVERYONE to do so.
Obstetricians are LYING and babies are DYING.
Again, to read the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers)...
See Dents in babies' skulls (and SJ Doc)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3897
Law enforcement cannot keep looking the other way forever - and the more
people who are publicly identifying the crimes as crimes will speed an end
to the bizarre law enforcement behavior.
As always, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical
students, MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.
Thanks for reading everyone.