If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"anyone4tea" wrote in message ups.com... That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about trivial things. Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is misconstrued. Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned. Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after them after miscommunication. Take a chill pill well said c |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
WELL SAID?
Lucy "anyone4tea" said "Well said" to British GP Sarah Vaughan's response to me... I replied with good-humored inflexibility: "I disagree. : )" Lucy then wrote: That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about trivial things. Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is misconstrued. Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned. Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after them after miscommunication. Take a chill pill Lucy, Sarah and I are both against routine infant circumcision - but even there there are significant points of disagreement - for example Sarah ignores the lies of her fellow medical doctors. Sarah does NOT agree with me in regard to OBs lying and closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck. Sarah ignores the OB lies - indicates it's legal for OBs to lie and close birth canals up to 30% and keep birth canals closed when babies get stuck. I concede that OBs lying and closing birth canals is "legal" - as long as medical doctors like Sarah don't speak out - but even there - it appears that it is NOT legal for medical doctors to lie and close birth canals. Sarah once challenged me to "find a better system" - and I found one - right there in Britain! I wrote: SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway further: "...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'" http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a Sarah ignores unexplained brain bleeds and unexplained paralyses and unexplained deaths and says (in effect) that women don't need to be informed that OBs are lying and closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck. Sarah says she needs OUTCOMES before she can comment on the crazy notion of simply informing women that OBs are lying and closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck. Sarah is spewing blatant anti-science. "It is established obstetric teaching that a narrow pelvic outlet predisposes to a difficult vaginal delivery..." --Ass-Ärztin Dr. Andrea Froschauer-Frudinger et al. [Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;109(11):1207-12] And OBs themselves have indicated that closing the birth canal FAR LESS than 30% can kill. MOST BIZARRELY, Sarah publicly indicated in her "no **** Sherlock" post that even if the OB lies about birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to anyone's birth position." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa Sacre bleu! Again, Lucy, Sarah and I are both against routine infant circumcision - but even there there are significant points of disagreement - for example - Sarah ignores the lies of her fellow medical doctors. As noted above, I will discuss this latter matter in another post. Todd PS1 Lucy, for further response to your post... See Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill pill' - bitter poison for some babies) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108 PS2 Christine echoed Lucy's "Well said." Christine: The substance of Lucy's post was that Sarah and I are in agreement. Sarah and I are NOT in agreement. Women are having to ASK for the "extra" up to 30%. Lucy writes: "I have no intention of asking; this will be my Demand. The doctors ignore my request at their peril." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1ba84ccfd9cede Arrgghhh!! Most women don't even *know* to ask (or demand)!! Sarah is a medical doctor. She should be interested in this simple preventive measure - especially since her employer "spends" on prevention. Medical doctor Sarah and her employer are bizarrely ignoring some SIMPLE prevention. If pregnant women in Britain DO routinely book with GPs - I'm really wondering now about Sarah's claim that she can't do anything because she is a GP... Sarah's employer, Tendring Primary Care Trust, should not wait for an email from her... See again: Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill pill' - bitter poison for some babies) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108 Again... MOST BIZARRELY, Sarah publicly indicated in her "no **** Sherlock" post that even if the OB lies about birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to anyone's birth position." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa I am still astonished. The two smug "Well saids" also astonish. Sigh. Todd ("Sherlock") |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
A SINGLE DETAIL?
"[Y]ou [are] taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise supports your position." --Larry to Todd Larry, 1. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of other medical doctors as infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose their penises, it is not a trivial point. (Fortunately, death and loss of penis are rare - but most infants scream and writhe and bleed through the American medical religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males.) 2. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of medical doctors who are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck, that isn't a trivial point either. Medical doctor Sarah is doing this - and worse - and you people are saying she agrees with me. YES, there are points of agreement - but medical doctor Sarah publicly indicated (in her "no **** Sherlock" post) that even if the OB lies about birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to anyone's birth position." (!) http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa If you support her in this Larry, so be it; but Sarah and I are NOT in agreement on the most important points. Women need to know about the MD lies when making decisions - say - about whether they want their birth canal closed the "extra" up to 30%. Most women aren't even being TOLD about the "extra" up to 30% - and as I just indicated in my "Well said?" response to Lucy and Christine... Women who ARE told (by me for example) are having to ASK for the "extra" up to 30% - with some women being DENIED their request! Lucy writes: "I have no intention of asking; this will be my Demand. The doctors ignore my request at their peril." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1ba84ccfd9cede Arrgghhh!! Most women don't even *know* to ask (or demand)!! Sarah is a medical doctor. She should be interested in this simple preventive measure - especially since her employer "spends" on prevention. Medical doctor Sarah and her employer are bizarrely ignoring some SIMPLE prevention. If pregnant women in Britain DO routinely book with GPs - I'm really wondering now about Sarah's claim that she can't do anything because she is a GP... Sarah's employer, Tendring Primary Care Trust, should not wait for an email from her... See Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill pill' - bitter poison for some babies) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108 Thanks for writing, Larry. Todd SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway... "...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'" http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a Larry, Sarah and I say we are both "vehemently" opposed to routine infant circumcision - but I question her "vehemence" when she ignores the history of MD lies in discussing the issue. I don't think it can be said that Sarah is really opposed to her fellow medical doctors closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck. I do get kind of vehement when I am "no **** Sherlocked" by a medical doctor who is ignoring her fellow medical doctors' lies - babies be damned - sometimes fatally so. A MASSIVE spinal manipulation crime is taking place - and it is being committed by Sarah's fellow medical doctors. SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway... "...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'" http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a I don't think Sarah is being a reasonably prudent medical doctor. An email to Tendring Primary Care Trust saying "Dr. Gastaldo is right" is NOT too much to ask of medical doctor Sarah. I hope Sarah copies me - and misc.kids.pregnancy. It could be the start of something big - esp. if Sarah recruits other GPs to help stop OBs from closing birth canals, etc. DO women in Britain commonly book with GPs when they get pregnant? What did Sarah mean when she initially protested there was nothing she could do because she is a GP? Again, thanks for writing Larry. Sarah, here (again) is the email for Tendring Primary Care Trust: Thanks for reading everyone. Sincerely - with a bit of vehemence : ) Todd ("Sherlock") "Your goodness must have some edge to it, else it is none." --Ralph Waldo Emerson "Larry McMahan" wrote in message ... Todd, You know that as much as I support many of the same positions that you do, that I have to agree with anyone4tea that you are doing yourself a disservice by mounting what appears to be a vehement attack on someone who, in general, agrees with you by taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise supports your position. If it wasn't an vehement attack, you need to proofread your post to see HOW they will be perceived. If you correctly assessed the situation that she had agreed with you 90% and you wanted to take issue with the 10% where she did not, you need to revisit both your strategy and tactics. It is better to get a 100 people from 10% agreement to 60% agreement that to **** off someone who is already at 90% if you want to change the world for the better. What you said was unnecessarily hostile, ignored her points of agreement with you, was easily perceived as a personal ad-holmium attack, and risked losing whatever good will you had with her. This is not the style of communication that will win the hearts and minds of others, especially their hearts. :-) These words are written in kindness in an attempt to help you communicate your important message more effectively. Do with them what you will. Larry "anyone4tea" wrote in message ups.com... That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about trivial things. Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is misconstrued. Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned. Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after them after miscommunication. Take a chill pill |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Todd,
I wonder how often you are working in labor and delivery and in a newborn nursery? Do you in person see all these things you claim? Also, are doctors doing circs without consent? I highly doubt it-it is a choice of parents, so the parents are requesting this to be done. You are currently driving me crazy, and just when I was sort of softening up to you "Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message nk.net... A SINGLE DETAIL? "[Y]ou [are] taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise supports your position." --Larry to Todd Larry, 1. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of other medical doctors as infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose their penises, it is not a trivial point. (Fortunately, death and loss of penis are rare - but most infants scream and writhe and bleed through the American medical religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males.) 2. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of medical doctors who are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck, that isn't a trivial point either. Medical doctor Sarah is doing this - and worse - and you people are saying she agrees with me. YES, there are points of agreement - but medical doctor Sarah publicly indicated (in her "no **** Sherlock" post) that even if the OB lies about birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to anyone's birth position." (!) http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa If you support her in this Larry, so be it; but Sarah and I are NOT in agreement on the most important points. Women need to know about the MD lies when making decisions - say - about whether they want their birth canal closed the "extra" up to 30%. Most women aren't even being TOLD about the "extra" up to 30% - and as I just indicated in my "Well said?" response to Lucy and Christine... Women who ARE told (by me for example) are having to ASK for the "extra" up to 30% - with some women being DENIED their request! Lucy writes: "I have no intention of asking; this will be my Demand. The doctors ignore my request at their peril." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1ba84ccfd9cede Arrgghhh!! Most women don't even *know* to ask (or demand)!! Sarah is a medical doctor. She should be interested in this simple preventive measure - especially since her employer "spends" on prevention. Medical doctor Sarah and her employer are bizarrely ignoring some SIMPLE prevention. If pregnant women in Britain DO routinely book with GPs - I'm really wondering now about Sarah's claim that she can't do anything because she is a GP... Sarah's employer, Tendring Primary Care Trust, should not wait for an from her... See Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill pill' - bitter poison for some babies) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108 Thanks for writing, Larry. Todd SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway... "...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'" http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a Larry, Sarah and I say we are both "vehemently" opposed to routine infant circumcision - but I question her "vehemence" when she ignores the history of MD lies in discussing the issue. I don't think it can be said that Sarah is really opposed to her fellow medical doctors closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck. I do get kind of vehement when I am "no **** Sherlocked" by a medical doctor who is ignoring her fellow medical doctors' lies - babies be damned - sometimes fatally so. A MASSIVE spinal manipulation crime is taking place - and it is being committed by Sarah's fellow medical doctors. SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway... "...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'" http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a I don't think Sarah is being a reasonably prudent medical doctor. An email to Tendring Primary Care Trust saying "Dr. Gastaldo is right" is NOT too much to ask of medical doctor Sarah. I hope Sarah copies me - and misc.kids.pregnancy. It could be the start of something big - esp. if Sarah recruits other GPs to help stop OBs from closing birth canals, etc. DO women in Britain commonly book with GPs when they get pregnant? What did Sarah mean when she initially protested there was nothing she could do because she is a GP? Again, thanks for writing Larry. Sarah, here (again) is the email for Tendring Primary Care Trust: Thanks for reading everyone. Sincerely - with a bit of vehemence : ) Todd ("Sherlock") "Your goodness must have some edge to it, else it is none." --Ralph Waldo Emerson "Larry McMahan" wrote in message ... Todd, You know that as much as I support many of the same positions that you do, that I have to agree with anyone4tea that you are doing yourself a disservice by mounting what appears to be a vehement attack on someone who, in general, agrees with you by taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise supports your position. If it wasn't an vehement attack, you need to proofread your post to see HOW they will be perceived. If you correctly assessed the situation that she had agreed with you 90% and you wanted to take issue with the 10% where she did not, you need to revisit both your strategy and tactics. It is better to get a 100 people from 10% agreement to 60% agreement that to **** off someone who is already at 90% if you want to change the world for the better. What you said was unnecessarily hostile, ignored her points of agreement with you, was easily perceived as a personal ad-holmium attack, and risked losing whatever good will you had with her. This is not the style of communication that will win the hearts and minds of others, especially their hearts. :-) These words are written in kindness in an attempt to help you communicate your important message more effectively. Do with them what you will. Larry "anyone4tea" wrote in message ups.com... That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about trivial things. Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is misconstrued. Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned. Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after them after miscommunication. Take a chill pill |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sigh,
Todd, I am trying to help you state your case in a less antagonistic way so that more undecided people will listen to you. However you seem to be impervious to suggestions to tone down your rhetoric so that you can reach a larger audience and have more impact on the thinking of birthing women, which, I would hope is your goal. If you continue to attack all people who are sometimes right and sometimes wrong as if they were 100% wrong, you will alienate not only them, but also all the undecideds who are listening to the conversation. You seem not to be able to comprehend this either. This is exactly what you are doing on your personal attack on Sarah. If you would simply pick each point on which you disagree with her and say "Why do you think that? Here is some information to show the other side, and simply provide some cites, I would bet that she would listen. Calling her a bully for supporting the "other side" when you haven't tried to gently and informatively convince her of the "correctness" of you view is bullying in itself. 'Nough said, this is my final post on the subject, particularly if you insist on pursuing the issue with personal attacks. Larry "Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message nk.net... A SINGLE DETAIL? "[Y]ou [are] taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise supports your position." --Larry to Todd Larry, 1. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of other medical doctors as infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose their penises, it is not a trivial point. (Fortunately, death and loss of penis are rare - but most infants scream and writhe and bleed through the American medical religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males.) 2. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of medical doctors who are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck, that isn't a trivial point either. Medical doctor Sarah is doing this - and worse - and you people are saying she agrees with me. YES, there are points of agreement - but medical doctor Sarah publicly indicated (in her "no **** Sherlock" post) that even if the OB lies about birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to anyone's birth position." (!) http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa If you support her in this Larry, so be it; but Sarah and I are NOT in agreement on the most important points. Women need to know about the MD lies when making decisions - say - about whether they want their birth canal closed the "extra" up to 30%. Most women aren't even being TOLD about the "extra" up to 30% - and as I just indicated in my "Well said?" response to Lucy and Christine... Women who ARE told (by me for example) are having to ASK for the "extra" up to 30% - with some women being DENIED their request! Lucy writes: "I have no intention of asking; this will be my Demand. The doctors ignore my request at their peril." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1ba84ccfd9cede Arrgghhh!! Most women don't even *know* to ask (or demand)!! Sarah is a medical doctor. She should be interested in this simple preventive measure - especially since her employer "spends" on prevention. Medical doctor Sarah and her employer are bizarrely ignoring some SIMPLE prevention. If pregnant women in Britain DO routinely book with GPs - I'm really wondering now about Sarah's claim that she can't do anything because she is a GP... Sarah's employer, Tendring Primary Care Trust, should not wait for an from her... See Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill pill' - bitter poison for some babies) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108 Thanks for writing, Larry. Todd SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway... "...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'" http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a Larry, Sarah and I say we are both "vehemently" opposed to routine infant circumcision - but I question her "vehemence" when she ignores the history of MD lies in discussing the issue. I don't think it can be said that Sarah is really opposed to her fellow medical doctors closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck. I do get kind of vehement when I am "no **** Sherlocked" by a medical doctor who is ignoring her fellow medical doctors' lies - babies be damned - sometimes fatally so. A MASSIVE spinal manipulation crime is taking place - and it is being committed by Sarah's fellow medical doctors. SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway... "...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'" http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a I don't think Sarah is being a reasonably prudent medical doctor. An email to Tendring Primary Care Trust saying "Dr. Gastaldo is right" is NOT too much to ask of medical doctor Sarah. I hope Sarah copies me - and misc.kids.pregnancy. It could be the start of something big - esp. if Sarah recruits other GPs to help stop OBs from closing birth canals, etc. DO women in Britain commonly book with GPs when they get pregnant? What did Sarah mean when she initially protested there was nothing she could do because she is a GP? Again, thanks for writing Larry. Sarah, here (again) is the email for Tendring Primary Care Trust: Thanks for reading everyone. Sincerely - with a bit of vehemence : ) Todd ("Sherlock") "Your goodness must have some edge to it, else it is none." --Ralph Waldo Emerson "Larry McMahan" wrote in message ... Todd, You know that as much as I support many of the same positions that you do, that I have to agree with anyone4tea that you are doing yourself a disservice by mounting what appears to be a vehement attack on someone who, in general, agrees with you by taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise supports your position. If it wasn't an vehement attack, you need to proofread your post to see HOW they will be perceived. If you correctly assessed the situation that she had agreed with you 90% and you wanted to take issue with the 10% where she did not, you need to revisit both your strategy and tactics. It is better to get a 100 people from 10% agreement to 60% agreement that to **** off someone who is already at 90% if you want to change the world for the better. What you said was unnecessarily hostile, ignored her points of agreement with you, was easily perceived as a personal ad-holmium attack, and risked losing whatever good will you had with her. This is not the style of communication that will win the hearts and minds of others, especially their hearts. :-) These words are written in kindness in an attempt to help you communicate your important message more effectively. Do with them what you will. Larry "anyone4tea" wrote in message ups.com... That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about trivial things. Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is misconstrued. Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned. Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after them after miscommunication. Take a chill pill |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I DON'T NEED TO SEE THE MD FELONIES...
"Kelly" wrote in message ... Todd, I wonder how often you are working in labor and delivery and in a newborn nursery? I don't need to work in labor and delivery to know that OBs are lying and closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck. Do you in person see all these things you claim? I don't NEED to be there in person. The grisly biomechanics are as simple as the OB lies are obvious (see The Four OB Lies below).. OHSU, the local medical school PROMOTES semisitting/closing the birth canal up to 30%. "...With semi-sitting positions, gravity can help the mother in pushing the baby through the birth canal..." http://www.ohsuhealth.com/cwh/health...r/deliver.html DR. GASTALDO CORRECTS OHSU: With semi-sitting positions, the birth canal is closed up to 30% and closing birth canals sometimes causes "failure to progress" which can "necessitate" performing a cesarean section as indicated in this quote from the same OHSU website: "There are several conditions which may necessitate performing a cesarean section...[including]...a labor that fails to progress or does not progress normally..." http://www.ohsuhealth.com/cwh/health...r/deliver.html See Birth child abuse: Oregon's only medical school (OHSU) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2986 Also, are doctors doing circs without consent? Yes. Your word "circs" is euphemism for mass ripping and slicing of infant penises as infant scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose their penises. Fortunately, death and loss of penis are rare - but even "just" partial loss of penis ("circ") is still illegal - as is trying to anesthetize the child abuse with child abuse (sticking a needle-full of anesthetic into the penis for a no-medical-indications procedure that can cause death). Doctors NEVER obtain consent. They perform the surgery amid baby screams of agony/protest. Doctors themselves are against infant penis ripping and slicing (they've made about 5 statements to this effect in the last 30 years) - and it clearly violates their own stated ethics: "[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires... "...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously constitutes the - TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG] should...carry considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not essential to his or her welfare and/or can be deferred without substantial risk... "[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures to solicit assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw' power over children when ethical conflicts occur." AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice(RE9510) Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317 http://www.aap.org/policy/00662.html INFANT SCREAMS... Here two nurses discussed the screams... "After years of strapping babies down for this brutal procedure and listening to their screams, we couldn't take it any longer." [Sperlich BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs (Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/] Here's a nurse calling it "barbaric"... "Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation in a surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barbaric practice." (p. 205) Donna L. Wong's Essentials of Pediatric Nursing [1997] Here's an MD calling it "barbaric"... "[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never allow older childrenor adults to be subjected to such practices, nor would they submit to it themselves..." [Veteran circumcision cheerleader Colonel Thomas E. Wiswell, MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England Journal of Medicine] In 1980, one pediatrician wrote: "[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980] In 1986, another wrote: "What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse. AJDC, 1986;140:329-330] It is simply wrong to rip and slice infant penises - and MDs know it... That is why in 1987 - when I exposed their phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology they suddenly declared infant penis ripping and slicing "an effective public health measure." That is why in 1987 - when I called for a religious exemption for the ancient Jewish ritual MDs (in Jan/Feb 1988) opposed all religious exemptions and came out in favor of anonymity for perpetrators of child abuse. The MD lies keep rolling in... American MDs recently [2004] perpetuated the false notion that their TOTAL foreskin amputation ritual is the same as the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis. See Pediatrician 'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2908 American MDs got rid of their "Leave it alone" advice in 1989 - and offered the penile cancer scare tactic - which will likely have parents retracting infant foreskins, cleaning "to prevent cancer" - thereby causing the need for circumcision... See Infant penis cleaning 'to prevent cancer'? http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3072 I highly doubt...[that doctors aren't obtaining consent].. Kelly, it's a FACT. Doctors (and CNMwives) are NOT obtaining consent. Babies scream in protest when they are strapped down and have their penises ripped and sliced. it is a choice of parents, Not according to stated pediatrician ethics - see above. so the parents are requesting this to be done. This is true. But parents are not guilty of child abuse. They heard everything from "babies can't feel pain" to the penile cancer scare tactic for years - and from powerful cultural authorities (MDs). As usual, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As med students they are TRAINED to perform felonies. You are currently driving me crazy, and just when I was sort of softening up to you Kelly, while I *love* that you were "sort of softening up" to me - it is OK if you must harden back up toward me. I think Christine and Lucy and Larry are doing the same thing. It is OK. I can take it. I persist in my good-humored inflexibility because - well - I can SORT of imagine what it must feel like to have an MD ripping and slicing my penis (perhaps there is a latent memory somewhere?). I can also sort of imagine what it feels like to have an MD wrenching my neck with hands, forceps or vacuum - with my mom's birth canal closed up to 30%. I wonder what it feels like to have a spinal nerve ripped out of the spinal cord. (My heart actually got a sinking feeling just now when I thought about it.) MDs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30% and KEEPING them closed when babies get stuck... And women lucky enough to learn about the "extra" up to 30% are sometimes DENIED it when they ask. Most women never learn about it. Some of these women had babies who died in childbirth - or got paralyzed in childbirth - and I think some of those deaths/paralyses might have been prevented. So I persist in my good-humored inflexibility. It is NOT unreasonable of me to expect British general practitioner Dr. Sarah Vaughan to email her employer Tendring Primary Care Trust and say "Dr. Gastaldo is right - the OB lies are as obvious as the grisly biomechanics are simple" - or words to that effect. Here are the OB lies again... I noted some of the OB lies in an Open Letter to the FTC years ago... http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html THE FOUR OB LIES... OB LIE #1. After MASSIVE change in the AP pelvic outlet diameter was clinically demonstrated in 1911 and radiographically demonstrated in 1957, the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that pelvic diamaters DON'T CHANGE at delivery. OB LIE #2. After Ohlsen pointed out in 1973 that pelvic diameters DO change - the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that their most frequent delivery position - dorsal - widens the outlet. OB LIE #3. After I pointed out in 1992 that dorsal CLOSES - and so does semisitting - the authors of Williams Obstetrics - put the correct biomechanics in their 1993 edition - but kept in their text (in the same paragraph!) - the dorsal widens bald lie that first called my attention to their text... OB LIE #4. OBs are actually KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get stuck - and claiming they are doing everything to allow the birth canal open maximally. (ACOG Shoulder Dystocia video - also forceps and vacuum births are performed with the mother in lithotomy.) See Make birth better: Dan Rather, before you leave CBS... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2983 UNNECESSARY SURGERIES Stopping hospital obstetricians from placing women semisitting or dorsal and closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30% will likely prevent many unnecessary EXPENSIVE surgeries: Hospital obstetricians are slicing vaginas and abdomens en masse (episiotomies and c-sections) - surgically/fraudulently inferring they are doing/have done everything possible to open birth canals - even as they close birth canals - up to 30%. NOTE: Of course, allowing birth canals to open the "extra" up to 30% is not going to prevent all episiotomies or c-sections - but regardless - hospital obstetricians should not be closing birth canals - or KEEPING them closed when babies get stuck. PREGNANT WOMEN: It is easy to offer your baby the "extra" up to 30% of outlet area by simply rolling onto your side as you push your baby out. JUST BEWA Some OBs and CNMwives let you "try" alternative delivery positions - but move you back to semisitting or dorsal (close your birth canal) for the actual delivery. ALSO BEWA It is STANDARD PRACTICE for OBs to keep birth canals closed when babies get stuck - i.e. - OBs are pulling with forceps and vacuums - with birth canals senselessly closed... LADIES: Talk to your OB or CNMwife about this today. WHITE ELEPHANT FACT: Pregnant women should not have to ASK obstetricians for the "extra" up to 30%. Thanks for reading, Kelly, but I will understand if you killfile me. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
SARAH...
See below. ALSO: **ACTUAL** PERSONAL ATTACKS - BY MEDICAL DOCTORS... "'Nough said, this is my final post on the subject, particularly if you insist on pursuing the issue with personal attacks." --Larry to Todd Larry, Medical doctors are making ACTUAL personal attacks - on babies - en masse. Medical doctors are LYING about it. Medical doctor Sarah Vaughan IGNORES the lies of her fellow medical doctors as she indicates that exposing the lies (see The Four OB Lies below) has no effect on anyone's birth position! And you continue to pretend that medical doctor Sarah is in substantial agreement with me! Sacre bleu! Women who are lucky enough to learn about the "extra" up to 30% have to ask for it and are sometimes DENIED it. MOST women never learn about it! And medical doctor Sarah doesn't think all pregnant women should be told that OBs are lying and closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck. A baby with his skull gripped by forceps gripped by an OB pulling with the birth canal closed up to 30% is being ACTUALLY personally attacked. I submit that babies being so personally attacked would be UNANIMOUS in their agreement that medical doctors should be moving NOW to stop this mass grisly obstetric travesty. If babies could protest - if babies were demanding that Sarah speak out and stop ignoring the OB lies - would you tell THEM not to personally attack those "nice" medical doctors? It's only their brains and brachial nerves at stake - not to mention "just" gruesomely wrenched spines. ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal senselessly closed up to 30%. Thanks again for writing, Larry. Sincerely, Todd PS Letting the birth canal open maximally is not going to prevent all birth trauma - but babies with nerves ripped out of their spinal cords MIGHT like to have had the benefit of the "extra" up to 30%. A few further comments interspersed ###### "Larry McMahan" wrote in message ... Sigh, Todd, I am trying to help you state your case in a less antagonistic way so that more undecided people will listen to you. ##### Larry, this is not "my" project... ##### Prof. Stanley Milgram (Obedience to Authority) once said, "Of all moral principles, the one that comes closest to being universally accepted is this: One should not inflict suffering on a helpless person..." ##### When innocents are being harmed it is EVERYONE'S responsibility to speak up. ANYONE can make the case that OBs should IMMEDIATELY stop closing birth canals up to 30%. ##### Babies are being born RIGHT NOW through birth canals senselessly closed up to 30% by OBs who are senselessly KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get stuck. ##### If you feel you have a better way - DO it. It would be EASY AS PIE for medical doctor Sarah Vaughan to email her employer and say "Dr. Gastaldo is right - the OB lies are as obvious as the grisly biomechanics are simple." However you seem to be impervious to suggestions to tone down your rhetoric so that you can reach a larger audience and have more impact on the thinking of birthing women, which, I would hope is your goal. ##### I state the facts plainly. If you continue to attack all people who are sometimes right and sometimes wrong as if they were 100% wrong, you will alienate not only them, but also all the undecideds who are listening to the conversation. You seem not to be able to comprehend this either. ##### Larry, Sarah does NOT agree with me - yet you publicly pretended (with Lucy and Christine) that she agrees with me. That alienates me - so I respond. This is exactly what you are doing on your personal attack on Sarah. ##### Medical doctors are making ACTUAL personal attacks on babies - en masse - and lying about it - and Sarah is ignoring those lies - indirectly helping to perpetuate ACTUAL personal attacks on babies by her fellow medical doctors. If you would simply pick each point on which you disagree with her and say "Why do you think that? Here is some information to show the other side, and simply provide some cites, I would bet that she would listen. ##### Larry, I have REPEATEDLY called attention to The Four OB Lies. They are NOT that hard to see. Sarah is ignoring. ##### Here are The Four OB Lies yet again, just in case Sarah is reading... I noted some of the OB lies in an Open Letter to the FTC years ago... http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html THE FOUR OB LIES... OB LIE #1. After MASSIVE change in the AP pelvic outlet diameter was clinically demonstrated in 1911 and radiographically demonstrated in 1957, the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that pelvic diamaters DON'T CHANGE at delivery. OB LIE #2. After Ohlsen pointed out in 1973 that pelvic diameters DO change - the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that their most frequent delivery position - dorsal - widens the outlet. OB LIE #3. After I pointed out in 1992 that dorsal CLOSES - and so does semisitting - the authors of Williams Obstetrics - put the correct biomechanics in their 1993 edition - but kept in their text (in the same paragraph!) - the dorsal widens bald lie that first called my attention to their text... OB LIE #4. OBs are actually KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get stuck - and claiming they are doing everything to allow the birth canal open maximally. (ACOG Shoulder Dystocia video - also forceps and vacuum births are performed with the mother in lithotomy.) See Make birth better: Dan Rather, before you leave CBS... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2983 Calling her a bully for supporting the "other side" when you haven't tried to gently and informatively convince her of the "correctness" of you view is bullying in itself. I never called her a bully. I would say she is a coward. She could EASILY end her cowardice and email her employer and say "Dr. Gastaldo is right - the OB lies are as obvious as the grisly biomechanics are simple." As I just wrote in response to Kelly... MDs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30% and KEEPING them closed when babies get stuck... And women lucky enough to learn about the "extra" up to 30% are sometimes DENIED it when they ask. Most women never learn about it. (Sarah indicates there is no need for OBs to tell them!) Some of these women had babies who died in childbirth - or got paralyzed in childbirth - and I think some of those deaths/paralyses might have been prevented. So I persist in my good-humored inflexibility. 'Nough said, this is my final post on the subject, particularly if you insist on pursuing the issue with personal attacks. Larry, I think you have things backwards... I am PROTESTING personal attacks; that is... Medical doctors are making ACTUAL personal attacks - on babies - en masse. Medical doctors are LYING about it. Medical doctor Sarah Vaughan is cowardly ignoring the lies of her fellow medical doctors - pretending (in regard to the "extra" up to 30%) that exposing the OB lies would have no effect on anyone's choice of birth position! And I am protesting. Simple, no? Defend Sarah's cowardice if you must - but prevention is part of her JOB - and she is ignoring a SIMPLE preventive measure. SARAH... Sarah if you are reading, say you want me to stop discussing your cowardice/inaction and I will stop - if you stop posting in reply to my posts. I hope you take action though. You have a GOLDEN opportunity here to end your cowardice and do the right thing so that ALL women can hear about the "extra" up to 30%. You could get the ball rolling to stimulate Tendring Primary Care Trust to "steer" its GPs to TELL all women about the "extra" up to 30%. Perhaps Tendring Primary Care Trust could tell OBs to stop the grisly obstetric tomfoolery. You first told me that you couldn't do anything because you are a GP. Whatever Tendring Primary Care Trust does... If British GPs see pregnant women, as a GP you could influence those GPs who do see pregnant women. If your fellow British GPs do nothing - at least you would have tried. That is all I ask. Todd Larry "Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message nk.net... A SINGLE DETAIL? "[Y]ou [are] taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise supports your position." --Larry to Todd Larry, 1. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of other medical doctors as infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose their penises, it is not a trivial point. (Fortunately, death and loss of penis are rare - but most infants scream and writhe and bleed through the American medical religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males.) 2. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of medical doctors who are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck, that isn't a trivial point either. Medical doctor Sarah is doing this - and worse - and you people are saying she agrees with me. YES, there are points of agreement - but medical doctor Sarah publicly indicated (in her "no **** Sherlock" post) that even if the OB lies about birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to anyone's birth position." (!) http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa If you support her in this Larry, so be it; but Sarah and I are NOT in agreement on the most important points. Women need to know about the MD lies when making decisions - say - about whether they want their birth canal closed the "extra" up to 30%. Most women aren't even being TOLD about the "extra" up to 30% - and as I just indicated in my "Well said?" response to Lucy and Christine... Women who ARE told (by me for example) are having to ASK for the "extra" up to 30% - with some women being DENIED their request! Lucy writes: "I have no intention of asking; this will be my Demand. The doctors ignore my request at their peril." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1ba84ccfd9cede Arrgghhh!! Most women don't even *know* to ask (or demand)!! Sarah is a medical doctor. She should be interested in this simple preventive measure - especially since her employer "spends" on prevention. Medical doctor Sarah and her employer are bizarrely ignoring some SIMPLE prevention. If pregnant women in Britain DO routinely book with GPs - I'm really wondering now about Sarah's claim that she can't do anything because she is a GP... Sarah's employer, Tendring Primary Care Trust, should not wait for an from her... See Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill pill' - bitter poison for some babies) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108 Thanks for writing, Larry. Todd SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway... "...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'" http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a Larry, Sarah and I say we are both "vehemently" opposed to routine infant circumcision - but I question her "vehemence" when she ignores the history of MD lies in discussing the issue. I don't think it can be said that Sarah is really opposed to her fellow medical doctors closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck. I do get kind of vehement when I am "no **** Sherlocked" by a medical doctor who is ignoring her fellow medical doctors' lies - babies be damned - sometimes fatally so. A MASSIVE spinal manipulation crime is taking place - and it is being committed by Sarah's fellow medical doctors. SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway... "...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'" http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a I don't think Sarah is being a reasonably prudent medical doctor. An email to Tendring Primary Care Trust saying "Dr. Gastaldo is right" is NOT too much to ask of medical doctor Sarah. I hope Sarah copies me - and misc.kids.pregnancy. It could be the start of something big - esp. if Sarah recruits other GPs to help stop OBs from closing birth canals, etc. DO women in Britain commonly book with GPs when they get pregnant? What did Sarah mean when she initially protested there was nothing she could do because she is a GP? Again, thanks for writing Larry. Sarah, here (again) is the email for Tendring Primary Care Trust: Thanks for reading everyone. Sincerely - with a bit of vehemence : ) Todd ("Sherlock") "Your goodness must have some edge to it, else it is none." --Ralph Waldo Emerson "Larry McMahan" wrote in message ... Todd, You know that as much as I support many of the same positions that you do, that I have to agree with anyone4tea that you are doing yourself a disservice by mounting what appears to be a vehement attack on someone who, in general, agrees with you by taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise supports your position. If it wasn't an vehement attack, you need to proofread your post to see HOW they will be perceived. If you correctly assessed the situation that she had agreed with you 90% and you wanted to take issue with the 10% where she did not, you need to revisit both your strategy and tactics. It is better to get a 100 people from 10% agreement to 60% agreement that to **** off someone who is already at 90% if you want to change the world for the better. What you said was unnecessarily hostile, ignored her points of agreement with you, was easily perceived as a personal ad-holmium attack, and risked losing whatever good will you had with her. This is not the style of communication that will win the hearts and minds of others, especially their hearts. :-) These words are written in kindness in an attempt to help you communicate your important message more effectively. Do with them what you will. Larry "anyone4tea" wrote in message ups.com... That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about trivial things. Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is misconstrued. Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned. Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after them after miscommunication. Take a chill pill |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In message et, Todd
Gastaldo writes A SINGLE DETAIL? "[Y]ou [are] taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise supports your position." --Larry to Todd Larry, 1. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of other medical doctors as infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose their penises, it is not a trivial point. (Fortunately, death and loss of penis are rare - but most infants scream and writhe and bleed through the American medical religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males.) I'm not quite sure which specific lies you feel I've ignored, but it's true that, in the posts I made recently opposing routine infant circumcision, I didn't cover the many reasons why it's a bad thing, or discuss the various lies that have been told on the subject. This is because I wasn't trying to write a comprehensive essay on the subject, nor was I claiming to do so. I was responding specifically to a poster who was also anti-circumcision but who wanted some help in dealing with the arguments of her husband who was trying to arrange circumcision for their son. Since this was her concern, I dealt specifically with the arguments her husband had been using and discussed what counter-arguments she could use to those. So, you're objecting to my anti-circumcision posts because I didn't include all the anti-circumcision arguments that exist out there to be used. That's OK - you're perfectly entitled to believe that I should include more stuff in my posts. Hell, I might even give your opinion some weight once you've tried typing posts one-handed while breastfeeding a fussy baby and seen how much detail you feel like typing out under those circumstances. What is not OK, however, is for you to quote me out of context in a way that makes it look as if I hold the view that I was, in fact, arguing against. 2. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of medical doctors who are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck, that isn't a trivial point either. So what are you saying, Todd? That because I don't take up your crusade in this matter, it's fine for you to misrepresent my opinion on a different subject? Medical doctor Sarah is doing this - and worse - and you people are saying she agrees with me. Larry was saying that I agree with you *about circumcision*, Todd. Which I do. But because I wasn't as vehement on the subject as you think I should have been, you've quoted me out of context and made it look as if I support routine circumcision when you know perfectly well I oppose it. Does that fall into the category of 'obvious lies', Todd? Because it sure as hell doesn't strike me as very honest. Sarah -- "I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Larry McMahan
writes This is exactly what you are doing on your personal attack on Sarah. If you would simply pick each point on which you disagree with her and say "Why do you think that? Here is some information to show the other side, and simply provide some cites, I would bet that she would listen. Calling her a bully for supporting the "other side" when you haven't tried to gently and informatively convince her of the "correctness" of you view is bullying in itself. Thanks, Larry. ;-) All the best, Sarah -- "I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Sarah Vaughan" wrote in message ... In message , Larry McMahan writes Thanks, Larry. ;-) Let's get this straight. I am just defending you from ad-hominims, that does not mean that I agree with you! :-) I also agree with a lot of Todd's rhetoric. I just think that it is stated in an inflammatory manner. :-( Larry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and... | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 3 | April 16th 04 06:09 PM |
Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 6 | April 7th 04 04:58 PM |