Tendring PCT: Dr. Sarah's baby is fussy - her baby is her priority - that is as it should be

Tendring Primary Care Trust (via )

British general practitioner Dr. Sarah Vaughan is breastfeeding.

Her baby is fussy.

Women shouldn't have to ask for the "extra" up to 30%.

The revolution could start right there in Britain.

Do you really need a REAL doctor (Sarah) to start "steering" GPs to stop the
grisly obstetric travesty?

Please advise.

I think I may be playing a part in making Sarah's baby fussy.

I do not wish to do this.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gastaldo






Sarah,

My advice would be to devote full attention to your baby.

But an email from a REAL doctor - you - might be persuasive.

I would *love* it if you would email your employer - Tendring Primary Care
Trust - and urge the Trust to "steer" all their GPs toward stopping OBs from
closing birth canals up to 30%, etc.

Maybe simply forward this post with the comment: "Dr. Gastaldo is right -
all pregnant women should be immediately informed that OBs are closing birth
canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck - and
it is easy for them to allow their birth canals to OPEN the "extra" up to
30%. Women shouldn't have to ask for the "extra" up to 30%."

Maybe copy me - and misc.kids.pregnancy?

Just a thought.

Thanks Sarah.

Sincerely,

Todd

PS1 Here is my previous post on the subject:

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

Here (again) is the email for Tendring Primary Care Trust:


PS2 Remember Sarah, this is the PREVENTION part of your medical doctor
job - Tendring Primary Care Trust "steers" its GPs and "spends" on
prevention and this prevention is very close to free. It could save a lot
of money - not to mention make for healthier mothers and babies.






















SARAH: WHAT FOLLOWS WILL LIKELY NETTLE YOU.

PERHAPS YOUR BABY IS FUSSY IN PART BECAUSE YOU ARE ALREADY NETTLED BECAUSE
OF ME?

PLEASE NOTE: I WAITED TILL **AFTER** YOUR BABY WAS BORN TO RESPOND TO YOUR
"NO **** SHERLOCK" SWIPE.

I AM QUITE SINCERE - YOUR BABY IS THE OBVIOUS PRIORITY...

IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE IF YOU JUST IGNORED ME AND FOCUSED ON
YOUR BABY.

THAT SAID...

You are focusing on a SIDE-issue - ignoring the central issue...

Your fellow medical doctors in AMERICA are engaging in mass ripping and
slicing of infant penises...

This is a SIDE-issue (relatively speaking) when compared with the grisly
obstetric spectacle of OBs lying and closing birth canals up to 30% and
keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck which is happening right
there in Jolly Ol'...

It is understandable that you should want to focus on the SIDE-issue since
you have indicated that it is LEGAL for your fellow medical doctors to lie
and close birth canals up to 30% and keep them closed when babies get stuck.

That said, I will respond to your further comments on the SIDE-issue...

I wrote:

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.)

You replied...


I'm not quite sure which specific lies you feel I've ignored,


Sarah,

When back in 1987 I exposed American MDs (the journal PEDIATRICS)
perpetuating phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology I called for an end to
their "no medical indications" obvious mass child abuse.

The California Medical Board/ ignored its own Scientific Board and suddenly
declared the obvious mass child abuse to be "an effective public health
measure." (This was CMA Res. 305-88. The CMA Scientific Board had recently
squashed a nearly identical resolution.)

American MDs then blitzed the American media with the penile cancer scare
tactic as part of a new "potential medical indications" campaign which is
ongoing. (Your blithe "It is true" contributes to the scam when this KEY
CONTEXT is left out - which is why I protested so vehemently.)

When I called for a religious exemption for the ancient Jewish ritual,
American MDs suddenly came out against ALL religious exemptions - and for
anonymity for PERPETRATORS of child abuse.

Recently, the journal PEDIATRICS perpetuated the false notion that the
American medical religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males -
TOTAL infant foreskin amputation - 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

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.

You blithely said "It is true" of the penile cancer scare tactic without
mentioning KEY medical lies (see above) which preceded the "potential
medical indications" campaign of which the penile cancer scare tactic is a
part.

This is
because I wasn't trying to write a comprehensive essay on the subject,
nor was I claiming to do so.

If you did not know of the American medical religion's "potential medical
indications" campaign of which the penile cancer scare tactic is a part -
say that.

But please do not continue to pretend that you did not leave out KEY
CONTEXT.

If you did not know about it - totally understandable.

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.


Please do not continue to pretend that the KEY CONTEXT you left out is not
crucial when discussing the penile cancer scare tactic.

Please do not pretend this especially not now that you have said that it is
"aptly described" as a scare tactic.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...65ff6aef47a4f2

WERE you aware of the American medical religion's "potential medical
indications" campaign of which the penile cancer scare tactic is a part
before I told you about it?

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.

False. I am objecting to your omission of KEY CONTEXT - and you are
apparently pretending it is not key context. ("I'm not quite sure which
specific lies you feel I've ignored...")

That's OK - you're perfectly entitled to believe that I should
include more stuff in my posts.

I am *especially* entitled to believe that you should not leave out KEY
CONTEXT - esp. not when it is pointed out to you repeatedly and you say
penile cancer is "aptly described" as a scare tactic.

Including the KEY CONTEXT helps people understand WHY penile cancer is
"aptly described" as a scare tactic.

Taking your fellow medical doctors in America to task for using a scare
tactic would be quite refreshing.

Why not do so - finally?

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.

If you GUARANTEE you will give my opinion some weight, I will go out today
and nurse a fussy baby. : )

Oh wait - that would probably be considered child abuse - unlike an MDs
ripping and slicing babies' penises en masse. : (

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.


You say you VEHEMENTLY oppose routine infant circumcision - yet you
(ostensibly) did not know in this most recent reply which medical doctor
lies I was talking about! ("I'm not quite sure which specific lies you feel
I've ignored...")

Your "vehemence" seems quite tepid to me. Were I again tied to a board
about to have my own penis ripped and sliced, I would want more "vehemence"
than you seem to be able to marshal - WAY more.

If I were a baby about to be pulled by my skull through a birth canal being
closed the "extra" up to 30% by the MDs pulling with forceps - I would wish
that you hadn't told everyone that it is legal and that women don't need to
be informed of the "extra" up to 30% to be had.

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?

No - I am saying that your "out of context" protest is LAME given that you
leave out KEY context - key medical lies - on both the SIDE-issue (mass
infant penis ripping and slicing which is happening in AMERICA) - and on the
CENTRAL issue (OBs lying and closing birth canals etc.)...

Your failure to include KEY CONTEXT misrepresents the penile cancer scare
tactic.


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.


Yes, I know what Larry said.

I said (in effect) in reply that you do NOT agree with me about
circumcision - anymore than you agree with me about OBs lying and closing
birth canals and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck.

Do you agree with me that mass ripping and slicing of infant penises by MDs
is ILLEGAL?

I ask because you have not remarked on this and because you said you think
OBs lying and closing birth canals is LEGAL - that women should not be
informed that OBs are lying and closing birth canals.

You have also said (in effect) that exposing the OB lies wouldn't change
anyone's mind about birth position!

Larry was saying that I agree with you *about circumcision*, Todd. Which
I do.


LOL. Obvious mass child abuse - mass ripping and slicing of infant penises
is going on - and you STILL couldn't figure out which medical doctor lies I
was talking about. ("I'm not quite sure which specific lies you feel I've
ignored...")

But because I wasn't as vehement on the subject as you
think I should have been,

Mass child abuse requires immediate action.

You want to focus on the SIDE-issue mass child abuse - without even calling
it child abuse!

You do not want to address the FACT that you told me the FAR WORSE
(birth-canal-closing) mass child abuse is legal!

You are a coward, Sarah.

Most women aren't lucky enough to hear of the "extra" up to 30%.

And some of those who are lucky enough to hear of it - are DENIED it.

Women shouldn't have to ASK for the "extra" up to 30%.

Your silence helps to perpetuate BIZARRE birth-canal-closing behavior.

Your fellow medical doctors are KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up
to 30% - and you are saying it is legal - saying in effect that all women
should not be informed until there are "scientific" studies showing that it
is beneficial to inform them!
This is 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]


OBs themselves indicate that closing the birth canal FAR LESS than 30% can
KILL!

In response to your lame claim that OBs lying and closing birth canals is
legal, I noted that 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

OBs are not being reasonably prudent doctors - and you are cowardly
supporting them with your silence.

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.


I think you've got things quite backwards, Sarah.

Leaving out KEY CONTEXT plays into the American medical religion's
"potential medical indications" scam.

Leaving out key context is tantamount to discussing an issue out of
context - the very thing you have accused me of!

You continued the gag today, saying "I'm not quite sure which specific lies
you feel I've ignored."

If you continue to leave out KEY CONTEXT, you are, in effect playing into
the American medical religion's "potential medical benefits" compaign -
indirectly PROMOTING routine infant circumcision - not "vehemently" opposing
it.

Your desire to focus on the SIDE-issue (mass infant penis ripping and
slicing in AMERICA) likely derives from the FACT noted above:

Your fellow medical doctors - right there in Jolly Ol' - are KEEPING birth
canals closed the "extra" up to 30% - and you are saying this is legal -
saying in effect that all women should not be informed until there are
"scientific" studies showing that it is beneficial to inform them.

Sheesh Sarah...

Your fellow medical doctors are KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up
to 30%.

Part of your medical doctor job is PREVENTION - and you are remaining
silent.

Most women don't even *know* about the "extra" up to 30% - and you think
this is fine.

You are lying by omission.

Since part of your medical doctor job is prevention - since most women
aren't being informed that an "extra" up to 30% is available...

It is not unreasonable for me to expect you to at least email your
employer - Tendring Primary Care Trust - and say "Dr. Gastaldo is right -
the OB lies are as obvious as the biomechanics are simple."

Since you ignored the OB lies when you "no **** Sherlocked" me...

Since you are STILL ignoring the OB lies...

Here (again) are The Four OB Lies you are so studiously ignoring.

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

OBs have known since early last century that they were closing birth canals
and keeping them closed when babies get stuck.

Sometimes OBs pull so hard on babies' necks they rip spinal nerves out of
tiny spinal cords.

It's time to do the PREVENTION part of your job, Sarah.

What exactly did you mean when you said you couldn't do anything because you
are a GP not an OB?

GPs aren't qualified to advise pregnant women in Britain?

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


Copied to Tendring Primary Care Trust via


Catherine, women served by Tendring Primary Care Trust shouldn't have to
ask for the "extra" up to 30%.

Please urge Tendring Primary Care Trust to take action.

The revolution in birthing could start right there in Britain - no need for
an email from Sarah.

Todd, please stop victimizing Sarah.