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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Chiro orthopedists and global UNREST - and babies...
"It is established obstetric teaching that a narrow pelvic outlet
predisposes to a difficult vaginal delivery..." --Ass-Ärztin Dr. Andrea Froschauer-Frudinger et al. via [Frudinger et al. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;109(11):1207-12] So first things first... PREGNANT WOMEN: MDs are closing birth canals up to 30%. It's EASY to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%! Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out! BUT - see WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, below... (Frudinger et al. See MRI SEX AGAIN, below.) Second things second... MEDICARE X-RAY/SUBLUXATION CHIRO CRIME... I do hope that chiropractic orthopedists will join me in stopping rather obvious albeit relatively innocuous x-ray/subluxation CHIROPRACTIC crime (Medicare x-ray/subluxation healthfraud) even as they work to stop the gruesome MEDICAL crime discussed below ... See US Atty Genl to 'quackbust' CSICOP 'skeptics'? (WILK v. AMA was a win for organized medicine - not chiropractic) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....earthlink.net Onward... CHIRO ORTHOPEDISTS AND GLOBAL UNREST... Open Letter (archived for global access***) Floyd Larcher, DC, DABCO President American Board of Chiropractic Orthopedists/ABCO Avila Beach, CA (via ABCO Exec. Dir. Paul G. Smith, DC, MA, DABCO and , fax 702-222-9095 1680 E. Flamingo, Ste. A, Las Vegas, NV 89119) Floyd, UNREST. Our culture is causing it - literally - globally. It's a chiropractic orthopedic issue: Amid chiropractic silence, Western children are losing bony "squatting" facets as they are robbed of an innate way to rest on their feet for hours in virtually any terrain... In 2001, Eve-Line Boule, chercheur associé at CÉPAM wrote: "[S]quatting was a regular behavior used until the end of the Middle Ages, and after this period a progressive decrease occurs..." [Am J Phys Anthropol 2001 May;115(1):50-6] I replied: The Great Squat Robbery that started in the Middle Ages starts anew in elementary schools every year! See CÉPAM, the Great Squat Robbery (and mass obstetric crime) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...700%40dfiatx1- snr1.gtei.net In 1986, the late Arthur Guyton, MD wrote: "Even such simple activities as sitting for a long time...can cause tissue destruction...Cessation of blood flow to the skin...usually...cause[s] pain...[within]...20 to 30 minutes" (p. 594)...when the skin becomes painful as a result of the ischemia, the person shifts weight unconsciously" (p. 592). [Guyton AC. Textbook of Medical Physiology. 7th ed. Phil: W.B. Saunders 1986] Most humans on the planet can squat for hours, nearly motionless... Chairdwelling children squirm in their chairs as they LOSE this precious innate rest posture... In 1987, Newsweek reported that children can only sit still for 15 minutes at a time in their chairs: "Educators say that many five-year olds really can't handle a highly academic program. They're still learning how to sit still for more than 15 minutes at a time." [Kantrowitz B, Wingert P. The big grind in kindergarten. Newsweek (Aug10)1987. From Gastaldo's peer review of the AHCPR-sponsored Low Back Guideline draft.] WHY are we forcing children to sit in chairs for so long?! Why are we forcing ADULTS to sit in chairs for so long?! POPE IGNORES GASTALDO... I've already tried to reach the world's most famous chair dweller - the Pope - to enlist his support on ending the spreading global unrest. The Pope is often referred to as the chair in which he sometimes sits (the Holy See) - and his corporate offices (Cathedrals) are named for the chairs (cathedra) they house... His Holiness runs one of the largest chains of maternity hospitals in the world - he could stop a LOT of MDs from closing birth canals... Most recently, I tried to contact His Holiness via the Jesuits... See The uterus as 'home' (JESUITS: Babies *bizarrely* driven from their 'homes' by force...) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=k0Bq9.32626 %24OB5.2621293%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net No luck... Before the Pope started ignoring me, I was ignored by a panel of mostly MDs (convened by AHCPR now gutted and called AHRQ) who wrote: "Sitting is not dangerous...[Adults with severe low back symptoms can sit for] 20 min...[Adults with NO low back symptoms can sit for] 50 min." (!!!!!) --Bigos et al. (mostly MDs but also two DCs: Triano and Haldeman).AHCPR (now AHRQ) Guideline 14 Right under our noses, a minority of humans on the planet - us - are being robbed of a way to take a rest on our feet in virtually any terrain! Chairdwelling is spreading. FUNNY CHAIRDWELLING COINCIDENCE... MD-obstetricians are senselessly closing birth canals, gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines at birth... MD-obstetricians (Gardosi et al.) blamed this bizarre medical birth behavior on the fact that children are being robbed of their innate squatting ability! (See Gardosi et al.'s 1989 Lancet "randomised controlled trial of squatting" where nobody squatted.) DC-orthopedists have an ethical obligation to stop both the mass robbery of bony "squatting" facets AND the gruesome mass spinal manipulation of MD-obstetricians... See ACA and Birth Trauma, below... Some interesting quotes... "Chiropractic Education...include[s]...OBSTETRICS..." --American Chiropractic Association/ACA Chairman James Edwards, DC and Cynthia Vaughn, DC http://www.jamesedwards.com/educate.htm (emphasis added) "Obstetrics is the art of midwifery...If the accoucheur is a Chiropractor, he can adjust...thereby preventing disease." --Dr. DD Palmer, Founder of Chiropractic [1910:789] Chiropractic physicians don't *need* to attend births - don't need to practice obstetrics or midwifery - to adjust to prevent disease! CHIROPRACTIC PHYSICIANS CLOSEST IN PHILOSOPHY TO MIDWIVES... Marsden Wagner, MD^^^ once said: "Chiropractic physicians are conceivably closest in philosophy to the midwives due to their training in the non-use of drugs...If a nurse or [medical] physician desires to practice midwifery, then it is necessary for each to [undergo one year or more of training] to literally 'unlearn' the pathological vision to get the proper perspective of normality." ^^^Marsden Wagner, MD served for 15 years as the director of women's and children's health for the World Health Organization. The quote above appeared in Wagner's amicus brief in the Peckman midwifery case and was published in NAPSAC News Spring 1991 by the InterNational Association of Parents and Professionals for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth, Rt. 1, Box 646, Marble Hill, MO 63764 USA. Again, chiropractic physicians don't *need* to attend births - don't need to practice obstetrics or midwifery - to adjust to prevent disease! ACA and BIRTH TRAUMA... The American Chiropractic Association/ACA says that: 1) "[t]he chiropractic profession recognizes that...birth trauma, may be [a] common primary cause...of illness in children" and 2) that birth trauma-caused illness "can have a direct and significant impact on not only spinal biomechanics, but on other bodily functions.....Ratified by the House of Delegates, July 1994." http://www.amerchiro.org/about/policies.shtml EDUCATION is the key... ORTHOPEDICS STARTED OUT AS EDUCATION FOR PARENTS... It was recently reported in the medical literature that André, "considered the father of orthopaedics...wrote his book...for parents and others who raise children, rather than as a text about any specific condition." --Michael Bonfiglio, MD reviewing Orthopedics: A History and Iconography by Leonard F. Peltier, MD, PhD http://www.normanpublishing.com/norm...hopedics/ortho ped.shtml Unfortunately, orthopedics got "Medicalized" (near totally "Surgerized").... Dr. DD Palmer, Founder of chiropractic, wrote: "Orthopedy has become a part of Chiropractic but with the difference that when Chiropractorized, it has but little or no resemblance to Medical orthopedy...Chiropractic orthopedy makes a special study of etiology, desiring to know the why of these abnormalities...[T]here is no resemblance whatsoever between surgical orthopedy and chiropractic orthopedy..." --Dr DD Palmer, Founder of Chiropractic [1910:786, 844] CHIROPRACTIC ORTHOPEDICS TO THE RESCUE... ACA recognizes the American Board of Chiropractic Orthopedics/ABCO as "pre-eminent" certifying organization for chiropractic orthopedists...as in, http://www.abconet.org/frequently_asked_questions.htm ACA's Council on Chiropractic Orthopedics is "a primary council of the American Chiropractic Association." http://www.ccodc.org/ Both ACA http://www.ccodc.org/definition.htm and ABCO http://www.abconet.org/about.htm make "continued acquisition of knowledge" part of the DEFINITION of chiropractic orthopedics, i.e., both ACA and ABCO use the following definition: "Chiropractic Orthopedics is defined as the branch of chiropractic medicine that includes the CONTINUED ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE relative to both normal functions and diseases of the body as they relate to the bones, joints, capsules, discs, muscles, ligaments, tendons, their complete neurological components, referred organ systems and contiguous tissues... (NOTE: Chiropractic Founder Dr. DD Palmer defined chiropractic (in part) as "the mental act of accumulating knowledge." [1910:19]) One of the stated Objectives of ACA's Council on Chiropractic Orthopedics is: "Shar[ing] knowledge with all doctors of chiropractic for the benefit of the public and the profession..." http://www.ccodc.org/council.htm Hopefully, ACA Council on Chiropractic Orthopedics officers (listed below) will urge ACA to immediately forward broadcast this email to ALL DCs for whom ACA has email addresses. ATTENTION: ACA Council on Chiropractic Orthopedics President GARY L. CARVER, D.C. 4409 Sterling Ave. Kansas City, MO 64133-1854 816-358-5100 Fax 816-358-6565 ATTENTION Vice-President LEO J. BRONSTON, D.C. 1122 Saint Andrew St. La Crosse, WI 54603-2934 608-782-2225 608-781-2495 ATTENTION Secretary Harold Tondera, DC9119 South Gessner, #201Houston, TX 77074713-988-3223fax - 713-988-5643 ATTENTION Treasurer Dale Hungtington, DC700 W SunsetSpringdale, AR 72764-5434 - 479-751-8154fax - 479-751-5362 ATTENTION Immediate Past President ROGER A. RUSSELL, D.C. 715 Mall Ring Circle Suite 205 Henderson, NV 89014-6657 702-990-2225 Fax 702-990-7711 ATTENTION A.C.A. Liaison Officer LINDA L. ZANGE, D, C., 3633 West Lake Ave. Glenview, IL 60025 847-724-2340 Fax 847-724-2356 ACA chiro orthopedists "shar[ing] knowledge with all doctors of chiropractic for the benefit of the public and the profession" - COULD rally ***ALL DCs IN AMERICA*** to stop MDs from closing birth canals. Hopefully, they could do it by September 16 when the 2003 ACA House of Delegates Meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Albuquerque, NM. Larry Markson, DC says, "We need to clearly define chiropractic, and now is the time!" http://www.chiroweb.com/columnist/greenawalt/index.html (accessed July 9, 2003) Larry, Dr. DD Palmer's fundamental chiropractic hypothesis is now published as the definition of chiropractic in Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary... See Breastfeeding = Chiropractic immunization! http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=4IkNa.79630 %24Io.7318591%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net Let's now define chiropractic via national/global ACTION - by saving tiny lives and tiny limbs and PREVENTING more vertebral subluxations than DCs will ever be able to adjust by hand... Stopping global UNREST (stopping the Great Squat Robbery) will naturally follow... Again, for room reservations in Albuquerque, ACA says: "Please call the hotel at 800-233-1234 or 505-842-1234 to make your room reservations." http://www.amerchiro.org/about/hod2003/hotel_info.shtml Thanks for reading, Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo PS1 ABCO SHALL BE OPERATED... "[T]he ABCO shall be operated...[t]o seek and foster cooperation and contacts with other health specialty organizations, and to collaborate on matters of common interest...[t]o provide a guiding influence in academic and professional research in the field of chiropractic orthopedics." AMERICAN BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC ORTHOPEDISTS, INC. (ABCO) -BYLAWS- http://www.abconet.org/pdfs/ABCOBylaws.pdf I'm hoping ABCO diplomates (DABCOs) will use this "shall be operated" ABCO Bylaw to call for chiropractic collaboration with "other health specialty organizations" in doing the OBVIOUS simple MRI study I've called for... See Flip women over, reach in vagina, *pull* on sacrum during MRI! http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...g.goog le.com Copied to: Julia Allen, DC, DACNB Secretary-Treasurer American Chiropractic Neurology Board, Inc. 2803 Williams Drive, Suite 105 Georgetown, Texas 78628 (512) 863-2225 or FAX (512) 863-2233 Julia, perhaps chiropractic neurologists could team with chiropractic orthopedists to rally America's DCs to stop MDs from closing birth canals and gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines at birth? Just a thought... PS2 Floyd, *are* you the Floyd Larcher who is president of the DABCO generator? Sorry to be impatient Floyd, but MDs are LYING and some babies are DYING - at the hands of America's most prolific spinal manipulators - MD-obstetricians. I hope you just got too busy and simply didn't have time to reply to my second email, reproduced below. Regardless whether you are the Floyd Larcher who is president of the DABCO generator, I do hope you will help stop MDs from closing birth canals and gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines at birth... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Gastaldo" To: "Floyd Larcher" snip Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:30 AM Subject: Floyd from LACC? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Floyd Larcher" snip To: "Todd Gastaldo" Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:49 AM Subject: Floyd from LACC? Hi Todd, It's me. Floyd It's good to hear from you Floyd. I'm hoping you're the Floyd Larcher who is president of the DABCO generator... http://www.abconet.org/about.htm Todd On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:40:00 -0700 "Todd Gastaldo" wrote: That you, Floyd? Todd PS4 BREECH BABY: IS PLANNED CAESAREAN SAFER? OPEN LETTER (archived for global access***) Prof. Jim Thornton Editor-in-Chief British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology/BJOG 27 Sussex Place London NW1 4RG To the Editor: Rietberg et al. [1] offer evidence that term-breech-presentation-planned caesareans may prevent a "twofold increase in mortality, a sevenfold increase in low Apgar score and a threefold increase in birth trauma" (relative to breech vaginal deliveries or breech emergency caesareans). Rietberg et al. did not mention birth position. Nordström [2] writes, "The standard maternal position during the second stage is lying on her back" - yet there is clinical and x-ray evidence (summarized by Gastaldo [3]) that "lying on her back" and semisitting delivery positions close the birth canal significantly. Michel et al. [4] offer magnetic resonance imaging evidence that "lying on her back" and semisitting delivery positions close the birth canal significantly. If the Rietberg et al. study included term breech vaginal deliveries (woman "lying on her back" or semisitting), some of the adverse outcomes may have derived - not from vaginal delivery - but from birth canals senselessly being closed significantly due to medicine's irrational birth behavior. Dr. Todd Gastaldo 22115 NW Imbrie Dr. #338 Hillsboro, Oregon USA References 1. CCTh Rietberg, PM Elferink-Stinkensb, R Brandc, AJ van Loond, OJS Van Hemele, GHA Visserf, Term breech presentation in The Netherlands from 1995 to 1999: mortality and morbidity in relation to the mode of delivery of 33,824 infants Br J Obstet Gynaecol 110 (2003), pp. 604-609., 2. L Nordström, Letter (Fetal and maternal lactate increase during active second stage of labour), Br J Obstet Gynaecol 110 (2003), pp. 85 3. TD Gastaldo, Letter (Labor posture), Birth 19 (1992), p. 230. 4. SC Michel, A Rake, K Treiber, B Seifert, R Chaoui, R Huch, B Marincek, RA Kubik-Huch, MR obstetric pelvimetry: effect of birthing position on pelvic bony dimensions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 179 (2002), pp. 1063-1067. MRI SEX - AGAIN... Copied to: Michel et al. (just cited) via... Rahel A. Kubik-Huch, MD Department of Radiology Kantonsspital Baden CH-5404 Baden Switzerland Rahel, My October 2002 usenet article "MRI sex" (which I copied to you) included a brief discussion of your 2002 MRI study (reference 4 above, SC Michel, A Rake, K Treiber, B Seifert, R Chaoui, R Huch, B Marincek, RA Kubik-Huch, MR obstetric pelvimetry: effect of birthing position on pelvic bony dimensions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 179 (2002), pp. 1063-1067)... http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=KInn9.8739% 24OB5.866576%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net You and your colleagues [Michel et al 2002] indicated that allowing women to birth semisitting or on hands and knees "significantly expands female pelvic bony dimensions, suggesting facilitation of labor and delivery." You failed to mention that it is the uterus (and abdominal musculature) pushing the baby out that likely most significantly expands female pelvic bony dimensions. You failed to reach into the vagina and pull on the sacral tip in your semisitting and hands and knees images. Even so, it is remarkable that you were able to report: "With patients in the hand-to-knee and squatting positions, the sagittal outlet (11.8 ± 1.3 cm and 11.7 ± 1.3 cm) exceeded that in the supine position (11.5 ± 1.3 cm; p = 0.002 and p = 0.01, respectively)..." Just now - in composing my Open Letter response to the Reitberg et al. breech study - I found a 2003 MRI study which you co-authored with Keller et al.: TM Keller, A Rake, SCA Michel, B Seifert, G Efe, K Treiber, R Huch, B Marincek, RA Kubik-Huch, Obstetric MR Pelvimetry: Reference Values and Evaluation of Inter- and Intraobserver Error and Intraindividual Variability. Radiology 2003;227:37-43. I do not agree that you "confirmed that pelvimetric dimensions are significantly smaller in women undergoing cesarean section and assisted delivery than in those delivering vaginally." [Keller 2003] ....at least not in regard to sagittal pelvic outlet diameter. I say this because your study [Keller 2003] was, in large part, a retrospective study of "MR pelvimetry...performed with the patient in the supine position." Women in the supine position are lying on their sacra, closing their birth canals. See below. MASSIVE PELVIC OUTLET AREA DENIED... You failed to mention sacroiliac motion in both studies - yet it is sacroiliac motion which yields a "massive" change in sagittal pelvic outlet dimension. This "massive" amount of sacroiliac motion denied was noted in the 1969 article by JGB Russell which you and your colleagues cited in both of your MRI studies... Incidentally, "massive" was the word used by another group of researchers (Lilford et al.) who knowingly (or perhaps negligently) perpetrated a radiation fraud on the recent parturients they studied. See Gastaldo to delight BJOG editor Thornton http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=hCIKa.13893 %24C83.1321663%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net Given these rather major gaffs - I no longer believe your 2002 statement that "ethical grounds" prohibited you from studying "recent parturients" in 2002. I believe that you INTENTIONALLY failed to study "recent parturients" - to help in the ongoing cover-up of a MASSIVE medical crime against mothers and babies... Here is the relevant "ethical grounds" quote from your 2002 study: "A limitation of our study is that we included no pregnant women. We made this decision for two reasons: the limited space in the scanner bore (upright scanning is technically impossible for a woman in late pregnancy) and the ethics of scanning stress, particularly in the hand-to-knee and squatting positions (even nonpregnant volunteers were exhausted by having to remain immobile during the 10 min. of image acquisition). On these ethical grounds, we even extended our noninclusion criteria to recent parturients...We are aware that this limitation prevented us from measuring the influence of pregnancy-related joint laxity in late gestation, for which there is ample documentation. However, changes in pelvic dimensions observed in nonpregnant women should become even more pronounced during delivery..." [Michel et al. Am J Roentgenol 2002 Oct;179(4):1063-1067] Yes, Rahel, changes in pelvic dimensions SHOULD become even more pronounced during delivery - and in recent parturients - but NOT just because of increased ligament laxity. You failed miserably in your clinical purpose: "The clinical purpose of our study was to provide obstetricians with guidance in predicting fetal-pelvic disproportion..." I say again: You failed to mention in your 2002 study that it is the uterus (and abdominal musculature) pushing the baby out that likely most significantly expands female pelvic bony dimensions. And you failed to reach into the vagina and pull on the sacral tip in your semisitting and hands and knees images. Your 2003 study helps MDs pretend (with Lilford et al.) that massive amounts of sacroiliac motion aren't being denied by MDs. Your 2003 study did contain this HOT quote: "In choosing the mode of delivery, it is important to be able to test for fetal-pelvic disproportion, since fetomaternal morbidity and mortality increase with prolonged labor..." Yes, PLEASE DO test for fetal-pelvic disproportion! Reach in the vagina and pull on the sacral tip and compare that AP pelvic outlet diameter with the AP pelvic outlet diameter obtained with the mother lying on her sacrum. "Fetomaternal morbidity and mortality increase with prolonged labor" - was the EXACT point I was trying to make to BJOG Editor Jim Thornton recently! Jim IGNORED this point! See again: Gastaldo to delight BJOG editor Thornton http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=hCIKa.13893 %24C83.1321663%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net You also wrote in your 2003 study: "[P]elvimetric differences of just a few millimeters could have an important bearing on obstetric decision making..." YES! If the OB is senselessly closing the birth canal up to 40 millimeters - you STOP him/her! In some births, OBs are senselessly closing the birth canal MORE than 40 millimeters - at least this is what is indicated by the 2001 issue of Williams Obstetrics, as in, "...With increasing narrowing of the pubic arch, the occiput cannot emerge directly beneath the symphysis pubis but is forced increasingly farther down...the ischiopubic rami. In extreme cases, the head must rotate around a line joining the ischial tuberosities [!] (p. 438)..." You failed to mention the pubic arch! Here is a 1913 quote regarding the effect of the pubic arch: "[M]oving backward of the tip of the sacrum...enlarges the available space not merely directly in proportion to the distance backward, but more nearly by the square of that distance." [Emmons, AB. A study of the variations in the female pelvis, based on observations made on 217 specimens of the American Indian squaw. Biometrika 1913; 9:34-47.] Again quoting Williams Obstetrics: When the pubic arch is extremely narrow, "the head must rotate around a line joining the ischial tuberosities [!] (p. 438)..." FRUDINGER ET AL [2002] "A narrow subpubic arch is strongly associated with prolonged labour and postpartum anal incontinence in nulliparous women." --Ass-Ärztin Dr. Andrea Froschauer-Frudinger et al. via [Frudinger et al. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;109(11):1207-12] "HOWEVER" (write Frudinger et al. [2002, emphasis added]), "perineal and anal sphincter trauma, assessed by ultrasound, does not account for the higher rate of postpartum anal incontinence in women with a narrow subpubic arch angle." Fascinating. First let's stop MDs from closing birth canals - then let's ponder this latter fascinating finding... RUSSELL STARTED THE GAME... Russell mentioned the intrapartum x-ray study of Borell and Fernstrom in his 1969 study - but NOT in his 1982 study... Russell also suggested (fraudulently) that semisitting widens "all the diameters." Assuming that you guys actually read the 1969 paper by Russell (which you cited in both MRI studies), you are either dumb or scum. I personally think you guys are scum. You gave as a reason for your study: "We believed it important to establish reference MR pelvimetric values"; when in fact, you used MRI like Liford et al. used x-ray - to CONCEAL "pelvimetric values." You concealed MASSIVE "pelvimetric" values to quote Lilford et al.'s bogus study which attempted to conceal the value of previous x-ray and clinical observations.) Sorry to call you all scum. Perhaps some of you simply *weren't aware* of the obvious ongoing obstetric criminal negligence discussed herein? Perhaps you never read my email - or the relevant medical literature? Well now you *are* aware. PLEASE help stop MDs and MBs and nurses and midwives from closing birth canals up to 30%. PS4 PREGNANT WOMEN! It's EASY to open your birth canal an "extra" up to 30%! Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out! PLEASE talk to your MD about this NOW... WARNING, WARNING, WARNING: Some MDs will let women "try" side-lying and other "alternative" delivery positions - but they will move women back to semisitting - close their birth canals (!) at the very worst possible moment (as the baby is coming out)... See GASTALDO'S ABSTRACT - my invited poster presentation at a recent obstetric congress co-sponsored by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/ACOG. (NOTE: GASTALDO'S ABSTRACT is on the web: Search "GASTALDO'S ABSTRACT Paciornik"...) GRUESOME SPINAL MANIPULATION BY MDs (and MBs)... MDs routinely pull "gently"/gruesomely on babies' heads sticking out vaginas/birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%. (ALL spinal manipulation of fetuses is gruesome with the birth canal closed up to 30%.) UNNECESSARY EPIDURALS... MDs routinely cause uteri to PUSH with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30% and in many births MDs chemically whip uteri to push harder/VIOLENTLY - with oxytocin and Cytotec - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%! No wonder some women literally BEG for epidurals! UNNECESSARY FORCEPS/VACUUM EXTRACTIONS... In 10 to 15% of births MDs reach INSIDE vaginas - with forceps/vacuum extractors - and drag babies out through birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%! Sometimes MDs pull so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords! MDs may occasionally be pulling the brain/cerebellum into the upper cervical canal! See again: Gastaldo's fibromyalgia hypothesis (Chiari/birth trauma) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=1K0Ka.10657 %24C83.1056213%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net UNNECESSARY CESAREAN SECTIONS... MDs close birth canals - CAUSE "cephalopelvic disproportion" - then perform major abdominal surgeries called c-sections BEcause of "cephalopelvic disproportion! UNNECESSARY EPISIOTOMIES... MDs routinely slash vaginas (euphemism "routine episiotomy") - surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring that everything possible is being done to OPEN birth canals - even as they CLOSE birth canals up to 30%! MDs offer women "generous" episiotomies when the baby's shoulders get stuck... The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/ACOG indirectly ADMITS that MDs are routinely closing birth canals - why *else* would ACOG's Shoulder Dystocia video show MDs how to OPEN the birth canal maximally when the shoulders get stuck? Unfortunately, ACOG's Shoulder Dystocia video method of "opening" the birth canal maximally - KEEPS THE BIRTH CANAL CLOSED! See Blame, Attorney Weisbrod and the 'God within' (our courts of law)... http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=Q28K8.883%2 4NG1.312%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net Thanks for reading, everyone, Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo ***This Open Letter will be archived for global access within 24 hours. Search http://groups.google.com for "Chiro orthopedists and global UNREST - and babies..." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|