Do-it-yourself C-section!

PREGNANT WOMEN: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30% and it's
EASY to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%.

See below.



DO-IT-YOURSELF C-SECTION!

"She took three small glasses of hard liquor and, using a kitchen knife,
sliced her abdomen in three attempts...and delivered a male infant that
breathed immediately and cried," said Dr R.F. Valle, of the Dr Manuel
Velasco Suarez Hospital in San Pablo, Mexico."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/06...eut/index.html



KATE ELLIOTT, MD posted the just cited URL. THANKS Kate! More on Kate
below.

Here's the PubMed abstract for the Do-it-yourself C-section...

Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004 Mar;84(3):287-90. PubMed abstract

Self-inflicted cesarean section with maternal and fetal survival.

Molina-Sosa A, Galvan-Espinosa H, Gabriel-Guzman J, Valle RF.

Hospital General Dr. Manuel Velasco Suarez, San Pablo, Huixtepec, Zimatlan,
Oaxaca, Mexico.

An unusual case of self-inflicted cesarean section with maternal and child
survival is presented. No similar event was found in an Internet literature
search. Because of a lack of medical assistance and a history of fetal death
in utero, a 40-year-old multiparous woman unable to deliver herself alone
vaginally sliced her abdomen and uterus and delivered her child. She was
transferred to a hospital where she underwent repair of the incisions and
had to remain hospitalized. Mother and child survived the event. Unusual and
extraordinary measures to preserve their offspring sometimes moves women to
extreme decisions endangering their own lives. Social, educational, and
health measures should be instituted all over the world, particularly in
rural areas of developing countries, to avoid such extreme events.

KATE ELLIOTT, MD

HOW TO AVOID GIVING YOURSELF A C-SECTION was the subject line when Kate
Elliott, MD ("Akuvikate" ) posted the URL for the
Do-it-yourself C-section article...

Kate graduated from medical school last year...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

I didn't understand Kate's subject line!

How would the Do-it-yourself C-section story help women avoid giving
themselves c-sections?

It seems to me that such a story would encourage women unfortunate enough to
be in outlying areas without medical and surgical help to do it to save
their lives. When c-section is necessary it is a life-saver.

I wondered...Could Kate be indirectly encouraging women to take my birth
position advice?

I mention this possibility (as unlikely as it is) because Kate apologized to
me in her birth story as follows...

"I started pushing, and continued just doing my thing. They suggested
I try on my back with my legs pulled up (sorry, Gastaldo) so I did. I
then tried hands and knees, but didn't like it particularly any
better, and really was not in the mood to support my weight any more
than that. So I went back to that position [on my back with my legs pulled
up] , which the intern told me
was working quite well...The only wrinkle came toward the end, as she
continued to have the big
drops in heartrate with each contraction. They got worse and her
recovery from them slowed, and I was told at this point no more easing
her out slowly -- she needed to come now. So I had to start holding
my breath and pushing through incredible pain to get her out. The
last few pushes I was screaming like a banshee, and when the OB urged
me to push *hard* and get her out, I replied "I can't -- it hurts too
much -- use the vacuum!". But I could, and did. At 9:44am, Margaret
Hope K. entered the world weighing in at 8lbs 10oz. She had a tight
nuchal cord, which accounted for her heartrate drops, and [she] was a tad
stunned at first..."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...g.goog le.com

KATE'S LITTLE MAGGIE (some of what follows is a slightly edited excerpt of
my response to being mentioned in Kate's birth story)...

Kate apparently gave birth on her back. (She wrote "Sorry, Gastaldo" in her
birth story, see above.)

I certainly HOPE (as Kate averred) that it was little Maggie's "tight nuchal
cord" (unavoidable so far as I know) and not also a birth canal senselessly
closed
up to 30% that caused Kate's little Maggie to suffer "big drops in
heartrate with each contraction" after which she was born "a tad stunned."

Perhaps Kate didn't actually give birth on her back/on her butt - on her
sacrum - closing her birth canal up to 30%?

If so, why did she write, "Sorry, Gastaldo"?

Assuming she did give birth on her sacrum - I do thank Kate for publicly
apologizing to me in her birth story - but if she did indeed deliver on her
sacrum - she apologized to the wrong person.

Quite simply, even when one's baby is NOT suffering "big drops in heartrate
with each contraction," one does NOT knowingly keep the birth canal closed
with each contraction.

If this is what happened, to avoid repeat performances, Kate (now an MD)
should now explicitly inform her usenet readers that she
knowingly closed her birth canal even as her daughter showed signs of
distress...

I emphasize that Kate is an MD because, sadly, some people blindly accept
behaviors of MDs and RNs - babies be
damned.

Nurse Hawki wrote:

"[A] DC cannot 'protest' what an MD does...[P]erhaps you need to get the
chain of command in the proper order..chiros are
not at the top...tho I have the utmost respect for my chiro,,he doesn't
belong in the delivery
room..nor does he have the 'right' to protest what a duly educated and
licensed
MD or DO does..or does not do..."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=20030602231
755.23008.00000616%40mb-m13.aol.com

NOTE: If Kate Elliott, MD or Nurse Hawki - have evidence that
standard medical delivery positions (semisitting and dorsal) do NOT close
the birth canal up to 30% - they (or anyone else who has such evidence)
should offer cites and quotes from the medical literature. The most recent
relevant study - an MRI study - poorly planned and conducted as it was -
indicated that MDs are denying babies "significant" amounts of pelvic outlet
area - which is what last century's clinical and x-ray studies indicated.

Incidentally Nurse Hawki is simply wrong: DCs have an ETHICAL OBLIGATION to
protest MDs
gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines at birth. (I define as gruesome
any pushing or pulling with the birth canal senselessly/stupidly closed up
to 30%.)

I read some of Kate's posts about little Maggie. Maggie seems to be doing
quite well.

Not all babies do well after birth. Some babies die, some are paralyzed -
most "only" have their necks wrenched - with birth canals senselessly closed
up to 30%.

Some babies don't manifest motor and perceptual deficits until later...

Again...

HOW TO AVOID GIVING YOURSELF A C-SECTION was the subject line when Kate
posted the URL for the Do-it-yourself C-section article...

I didn't get Kate's meaning but...

There is a simple way that women can help avoid an unnecessary
c-section...and other unnecessary medical and surgical procedures.

It's a simple way for them to allow their birth canals to OPEN the "extra"
up to 30%...

Nearly all of my posts give the simple instructions - and tell how to avoid
other unnecessary medical and surgical procedures...

And they give the simple PROOF that MDs are knowingly closing birth canals
up to 30%...

For example...

See Difference between God and an MD?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2438

See also: Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2256

And see: Helping baby open birth canal (Why obstetrics is criminal medical
CAM)...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2391

LADIES: It is EASY for you to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up
to 30%.
Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out - or deliver on
hands-and-knees, kneeling, standing, squatting, etc.

BEWARE though: Some MDs and MBs will let you "try" "alternative"
delivery positions but will move you back to dorsal or semisitting (close
your birth canal!) as you push your baby out!

Talk to your MD or MB about this TODAY. (For further details see the
"Criminal medical CAM" URLs above.)

MDs/MBs: If you must push or pull - and sometimes you must - first get the
woman off her sacrum - off her back/butt.


REMEMBER: MDs are CAUSING cephalopelvic disproportion (and failure to
progress) - then performing c-sections BEcause of cephalopelvic
disproportion (and failure to progress)...

It's not right.

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message DO-IT-YOURSELF
C-SECTION!

"She took three small glasses of hard liquor and, using a kitchen knife,
sliced her abdomen in three attempts...


HOLY COW!
I can't believe this!
I started having sympathy pains just reading this article!

plonk

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
news
PREGNANT WOMEN: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30% and it's
EASY to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%.

See below.



DO-IT-YOURSELF C-SECTION!

"She took three small glasses of hard liquor and, using a kitchen knife,
sliced her abdomen in three attempts...and delivered a male infant that
breathed immediately and cried," said Dr R.F. Valle, of the Dr Manuel
Velasco Suarez Hospital in San Pablo, Mexico."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/06...eut/index.html



KATE ELLIOTT, MD posted the just cited URL. THANKS Kate! More on Kate
below.

Here's the PubMed abstract for the Do-it-yourself C-section...

Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004 Mar;84(3):287-90. PubMed abstract

Self-inflicted cesarean section with maternal and fetal survival.

Molina-Sosa A, Galvan-Espinosa H, Gabriel-Guzman J, Valle RF.

Hospital General Dr. Manuel Velasco Suarez, San Pablo, Huixtepec,
Zimatlan,
Oaxaca, Mexico.

An unusual case of self-inflicted cesarean section with maternal and child
survival is presented. No similar event was found in an Internet
literature
search. Because of a lack of medical assistance and a history of fetal
death
in utero, a 40-year-old multiparous woman unable to deliver herself alone
vaginally sliced her abdomen and uterus and delivered her child. She was
transferred to a hospital where she underwent repair of the incisions and
had to remain hospitalized. Mother and child survived the event. Unusual
and
extraordinary measures to preserve their offspring sometimes moves women
to
extreme decisions endangering their own lives. Social, educational, and
health measures should be instituted all over the world, particularly in
rural areas of developing countries, to avoid such extreme events.

KATE ELLIOTT, MD

HOW TO AVOID GIVING YOURSELF A C-SECTION was the subject line when Kate
Elliott, MD ("Akuvikate" ) posted the URL for the
Do-it-yourself C-section article...

Kate graduated from medical school last year...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

I didn't understand Kate's subject line!

How would the Do-it-yourself C-section story help women avoid giving
themselves c-sections?

It seems to me that such a story would encourage women unfortunate enough
to
be in outlying areas without medical and surgical help to do it to save
their lives. When c-section is necessary it is a life-saver.

I wondered...Could Kate be indirectly encouraging women to take my birth
position advice?

I mention this possibility (as unlikely as it is) because Kate apologized
to
me in her birth story as follows...

"I started pushing, and continued just doing my thing. They suggested
I try on my back with my legs pulled up (sorry, Gastaldo) so I did. I
then tried hands and knees, but didn't like it particularly any
better, and really was not in the mood to support my weight any more
than that. So I went back to that position [on my back with my legs
pulled
up] , which the intern told me
was working quite well...The only wrinkle came toward the end, as she
continued to have the big
drops in heartrate with each contraction. They got worse and her
recovery from them slowed, and I was told at this point no more easing
her out slowly -- she needed to come now. So I had to start holding
my breath and pushing through incredible pain to get her out. The
last few pushes I was screaming like a banshee, and when the OB urged
me to push *hard* and get her out, I replied "I can't -- it hurts too
much -- use the vacuum!". But I could, and did. At 9:44am, Margaret
Hope K. entered the world weighing in at 8lbs 10oz. She had a tight
nuchal cord, which accounted for her heartrate drops, and [she] was a tad
stunned at first..."

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...g.goog le.com

KATE'S LITTLE MAGGIE (some of what follows is a slightly edited excerpt of
my response to being mentioned in Kate's birth story)...

Kate apparently gave birth on her back. (She wrote "Sorry, Gastaldo" in
her
birth story, see above.)

I certainly HOPE (as Kate averred) that it was little Maggie's "tight
nuchal
cord" (unavoidable so far as I know) and not also a birth canal
senselessly
closed
up to 30% that caused Kate's little Maggie to suffer "big drops in
heartrate with each contraction" after which she was born "a tad stunned."

Perhaps Kate didn't actually give birth on her back/on her butt - on her
sacrum - closing her birth canal up to 30%?

If so, why did she write, "Sorry, Gastaldo"?

Assuming she did give birth on her sacrum - I do thank Kate for publicly
apologizing to me in her birth story - but if she did indeed deliver on
her
sacrum - she apologized to the wrong person.

Quite simply, even when one's baby is NOT suffering "big drops in
heartrate
with each contraction," one does NOT knowingly keep the birth canal closed
with each contraction.

If this is what happened, to avoid repeat performances, Kate (now an MD)
should now explicitly inform her usenet readers that she
knowingly closed her birth canal even as her daughter showed signs of
distress...

I emphasize that Kate is an MD because, sadly, some people blindly accept
behaviors of MDs and RNs - babies be
damned.

Nurse Hawki wrote:

"[A] DC cannot 'protest' what an MD does...[P]erhaps you need to get the
chain of command in the proper order..chiros are
not at the top...tho I have the utmost respect for my chiro,,he doesn't
belong in the delivery
room..nor does he have the 'right' to protest what a duly educated and
licensed
MD or DO does..or does not do..."

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=20030602231
755.23008.00000616%40mb-m13.aol.com

NOTE: If Kate Elliott, MD or Nurse Hawki - have evidence that
standard medical delivery positions (semisitting and dorsal) do NOT close
the birth canal up to 30% - they (or anyone else who has such evidence)
should offer cites and quotes from the medical literature. The most
recent
relevant study - an MRI study - poorly planned and conducted as it was -
indicated that MDs are denying babies "significant" amounts of pelvic
outlet
area - which is what last century's clinical and x-ray studies indicated.

Incidentally Nurse Hawki is simply wrong: DCs have an ETHICAL OBLIGATION
to
protest MDs
gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines at birth. (I define as
gruesome
any pushing or pulling with the birth canal senselessly/stupidly closed up
to 30%.)

I read some of Kate's posts about little Maggie. Maggie seems to be doing
quite well.

Not all babies do well after birth. Some babies die, some are paralyzed -
most "only" have their necks wrenched - with birth canals senselessly
closed
up to 30%.

Some babies don't manifest motor and perceptual deficits until later...

Again...

HOW TO AVOID GIVING YOURSELF A C-SECTION was the subject line when Kate
posted the URL for the Do-it-yourself C-section article...

I didn't get Kate's meaning but...

There is a simple way that women can help avoid an unnecessary
c-section...and other unnecessary medical and surgical procedures.

It's a simple way for them to allow their birth canals to OPEN the "extra"
up to 30%...

Nearly all of my posts give the simple instructions - and tell how to
avoid
other unnecessary medical and surgical procedures...

And they give the simple PROOF that MDs are knowingly closing birth canals
up to 30%...

For example...

See Difference between God and an MD?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2438

See also: Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of
Medicine
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2256

And see: Helping baby open birth canal (Why obstetrics is criminal medical
CAM)...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2391

LADIES: It is EASY for you to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra"
up
to 30%.
Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out - or deliver on
hands-and-knees, kneeling, standing, squatting, etc.

BEWARE though: Some MDs and MBs will let you "try" "alternative"
delivery positions but will move you back to dorsal or semisitting (close
your birth canal!) as you push your baby out!

Talk to your MD or MB about this TODAY. (For further details see the
"Criminal medical CAM" URLs above.)

MDs/MBs: If you must push or pull - and sometimes you must - first get
the
woman off her sacrum - off her back/butt.


REMEMBER: MDs are CAUSING cephalopelvic disproportion (and failure to
progress) - then performing c-sections BEcause of cephalopelvic
disproportion (and failure to progress)...

It's not right.

DO-IT-YOURSELF C-SECTION!

"She took three small glasses of hard liquor and, using a kitchen knife,
sliced her abdomen in three attempts...and delivered a male infant that
breathed immediately and cried," said Dr R.F. Valle, of the Dr Manuel
Velasco Suarez Hospital in San Pablo, Mexico."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/06...eut/index.html

See: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2462


I wrote: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30%...

Aribert Deckers responded: "That is a blatant lie."

Aribert is sort of right.

1. Not all OBs know they are closing birth canals; and

2. In some women OBs are closing birth canals MORE than 30%.

Here's my source for the 30% figure...

"[T]he outlet increases with moulding by approximately 20-30 per cent."
--Russell JGB. Moulding of the pelvic outlet. J Obstet Gynaec Brit Cwlth
1969;76:817-20.

NOTE: In 1973, Ohlsen verified Russell's 20% figure on
Borell and Fernstrom's 1957 intrapartum x-rays. Ohlsen pointed out that the
authors of Williams Obstetrics were claiming that the pelvic diameters don't
change during delivery - so the authors of Williams Obstetrics decided
(erroneously) that dorsal delivery widens! See:
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

MORE THAN 30%...

SOME BABIES ARE **REALLY** GETTING HAMMERED

Check out the following "head must rotate around a line joining the
ischial tuberosities" quote from the 21st (2001) edition of Williams
Obstetrics:

"In obstructed labor caused by a narrowing of the...pelvic
outlet, the prognosis for vaginal delivery often depends on the length of
the posterior sagittal diameter of the pelvic outlet (p. 56)...The posterior
triangle [of the pelvic outlet]...is limited at its apex by the tip of the
last sacral vertebra (not the coccyx) (p. 437)...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)..."

Stated another way, if the mother has a narrow pubic arch, the baby's
head
doesn't go into the arch very
far - which greatly increases the influence of sacro-iliac motion.


Again, some babies are REALLY getting hammered.

In such women the pelvic outlet is likely closed WAY more than 30% if
sacroiliac motion is denied.


MDs knew about what I am talking about early last century....

Harvard obstetrician Arthur B. Emmons, MD wrote in 1913

"[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.]

And here's what was added to Williams Obstetrics at my
request:

"It should be noted...that the increase in the diameter of the
pelvic outlet occurs **only** if the sacrum is allowed to rotate
posteriorly, that is,
only if the sacrum is not forced anteriorly by the weight of the maternal
pelvis against the delivery table or bed." [Cunningham, MacDonald, Leveno,
Gant and Gilstrap, Williams Obstetrics Appleton-Lange 1993:285, **italics in
original]

Unfortunately, the authors of Williams Obstetrics left in their text - in
the same paragraph (!)
the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my attention to their
text)!!
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

I had discovered the "dorsal widens" bald lie that Ohlsen (see above)
stimulated...

It is still in the latest (2001) edition of Williams Obstetrics!

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 23:11:17 GMT, "Todd Gastaldo"
wrote:

PREGNANT WOMEN: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30% and it's
EASY to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%.

That is a blatant lie.

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
Vollalternative Schmerzbehandlung

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amalanc1.htm

Happy Oyster never posts any evidence or reasoning with his posts, most of
them are just sentences like
"That's a blatant lie" etc.
Anth

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
ink.net...

DO-IT-YOURSELF C-SECTION!

"She took three small glasses of hard liquor and, using a kitchen knife,
sliced her abdomen in three attempts...and delivered a male infant that
breathed immediately and cried," said Dr R.F. Valle, of the Dr Manuel
Velasco Suarez Hospital in San Pablo, Mexico."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/06...eut/index.html

See: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2462


I wrote: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30%...

Aribert Deckers responded: "That is a blatant lie."

Aribert is sort of right.

1. Not all OBs know they are closing birth canals; and

2. In some women OBs are closing birth canals MORE than 30%.

Here's my source for the 30% figure...

"[T]he outlet increases with moulding by approximately 20-30 per cent."
--Russell JGB. Moulding of the pelvic outlet. J Obstet Gynaec Brit Cwlth
1969;76:817-20.

NOTE: In 1973, Ohlsen verified Russell's 20% figure on
Borell and Fernstrom's 1957 intrapartum x-rays. Ohlsen pointed out that
the
authors of Williams Obstetrics were claiming that the pelvic diameters
don't
change during delivery - so the authors of Williams Obstetrics decided
(erroneously) that dorsal delivery widens! See:
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

MORE THAN 30%...

SOME BABIES ARE **REALLY** GETTING HAMMERED

Check out the following "head must rotate around a line joining the
ischial tuberosities" quote from the 21st (2001) edition of Williams
Obstetrics:

"In obstructed labor caused by a narrowing of the...pelvic
outlet, the prognosis for vaginal delivery often depends on the length of
the posterior sagittal diameter of the pelvic outlet (p. 56)...The
posterior
triangle [of the pelvic outlet]...is limited at its apex by the tip of the
last sacral vertebra (not the coccyx) (p. 437)...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)..."

Stated another way, if the mother has a narrow pubic arch, the baby's
head
doesn't go into the arch very
far - which greatly increases the influence of sacro-iliac motion.


Again, some babies are REALLY getting hammered.

In such women the pelvic outlet is likely closed WAY more than 30% if
sacroiliac motion is denied.


MDs knew about what I am talking about early last century....

Harvard obstetrician Arthur B. Emmons, MD wrote in 1913

"[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.]

And here's what was added to Williams Obstetrics at my
request:

"It should be noted...that the increase in the diameter of the
pelvic outlet occurs **only** if the sacrum is allowed to rotate
posteriorly, that is,
only if the sacrum is not forced anteriorly by the weight of the maternal
pelvis against the delivery table or bed." [Cunningham, MacDonald, Leveno,
Gant and Gilstrap, Williams Obstetrics Appleton-Lange 1993:285, **italics
in
original]

Unfortunately, the authors of Williams Obstetrics left in their text - in
the same paragraph (!)
the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my attention to their
text)!!
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

I had discovered the "dorsal widens" bald lie that Ohlsen (see above)
stimulated...

It is still in the latest (2001) edition of Williams Obstetrics!

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo

WEIRD!

What possessed MD-obstetricians?

See below ########

"Anth" wrote in message
...
Happy Oyster never posts any evidence or reasoning with his posts, most of
them are just sentences like
"That's a blatant lie" etc.
Anth

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
ink.net...

DO-IT-YOURSELF C-SECTION!

"She took three small glasses of hard liquor and, using a kitchen knife,
sliced her abdomen in three attempts...and delivered a male infant that
breathed immediately and cried," said Dr R.F. Valle, of the Dr Manuel
Velasco Suarez Hospital in San Pablo, Mexico."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/06...eut/index.html

See: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2462


I wrote: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30%...

Aribert Deckers responded: "That is a blatant lie."

Aribert is sort of right.

1. Not all OBs know they are closing birth canals; and

2. In some women OBs are closing birth canals MORE than 30%.

Here's my source for the 30% figure...

"[T]he outlet increases with moulding by approximately 20-30 per cent."
--Russell JGB. Moulding of the pelvic outlet. J Obstet Gynaec Brit Cwlth
1969;76:817-20.

NOTE: In 1973, Ohlsen verified Russell's 20% figure on
Borell and Fernstrom's 1957 intrapartum x-rays. Ohlsen pointed out that
the
authors of Williams Obstetrics were claiming that the pelvic diameters
don't
change during delivery - so the authors of Williams Obstetrics decided
(erroneously) that dorsal delivery widens! See:
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

MORE THAN 30%...

SOME BABIES ARE **REALLY** GETTING HAMMERED

Check out the following "head must rotate around a line joining the
ischial tuberosities" quote from the 21st (2001) edition of Williams
Obstetrics:

"In obstructed labor caused by a narrowing of the...pelvic
outlet, the prognosis for vaginal delivery often depends on the length
of
the posterior sagittal diameter of the pelvic outlet (p. 56)...The
posterior
triangle [of the pelvic outlet]...is limited at its apex by the tip of
the
last sacral vertebra (not the coccyx) (p. 437)...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)..."

Stated another way, if the mother has a narrow pubic arch, the baby's
head
doesn't go into the arch very
far - which greatly increases the influence of sacro-iliac motion.


Again, some babies are REALLY getting hammered.

In such women the pelvic outlet is likely closed WAY more than 30% if
sacroiliac motion is denied.


MDs knew about what I am talking about early last century....

Harvard obstetrician Arthur B. Emmons, MD wrote in 1913

"[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.]


WEIRD!

######### In the 70s, why *was* Williams Obstetrics saying that the pelvic
diameters don't change? See Ohlsen discussion at:
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

######### In 1911, J. Whitridge Williams, original author of Williams
Obstetrics clinically demonstrated truly MASSIVE changes in AP pelvic outlet
diameter!

######### How could MD-obstetricians get something so very important so
very wrong?

######### What if MD-obstetricians INTENTIONALLY got it wrong?

WEIRD!

...here's what was added to Williams Obstetrics at my
request:

"It should be noted...that the increase in the diameter of the
pelvic outlet occurs **only** if the sacrum is allowed to rotate
posteriorly, that is,
only if the sacrum is not forced anteriorly by the weight of the
maternal
pelvis against the delivery table or bed." [Cunningham, MacDonald,
Leveno,
Gant and Gilstrap, Williams Obstetrics Appleton-Lange 1993:285,
**italics
in
original]

Unfortunately, the authors of Williams Obstetrics left in their text -
in
the same paragraph (!)
the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my attention to their
text)!!
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

I had discovered the "dorsal widens" bald lie that Ohlsen (see above)
stimulated...

It is still in the latest (2001) edition of Williams Obstetrics!

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo