The 30%...WHERE are the chiros - esp. the DABCOs?

Alfred R Sherry RN DC DABCO asks about...

the 30%...

----- Original Message -----
From: "alfred sherry"
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:28 PM
Subject: dc- Mothers terrified by birth (three warnings)



Hi Todd,
OBs forced many mothers to push their babies out through birth canals
senselessly closed up to 30%.


Do you have a reference for this I would be interested in reading the
study.
Al


Alfred R Sherry RN DC DABCO


Al,

I use the 30% figure from Russell's 1969 post.

"[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.

Harvard obstetrician Arthur B. Emmons, MD stated the simple biomechanics way
back 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.]

I restated the simple biomechanics in a letter to the journal Birth in
1992...

Plus I persuaded the authors of Williams Obstetrics to publish the correct
biomechanics in 1993...

But the authors of Williams Obstetrics left their "dorsal widens" bald lie
in their text.

See below.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS Some people use a 28% figure - one person uses it wrong.

(The following is a past post I've slightly edited...)

In 1993, Sheila Kitzinger wrote:

"[b]oth the width and the size of the
opening from front to back are increased in 28 percent of women when they
switch from lying down to a squatting position." [Kitzinger S. The
Complete Book of Pregnancy and Childbirth. "conceived, edited and
designed" in London by Dorling Kindersley Limited; published in New York
by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1993:264]

Obviously, ALL women may be denying their fetuses up to 28% of pelvic
outlet area when placed semi-recumbent...

This is probably the reason that,
according to Kitzinger, French obstetrician Michel Odent "would never risk a
breech delivery with the mother in a dorsal or semi-seated position." ("Our
only intervention will be to insist on the supported squatting position..."
[Odent quoted in Kitzinger, 1993:264])

If Odent would never risk a breech delivery with the mother dorsal or
semi-seated, it is important to ask why (according to Kitzinger), "[m]any
doctors prefer to deliver
breech babies with the woman in the lithotomy position" [Kitzinger,
1993:261] - and why Ms. Kitzinger herself unquestioningly advises
semi-sitting as an option without discussing the grisly 28% biomechanics.
[Kitzinger, 1993:261]

NOTE: CNMwifery Prof. Helen Varney ignored my pleas years ago when she
first started publishing her book.

It is 2004 and the most recent edition of CNMwifery Prof. Varney's book
STILL promotes semisitting!

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

Back to Kitzinger...

A series of drawings on p. 246 of Kitzinger's 1993 book is particularly
objectionable because the drawings depict the traditional lithotomy delivery
as normal.

Ms. Kitzinger writes, "The coccyx slips out of the way as the
head comes through."

While the coccyx is indeed probably "slipped out of the way" in the
lithotomy position, the sacral tip is being jammed up to 4 cm into the
tissue of the birth canal - up to 4 cm into the fetal skull. And this can
last for a significant period of time.

According to Ms. Kitzinger on p.
246:

"[T]here comes a time when the widest part of the baby's head is just
at the birth opening and does not go back in between contractions."

On p. 247 Ms. Kitzinger writes, "[T]he baby is facing downward just before
and as
it is delivered."

Stated more graphically, while the head is not going back
in between contractions, the sacral tip is being jammed up to an inch into
the fetal skull...

Australian obstetrician Norman Beischer, MD has guessed that 10 to 15% of
stillbirths were just fine right before delivery.

On 3/24/94 I spoke with Jackie Douglas, editorial director for the 1993
"fully revised and expanded" edition of Kitzinger's book. (Jackie Douglas,
Dorling Kindersley Limited, 9 Henrietta Street, London WC2 8PS United
Kingdom, tel: 44-71-836-5411.)

Ms. Douglas informed me that my call was quite timely - Ms. Kitzinger had
recently asked that her 1993 book be revised - she agreed to pass my
telephone number on to Ms. Kitzinger.

On 3/30/94 Ms. Kitzinger called me collect (as I had asked her to do via
Ms. Douglas). Ms. Kitzinger had received a copy of my letter to Gray's
Anatomy pertaining to sacroiliac motion at term. She agreed that she had
misconstrued Russell's 28% figure (see
above) and she said she would consider in her upcoming edition ending her
practice of picturing the dorsal lithotomy position as normal.

Does anyone know if she ever made any changes?

28% vs. 30%...

"[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 noted the the authors of Williams Obstetrics were claiming that
pelvic diameters DON'T CHANGE at delivery.

The authors of Williams Obstetrics engaged in another falsehood, deciding
that medicine's then-favorite delivery position (dorsal) widened the outlet.

In the early 1990s I noted the 70s falsehood - requested a change - and the
authors of Williams Obstetrics published the correct biomechanics - but they
left in their text (in the same paragraph!) the dorsal widens falsehood that
first moved me to contact their publisher...
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

RUSSELL'S BIZARRE CLAIM...

JGB Russell demonstrated a MINOR (transverse) sacroiliac motion then
pretended his minor sacroiliac motion was more important that the MAJOR
(sagittal) sacral tip motion demonstrated radiographically by Borell and
Fernstrom. For details, see http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html.

Also noteworthy: Russell promoted placing women SEMISITTING (!) - even as
he
reported the "20-30 per cent" figure!

Yet the authors of Williams
Obstetrics attributed to Russell the simple biomechanical fact (quoted
above) that I had called to their attention.

At the very least, the authors of Williams Obstetrics should
have quoted the *original* author of Williams Obstetrics who DEMONSTRATED
the
simple biomechanics clinically - way back in 1911!


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.

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]

As noted above, 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)!!

Oddly, the British National Childbirth Trust (Kitzinger advises them) was
not aware of these biomechanics.

Brits' National Childbirth Trust just got uglier...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2063

Does anyone know if Kitzinger and the Brits' National Childbirth Trust are
explicitly informing women that OBs and midwives are denying babies up to
30% of pelvic outlet area?

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


This post will be archived for global access at:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2369

END edited excerpt of Gastaldo's post re Kitzinger's use of 28%..

Back to Alfred R Sherry RN DC DABCO...

Al,

The silence regard this obvious obstetric spinal manipulation felony is
deafening.

Chiros are missing a GOLDEN opportunity to save tiny lives and tiny limbs
and PREVENT more putative vertebral subluxations than DCs will ever be able
to adjust by hand.

I wrote to the DABCO's a long time ago - silence has been the response.

Here's an excerpt of what I wrote to Harold Tondera et al....

"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]

NOTE: DD often adjusted without touching the spine - EDUCATIONAL
ADJUSTMENTS.

This email is an educational adjustment...

Chiropractic physicians: You don't need to attend
births again - you don't need to
practice
obstetrics or midwifery - to ADJUST to prevent
disease!

[FACT]...it is UNETHICAL for DCs to fail to take simple action to
PREVENT that which they charge to treat...

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

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, the following ACA Council on Chiropractic Orthopedics officers
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

[Since, I say again]...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

Harold Tondera, DC: Do you think ACA is so mired in politics that ACA can't
be moved to help protect the tiniest chiropractic patients from gruesome MD
spinal manipulators?

How about you, Floyd?

Copied to:


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)

Thanks for writing.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


END excerpt of what Gastaldo wrote to ACA-affiliated chiro
orthopedists.

Where ARE the chiros - esp. the DABCOs - the chiro orthopedists?

Alfred R Sherry RN DC DABCO - again - thanks for writing.

You are just one guy, I know - you can't speak for all the DABCOs but...

Being a nurse maybe you can find out why a prominent nurse - Yale CNMwifery
Prof. Helen Varney ignored my pleas and promoted closing the birth canal
(semisitting) - see above.

Being a DABCO - maybe you can find out why ostensible guardians of the
spine - chiros - ACA chiro orthopedists are remaining silent as OBs
knowingly close birth canals and gruesomely (sometimes fatally) manipulate
most babies' spines...

Again...

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

And 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

Al, I think 100% of babies would want ACA's Council on Chiropractic
Orthopedics to immediately take a public stand against OBs closing birth
canals up to 30% and gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines.

The grisly biomechanics have been in the medical literature since early last
century - and MDs are lying as babies are dying.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo