Vaginas: Penis size vs. Baby size (Dr. Horkel's EPI-NO)

[Todd Gastaldo]

VAGINAS: PENIS SIZE VS. BABY SIZE...

"Some men have tiny little penises and some men have gigantic penises and
the vagina accomodates them all"...
--Judy Slome Cohain, CNM

"50 sexually active female undergraduate students were asked...was penis
width or length more important for their sexual satisfaction. RESULTS: None
reported they did not know...A large majority, 45 of 50, reported width was
more important..."
--Eisenman R. BMC Womens Health. 2001;1(1):1. Epub 2001 Jun 08. PubMed
abstract

Why PENIS WIDTH might be important to women...

See PS2 below.


PREGNANT WOMEN: OBs and CNMwives are knowingly closing birth canals up to
30%. See PROOF below.

For simple instructions on how to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra"
up to 30%, see the very end of this post.


NWHN/BARBARA SEAMAN - OB EMERGENCY

OPEN LETTER (archived for global access; see below)

Barbara Seaman
Co-Founder
National Women's Health Network
via National Women's Health Network
514 10th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20004


Barbara,

OBs and CNMwives are closing birth canals up to 30%. See PROOF
in the postscript.

OBs are performing GRUESOME mass spinal manipulation on babies - violently
pushing on tiny spines (with oxytocin and Cytotec) and gruesomely pulling
(with hands, forceps and vacuums) - with birth canals senselessly closed up
to 30%.

Sometimes OBs pull so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords.
Some babies die, some babies get paralyzed - most babies "only" have their
spines gruesomely wrenched.

ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal closed up to 30%.

For simple instructions on how pregnant women can allow their birth canals
to
OPEN the "extra"
up to 30%, see the very end of this post.

One last note Barbara...

I thought to write to you because Madeline Behrendt, DC recently thanked you
in
The Chiropractic Journal. [(Jun)2004:39,43]

Madeline wrote:

"I want to thank [Barbara Seaman] from all of us..."

Barbara, thanks in advance for anything you can do to spread the word to
women...

OBs and CNMwives should not be closing birth canals.

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS1 PROOF that OBs and CNMwives are routinely closing birth canals up to
30%...

The fact that semisitting and dorsal close the birth canal is simple
biomechanics.

See Gastaldo TD. Letter. Birth 1992;19(4):230.

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!

Interestingly, early last century, J. Whitridge Williams, MD, the original
author of Williams Obstetrics demonstrated MASSIVE amounts of change in
pelvic outlet diameter change at-term - and Borell and Fernstrom's 1957
intrapartum x-ray study accorded with the average amount of pelvic outlet
diameter change Williams found clinically...

See: http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

Jason Gardosi, MD, director of the British National Health
Service/NHS West Midlands Perinatal
Institute/WMPI states the grisly biomechanics of the semirecumbent
delivery position (semisitting):

"...the weight of the mother is in part taken on the sacrum which is
therefore pushed upwards, thus decreasing the antero-posterior diameter of
the pelvic outlet..."
http://www.wmpi.net/reviews/oe/oe_shoulder_dystocia.htm

The funny thing is, Jason Gardosi, MD also *recommends* semisitting (closing
the birth canal) - or used to!

"The second stage...You might want to remain in bed with your back propped
up with pillows...As you push, try to let yourself 'open up' below..."
http://www.preg.info/book/chapter11.htm

NOTE: Jason Gardosi, MD and his fellow British OB pal Malcolm Griffiths once
got me censored from an international OB/GYN listserv - but fortunately not
before two of my posts were archived thereon:
http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0128.html
http://forums.obgyn.net/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0153.html

Anyone interested in some entertaining obstetric reading, check out Jason's
1989 Lancet "randomised controlled trial of squatting" - where nobody
squatted...

See Sarah Key's huge balls (also: Kids can SQUAT motionless for hours)...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2084

MORE PROOF According to the Merck Manual:

"When shoulder dystocia occurs...the mother's thighs are hyperflexed to
increase the diameter of the pelvic outlet..."
http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section18/chapter253/253g.jsp

WHY are OBs and CNMwives (nurse midwives) waiting until the
head is
out and shoulders get stuck before giving the baby maximum pelvic outlet
diameter?

WHY are OBs and CNMwives forcing babies' heads through birth canals
senselessly closed up to 30%?

WHY are OBs and CNMwives KEEPING birth canals closed when babies' shoulders
get stuck?

(Merely hyperflexing the thighs does NOT get the woman off her sacrum. This
is BAD McRoberts maneuver. ON A POSITIVE NOTE: Gardosi et al.'s WMPI site
(quoted above) recommends a version of GOOD McRoberts
if the shoulders get stuck...
http://www.wmpi.net/reviews/oe/oe_shoulder_dystocia.htm)

LADIES: HELP PROTECT YOUR VAGINAS...

OBs and CNMwives are slicing vaginas (euphemism "routine episiotomy") -
surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring everything possible is being done to OPEN
birth canals - even as they CLOSE birth canals - up to 30%!

See Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of
Medicine
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2256

Sorry to be repetitive but...

WEIRD: In 1993, the authors of Williams Obstetrics published the correct
biomechanics at my request but they left in their text (in the same
paragraph!) the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my attention to
their text.

The "dorsal widens" bald lie was created when Ohlsen informed the authors of
Williams Obstetrics in 1973 that they were still claiming that the pelvic
diameters *don't change* at delivery!

ALSO WEIRD: Before Ohlsen stimulated their "dorsal widens" bald lie, the
authors of Williams Obstetrics were ignoring Borell and Fernstrom's 1957
RADIOGRAPHIC demonstration that the diameters DO change - and this MANY
years after (way back in 1911) J. Whitridge Williams, MD - the first author
of Williams Obstetrics - clinically demonstrated 4cm of AP outlet diameter
change!

For details: See my Open Letter to FTC at:
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

PS2 CNMwife Judy Slome Cohain recently asked:

"Doctors [Wilhelm Horkel, MD and Todd Gastaldo, DC]...What are you talking
about 'closing of the birth canal up to 30%'? Nothing
closes the pelvic outlet or the vagina 30%. Yes, squatting gives women an
extra 5% in the pelvic outlet. expands it from 10 cm to 10.5 cm. Is that
what is being referred to here?..."

CNMwife Judy in effect concedes that OBs and CNMwives are denying an "extra"
5% of pelvic outlet area.

Even if it were "just" 5% being denied - this is NOT "extra" room!

Up to 30% is being denied! The radiographic literature indicates that OBs
and CNMwives are denying up to 30% of pelvic outlet area. I provided a link
to this information when I wrote to CNMwife Judy.

See: I ain't no Semmelweis, but...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2591

VAGINAS: PENIS SIZE VS. BABY SIZE...

CNMwife Judy also wrote:

"Some men have tiny little penises and some men have gigantic penises
and the vagina accomodates them all...[The birth canal is skin that opens
and closes depending on what is pushing
on it.]"

BABY SIZE...

Surely CNMwife Judy is aware that shoulder dystocia is widely acknowledged
to be a BONY impaction?!

In other words, a baby pushing on a senselessly closed birth canal (the baby
is pushing because the uterus is pushing) is NOT opening it!

Even if OBs and CNMwives were "just" keeping birth canals closed up to 5% -
they are not helping. They are certainly not helping by keeping the birth
canal closed in cases of shoulder dystocia!

In shoulder dystocia in the lithotomy position, they are keeping birth
canals closed up to 30%!

PENIS SIZE...

Why PENIS WIDTH might be more important to women...

"A large majority reported width was more important..."

"50 sexually active female undergraduate students were asked...was penis
width or length more important for their sexual satisfaction. RESULTS: None
reported they did not know...A large majority, 45 of 50, reported width was
more important..."
--Eisenman R^^^ BMC Womens Health. 2001;1(1):1. Epub 2001 Jun 08. PubMed
abstract

From the study itself: "Of the 50 females surveyed, 45 said that width felt
better, with only 5 saying length felt better..."

^^^Russell Eisenman, PhD, University of Texas-Pan American, Department of
Psychology, Edinburg, TX 78539-2999, USA.

Can width be more important to women because some FEAR a long penis? (I
myself have talked to women who say they have been hurt by a long penis -
no - unfortunately - not mine - LOL!)

Eisenmen [2001; just cited] hypothesized that if width is more important, it
may be because it affords clitoral stimulation and/or "fullness" with
accompanying satisfying psychological benefit...

Can width be more important partly because women instinctively know that
width can help stretch their vaginas for childbirth?

HORKEL'S EPI-NO...

CNMwife Judy knows first hand that women enthusiastically endure discomfort
to stretch their vaginas for childbirth.

"Although the device demanded significant expenditure,
time and discomfort, 98% of the users were very
enthusiastic about it..."
--CNMwife Judy writing of the EPI-NO invented by Wilhelm Horkel, MD...

"[EPI-NO]...is an inflatable sausage-shaped silicone balloon, 15 cm long by
5 cm wide, with a slightly indented middle. The user
inserts it half way, up to the indentation, so that when it
is inflated, the largest diameter will be at the introitus.
The balloon is attached to a rubber pumping bulb and
pressure manometer exactly like the pump and meter on
the device that is used to measure blood pressure
manually. After the user inserts the silicone balloon into
the vagina, she pumps the rubber bulb and the balloon
slowly inflates. She attempts to increase the size to which
she inflates the balloon in each practice session. The
balloon can be inflated to 10 cm which imitates the
diameter of the fetal head at birth. At the end of the 10-
minute practice session, she pushes the balloon out of her
vagina. After the balloon is removed, the user is
instructed to measure the diameter of the balloon so she
knows how many centimetres her perineum has been
stretched."

See Slome Cohain JS. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, vol 14, no 1, Mar 2004
http://www.epi-no.com/pdfs/experience_judy_slome.pdf

CNMwife Judy's email came after I copied her the following email to EPI-NO
inventor Wilhelm Horkel, MD...

>>>>BEGIN Gastaldo's email to Wilhelm Horkel, MD

Helmy,

What do you mean IF there are so many problems with the closing of the birth
canal up to 30%?!

Obstetricians indicate that closing the birth canal FAR LESS can KILL.

And what about those unexplained brain bleeds in an estimated 4.6% of
"healthy" term neonates.

Not to mention unexplained brachial plexus palsies and unexplained cerebral
palsies - and unexplained "lesser" motor and perceptual difficulties later
in life.

What business do obstetricians have pushing with chemicals
(oxytocin/Cytotec) and pulling with hands, forceps and vacuums - with birth
canals senselessly closed up to 30%?

TO BE SURE, HELMY: Getting the baby out without a vaginal/perineal tear is
a laudable goal...

But users of the EPI-NO are apparently being made to push with the birth
canal senselessly closed up to 30%!!

How can you let this happen!?

Judy Slome Cohain, CNM, MSN ) writes of her EPI-NO
study:

"The percentage of women in the study group who had an epidural (44%) and
the percentage who underwent a vacuum delivery was
11.7%." [Slome Cohain JS. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, vol 14, no 1, Mar 2004]
http://www.epi-no.com/pdfs/experience_judy_slome.pdf

I could be wrong, Helmy, but my bet is that *many* of the 44% of EPI-NO
study women who had epidurals pushed their babies out on while positioned on
the backs/buttocks - on their SACRA - with their birth canals senselessly
closed up to 30%.

And many of the 11.7% who underwent a vacuum delivery were likely on their
backs too - being made to close their birth canals up to 30% - as the
obstetrician pulled with the vacuum!

WHY are OBs being allowed to pull on babies' spines with birth canals
closed?!!

Also likely: Many of the 56% of EPI-NO study participants who did NOT get
epidurals likely also pushed their babies out with their birth canals closed
up to 30%.

Helmy, you are focusing on vaginas and ignoring pelvic outlets and baby
brains (and brachial nerves).

I'll cc Judy...

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS Since shoulder dystocia is a TERRIFYING event for OBs - imagine what it
is like for the baby! WHY are OBs and CNMwives KEEPING birth canals closed
when shoulders get stuck?!

BIZARRE!

See: I ain't no Semmelweis, but...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2591

>>>>END Gastaldo's email to Wilhelm Horkel, MD, copied to CNMwife Judy...

CNMwife Judy began her reply:

"Doctors...Thanks for sending me a copy of this babble. As a professional
midwife, I
am quite used to doctors saying the most incredible lies in the hope that if
they repeat them often enough, people will believe them. Actually it works.
Works for hamas terrorists also, by the way. There is not a rational
sentence that I can point to. There is not a single reference from the
medical literature to back up the statements either."

CNMwife Judy, can't you see that you yourself in effect concede that OBs are
closing birth canals up to 5%g (see above)?

Had you clicked on the "I ain't no Semmelweis" URL I provided - you would
have seen where I get the 30% figure.

Please start telling women that OBs and CNMwives have been closing birth
canals...

Please start telling women that it is EASY for them to allow their birth
canals to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%...

SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS

PREGNANT WOMEN: 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.

BUT BEWARE: "Midwives...encourage...semisitting." (closing the birth canal!)
--Yale CNMwifery Prof. Helen Varney. Varney's Midwifery. Sudbury, MA: Jones
and Bartlett. 4th ed. 2004:839]

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!

If your baby's shoulders get stuck OBs and CNMwives will KEEP your birth
canal closed!

Yale CNMwifery Prof. Varney (just cited) writes:

"In the event of...shoulder dystocia...the woman should be
in a lithotomy position..." (p. 839)

Lithotomy position keeps the birth canal closed! So does semisitting!

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

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

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


This Open Letter will be archived for global access within 24 hours in the
Google groups usenet archive. Search http://groups.google.com for
"Vaginas: Penis size vs. Baby size (Dr. Horkel's EPI-NO)"

[Chotii]

"Todd Gastaldo" > wrote in message
link.net...
> VAGINAS: PENIS SIZE VS. BABY SIZE...
>
> "Some men have tiny little penises and some men have gigantic penises and
> the vagina accomodates them all"...
> --Judy Slome Cohain, CNM
>
> Why PENIS WIDTH might be important to women...

> "50 sexually active female undergraduate students were asked...was penis
> width or length more important for their sexual satisfaction. RESULTS:
None
> reported they did not know...A large majority, 45 of 50, reported width
was
> more important..."
> --Eisenman R^^^ BMC Womens Health. 2001;1(1):1. Epub 2001 Jun 08. PubMed
> abstract
>
> From the study itself: "Of the 50 females surveyed, 45 said that width
felt
> better, with only 5 saying length felt better..."
>
> ^^^Russell Eisenman, PhD, University of Texas-Pan American, Department of
> Psychology, Edinburg, TX 78539-2999, USA.
>
> Can width be more important to women because some FEAR a long penis? (I
> myself have talked to women who say they have been hurt by a long penis -
> no - unfortunately - not mine - LOL!)

Any woman who has ever had her cervix hammered by a penis of any length,
forced in too deep/at the wrong angle, knows exactly why length is
overvalued. Length isn't nearly as important as control. And anyway, if a
woman's vagina is only, say, 6" deep...of what use is a 9" penis? It won't
fit. Simple physics.

> Eisenmen [2001; just cited] hypothesized that if width is more important,
it
> may be because it affords clitoral stimulation and/or "fullness" with
> accompanying satisfying psychological benefit...
>
> Can width be more important partly because women instinctively know that
> width can help stretch their vaginas for childbirth?

Nonsense. Come on, Todd. The vagina is a pleated tissue, capable of
expanding considerably to allow the passage of almost any size baby. I
challenge you, or anyone, to come up with a man whose width/girth equals the
size of a baby's head and shoulders! (Though if you did, I'm not sure I'd
want to see it. Heavens, he'd be a freak of nature. Deformed or something,
Gah.) Surely, the penis can cause *some* dilatory effect, as any woman who
has had to endure a pelvic exam after a lengthy period of abstinence can
tell you - it's simply more comfortable for a woman who is sexually active,
than one who is not. However, I suspect that the dilatory effect wears off
after a few weeks of celibacy at most, and in late pregnancy a great many
women would probably rather wedge themselves under the crib in the nursery
than engage in sexual intercourse. It seems pretty self-limiting to me as
far as being helpful during childbirth.

Also, while clitoral tissue is exceedingly sensitive, it's fair to say that
vaginal tissue is not. At least, it doesn't seem to be capable of
*specific* sensation at *specific* locations. It's good at generalised
sensation, and *this* is where the width/fullness thing would seem to
increase sensation. This is also true the tissue that makes up the clitoris
extends down along to the opening of the vagina, and encircles it. Length
makes no difference to the stimulus afforded there, either.

<hijack>
Many of the men on the restore-list (a support group for men who are using
tissue-stretching methods to restore their foreskins) claim to have an
increased girth *and* length as the tissue-stretching proceeds. Which makes
sense - where inadequate skin exists to accommodate the full engorgement of
the erectile tissue, said erectile tissue will expand to, and be stopped by,
its artificial limits. Increase the surface area of available skin, and the
erectile tissue will expand to its natural limits. Come on, men - forget the
pills the spam emails try to sell you (and forget the quick fix - it takes
anywhere from 1-5 years to restore what 10 minutes of surgery removed) -
get tugging!
</hijack>

I think for women who have had vaginal births, 'width' may be valued even
*more*, because the stretched tissue never quite returns to its pre-birth
condition and the sensation of fullness may be less distinct. Which is not
the same thing as saying it's unsatisfying, as the number of women who have
more than one child is very large. :D

--angela

[Amy]

"Todd Gastaldo" > wrote in message
link.net...

> Can width be more important partly because women instinctively know that
> width can help stretch their vaginas for childbirth?

But the women surveyed were probably not even at a stage where they were
even considering children. I think it is much more likely that width is
prized over length for two reasons - a) an overly long penis tends to reach
the cervix before the woman is fully aroused and hit against it, and that
can really hurt, and b) that a wide penis has a better chance of stimulating
the clitoris & any woman will tell you that her clitoris is much more
sensitive than any part of her vagina. Aren't women allowed to enjoy sexual
stimulation without the practical consideration of reproduction, or is that
purely the domain of men? ;-)

[Tori M.]

Why are you so interested in other peoples reproductive organs?

Tori

--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Anna or Xavier due 10/17/04
"Todd Gastaldo" > wrote in message
link.net...
> VAGINAS: PENIS SIZE VS. BABY SIZE...
>
> "Some men have tiny little penises and some men have gigantic penises and
> the vagina accomodates them all"...
> --Judy Slome Cohain, CNM
>
> "50 sexually active female undergraduate students were asked...was penis
> width or length more important for their sexual satisfaction. RESULTS:
None
> reported they did not know...A large majority, 45 of 50, reported width
was
> more important..."
> --Eisenman R. BMC Womens Health. 2001;1(1):1. Epub 2001 Jun 08. PubMed
> abstract
>
> Why PENIS WIDTH might be important to women...
>
> See PS2 below.
>
>
> PREGNANT WOMEN: OBs and CNMwives are knowingly closing birth canals up to
> 30%. See PROOF below.
>
> For simple instructions on how to allow your birth canal to OPEN the
"extra"
> up to 30%, see the very end of this post.
>
>
> NWHN/BARBARA SEAMAN - OB EMERGENCY
>
> OPEN LETTER (archived for global access; see below)
>
> Barbara Seaman
> Co-Founder
> National Women's Health Network
> via National Women's Health Network
> 514 10th Street NW, Suite 400
> Washington, DC 20004
>
>
> Barbara,
>
> OBs and CNMwives are closing birth canals up to 30%. See PROOF
> in the postscript.
>
> OBs are performing GRUESOME mass spinal manipulation on babies - violently
> pushing on tiny spines (with oxytocin and Cytotec) and gruesomely pulling
> (with hands, forceps and vacuums) - with birth canals senselessly closed
up
> to 30%.
>
> Sometimes OBs pull so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal
cords.
> Some babies die, some babies get paralyzed - most babies "only" have their
> spines gruesomely wrenched.
>
> ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal closed up to 30%.
>
> For simple instructions on how pregnant women can allow their birth canals
> to
> OPEN the "extra"
> up to 30%, see the very end of this post.
>
> One last note Barbara...
>
> I thought to write to you because Madeline Behrendt, DC recently thanked
you
> in
> The Chiropractic Journal. [(Jun)2004:39,43]
>
> Madeline wrote:
>
> "I want to thank [Barbara Seaman] from all of us..."
>
> Barbara, thanks in advance for anything you can do to spread the word to
> women...
>
> OBs and CNMwives should not be closing birth canals.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Todd
>
> Dr. Gastaldo
>
>
> PS1 PROOF that OBs and CNMwives are routinely closing birth canals up to
> 30%...
>
> The fact that semisitting and dorsal close the birth canal is simple
> biomechanics.
>
> See Gastaldo TD. Letter. Birth 1992;19(4):230.
>
> 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!
>
> Interestingly, early last century, J. Whitridge Williams, MD, the original
> author of Williams Obstetrics demonstrated MASSIVE amounts of change in
> pelvic outlet diameter change at-term - and Borell and Fernstrom's 1957
> intrapartum x-ray study accorded with the average amount of pelvic outlet
> diameter change Williams found clinically...
>
> See: http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html
>
> Jason Gardosi, MD, director of the British National Health
> Service/NHS West Midlands Perinatal
> Institute/WMPI states the grisly biomechanics of the semirecumbent
> delivery position (semisitting):
>
> "...the weight of the mother is in part taken on the sacrum which is
> therefore pushed upwards, thus decreasing the antero-posterior diameter of
> the pelvic outlet..."
> http://www.wmpi.net/reviews/oe/oe_shoulder_dystocia.htm
>
> The funny thing is, Jason Gardosi, MD also *recommends* semisitting
(closing
> the birth canal) - or used to!
>
> "The second stage...You might want to remain in bed with your back propped
> up with pillows...As you push, try to let yourself 'open up' below..."
> http://www.preg.info/book/chapter11.htm
>
> NOTE: Jason Gardosi, MD and his fellow British OB pal Malcolm Griffiths
once
> got me censored from an international OB/GYN listserv - but fortunately
not
> before two of my posts were archived thereon:
> http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0128.html
> http://forums.obgyn.net/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0153.html
>
> Anyone interested in some entertaining obstetric reading, check out
Jason's
> 1989 Lancet "randomised controlled trial of squatting" - where nobody
> squatted...
>
> See Sarah Key's huge balls (also: Kids can SQUAT motionless for hours)...
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2084
>
> MORE PROOF According to the Merck Manual:
>
> "When shoulder dystocia occurs...the mother's thighs are hyperflexed to
> increase the diameter of the pelvic outlet..."
> http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section18/chapter253/253g.jsp
>
> WHY are OBs and CNMwives (nurse midwives) waiting until the
> head is
> out and shoulders get stuck before giving the baby maximum pelvic outlet
> diameter?
>
> WHY are OBs and CNMwives forcing babies' heads through birth canals
> senselessly closed up to 30%?
>
> WHY are OBs and CNMwives KEEPING birth canals closed when babies'
shoulders
> get stuck?
>
> (Merely hyperflexing the thighs does NOT get the woman off her sacrum.
This
> is BAD McRoberts maneuver. ON A POSITIVE NOTE: Gardosi et al.'s WMPI site
> (quoted above) recommends a version of GOOD McRoberts
> if the shoulders get stuck...
> http://www.wmpi.net/reviews/oe/oe_shoulder_dystocia.htm)
>
> LADIES: HELP PROTECT YOUR VAGINAS...
>
> OBs and CNMwives are slicing vaginas (euphemism "routine episiotomy") -
> surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring everything possible is being done to
OPEN
> birth canals - even as they CLOSE birth canals - up to 30%!
>
> See Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of
> Medicine
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2256
>
> Sorry to be repetitive but...
>
> WEIRD: In 1993, the authors of Williams Obstetrics published the correct
> biomechanics at my request but they left in their text (in the same
> paragraph!) the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my attention to
> their text.
>
> The "dorsal widens" bald lie was created when Ohlsen informed the authors
of
> Williams Obstetrics in 1973 that they were still claiming that the pelvic
> diameters *don't change* at delivery!
>
> ALSO WEIRD: Before Ohlsen stimulated their "dorsal widens" bald lie, the
> authors of Williams Obstetrics were ignoring Borell and Fernstrom's 1957
> RADIOGRAPHIC demonstration that the diameters DO change - and this MANY
> years after (way back in 1911) J. Whitridge Williams, MD - the first
author
> of Williams Obstetrics - clinically demonstrated 4cm of AP outlet diameter
> change!
>
> For details: See my Open Letter to FTC at:
> http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html
>
> PS2 CNMwife Judy Slome Cohain recently asked:
>
> "Doctors [Wilhelm Horkel, MD and Todd Gastaldo, DC]...What are you talking
> about 'closing of the birth canal up to 30%'? Nothing
> closes the pelvic outlet or the vagina 30%. Yes, squatting gives women an
> extra 5% in the pelvic outlet. expands it from 10 cm to 10.5 cm. Is that
> what is being referred to here?..."
>
> CNMwife Judy in effect concedes that OBs and CNMwives are denying an
"extra"
> 5% of pelvic outlet area.
>
> Even if it were "just" 5% being denied - this is NOT "extra" room!
>
> Up to 30% is being denied! The radiographic literature indicates that OBs
> and CNMwives are denying up to 30% of pelvic outlet area. I provided a
link
> to this information when I wrote to CNMwife Judy.
>
> See: I ain't no Semmelweis, but...
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2591
>
> VAGINAS: PENIS SIZE VS. BABY SIZE...
>
> CNMwife Judy also wrote:
>
> "Some men have tiny little penises and some men have gigantic penises
> and the vagina accomodates them all...[The birth canal is skin that opens
> and closes depending on what is pushing
> on it.]"
>
> BABY SIZE...
>
> Surely CNMwife Judy is aware that shoulder dystocia is widely acknowledged
> to be a BONY impaction?!
>
> In other words, a baby pushing on a senselessly closed birth canal (the
baby
> is pushing because the uterus is pushing) is NOT opening it!
>
> Even if OBs and CNMwives were "just" keeping birth canals closed up to
5% -
> they are not helping. They are certainly not helping by keeping the birth
> canal closed in cases of shoulder dystocia!
>
> In shoulder dystocia in the lithotomy position, they are keeping birth
> canals closed up to 30%!
>
> PENIS SIZE...
>
> Why PENIS WIDTH might be more important to women...
>
> "A large majority reported width was more important..."
>
> "50 sexually active female undergraduate students were asked...was penis
> width or length more important for their sexual satisfaction. RESULTS:
None
> reported they did not know...A large majority, 45 of 50, reported width
was
> more important..."
> --Eisenman R^^^ BMC Womens Health. 2001;1(1):1. Epub 2001 Jun 08. PubMed
> abstract
>
> From the study itself: "Of the 50 females surveyed, 45 said that width
felt
> better, with only 5 saying length felt better..."
>
> ^^^Russell Eisenman, PhD, University of Texas-Pan American, Department of
> Psychology, Edinburg, TX 78539-2999, USA.
>
> Can width be more important to women because some FEAR a long penis? (I
> myself have talked to women who say they have been hurt by a long penis -
> no - unfortunately - not mine - LOL!)
>
> Eisenmen [2001; just cited] hypothesized that if width is more important,
it
> may be because it affords clitoral stimulation and/or "fullness" with
> accompanying satisfying psychological benefit...
>
> Can width be more important partly because women instinctively know that
> width can help stretch their vaginas for childbirth?
>
> HORKEL'S EPI-NO...
>
> CNMwife Judy knows first hand that women enthusiastically endure
discomfort
> to stretch their vaginas for childbirth.
>
> "Although the device demanded significant expenditure,
> time and discomfort, 98% of the users were very
> enthusiastic about it..."
> --CNMwife Judy writing of the EPI-NO invented by Wilhelm Horkel, MD...
>
> "[EPI-NO]...is an inflatable sausage-shaped silicone balloon, 15 cm long
by
> 5 cm wide, with a slightly indented middle. The user
> inserts it half way, up to the indentation, so that when it
> is inflated, the largest diameter will be at the introitus.
> The balloon is attached to a rubber pumping bulb and
> pressure manometer exactly like the pump and meter on
> the device that is used to measure blood pressure
> manually. After the user inserts the silicone balloon into
> the vagina, she pumps the rubber bulb and the balloon
> slowly inflates. She attempts to increase the size to which
> she inflates the balloon in each practice session. The
> balloon can be inflated to 10 cm which imitates the
> diameter of the fetal head at birth. At the end of the 10-
> minute practice session, she pushes the balloon out of her
> vagina. After the balloon is removed, the user is
> instructed to measure the diameter of the balloon so she
> knows how many centimetres her perineum has been
> stretched."
>
> See Slome Cohain JS. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, vol 14, no 1, Mar 2004
> http://www.epi-no.com/pdfs/experience_judy_slome.pdf
>
> CNMwife Judy's email came after I copied her the following email to EPI-NO
> inventor Wilhelm Horkel, MD...
>
> >>>>BEGIN Gastaldo's email to Wilhelm Horkel, MD
>
> Helmy,
>
> What do you mean IF there are so many problems with the closing of the
birth
> canal up to 30%?!
>
> Obstetricians indicate that closing the birth canal FAR LESS can KILL.
>
> And what about those unexplained brain bleeds in an estimated 4.6% of
> "healthy" term neonates.
>
> Not to mention unexplained brachial plexus palsies and unexplained
cerebral
> palsies - and unexplained "lesser" motor and perceptual difficulties later
> in life.
>
> What business do obstetricians have pushing with chemicals
> (oxytocin/Cytotec) and pulling with hands, forceps and vacuums - with
birth
> canals senselessly closed up to 30%?
>
> TO BE SURE, HELMY: Getting the baby out without a vaginal/perineal tear
is
> a laudable goal...
>
> But users of the EPI-NO are apparently being made to push with the birth
> canal senselessly closed up to 30%!!
>
> How can you let this happen!?
>
> Judy Slome Cohain, CNM, MSN ) writes of her EPI-NO
> study:
>
> "The percentage of women in the study group who had an epidural (44%) and
> the percentage who underwent a vacuum delivery was
> 11.7%." [Slome Cohain JS. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, vol 14, no 1, Mar 2004]
> http://www.epi-no.com/pdfs/experience_judy_slome.pdf
>
> I could be wrong, Helmy, but my bet is that *many* of the 44% of EPI-NO
> study women who had epidurals pushed their babies out on while positioned
on
> the backs/buttocks - on their SACRA - with their birth canals senselessly
> closed up to 30%.
>
> And many of the 11.7% who underwent a vacuum delivery were likely on their
> backs too - being made to close their birth canals up to 30% - as the
> obstetrician pulled with the vacuum!
>
> WHY are OBs being allowed to pull on babies' spines with birth canals
> closed?!!
>
> Also likely: Many of the 56% of EPI-NO study participants who did NOT get
> epidurals likely also pushed their babies out with their birth canals
closed
> up to 30%.
>
> Helmy, you are focusing on vaginas and ignoring pelvic outlets and baby
> brains (and brachial nerves).
>
> I'll cc Judy...
>
> Todd
>
> Dr. Gastaldo
>
>
> PS Since shoulder dystocia is a TERRIFYING event for OBs - imagine what
it
> is like for the baby! WHY are OBs and CNMwives KEEPING birth canals
closed
> when shoulders get stuck?!
>
> BIZARRE!
>
> See: I ain't no Semmelweis, but...
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2591
>
> >>>>END Gastaldo's email to Wilhelm Horkel, MD, copied to CNMwife Judy...
>
> CNMwife Judy began her reply:
>
> "Doctors...Thanks for sending me a copy of this babble. As a professional
> midwife, I
> am quite used to doctors saying the most incredible lies in the hope that
if
> they repeat them often enough, people will believe them. Actually it
works.
> Works for hamas terrorists also, by the way. There is not a rational
> sentence that I can point to. There is not a single reference from the
> medical literature to back up the statements either."
>
> CNMwife Judy, can't you see that you yourself in effect concede that OBs
are
> closing birth canals up to 5%g (see above)?
>
> Had you clicked on the "I ain't no Semmelweis" URL I provided - you would
> have seen where I get the 30% figure.
>
> Please start telling women that OBs and CNMwives have been closing birth
> canals...
>
> Please start telling women that it is EASY for them to allow their birth
> canals to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%...
>
> SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS
>
> PREGNANT WOMEN: 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.
>
> BUT BEWARE: "Midwives...encourage...semisitting." (closing the birth
canal!)
> --Yale CNMwifery Prof. Helen Varney. Varney's Midwifery. Sudbury, MA:
Jones
> and Bartlett. 4th ed. 2004:839]
>
> 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!
>
> If your baby's shoulders get stuck OBs and CNMwives will KEEP your birth
> canal closed!
>
> Yale CNMwifery Prof. Varney (just cited) writes:
>
> "In the event of...shoulder dystocia...the woman should be
> in a lithotomy position..." (p. 839)
>
> Lithotomy position keeps the birth canal closed! So does semisitting!
>
> Talk to your CNMwife or MD or MB about this TODAY. (For further details
see
> "Criminal medical CAM," URL above.)
>
> CNMwives/MDs/MBs: If you must push or pull - and sometimes you must -
first
> get the
> woman off her sacrum - off her back/butt.
>
> Thanks for reading everyone.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Todd
>
> Dr. Gastaldo
>
>
> This Open Letter will be archived for global access within 24 hours in the
> Google groups usenet archive. Search http://groups.google.com for
> "Vaginas: Penis size vs. Baby size (Dr. Horkel's EPI-NO)"
>
>

[Todd Gastaldo]

Pregnant women: You can allow your birth canal to open an "extra" up to
30%. See the very end of this post for simple instructions...



WILL PLAYBOY AND PENTHOUSE REPORT OB VAGINA FRAUD?

See PPS below.



Tori asked:

"Why are you so interested in other people's reproductive organs?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=m_4zc.204%24o9.224%40reggie.win.bright .net&output=gplain

Tori,

You've probably discovered this from personal experience but just in case
you haven't...

Most ALL men are interested in "other people's reproductive organs"...

Otherwise the church wouldn't have covered them up - and Playboy and
Penthouse wouldn't be making fortunes uncovering them!

Seriously, CNMwife Judy Slome Cohain in effect suggested (see below) that
because the vagina can stretch to accomodate all penis sizes, OBs and
CNMwives can close birth canals 5% at delivery. Actually, OBs and CNMwives
close birth canals up to 30% at delivery.

CNMwife Judy's bizarre remark is the reason why I got so interested in other
people's reproductive organs in the post to which you responded.

(BTW, I just read the read the ARTICLES in Playboy and Penthouse - I don't
look at the pictures. LOL!)

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS Further regarding PLAYBOY...

Back in June 2002, Kelly Shorlin wrote on misc.kids.pregnancy:

"This month's Fit Pregnancy refers to squatting as a great birth position
because it opens up the pelvis by up to 28%. Has Todd been sending them
emails?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=Pine.SOL.4.21.0206041047570.2
7022-100000%40panther.uwo.ca

Sure enough, I found this quote in Fit Pregnancy...

"Squatting during delivery increases the pelvic opening by approximately 28
percent. But if you wait until you're in labor to try it, your squatting
stamina won't add up to...well, *squat*..."
--Gayle Sato in FIT PREGNANCY, June/July 2002, p. 60

I looked further...

Christopher Napolitano, an editor at PLAYBOY, wrote on p. 114 of Fit
Pregnancy:

"Most guys are obsessed with *How much sex am I going to get after the
baby's born*...'

I wrote:

Guys obsessing about how much sex they will get after birth, might more
usefully obsess about MDs slashing vaginas (euphemism "routine episiotomy")
fraudulently/surgically indicating that everything possible is being done to
OPEN the birth canal - even as they CLOSE the birth canal - up to 30%!

See Sex after birth (a Playboy editor writes for Fit Pregnancy)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1534

Tori, I don't think it's bad that most all men obsess about "other people's
reproductive organs"...

I *do* though think it is bad that OBs (still mostly men I think) routinely
(senselessly) SLICE "other people's reproductive organs"...

OBs are surgically/fraudulently inferring everything possible is being done
to OPEN birth canals even as they CLOSE birth canals - up to 30%.

I think CNMwife Judy Slome Cohain has been doing semisitting births and is
not ready to admit that she has been closing women's birth canals up to
30%...

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PPS Just for grins, I'll cc PLAYBOY senior editor Christopher Napolitano
again )

....and PENTHOUSE via

Maybe one or both of these anatomy magazines will finally expose the fact
that OBs and CNMwives are slicing vaginas en masse - surgically fraudulently
inferring they are doing everything possible to OPEN birth canals - even as
they CLOSE birth canals - up to 30%.



"Tori M." > wrote in message
...
> Why are you so interested in other peoples reproductive organs?
>
> Tori
>
> --
> Bonnie 3/20/02
> Anna or Xavier due 10/17/04
> "Todd Gastaldo" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > VAGINAS: PENIS SIZE VS. BABY SIZE...
> >
> > "Some men have tiny little penises and some men have gigantic penises
and
> > the vagina accomodates them all"...
> > --Judy Slome Cohain, CNM
> >
> > "50 sexually active female undergraduate students were asked...was penis
> > width or length more important for their sexual satisfaction. RESULTS:
> None
> > reported they did not know...A large majority, 45 of 50, reported width
> was
> > more important..."
> > --Eisenman R. BMC Womens Health. 2001;1(1):1. Epub 2001 Jun 08. PubMed
> > abstract
> >
> > Why PENIS WIDTH might be important to women...
> >
> > See PS2 below.
> >
> >
> > PREGNANT WOMEN: OBs and CNMwives are knowingly closing birth canals up
to
> > 30%. See PROOF below.
> >
> > For simple instructions on how to allow your birth canal to OPEN the
> "extra"
> > up to 30%, see the very end of this post.
> >
> >
> > NWHN/BARBARA SEAMAN - OB EMERGENCY
> >
> > OPEN LETTER (archived for global access; see below)
> >
> > Barbara Seaman
> > Co-Founder
> > National Women's Health Network
> > via National Women's Health Network
> > 514 10th Street NW, Suite 400
> > Washington, DC 20004
> >
> >
> > Barbara,
> >
> > OBs and CNMwives are closing birth canals up to 30%. See PROOF
> > in the postscript.
> >
> > OBs are performing GRUESOME mass spinal manipulation on babies -
violently
> > pushing on tiny spines (with oxytocin and Cytotec) and gruesomely
pulling
> > (with hands, forceps and vacuums) - with birth canals senselessly closed
> up
> > to 30%.
> >
> > Sometimes OBs pull so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal
> cords.
> > Some babies die, some babies get paralyzed - most babies "only" have
their
> > spines gruesomely wrenched.
> >
> > ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal closed up to
30%.
> >
> > For simple instructions on how pregnant women can allow their birth
canals
> > to
> > OPEN the "extra"
> > up to 30%, see the very end of this post.
> >
> > One last note Barbara...
> >
> > I thought to write to you because Madeline Behrendt, DC recently thanked
> you
> > in
> > The Chiropractic Journal. [(Jun)2004:39,43]
> >
> > Madeline wrote:
> >
> > "I want to thank [Barbara Seaman] from all of us..."
> >
> > Barbara, thanks in advance for anything you can do to spread the word to
> > women...
> >
> > OBs and CNMwives should not be closing birth canals.
> >
> > Thanks for reading.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > Dr. Gastaldo
> >
> >
> > PS1 PROOF that OBs and CNMwives are routinely closing birth canals up to
> > 30%...
> >
> > The fact that semisitting and dorsal close the birth canal is simple
> > biomechanics.
> >
> > See Gastaldo TD. Letter. Birth 1992;19(4):230.
> >
> > 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!
> >
> > Interestingly, early last century, J. Whitridge Williams, MD, the
original
> > author of Williams Obstetrics demonstrated MASSIVE amounts of change in
> > pelvic outlet diameter change at-term - and Borell and Fernstrom's 1957
> > intrapartum x-ray study accorded with the average amount of pelvic
outlet
> > diameter change Williams found clinically...
> >
> > See: http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html
> >
> > Jason Gardosi, MD, director of the British National Health
> > Service/NHS West Midlands Perinatal
> > Institute/WMPI states the grisly biomechanics of the semirecumbent
> > delivery position (semisitting):
> >
> > "...the weight of the mother is in part taken on the sacrum which is
> > therefore pushed upwards, thus decreasing the antero-posterior diameter
of
> > the pelvic outlet..."
> > http://www.wmpi.net/reviews/oe/oe_shoulder_dystocia.htm
> >
> > The funny thing is, Jason Gardosi, MD also *recommends* semisitting
> (closing
> > the birth canal) - or used to!
> >
> > "The second stage...You might want to remain in bed with your back
propped
> > up with pillows...As you push, try to let yourself 'open up' below..."
> > http://www.preg.info/book/chapter11.htm
> >
> > NOTE: Jason Gardosi, MD and his fellow British OB pal Malcolm Griffiths
> once
> > got me censored from an international OB/GYN listserv - but fortunately
> not
> > before two of my posts were archived thereon:
> > http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0128.html
> > http://forums.obgyn.net/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0153.html
> >
> > Anyone interested in some entertaining obstetric reading, check out
> Jason's
> > 1989 Lancet "randomised controlled trial of squatting" - where nobody
> > squatted...
> >
> > See Sarah Key's huge balls (also: Kids can SQUAT motionless for
hours)...
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2084
> >
> > MORE PROOF According to the Merck Manual:
> >
> > "When shoulder dystocia occurs...the mother's thighs are hyperflexed to
> > increase the diameter of the pelvic outlet..."
> > http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section18/chapter253/253g.jsp
> >
> > WHY are OBs and CNMwives (nurse midwives) waiting until the
> > head is
> > out and shoulders get stuck before giving the baby maximum pelvic outlet
> > diameter?
> >
> > WHY are OBs and CNMwives forcing babies' heads through birth canals
> > senselessly closed up to 30%?
> >
> > WHY are OBs and CNMwives KEEPING birth canals closed when babies'
> shoulders
> > get stuck?
> >
> > (Merely hyperflexing the thighs does NOT get the woman off her sacrum.
> This
> > is BAD McRoberts maneuver. ON A POSITIVE NOTE: Gardosi et al.'s WMPI
site
> > (quoted above) recommends a version of GOOD McRoberts
> > if the shoulders get stuck...
> > http://www.wmpi.net/reviews/oe/oe_shoulder_dystocia.htm)
> >
> > LADIES: HELP PROTECT YOUR VAGINAS...
> >
> > OBs and CNMwives are slicing vaginas (euphemism "routine episiotomy") -
> > surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring everything possible is being done to
> OPEN
> > birth canals - even as they CLOSE birth canals - up to 30%!
> >
> > See Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of
> > Medicine
> > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2256
> >
> > Sorry to be repetitive but...
> >
> > WEIRD: In 1993, the authors of Williams Obstetrics published the
correct
> > biomechanics at my request but they left in their text (in the same
> > paragraph!) the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my attention
to
> > their text.
> >
> > The "dorsal widens" bald lie was created when Ohlsen informed the
authors
> of
> > Williams Obstetrics in 1973 that they were still claiming that the
pelvic
> > diameters *don't change* at delivery!
> >
> > ALSO WEIRD: Before Ohlsen stimulated their "dorsal widens" bald lie,
the
> > authors of Williams Obstetrics were ignoring Borell and Fernstrom's 1957
> > RADIOGRAPHIC demonstration that the diameters DO change - and this MANY
> > years after (way back in 1911) J. Whitridge Williams, MD - the first
> author
> > of Williams Obstetrics - clinically demonstrated 4cm of AP outlet
diameter
> > change!
> >
> > For details: See my Open Letter to FTC at:
> > http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html
> >
> > PS2 CNMwife Judy Slome Cohain recently asked:
> >
> > "Doctors [Wilhelm Horkel, MD and Todd Gastaldo, DC]...What are you
talking
> > about 'closing of the birth canal up to 30%'? Nothing
> > closes the pelvic outlet or the vagina 30%. Yes, squatting gives women
an
> > extra 5% in the pelvic outlet. expands it from 10 cm to 10.5 cm. Is that
> > what is being referred to here?..."
> >
> > CNMwife Judy in effect concedes that OBs and CNMwives are denying an
> "extra"
> > 5% of pelvic outlet area.
> >
> > Even if it were "just" 5% being denied - this is NOT "extra" room!
> >
> > Up to 30% is being denied! The radiographic literature indicates that
OBs
> > and CNMwives are denying up to 30% of pelvic outlet area. I provided a
> link
> > to this information when I wrote to CNMwife Judy.
> >
> > See: I ain't no Semmelweis, but...
> > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2591
> >
> > VAGINAS: PENIS SIZE VS. BABY SIZE...
> >
> > CNMwife Judy also wrote:
> >
> > "Some men have tiny little penises and some men have gigantic penises
> > and the vagina accomodates them all...[The birth canal is skin that
opens
> > and closes depending on what is pushing
> > on it.]"
> >
> > BABY SIZE...
> >
> > Surely CNMwife Judy is aware that shoulder dystocia is widely
acknowledged
> > to be a BONY impaction?!
> >
> > In other words, a baby pushing on a senselessly closed birth canal (the
> baby
> > is pushing because the uterus is pushing) is NOT opening it!
> >
> > Even if OBs and CNMwives were "just" keeping birth canals closed up to
> 5% -
> > they are not helping. They are certainly not helping by keeping the
birth
> > canal closed in cases of shoulder dystocia!
> >
> > In shoulder dystocia in the lithotomy position, they are keeping birth
> > canals closed up to 30%!
> >
> > PENIS SIZE...
> >
> > Why PENIS WIDTH might be more important to women...
> >
> > "A large majority reported width was more important..."
> >
> > "50 sexually active female undergraduate students were asked...was penis
> > width or length more important for their sexual satisfaction. RESULTS:
> None
> > reported they did not know...A large majority, 45 of 50, reported width
> was
> > more important..."
> > --Eisenman R^^^ BMC Womens Health. 2001;1(1):1. Epub 2001 Jun 08. PubMed
> > abstract
> >
> > From the study itself: "Of the 50 females surveyed, 45 said that width
> felt
> > better, with only 5 saying length felt better..."
> >
> > ^^^Russell Eisenman, PhD, University of Texas-Pan American, Department
of
> > Psychology, Edinburg, TX 78539-2999, USA.
> >
> > Can width be more important to women because some FEAR a long penis? (I
> > myself have talked to women who say they have been hurt by a long
penis -
> > no - unfortunately - not mine - LOL!)
> >
> > Eisenmen [2001; just cited] hypothesized that if width is more
important,
> it
> > may be because it affords clitoral stimulation and/or "fullness" with
> > accompanying satisfying psychological benefit...
> >
> > Can width be more important partly because women instinctively know that
> > width can help stretch their vaginas for childbirth?
> >
> > HORKEL'S EPI-NO...
> >
> > CNMwife Judy knows first hand that women enthusiastically endure
> discomfort
> > to stretch their vaginas for childbirth.
> >
> > "Although the device demanded significant expenditure,
> > time and discomfort, 98% of the users were very
> > enthusiastic about it..."
> > --CNMwife Judy writing of the EPI-NO invented by Wilhelm Horkel, MD...
> >
> > "[EPI-NO]...is an inflatable sausage-shaped silicone balloon, 15 cm long
> by
> > 5 cm wide, with a slightly indented middle. The user
> > inserts it half way, up to the indentation, so that when it
> > is inflated, the largest diameter will be at the introitus.
> > The balloon is attached to a rubber pumping bulb and
> > pressure manometer exactly like the pump and meter on
> > the device that is used to measure blood pressure
> > manually. After the user inserts the silicone balloon into
> > the vagina, she pumps the rubber bulb and the balloon
> > slowly inflates. She attempts to increase the size to which
> > she inflates the balloon in each practice session. The
> > balloon can be inflated to 10 cm which imitates the
> > diameter of the fetal head at birth. At the end of the 10-
> > minute practice session, she pushes the balloon out of her
> > vagina. After the balloon is removed, the user is
> > instructed to measure the diameter of the balloon so she
> > knows how many centimetres her perineum has been
> > stretched."
> >
> > See Slome Cohain JS. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, vol 14, no 1, Mar 2004
> > http://www.epi-no.com/pdfs/experience_judy_slome.pdf
> >
> > CNMwife Judy's email came after I copied her the following email to
EPI-NO
> > inventor Wilhelm Horkel, MD...
> >
> > >>>>BEGIN Gastaldo's email to Wilhelm Horkel, MD
> >
> > Helmy,
> >
> > What do you mean IF there are so many problems with the closing of the
> birth
> > canal up to 30%?!
> >
> > Obstetricians indicate that closing the birth canal FAR LESS can KILL.
> >
> > And what about those unexplained brain bleeds in an estimated 4.6% of
> > "healthy" term neonates.
> >
> > Not to mention unexplained brachial plexus palsies and unexplained
> cerebral
> > palsies - and unexplained "lesser" motor and perceptual difficulties
later
> > in life.
> >
> > What business do obstetricians have pushing with chemicals
> > (oxytocin/Cytotec) and pulling with hands, forceps and vacuums - with
> birth
> > canals senselessly closed up to 30%?
> >
> > TO BE SURE, HELMY: Getting the baby out without a vaginal/perineal tear
> is
> > a laudable goal...
> >
> > But users of the EPI-NO are apparently being made to push with the birth
> > canal senselessly closed up to 30%!!
> >
> > How can you let this happen!?
> >
> > Judy Slome Cohain, CNM, MSN ) writes of her EPI-NO
> > study:
> >
> > "The percentage of women in the study group who had an epidural (44%)
and
> > the percentage who underwent a vacuum delivery was
> > 11.7%." [Slome Cohain JS. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, vol 14, no 1, Mar
2004]
> > http://www.epi-no.com/pdfs/experience_judy_slome.pdf
> >
> > I could be wrong, Helmy, but my bet is that *many* of the 44% of EPI-NO
> > study women who had epidurals pushed their babies out on while
positioned
> on
> > the backs/buttocks - on their SACRA - with their birth canals
senselessly
> > closed up to 30%.
> >
> > And many of the 11.7% who underwent a vacuum delivery were likely on
their
> > backs too - being made to close their birth canals up to 30% - as the
> > obstetrician pulled with the vacuum!
> >
> > WHY are OBs being allowed to pull on babies' spines with birth canals
> > closed?!!
> >
> > Also likely: Many of the 56% of EPI-NO study participants who did NOT
get
> > epidurals likely also pushed their babies out with their birth canals
> closed
> > up to 30%.
> >
> > Helmy, you are focusing on vaginas and ignoring pelvic outlets and baby
> > brains (and brachial nerves).
> >
> > I'll cc Judy...
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > Dr. Gastaldo
> >
> >
> > PS Since shoulder dystocia is a TERRIFYING event for OBs - imagine what
> it
> > is like for the baby! WHY are OBs and CNMwives KEEPING birth canals
> closed
> > when shoulders get stuck?!
> >
> > BIZARRE!
> >
> > See: I ain't no Semmelweis, but...
> > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2591
> >
> > >>>>END Gastaldo's email to Wilhelm Horkel, MD, copied to CNMwife
Judy...
> >
> > CNMwife Judy began her reply:
> >
> > "Doctors...Thanks for sending me a copy of this babble. As a
professional
> > midwife, I
> > am quite used to doctors saying the most incredible lies in the hope
that
> if
> > they repeat them often enough, people will believe them. Actually it
> works.
> > Works for hamas terrorists also, by the way. There is not a rational
> > sentence that I can point to. There is not a single reference from the
> > medical literature to back up the statements either."
> >
> > CNMwife Judy, can't you see that you yourself in effect concede that OBs
> are
> > closing birth canals up to 5%g (see above)?
> >
> > Had you clicked on the "I ain't no Semmelweis" URL I provided - you
would
> > have seen where I get the 30% figure.
> >
> > Please start telling women that OBs and CNMwives have been closing birth
> > canals...
> >
> > Please start telling women that it is EASY for them to allow their birth
> > canals to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%...
> >
> > SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS
> >
> > PREGNANT WOMEN: 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.
> >
> > BUT BEWARE: "Midwives...encourage...semisitting." (closing the birth
> canal!)
> > --Yale CNMwifery Prof. Helen Varney. Varney's Midwifery. Sudbury, MA:
> Jones
> > and Bartlett. 4th ed. 2004:839]
> >
> > 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!
> >
> > If your baby's shoulders get stuck OBs and CNMwives will KEEP your birth
> > canal closed!
> >
> > Yale CNMwifery Prof. Varney (just cited) writes:
> >
> > "In the event of...shoulder dystocia...the woman should be
> > in a lithotomy position..." (p. 839)
> >
> > Lithotomy position keeps the birth canal closed! So does semisitting!
> >
> > Talk to your CNMwife or MD or MB about this TODAY. (For further details
> see
> > "Criminal medical CAM," URL above.)
> >
> > CNMwives/MDs/MBs: If you must push or pull - and sometimes you must -
> first
> > get the
> > woman off her sacrum - off her back/butt.
> >
> > Thanks for reading everyone.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > Dr. Gastaldo
> >
> >
> > This Open Letter will be archived for global access within 24 hours in
the
> > Google groups usenet archive. Search http://groups.google.com for
> > "Vaginas: Penis size vs. Baby size (Dr. Horkel's EPI-NO)"
> >
> >
>
>

[Jody Pellerin]

"Amy" > wrote in message >...
Aren't women allowed to enjoy sexual
> stimulation without the practical consideration of reproduction, or is that
> purely the domain of men? ;-)

I so agree there... women don't seem to be allowed to just have sex,
it has to be all reproductive. Urgh

[Carey Gregory]

(Jody Pellerin) wrote:

>"Amy" > wrote in message >...
>Aren't women allowed to enjoy sexual
>> stimulation without the practical consideration of reproduction, or is that
>> purely the domain of men? ;-)
>
>I so agree there... women don't seem to be allowed to just have sex,
>it has to be all reproductive. Urgh


Apparently you two don't realize he's a well known nutcase with an obsession
about vaginas and childbirth.

Please consider yourselves informed and give the rest of us a break, okay?

[Tori M.]

"Carey Gregory" > wrote in message
...
> (Jody Pellerin) wrote:
>
> >"Amy" > wrote in message
>...
> >Aren't women allowed to enjoy sexual
> >> stimulation without the practical consideration of reproduction, or is
that
> >> purely the domain of men? ;-)
> >
> >I so agree there... women don't seem to be allowed to just have sex,
> >it has to be all reproductive. Urgh
>
>
> Apparently you two don't realize he's a well known nutcase with an
obsession
> about vaginas and childbirth.
>
> Please consider yourselves informed and give the rest of us a break, okay?
>
oh we all know that. But we all decided to not block his posts anyway..
hmmm maybe WE are the nutcases;)

Tori
--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Anna or Xavier due 10/17/04

[Jody Pellerin]

Carey Gregory > wrote in message >...
> (Jody Pellerin) wrote:
>
> >"Amy" > wrote in message >...
> >Aren't women allowed to enjoy sexual
> >> stimulation without the practical consideration of reproduction, or is that
> >> purely the domain of men? ;-)
> >
> >I so agree there... women don't seem to be allowed to just have sex,
> >it has to be all reproductive. Urgh
>
>
> Apparently you two don't realize he's a well known nutcase with an obsession
> about vaginas and childbirth.
>
> Please consider yourselves informed and give the rest of us a break, okay?

Oh I already knew about his obsession. My statement was made in
general, not just towards his post.

[Gymmy Bob]

What is wrong with your vagina or my penis?

"Carey Gregory" > wrote in message
...
> (Jody Pellerin) wrote:
>
> >"Amy" > wrote in message
>...
> >Aren't women allowed to enjoy sexual
> >> stimulation without the practical consideration of reproduction, or is
that
> >> purely the domain of men? ;-)
> >
> >I so agree there... women don't seem to be allowed to just have sex,
> >it has to be all reproductive. Urgh
>
>
> Apparently you two don't realize he's a well known nutcase with an
obsession
> about vaginas and childbirth.
>
> Please consider yourselves informed and give the rest of us a break, okay?
>

[Jenrose]

"Chotii" > wrote in message
.. .
> and in late pregnancy a great many
> women would probably rather wedge themselves under the crib in the nursery
> than engage in sexual intercourse. It seems pretty self-limiting to me as
> far as being helpful during childbirth.

<snerk>

Um... I was hornier than hell the last month of pg. Only time I can ever
remember actually wearing out my dd's father. Go figure.

Besides... Crib? Nursery? Org not understand....

Jenrose <---who did block Todd's post, but got the replies...

[Chotii]

"Jenrose" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Chotii" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > and in late pregnancy a great many
> > women would probably rather wedge themselves under the crib in the
nursery
> > than engage in sexual intercourse. It seems pretty self-limiting to me
as
> > far as being helpful during childbirth.
>
> <snerk>
>
> Um... I was hornier than hell the last month of pg. Only time I can ever
> remember actually wearing out my dd's father. Go figure.
>
> Besides... Crib? Nursery? Org not understand....

Yes, well, I have always envied women who wanted anything to do with sex
during pregnancy, let alone at the end with that huge enormous belly....:/

And you have to admit that many people DO have a crib and a baby's room (I
mean, not me, and not you, but lots of people) and I was really going for
the visual effect, here.

I still contend that no man's penis, however large, can do much to 'dilate'
the vagina or stretch the perineum to ease childbirth. But that width helps
stimulate the very general-sensation nerves that exist in the walls of the
vagina (whereas length doesn't seem to do much for women).

I like the fact that Todd admits to being average sized. Not like that
fellow recently who posted, saying he was 9" long and could he hurt the baby
in his pregnant wife's belly...?

--angela