If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
US Atty Genl to 'quackbust' CSICOP 'skeptics'? (For PJ Lisa via Tim Bolen)
First things first...
PREGNANT WOMEN: MDs are closing birth canals up to 30%. It's EASY to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%! Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out! BUT - see WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, below... PJ LISA (via Tim Bolen), please see my Open Letter to you below... Tim mentioned US ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT... ATTENTION US ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT (via ): ALERT! *Massive* obvious MD crime is being committed in American hospitals... MD-obstetricians are *still* tying babies to boards for American medicine's grisly ("babies can't feel pain") most frequent surgical behavior toward males. Atty Genl John, you could INSTANTLY stop infant screams of agony and save America $200 million dollars per year...PRESERVE the surgery as a choice American males can make in adulthood...and ultimately save America BILLIONS of dollars per year... See Sen. Frist, infant penis care, dead babies - and AHRQ 'in-hospital safety events' http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=B6mOa.32328 %24C83.2774415%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net See also: Flip women over, reach in vagina, *pull* on sacrum during MRI! (Attorney General John: See below for a substantial excerpt of this post.) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=nChNa.79221 %24Io.7267953%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net ATTY GENL JOHN: Please contact all 50 state attorney generals. If you remain silent you will be denying babies the protection of child abuse statutes in all 50 states. See ALERT above. CHIROPRACTIC SILENCE As American MDs commit obvious spinal manipulation crime against babies (see "Flip women over, reach in vagina," URL above), chiropractors are mysteriously silent - just like they are mysteriously silent about the fact that the US Supreme Court let Judge Susan Getzendanner deny chiropractors protection of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. See my Open Letter to PJ Lisa below. Atty Genl John, chiropractic silence MAY have something to do with chiropractors being embarrassed about a rather obvious ongoing radiation crime (x-ray/subluxation Medicare healthfraud)... See Ufberg, Calif. Chiro Bd perpetuate DC radiation fraud http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=JRoW6.907%2 4dj3.71132%40dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net I'm still hoping ACA leaders will simply admit the rather inocuous obvious ongoing x-ray/subluxation Medicare healthfraud and publicly urge an end to obvious mass gruesome spinal manipulation of babies by MDs. I will again cc ACA Chairman Jim Edwards, DC - and ACA State Delegates - including and especially ACA's Idaho Delegate Henry West, DC ) who was once (and may still be) chairman of Idaho's chiropractic board which is *supposed* to stop illegal radiation frauds committed by chiropractors and (one would think) at least WRITE to Idaho's counterpart medical board about the obvious mass gruesome spinal manipulation of babies by MDs. I mentioned Henry in "Ufberg, Calif. Chiro Bd perpetuate DC radiation fraud" (URL above)... Onward to my Open Letter to PJ Lisa (via Tim Bolen)... OPEN LETTER (archived for global access***) PJ Lisa Author Assault on Medical Freedom (via Tim Bolen ) PJ, Tim Bolen recently wrote: "I'm working with P. J. (Joe) Lisa to re-publish his 1995 book 'Assault on Medical Freedom'...The quackbuster operation in North America is simply a scam devised around the time the American Medical Association lost a Federal Court Case to the Chiropractors in 1987." [ See The Quackbuster's Newest Scam - "Operation Cure-All"...Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen, July 7th, 2003] Tim Bolen should start mentioning CSICOP - the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal... CSICOP Chairman Kurtz explains that CSICOP got involved in quackbusting because "scientific medicine" (the AMA) did not "enter the fray," as in, "Because [AMA has] not entered the fray, we [many of us associated with the skeptics movement] have taken the initiative...to defend the integrity and the importance of scientific medicine (p. 15)..." (See PS1 below.) The AMA ***WON*** "the fray" - in a big way. The AMA did lose its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Wilk v. AMA case... But - as the AMA attorneys noted - AMA had lost the battle - but won the war... In denying the AMA's appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect reversed itself and allowed AMA to use the Seventh Circuit's "frontal assault" on the Sherman Act to perpetuate - via "individual decisions" - organized medicine's monopolization of the nation's hospitals. This matter was discussed - albeit lamely - by ACA General Counsel George McAndrews (and Ryan) in "Hospital Monopolization May Be Next Legal Target" [ACA Journal of Chiropractic. (Sep)1988:25-30] McAndrews and Ryan [1988] noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had said that the Seventh Circuit's "patient care defense" tool was "nothing less than a frontal assault on the basic policy of the Sherman Act." (p. 28) (NOTE, this is McAndrews and Ryan [1988] quoting "the Court" - I am fairly sure from the context that "the Court" means the U.S. Supreme Court.) Then, two years after publication of McAndrews and Ryan's 1988 article, the U.S. Supreme Court ALLOWED "nothing less than a frontal assault on the basic policy of the Sherman Act." In other words, chiropractors were not protected by the Sherman Act!!! The US Supreme Court rubberstamped Judge Getzendanner denying chiropractors protection of the Sherman Act! Before the US Supreme Court's rubberstamping, McAndrews and Ryan [1988] wrote (after Judge Getzendanner's decision): "It is no wonder, then, that [counsel for some medical societies]...have reportedly advised accomplishing the same ends by diversified local conspiracies rather than the nationwide conspiracy before the Court in Wilk." (p. 28) Why SHOULDN'T attorneys for some medical societies advise "diversified local conspiracies"? After all, Judge Getzendanner had said that MDs and hospitals could make "individual decisions" to screw chirpractors to maintain the hospital monopoly... After the US Supreme Court rubberstamped Judge Getzendanner's/the Seventh Circuit's reversal of the US Supreme Court (which the US Supreme Court later went along with!), why should *federal agencies* treat chiropractors any better than the U.S. Supreme Court treats chiropractors? The take home lesson for chiropractors is: Even when lawsuits are termed "wins" by ACA presidents, we cannot be sure they are *truly* "wins." I should add that McAndrews and Ryan [1988] quietly noted that they *had* tried to tell Judge Getzendanner about the U.S. Supreme Court's take on the matter, as in, "[Judge Getzendanner] noted that the Wilk plaintiffs urged that Indiana Dentists eliminates the patient care defense created by the Seventh Circuit...[but]...the judge...felt constrained to follow the Seventh Circuit's mandate." (p. 28) Constrained by WHAT?! Why didn't McAndrews and Ryan offer in their 1988 ACA Journal article some EXPLANATION as to why Judge Getzendanner "felt constrained" to follow the Seventh Circuit's "frontal assault" on the Sherman Act - instead of the U.S. Supreme Court which had *called* it a "frontal assault"?? Deep in the bowels of their article, McAndrews and Ryan [1988] said that the Seventh Circuit had "amended the Sherman Act" by "overrul[ing Supreme Court] Justice Brandeis and the voluminous consistent decisions following his mandate." (p. 27) Why didn't McAndrews and Ryan focus in their *title* on the fact that Judge Getzendanner had just ignored the U.S. Supreme Court by adopting something the U.S. Supreme Court itself had called a "frontal assault" on the Sherman Act?? McAndrews and Ryan's 1988 article *SHOULD* have been titled: "Judge Getzendanner IGNORES U.S. SUPREME COURT: Allows Organized Medicine's Hospital Monopoly to Continue: Allows Organized Medicine a 'FRONTAL ASSAULT' on the Sherman Act so that MDs can Continue to HAMMER DCs Economically..." The truth *was* in the long article - but who reads long articles?? Thanks for reading, Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo PS1 Tim Bolen says of his newsletter (quoted above): "The focus of the newsletter is on the ongoing activities, battles, politics, and the victories won by members of the 'Health Freedom Movement' against the 'quackbusters'..." http://www.quackpo****ch.org/default.htm (Click on "Latest Newsletter") Tim Bolen (or a man calling himself Tim Bolen) telephoned me a couple of years back after Aaron Fox, PhD fled from the misc.health.alternative usenet newsgroup. He said something about the people at Columbia University thinking him to be me... I had recently exposed Aaron, a member of the Columbia University faculty, as a fraudulent quackbuster "skeptic" not interested in busting obvious rampant quackery in American hospitals. See 'Skeptic' Aaron 'stalks' himself, substantial excerpt below... (NOTE: I say "Tim Bolen (or a man calling himself Tim Bolen)" because I have yet to see Tim Bolen mention the cowardly behavior of fraudulent "Quackbuster" Aaron Fox, PhD. I have nothing against "quackbusting" - as long as *both* sides of the MD/non-MD fence are worked to help consumers - especially the tiniest consumers. Tim, if you are reading, have you published ANYTHING about MDs senselessly closing birth canals and senselessly slashing penises and vaginas, etc. as "quackbusters" ignore the obvious crime? If not, in this regard, you are no better than the "quackbusters" you attack...) BEGIN substantial excerpt of 'Skeptic' Aaron 'stalks' himself/'Skeptic' Aaron WELL connected (Milbank Memorial Fund) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=R9ki5.272%2 4UF.108427%40paloalto-snr2.gtei.net FACT: "Quackbuster" Aaron - with all his "beauty" and "intelligence" - is a FOLLOWER of a fraudulent cause led by his CSICOP MD "quackdaddies"... I have NO evidence that Aaron is a PAID follower of CSICOP MD "quackdaddies". But here is a post that quotes Aaron's now-deleted posts from back when he began promoting his CSICOP MD "quackdaddy" Stephen Barrett, MD... See Fox to sue?/When Fox started 'quackbusting'/Linguist Fox got his tenses tangled http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=kNOc4.459%2 4q5.17338%40dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net Interestingly, CSICOP "Quackbuster" Wallace Sampson, MD spoke for all of CSICOP ("We at CSICOP...are indebted") in the Introduction to: Sampson W and Vaughn L (eds). Science [sic] Meets Alternative Medicine: What the [sic] Evidence Says About Unconventional Medicine. Amherst, New York: Prometheus 2000. In the first chapter of Science [sic] Meets Alternative Medicine, CSICOP Chairman Paul Kurtz mentions the AMA and "scientific medicine": "...We...are suddenly faced with the extraordinary growth of alternative therapies, often in competition with scientific medicine..." (p. 14) CSICOP Chairman Kurtz explains why CSICOP got involved - inferring that the AMA stands for "scientific medicine": "Because [AMA has] not entered the fray, we [many of us associated with the skeptics movement] have taken the initiative...to defend the integrity and the importance of scientific medicine (p. 15)..." Two pages later, CSICOP Chairman Kurtz indirectly makes the CRUCIAL distinction between scientific medicine (a very small part of medicine) and orthodox medicine (most of medicine). CSICOP Chairman Kurtz writes: "Skeptics should not seek to defend the medical profession per se...[A]lternative medicine now challenges the medical profession...[W]e need to evaluate...[the claims of both] orthodox...[and]...alternative medicine." (p. 17) CSICOP Chairman Kurtz, this last statement of yours is dynamite. I submit the following claim for CSICOP evaluation: Most of the medical profession is "alt.med" (unproven) - criminally so - and "Skeptic" Aaron and CSICOP MD "quackbusters" mysteriously fail to quackbust this major quackery. See... *MOST* MD behaviors are "alt.med"/unproven (criminally so) - numerically speaking http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=020810d4.9f d975c2%40usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com MD slaps RN/Two MDs on nurse practitioners (Clergyman Harris and High Priest Borao) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=5qog5.917%2 4DA4.309246%40dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net CSICOP is the acronym for a now-independent spin-off from the American Humanist Association - the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Paul Kurtz is not only Chairman of CSICOP, he is President of Prometheus Books which publishes some of CSICOP MD "quackdaddy" Barrett's books - as well as publishing the book edited by CSICOP "quackdaddy" Wallace Sampson, MD. http://www.csicop.org/articles/mediacracy/ Paul Kurtz is also "Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo" and "Professor of Philosophy at SUNY at Buffalo." (The two titles are probably legitimately interchangeable.) http://www.csicop.org/articles/mediacracy/ One last note for CSICOP Chairman Prof. Kurtz... After I quoted the most politically powerful man in medicine - AAMC Pres. Jordan J. Cohen, MD - in Academic Medicine: False Medicare Claims... http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=7YZh5.328%2 4NI2.193576%40dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net I looked into Dr. Cohen's academic history. I found that AAMC Pres. Dr. Cohen used to teach at SUNY Brockport Health... It turns out that one Daniel M. Fox, PhD (could this be "Skeptic" Aaron's dad?) also taught at SUNY Brockport Health - at the same time as Dr. Cohen... "Skeptic" Aaron once said his Harvard PhD dad taught history "for decades" at a medical school in the SUNY system. As far as I could tell from the directories held by Portland State University, Daniel M. Fox, PhD taught at Harvard around 1970 - then disappeared from the directories - then reappeared - and taught/administrated at most for 15 years at SUNY Brockport Health Science - which hardly qualifies as "decades." If Daniel M. Fox, PhD is "Skeptic" Aaron's father, perhaps Dr. Daniel M. Fox taught at other medical schools in the SUNY system and accumulated "decades" in the SUNY system that way - or perhaps the son was just embellishing as son's often do. Or perhaps Daniel M. Fox, PhD is not "Skeptic" Aaron's father. Then again, there was this... "...Daniel M. Fox is President of the Milbank Memorial Fund and Professor of Social Sciences in Medicine at the State University of New York, Stonybrook." http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/5834.html ....which matches "Skeptic" Aaron's boast (already quoted): "I happen to know the current editor of the Milbank Quarterly quite well, by the way." http://www.remarq.com/read/14325/q_ebbKuPARuIAAAAA ---DELETED And there is the matter of Aaron's claim that his mother is a Harvard PhD nurse involved in hospice (home?) care... I'm going to go out on a limb here (and put on the subject line): "Skeptic" Aaron is WELL connected (Milbank Memorial Fund). Even if I'm wrong - Milbank Memorial Fund should be apprised of what "Skeptic" Aaron is lying and censoring to cover-up - as MDs lie and mothers and babies suffer en masse and sometimes die... CSICOP Chair Kurtz and Vern Bullough are both at SUNY Buffalo - and Bonnie Bullough (Vern's wife?) is Dean of Nursing at SUNY Buffalo. I would be surprised if the Harvard PhD NURSE wife (of the 15-years-at-SUNY-cum-Milbank President) did not know - and perhaps interact socially with - the CSICOP SUNY Buffalo PhDs - one a Dean of Nursing (I'm assuming Bonnie has a PhD)... I guess it really doesn't matter - but the thought occurred to me because (as I noted above), Skeptic" Aaron said: "[L]et a few of us skeptics post our thoughts...'" Aaron A. Fox, PhD http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=515979250 --DELETED by Aaron And Head Skeptic Kurtz said: "[AMA has] not entered the fray...[so many of us associated with the skeptics movement] have taken the initiative..." --CSICOP Chairman Paul Kurtz END substantial excerpt of 'Skeptic' Aaron 'stalks' himself/'Skeptic' Aaron WELL connected (Milbank Memorial Fund) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=R9ki5.272%2 4UF.108427%40paloalto-snr2.gtei.net I note that Australian "Skeptic" Peter Bowditch is speculating that Tim Bolen is "dreaming" about CSICOP... http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/strange/timoranter.htm No need for Tim Bolen to "dream" about CSICOP and quackbuster fraud - CSICOP is wholeheartedly supporting obviously fraudulent "quackbusters." PS2 ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT Tim Bolen said in his most recent newsletter (cited above) that he will need to involve you in stopping fraudulent quackbusters: "What we'll probably have to do is to get a RICO/Civil rights, and Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights, action, going against those controlling and manipulating it, and those FTC, FDA, and Operation Cure-All employees involved in the scam. We'll need to get Attorney General John Ashcroft involved in this, as well as FDA Internal Affairs, and the Inspector General at the FTC." Attorney General John, you need to get involved NOW (as does Tim) in stopping obvious MD criminal activity in hospitals. See PREGNANT WOMEN: WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, below... BEGIN substantial excerpt of Flip women over, reach in vagina, *pull* on sacrum during MRI! http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=nChNa.79221 %24Io.7267953%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net NEW MRI: "ENOUGH ROOM FOR A PHYSICIAN TO STAND ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PATIENT AND PERFORM TESTS" According to the American Roentgen Ray Society, a new MRI system came out in 1998 (?) and Dr. Gabrielle Bergman, section chief for muscoskeletal radiology at Stanford University Hospital in Stanford, CA said there is "enough room for a physician to stand on either side of the patient to perform tests" and the unit is equipped with a screen so that "physicians in the scanner can see the MR images as they appear. There is about a 1.5-second delay, she said." http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/6ef2e.htm I mentioned this new MRI in my first "MRI sex" post copied to various Swiss MRI researchers.... See MRI sex (also: Whiplash/Boob job fictions?) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=KInn9.8739% 24OB5.866576%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net I'll copy the Swiss MRI researchers a third time... And I'll copy the folks at Stanford to whom I also copied my first MRI sex post: , , , , , , , , OPEN LETTER (archived for global access***) Prof. Jim Thornton Editor-in-Chief British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology/BJOG 27 Sussex Place London NW1 4RG Jim, Thanks for acknowledging receipt of "Gastaldo to delight BJOG editor Thornton"... http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=hCIKa.13893 %24C83.1321663%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net Here again is that KEY quote from my "rambling" letter to you... Harvard obstetrician/anthropologist Arthur B Emmons noted 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.] Jim, with OBs placing women on their sacra, they are REDUCING the available space at the pelvic outlet! Jim, thanks for your apology - complete with smiley face icon - but it wasn't your "rambling" comment that bothered me. What bothered me was your implication that you had not received from me: 1) a SHORT letter indicating that your fellow OBs are senselessly closing birth canals followed by 2) x-ray and and clinical EVIDENCE that your fellow OBs are not only senselessly closing birth canals - but lying to cover-up... Your humorous apology and your second "keep it short and evidence based" plea STILL imply that you have not received a short letter and EVIDENCE to back up my claims. I think you are behaving this way 1) because you are an OB and you do not wish to acknowledge obvious OB crime (perhaps you did semisitting and dorsal deliveries?); and 2) because you have co-authored papers with influential OB RJ Lilford who used radiation in an attempt to cover-up the obvious OB crime. See again: Gastaldo to delight BJOG editor Thornton... http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=hCIKa.13893 %24C83.1321663%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net As I've previously noted, you are employing editorial stuffiness to delay taking action to stop the obvious MD crime: You don't need a paper from me before taking action to help babies. Which brings me back to the subject line of this post... GOOD NEWS JIM! In preparing to write the paper you are standing by to receive, I came across FURTHER evidence of medicine's ongoing attempt to cover-up the obvious OB crime. I wrote a short letter to the editor - and copied it to you... See MRI sex again (also: Breech baby: Is planned caesarean safer?) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=095Na.77869 %24Io.7224047%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net Here - again - is my short letter to the editor to you...followed by my usual "rambling" presentation of evidence supporting my claims... BREECH BABY: IS PLANNED CAESAREAN SAFER? OPEN LETTER (archived for global access***) Prof. Jim Thornton Editor-in-Chief British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology/BJOG 27 Sussex Place London NW1 4RG To the Editor: Rietberg et al. [1] offer evidence that term-breech-presentation-planned caesareans may prevent a "twofold increase in mortality, a sevenfold increase in low Apgar score and a threefold increase in birth trauma" (relative to breech vaginal deliveries or breech emergency caesareans). Rietberg et al. did not mention birth position. Nordström [2] writes, "The standard maternal position during the second stage is lying on her back" - yet there is clinical and x-ray evidence (summarized by Gastaldo [3]) that "lying on her back" and semisitting delivery positions close the birth canal significantly. Michel et al. [4] offer magnetic resonance imaging evidence that "lying on her back" and semisitting delivery positions close the birth canal significantly. If the Rietberg et al. study included term breech vaginal deliveries (woman "lying on her back" or semisitting), some of the adverse outcomes may have derived - not from vaginal delivery - but from birth canals senselessly being closed significantly due to medicine's irrational birth behavior. Dr. Todd Gastaldo 22115 NW Imbrie Dr. #338 Hillsboro, Oregon USA References 1. CCTh Rietberg, PM Elferink-Stinkensb, R Brandc, AJ van Loond, OJS Van Hemele, GHA Visserf, Term breech presentation in The Netherlands from 1995 to 1999: mortality and morbidity in relation to the mode of delivery of 33,824 infants Br J Obstet Gynaecol 110 (2003), pp. 604-609., 2. L Nordström, Letter (Fetal and maternal lactate increase during active second stage of labour), Br J Obstet Gynaecol 110 (2003), pp. 85 3. TD Gastaldo, Letter (Labor posture), Birth 19 (1992), p. 230. 4. SC Michel, A Rake, K Treiber, B Seifert, R Chaoui, R Huch, B Marincek, RA Kubik-Huch, MR obstetric pelvimetry: effect of birthing position on pelvic bony dimensions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 179 (2002), pp. 1063-1067. MRI SEX - AGAIN... Copied to: Michel et al. (just cited) via... Rahel A. Kubik-Huch, MD Department of Radiology Kantonsspital Baden CH-5404 Baden Switzerland Rahel, My October 2002 usenet article "MRI sex" (which I copied to you) included a brief discussion of your 2002 MRI study (reference 4 above, SC Michel, A Rake, K Treiber, B Seifert, R Chaoui, R Huch, B Marincek, RA Kubik-Huch, MR obstetric pelvimetry: effect of birthing position on pelvic bony dimensions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 179 (2002), pp. 1063-1067)... http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=KInn9.8739% 24OB5.866576%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net You and your colleagues [Michel et al 2002] indicated that allowing women to birth semisitting or on hands and knees "significantly expands female pelvic bony dimensions, suggesting facilitation of labor and delivery." You failed to mention that it is the uterus (and abdominal musculature) pushing the baby out that likely most significantly expands female pelvic bony dimensions. You failed to reach into the vagina and pull on the sacral tip in your semisitting and hands and knees images. Even so, it is remarkable that you were able to report: "With patients in the hand-to-knee and squatting positions, the sagittal outlet (11.8 ± 1.3 cm and 11.7 ± 1.3 cm) exceeded that in the supine position (11.5 ± 1.3 cm; p = 0.002 and p = 0.01, respectively)..." Just now - in composing my Open Letter response to the Reitberg et al. breech study - I found a 2003 MRI study which you co-authored with Keller et al.: TM Keller, A Rake, SCA Michel, B Seifert, G Efe, K Treiber, R Huch, B Marincek, RA Kubik-Huch, Obstetric MR Pelvimetry: Reference Values and Evaluation of Inter- and Intraobserver Error and Intraindividual Variability. Radiology 2003;227:37-43. I do not agree that you "confirmed that pelvimetric dimensions are significantly smaller in women undergoing cesarean section and assisted delivery than in those delivering vaginally." [Keller 2003] ....at least not in regard to sagittal pelvic outlet diameter. I say this because your study [Keller 2003] was, in large part, a retrospective study of "MR pelvimetry...performed with the patient in the supine position." Women in the supine position are lying on their sacra, closing their birth canals. See below. MASSIVE PELVIC OUTLET AREA DENIED... You failed to mention sacroiliac motion in both studies - yet it is sacroiliac motion which yields a "massive" change in sagittal pelvic outlet dimension. This "massive" amount of sacroiliac motion denied was noted in the 1969 article by JGB Russell which you and your colleagues cited in both of your MRI studies... Incidentally, "massive" was the word used by another group of researchers (Lilford et al.) who knowingly (or perhaps negligently) perpetrated a radiation fraud on the recent parturients they studied. See Gastaldo to delight BJOG editor Thornton http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=hCIKa.13893 %24C83.1321663%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net Given these rather major gaffs - I no longer believe your 2002 statement that "ethical grounds" prohibited you from studying "recent parturients" in 2002. I believe that you INTENTIONALLY failed to study "recent parturients" - to help in the ongoing cover-up of a MASSIVE medical crime against mothers and babies... Here is the relevant "ethical grounds" quote from your 2002 study: "A limitation of our study is that we included no pregnant women. We made this decision for two reasons: the limited space in the scanner bore (upright scanning is technically impossible for a woman in late pregnancy) and the ethics of scanning stress, particularly in the hand-to-knee and squatting positions (even nonpregnant volunteers were exhausted by having to remain immobile during the 10 min. of image acquisition). On these ethical grounds, we even extended our noninclusion criteria to recent parturients...We are aware that this limitation prevented us from measuring the influence of pregnancy-related joint laxity in late gestation, for which there is ample documentation. However, changes in pelvic dimensions observed in nonpregnant women should become even more pronounced during delivery..." [Michel et al. Am J Roentgenol 2002 Oct;179(4):1063-1067] Yes, Rahel, changes in pelvic dimensions SHOULD become even more pronounced during delivery - and in recent parturients - but NOT just because of increased ligament laxity. You failed miserably in your clinical purpose: "The clinical purpose of our study was to provide obstetricians with guidance in predicting fetal-pelvic disproportion..." I say again: You failed to mention in your 2002 study that it is the uterus (and abdominal musculature) pushing the baby out that likely most significantly expands female pelvic bony dimensions. And you failed to reach into the vagina and pull on the sacral tip in your semisitting and hands and knees images. Your 2003 study helps MDs pretend (with Lilford et al.) that massive amounts of sacroiliac motion aren't being denied by MDs. Your 2003 study did contain this HOT quote: "In choosing the mode of delivery, it is important to be able to test for fetal-pelvic disproportion, since fetomaternal morbidity and mortality increase with prolonged labor..." Yes, PLEASE DO test for fetal-pelvic disproportion! Reach in the vagina and pull on the sacral tip and compare that AP pelvic outlet diameter with the AP pelvic outlet diameter obtained with the mother lying on her sacrum. "Fetomaternal morbidity and mortality increase with prolonged labor" - was the EXACT point I was trying to make to BJOG Editor Jim Thornton recently! Jim IGNORED this point! See again: Gastaldo to delight BJOG editor Thornton http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=hCIKa.13893 %24C83.1321663%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net You also wrote in your 2003 study: "[P]elvimetric differences of just a few millimeters could have an important bearing on obstetric decision making..." YES! If the OB is senselessly closing the birth canal up to 40 millimeters - you STOP him/her! In some births, OBs are senselessly closing the birth canal MORE than 40 millimeters - at least this is what is indicated by the 2001 issue of Williams Obstetrics, as in, "...With increasing narrowing of the pubic arch, the occiput cannot emerge directly beneath the symphysis pubis but is forced increasingly farther down...the ischiopubic rami. In extreme cases, the head must rotate around a line joining the ischial tuberosities [!] (p. 438)..." You failed to mention the pubic arch! Here is a 1913 quote regarding the effect of the pubic arch: "[M]oving backward of the tip of the sacrum...enlarges the available space not merely directly in proportion to the distance backward, but more nearly by the square of that distance." [Emmons, AB. A study of the variations in the female pelvis, based on observations made on 217 specimens of the American Indian squaw. Biometrika 1913; 9:34-47.] Again quoting Williams Obstetrics: When the pubic arch is extremely narrow, "the head must rotate around a line joining the ischial tuberosities [!] (p. 438)..." RUSSELL STARTED THE GAME... Russell mentioned the intrapartum x-ray study of Borell and Fernstrom in his 1969 study - but NOT in his 1982 study... Russell also suggested (fraudulently) that semisitting widens "all the diameters." Assuming that you guys actually read the 1969 paper by Russell (which you cited in both MRI studies), you are either dumb or scum. I personally think you guys are scum. You gave as a reason for your study: "We believed it important to establish reference MR pelvimetric values"; when in fact, you used MRI like Liford et al. used x-ray - to CONCEAL "pelvimetric values." You concealed MASSIVE "pelvimetric" values to quote Lilford et al.'s bogus study which attempted to conceal the value of previous x-ray and clinical observations.) Sorry to call you all scum. Perhaps some of you simply *weren't aware* of the obvious ongoing obstetric criminal negligence discussed herein? Perhaps you never read my email - or the relevant medical literature? Well now you *are* aware. PLEASE help stop MDs and MBs and nurses and midwives from closing birth canals up to 30%. PREGNANT WOMEN! It's EASY to open your birth canal an "extra" up to 30%! Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out! PLEASE talk to your MD about this NOW... WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING: Some MDs will let women "try" side-lying and other "alternative" delivery positions - but they will move women back to semisitting - close their birth canals (!) at the very worst possible moment (as the baby is coming out)... See GASTALDO'S ABSTRACT - my invited poster presentation at a recent obstetric congress co-sponsored by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/ACOG. (NOTE: GASTALDO'S ABSTRACT is on the web: Search "GASTALDO'S ABSTRACT Paciornik"...) GRUESOME SPINAL MANIPULATION BY MDs (and MBs)... MDs routinely pull "gently"/gruesomely on babies' heads sticking out vaginas/birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%. (ALL spinal manipulation of fetuses is gruesome with the birth canal closed up to 30%.) UNNECESSARY EPIDURALS... MDs routinely cause uteri to PUSH with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30% and in many births MDs chemically whip uteri to push harder/VIOLENTLY - with oxytocin and Cytotec - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%! No wonder some women literally BEG for epidurals! UNNECESSARY FORCEPS/VACUUM EXTRACTIONS... In 10 to 15% of births MDs reach INSIDE vaginas - with forceps/vacuum extractors - and drag babies out through birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%! Sometimes MDs pull so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords! HINDBRAIN HERNIATION... MDs may occasionally be pulling the brain/cerebellum into the upper cervical canal... See Gastaldo's fibromyalgia hypothesis (Chiari/birth trauma) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=1K0Ka.10657 %24C83.1056213%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net TRACTION OF BRAIN AND SPINAL CORD - TRACTION BIRTH TRAUMA IS COMMON! "...type 1 Arnold-Chiari malformation in six cases. A constellation of these abnormalities are best explained by traction of brain and spinal cord of the subjects exerted during breech delivery and further support the primary role of birth trauma in the genesis of 'idiopathic hypopituitarism.'" --Fujita K, Matsuo N, Mori O, Koda N, Mukai E, Okabe Y, Shirakawa N, Tamai S, Itagane Y, Hibi I. [Eur J Pediatr. 1992 Apr;151(4):266-70. PubMed abstract Comment in: Eur J Pediatr. 1993 Feb;152(2):175.] CHIARI SKULL SURGERY: FIBROMYALGICS STILL HOPING? "We're very hopeful that this will be the first real, viable treatment for many people," said Rae Gleason, director of the National Fibromyalgia Research Association (NFRA) in Salem, Oregon. The NFRA is funding a $150,000 study to determine the percentage of fibromyalgia patients who have a Chiari malformation or spinal cord compression. --Spine, skull surgery may help many with CFIDS By David Hoh http://www.cfids.org/archives/1999/1999-3-article03.asp SIDS... It has been suggested in the medical literature that a small or distorted posterior cranial fossa might be required for the Chiari malformation: "These results support the opinion, which claims the existence of underdevelopment of the occipital bone and posterior fossa in patients with Chiari type I malformation." [Karagoz F, Izgi N, Kapijcijoglu Sencer S. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2002 Feb;144(2):165-71] "[R]elationship between the skull base and...Chiari type I malformation (CMI),*****key role in a small size of posterior cranial fossa..."[Krupina NE, Beloded VM. [Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im S S Korsakova. 2002;102(8):3-7. PubMed abstract] It occurs to me that MDs "spraining" brain support structures at birth PLUS iatrogenic positional plagiocephaly (to prevent SIDS^^^) - may cause a smaller or distorted posterior cranial fossa (or a smaller brain case overall) - and result in some cases of fibromyalgia (assuming some fibromyalgia is related to Chiari)... ^^^See American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP quote below... Of course, MDs "spraining" brain support structures - and mothers causing positional plagiocephaly spontaneously - could also have been causing a smaller or distorted posterior cranial fossa (or a smaller brain case overall) all along - and some cases of fibromyalgia (assuming some fibromyalgia is related to Chiari) all along... Does anyone know whether positional plagiocephaly causes a smaller or distorted posterior cranial fossa (or a smaller brain case overall)? I'll cc: who writes: "In children with positional head deformity (posterior plagiocephaly), the occiput is flattened with corresponding facial asymmetry. The incidence of positional head deformity increased dramatically between 1992 and 1999, and now occurs in one of every 60 live births. One proposed cause of the increased incidence of positional head deformity is the initiative to place infants on their backs during sleep to prevent sudden infant death syndrome. With early detection and intervention, most positional head deformities can be treated conservatively with physical therapy or a head orthosis ("helmet").[Biggs W. Am Fam Physician. 2003 May 1;67(9):1953-6. PubMed abstract] ^^^Quoting the American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP: FLAT SKULL "ALMOST ALWAYS A BENIGN CONDITION" "There is some suggestion that the incidence of babies developing a flat spot on their occiputs may have increased since the incidence of prone sleeping has decreased. This is almost always a benign condition, which will disappear within several months after the baby has begun to sit up..." http://www.aap.org/new/sids/question.htm TRACTION OF BRAIN AND SPINAL CORD - PRIMARY ROLE OF BIRTH TRAUMA... "...type 1 Arnold-Chiari malformation in six cases. A constellation of these abnormalities are best explained by traction of brain and spinal cord of the subjects exerted during breech delivery and further support the primary role of birth trauma in the genesis of 'idiopathic hypopituitarism.'" --Fujita K, Matsuo N, Mori O, Koda N, Mukai E, Okabe Y, Shirakawa N, Tamai S, Itagane Y, Hibi I. [Eur J Pediatr. 1992 Apr;151(4):266-70. PubMed abstract Comment in: Eur J Pediatr. 1993 Feb;152(2):175.] What if distortion of the skull for several months makes it more difficult for the brain to recover (retract fully into the brain case) following birth trauma? CAUTION ADVISED...John Oro, M.D., and Diane Mueller, N.D., who run the University of Missouri Chiari Clinic, say fibromyalgia patients should be cautious about assuming they may have Chiari malformation...First, Oro and Mueller say, people who believe they may have Chiari malformation should undergo a basic neurologic exam from a neurologist or neurosurgeon experienced at diagnosing Chiari...If someone indeed has Chiari malformation, this exam, and an MRI of the brain and brainstem, will reveal it..."I think the lay public has become a little misled," says Mueller, a nurse practitioner. "They're sure we're going to have a cure for fibromyalgia." --Fibromyalgia and Chiari Malformation By Jeff Durbin http://www.muhealth.org/~arthritis/a...01/chiari.html Copied to: Jeff Durbin "The fact that you've survived a surgery probably changes your physiology." --John Oro, MD The fact that a baby survives a TRAUMATIC TRACTION BIRTH probably changes her/his physiology! Copied to: John Oro, MD Missouri Arthritis Rehabilitation Research and Training Center 130 A P Green, DC330.00 One Hospital Drive Columbia, MO 65212 E-Mail: Also via: Diane Mueller, ND, RN, C-FNP via UNNECESSARY CESAREAN SECTIONS... MDs close birth canals - CAUSE "cephalopelvic disproportion" - then perform major abdominal surgeries called c-sections BEcause of "cephalopelvic disproportion! UNNECESSARY EPISIOTOMIES... MDs routinely slash vaginas (euphemism "routine episiotomy") - surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring that everything possible is being done to OPEN birth canals - even as they CLOSE birth canals up to 30%! MDs offer women "generous" episiotomies when the baby's shoulders get stuck... The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/ACOG indirectly ADMITS that MDs are routinely closing birth canals - why *else* would ACOG's Shoulder Dystocia video show MDs how to OPEN the birth canal maximally when the shoulders get stuck? Unfortunately, ACOG's Shoulder Dystocia video method of "opening" the birth canal maximally - KEEPS THE BIRTH CANAL CLOSED! See Blame, Attorney Weisbrod and the 'God within' (our courts of law)... http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=Q28K8.883%2 4NG1.312%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net CANADIAN OBs ARE AS BAD AS AMERICAN OBs... ACOG's grisly, ostensible birth canal opening method involves flexing the thighs on the abdomen. This is "proper" McRoberts maneuver - which actually closes the birth canal with more force than semisitting (!)... IMPROPER McRoberts (not pictured in the ACOG video mentioned above) involves rolling the woman *off her sacrum* which OPENS the birth canal. WHY isn't ACOG explicitly promoting IMPROPER McRoberts - and the reason it is good? For the most likely reason, see HERE'S THE PROBLEM, below. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC) claims that flexing the thighs on the abdomen (and semisitting) are biomechanically like squatting. (!) The Canadian OBs think semisitting is better than dorsal; in fact, semisitting only closes the birth canal with more force. (!) Heres the relevant SOGC quote... "UPRIGHT OR SEMI-SITTING POSTURE [retains some mechanical advantages of]...[sq]uatting [which] has...been shown radiographically to increase the pelvic outlet measurements by 0.5 to 1.5 cm. Flexing the thighs against the abdomen also contributes to increasing the diameter of the pelvis in the sagittal plane and thus the sitting, semi-sitting and exaggerated lithotomy positions retain some of these mechanical advantagesThe traditional lithotomy position commonly used in obstetric units can certainly be modified to obtain a semi-sitting posture and hence achieve the benefit derived from the upright position (p. 58)... Upright (semi-sitting, squatting) and left lateral postures have many points in their favour, and should be encouraged. In contrast, the traditional lithotomy position has distinct disadvantages and should therefore be reserved for cases of operative delivery. The lithotomy position can often be modified to a semisitting position for most purposes to avoid the adverse haemodynamic consequences of supine position and to benefit, at least in part, from a more upright posture.(p. 54)... HEALTHY BEGINNINGS: GUIDELINES FOR CARE DURING PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH The just-quoted unhealthy policy statement (HEALTHY BEGINNINGS) was written and reviewed by members of the Clinical Practice- Obstetrics Committee and approved by the Executive and Council of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC). This document supersedes the guidelines published in December 1995. Principal Authors: Nan Schuurmans, MD, FRCSC (Past Chair) (Edmonton, AB) Guy-Paul Gagné, MD, FRCSC (Chair) (LaSalle, QC) Ahmed Ezzat, MD, FRCSC (Saskatoon, SK) Irene Colliton, MD (Edmonton, AB) Catherine J. MacKinnon, MD, FRCSC (London, ON) Brenda Dushinski, RN (London, ON) Robert Caddick, MD, FRCSC (Moncton, NB) National Office: André B. Lalonde, MD, FRCSC Robert A.H. Kinch, MB, FRCSC SOGC CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES POLICY STATEMENT No. 71, December 1998 http://www.sogc.org/SOGCnet/sogc_doc...lthybegeng.pdf A few last notes about the just-quoted SOGC policy statement... Squatting has never been "shown radiographically to increase the pelvic outlet measurements by 0.5 to 1.5 cm" - but clinical and x-ray studies do indicate that semisitting and dorsal CLOSE the birth canal - up to 30%. The biomechanics are quite simple and easily detectable clinically: In 1911, J. Whitridge Williams, MD, original author of Williams Obstetrics reported a woman in whom the sacral tip moved 4 cm! In 1913, Harvard obstetrician/anthropologist Arthur B Emmons, MD noted: "[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.] In 1969, British consultant radiologist JGB Russell used an x-ray study by Borell and Fernström's [1957] and mathematically calculated that allowing the sacrum and pelvis to move affords a 20-30% potential increase in pelvic outlet area, as in, "[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. In 1973, Ohlsén used Borell and Fernström's original AP measurements, and on Borell and Fernstrom's 1957 intrapartum films verified Russell's 20% figure. [Ohlsén H. Moulding of the pelvis during labour. Acta Radiol Diag 1973;14:417-434] This was the 1973 paper in which Ohlsén noted that Williams Obstetrics was still claiming that there were NO changes in the pelvic diameters at delivery. When I tried to get Canadian obstetrician Murray Enkin, MD to *clearly* (usefully) state the fact that clinical and x-ray evidence indicates that semisitting and dorsal close the birth canal - he censored his own book! Enkin "justified" his self-censorship by mentioning "the Lilford group" - which had conducted obviously BOGUS x-ray studies! Enkin's colleague, British evidence-based guru Sir Iain Chalmers, MD went along with the anti-scientific gag! Hopefully Lilford's colleague, BJOG International's Jim Thornton, will finally call attention to the massive grisly medical fraud. See again: Gastaldo to delight BJOG editor Thornton http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=hCIKa.13893 %24C83.1321663%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net Rahel, I cannot believe that everyone was unaware of the massive amount of sacroiliac motion that is being routinely denied. I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. MDs are just academic prime cuts forced through this culture's most powerful mental meatgrinder - medical school. Rahel, I'll copy the others in Switzerland to whom I cc'd my October 2002 article "MRI sex..." , , ; ; ; ; Onward... OPEN LETTER Dr Christine Rietberg Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Vlietland Hospital Vlaardingen The Netherlands + 31 15 214 6391 http://www.rcog.org.uk/mainpages.asp?PageID=1109 Christine, BJOG Editor Jim said he would be "delighted" to receive a paper from me. See again: Gastaldo to delight BJOG editor Thornton http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=hCIKa.13893 %24C83.1321663%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net As I began to read BJOG, I came across your recent study and composed the above Open Letter to BJOG... Christine, *were* any "lying on her back" (or semisitting) deliveries - included in your study? If so, you studied breech birth with birth canals senselessly closed significantly! Dutch midwives have written that semisitting and dorsal delivery positions close the birth canal significantly - but I suspect that Dutch obstetricians are not heeding this simple biomechanical message. I suspect Dutch obstetricians are closing birth canals and remaining quiet about it - just like the Swiss MRI researchers above are ignoring simple biomechanics published in a study they cited. The American obstetrician authors of Williams Obstetrics *published* the simple biomechanics at my request but left in their text (in the same paragraph) (!) the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my attention to their text. FINAL NOTE REGARDING BREECH BIRTH: The authors of Williams Obstetrics promote a particularly grisly "lying on her back" breech delivery maneuver called the "Mauriceau maneuver" wherein an assistant in effect helps to keep the birth canal closed and impale the after-coming fetal skull on the sacral tip. See the 1993 Williams Obstetrics. (Fig. 25-7) The grisly Mauriceau maneuver is named for the Frenchman Francois Mauriceau (1637-1709) - who apparently plagiarized the idea of semisitting delivery from Aristotle. [Dunn PM. Francois Mauriceau (1637-1709) and maternal posture for parturition. Arch Dis Child 1991;66:78-9. Address: Prof. Dunn, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Bristol BS10 5NB]) BOTTOMLINE... BJOG Editor Jim, MDs are LYING and as a consequence some babies are DYING. MDs indirectly admit they are killing babies. The authors of Williams Obstetrics indicate that closing the birth canal FAR LESS than 30% can kill. Again quoting Keller et al. [2003]... "[P]elvimetric differences of just a few millimeters could have an important bearing on obstetric decision making..." YES! If the OB is senselessly closing the birth canal up to 40 millimeters - you STOP him/her! Thanks for reading, everyone, END substantial excerpt of Flip women over, reach in vagina, *pull* on sacrum during MRI! http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...lm=nChNa.79221 %24Io.7267953%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net Thanks for reading, everyone, Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo ***This Open Letter will be archive for global access within 24 hours. Search http://groups.google.com for "PJ Lisa: Wilk was a WIN for the AMA - a big win: The US Supreme Court let Judge Susan Getzendanner deny chiropractors the protection of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|