More about Conception Intuitions

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In ,
carl jones wrote:

*!

That makes no sense. Physicians do not date pregnancies from the date of
conception. Physicians date pregnancies using the last menstrual period
(LMP) method. Conception is a peri-ovulatory act. Therefore, six weeks
post-conception, if a physician makes a diagnosis of pregnancy, he or she
would pronounce the woman to be EIGHT weeks pregnant

Maybe you have a point g :Perhaps this physician was dating from
conception to go along with the mother's original claim. Perhaps he wasn't.
I am only relating the story the way it was told to me And I have no reason
to believe the story teller is lying.


Carl

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

Conception intuitions are interesting - but I'm thinking that addressing
the
bizarre (sometimes fatal) obstetric and midwifery tomfoolery is more
important.

Have you ever explicitly said in any of your writings that OBs are closing
birth canals and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck?

No time like the present if you haven't.

Thanks for your post, Todd. You have a good point. But what do you mean by
"closing birth canals?"

Carl

"arachne" wrote in message
...

OBs are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed
when babies get stuck.

i was wondering how you were going to squeeze it in...............

LOL!

Carl

"Rivka W" wrote in message
...
Not to mention, how often does conception actually take place during
sex itself, as opposed to a few hours to a couple of days after sex?
It seems more likely that 'Patrick' would be waking up in the middle
of the night, several hours after sex, and thinking 'Whoa, one of my
boys just finally made it!'

That's what I would think too, Rivka. However, the conception intuition
almost always occurs during or immediately after lovemaking *before* sperm
and egg have actually united. I had conception intuitions with each of our 4
pregnancies and it was always immediately after lovemaking.

Carl

"Melania" wrote in message
oups.com...
If it was one of his girls, it might not have been till two days later,
if the tales of hardier, slower-swimming XX sperm are to be believed. .
.

Anyway, I think it's a bit odd that Mr. Jones just blithely posts a
"clarification" to his request, without defending himself against the
ongoing - and in my mind quite justified - claims that he is a
predatory troll who has been laying bait in various newsgroups for some
twelve years.

I have answered those posts already. I have no need to argue the fact.
Anyone who reads my work or who reads my real posts knows who I am. running
and ducking

Carl

wrote in message
oups.com...
I see you only want reports that confirm your bias. Explain why that's
"research" again, would you?


I am collecting anecdotal stories of conception intuitions for a possible
book on women's intuition. That's the extent of my research.



Carl




http://www.alibris.com/search/search...Lv9tUk1mhtPHA#

"carl jones" wrote in message
...


Thanks for your post, Todd. You have a good point. But what do you mean by
"closing birth canals?"

Carl


Oh man, nooooo he asked the question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL just ask
anyone on ANY pregnancy group and we will be able to tell you what closing
the birth canal by 30% means. It means a women who gives birth on her back
or semi sitting is not allowing her pelvis to open up the extra 30% it is
able to. A birth in the side lying or squatting position is conductive to a
more *roomier* birth for the baby.

(How did I do Todd did I remember correctly??, I'll be thinking of you in
about 10 weeks when I give birth )

Pip
30w1d

wrote in message
oups.com...
I see you only want reports that confirm your bias. Explain why that's
"research" again, would you?


"carl jones" wrote in message
...
I am collecting anecdotal stories of conception intuitions for a possible
book on women's intuition. That's the extent of my research.


That's not exactly "reasearch" then, is it?
I had IVF and I was certain it didn't work. I didn't even want to take the
pictures of the embryos they give you at transfer because I was so sure it
wasn't going to work. Wooo... spooky intuition! not.
--
-Kelly
kelly at farringtons dot net
"Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG

I see you only want reports that confirm your bias. Explain why
that's
"research" again, would you?

I am collecting anecdotal stories of conception intuitions for a
possible
book on women's intuition. That's the extent of my research.

Well, here's mine: I had no conception intuition.

Any reasonable book on women's intuition needs to include those of us
(quite possibly the majority) with no intuitions about conception at
all, and those of us with faulty intuition, as well as those of us with
intuition that happened to be accurate.

Otherwise, you're just doing the equivalent of picking out the stories
of the people, to use my previous analogy, who believe the Earth is
flat. That jibes with their experience of the world and they honestly
think that they've got plenty of evidence for their belief, but we
happen to know that they are wrong, at least so far as we can be said
to know anything...

We don't necessarily know that conception intuitions are "wrong", in
the sense that they provide an inaccurate map of the world, though I
would be amazed at this point to find any substantial evidence that
conception intuitions are a real phenomena and not just selective
memory. Lots of research has been done on paranormal phenomena and
none has ever been substantiated as real. If you were able to prove
that these actually happened, there'd be a whopping lot of money in it
for you, and possibly a Nobel. So you can understand my skepticism.
--
C, mama to two year old nursling

B&N: Birth emergency! (Part II)

B&N = Barnes and Noble, Inc. - the world's largest bookseller - is a large
EMPLOYER...

Attn: Mary Ellen KEATING, Senior Vice President
Corporate Communications, Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Mary,

I forgot to mention in B&N: Birth emergency! (Part I) that Barnes & Noble
healthcare costs - health insurance premiums - are no doubt WAY higher than
they need to be - in part because Barnes & Noble is being made to pay for
OBs to close birth canals up to 30% and keep birth canals closed when babies
get stuck...

OBs are CAUSING cephalopelvic disproportion and failure to progress - then
performing c-sections BEcause of cephalopelvic disproportion and failure to
progress...

Before OBs perform c-sections (or pull with forceps or vacuums) - they often
chemically whip the uterus to contract VIOLENTLY - with oxytocin - with the
birth canal senselessly closed the "extra" up to 30%.

Barnes & Noble employees and their babies get damaged - incur sometimes huge
medical bills.

This costs employers MONEY and does not make for "high levels of employee
satisfaction"...

Barnes & Noble exclaims:

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that employee benefits account for
nearly 40 percent of total employee compensation! You must know how to
ensure high levels of employee satisfaction while keeping control of
spiraling costs. When managers fail to remain informed and updated, the only
result can be a substandard employee benefits program, low worker morale
and/or loss of fiscal control."
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...71371834&itm=6

Maybe Barnes & Noble could speak to other large employers and demand that
health insurance companies simply stop paying OBs who close birth canals?



CHILDBIRTH EDUCATOR CARL JONES, CCE...

Childbirth educator Carl Jones, CCE asked:

snip
[W]hat do you mean by
"closing birth canals?"


Carl,

The familiar phrase "squatting opens" is better stated "semisitting
closes" - or "dorsal closes"...

In 1913, Harvard obstetrician Arthur B. Emmons, MD wrote:

"[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.]

Semisitting and dorsal don't let the tip of the sacrum move back.

Semisitting and dorsal CLOSE the birth canal - up to 30%.

The following was added to Williams Obstetrics at my
request (though the authors left in their text - in the same paragraph (!)
the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my attention to their
text)...


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


Here is the reference for my 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. See:
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html]


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


Also noteworthy: Russell promoted placing women semisitting - even as he
reported the "20-30 per cent" figure - yet the authors of Williams
Obstetrics attributed to Russell the simple biomechanic fact (quoted
above)...

The authors of Williams Obstetrics should have quoted the original author of
Williams Obstetrics who
DEMONSTRATED the
simple biomechanics clinically - way back in 1911!

Alternatively, they could have mentioned me : ) - since I was the one who
went to the trouble of pointing out they had their biomechanics wrong. (See
OB Lie #2 and #3 below)

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS1 THE FOUR OB LIES...

OB LIE #1. After MASSIVE change in the AP pelvic outlet diameter was
clinically demonstrated in 1911 and radiographically demonstrated in 1957,
the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that pelvic
diamaters DON'T CHANGE at delivery.

OB LIE #2. After Ohlsen pointed out in 1973 that pelvic diameters DO
change - the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that
their most frequent delivery position - dorsal - widens the outlet.

OB LIE #3. After I pointed out in 1992 that dorsal CLOSES - and so does
semisitting - the authors of Williams Obstetrics - put the correct
biomechanics in their 1993 edition - but kept in their text (in the same
paragraph!) - the dorsal widens bald lie that first called my attention to
their text...

OB LIE #4. OBs are actually KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get
stuck - and claiming they are doing everything to allow the birth canal open
maximally. (ACOG Shoulder Dystocia video - also forceps and vacuum births
are performed with the mother in lithotomy.)

See Make birth better: Dan Rather, before you leave CBS...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2983

I noted some of the OB lies in an Open Letter to the FTC years ago...
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

PS2 Carl, did I mention?

OBs are KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get stuck!

OBs are keeping women semisitting or dorsal as they pull on babies' skulls
with hands, forceps and vacuums.

Check out ACOG's Shoulder Dystocia Drill! They say they are allowing the
birth canal to open maximally - which is an indirect admission that OBs
routinely close - but their method KEEPS the birth canal closed the "extra"
up to 30%.

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 "only" have their spines
gruesomely wrenched.

ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal senselessly closed
up to 30%.
This is a spinal manipulation/chiropractic emergency.

Also, there is the matter of SURGICAL batteries...

OBs are slicing vaginas/abdomens en masse (episiotomy/c-section) -
surgically/fraudulently inferring they are doing/have done everything
possible to open the birth canal - even as they close the birth canal up to
30%.

No - allowing birth canals to open maximally won't prevent all episiotomies
and c-sections but that is no reason for OBs and CNMwives to keep closing
birth canals up to 30%.

Some of the text above was excerpted/slightly edited from:

B&N: Birth emergency! (Part I)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3162


WOMEN (EMPLOYEES) ARE HAVING TO **ASK** FOR THE "EXTRA" UP TO 30%!!!!

This is very wrong.

Again...


Attn: Mary Ellen KEATING, Senior Vice President
Corporate Communications, Barnes & Noble, Inc.


Barnes & Noble healthcare costs - health insurance premiums - are no doubt
WAY higher than they need to be - in part because Barnes & Noble is being
made to pay for OBs to close birth canals up to 30% and keep birth canals
closed when babies get stuck...

Maybe Barnes & Noble could speak to other large employers and demand that
health insurance companies simply stop paying OBs who close birth canals?

Just a thought....

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "B&N: Birth emergency! (Part II)"