HIV in pregnancy (also: Birth plan idea) (also: Good news for Rivka W...)

HIV IN PREGNANCY

Are MDs still giving AZT to pregnant women?

Pregnant women: Please think twice if you are HIV positive and told to take
AZT.

Attention Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis
(Board Members listed below.)

See below...

BIRTH PLAN IDEA

Pregnant women: Euphemistically stipulate PULLING positions too!

See below...

GOOD NEWS FOR RIVKA W...

See below...

"Rivka W" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Rivka W wrote:

My big fear about birth is C-section with general anesthesia.
Because I have a partial spinal fusion, they may not be willing
to try spinal anesthesia on me.

I'm surprised your doctor hasn't told you whether or not they'll be
able to do spinal anesthesia on you.

What I have heard from other women who have had spinal surgery is that
sometimes you get one answer from your orthopedist or from an
anesthesiologist in advance, but then it comes down to whoever is the
anesthesiologist on duty at the hospital when you deliver - who might
have a different opinion. So I've talked to an orthopedist, and I'm
planning to call the anesthesiology department at the hospital where
I'm going to deliver, but I'm also going to keep in mind that the only
final answer comes from the doctor who is actually in the room at the
time.

Is vaginal birth out of the question, then, because of your spinal
fusion? It's strange, I know another woman who had spinal
fusion surgery who is due in April.

Vaginal delivery is not out of the question at all - this is just me
leaping forward to the worst-case scenario. (No, the worst-case
scenario is the baby dying. The worst *reasonably likely* scenario.)

I have also had eight hip surgeries, one of which is known to carry
the risk of narrowing the diameter of the mid-pelvis. So *that* might
make vaginal delivery impossible.

MIDPELVIS See below.

However, the number I'm
concentrating on is this: women who have had my particular kind of hip
surgery have a 70% chance of delivering vaginally (30% C-section
rate), and there's absolutely no reason to believe that I don't fall
within that 70%.


GOOD NEWS FOR RIVKA W...

"In obstructed labors caused by narrowing of the midpelvis or the pelvic
outlet, the prognosis for vaginal delivery often depends on the posterior
sagittal diameter of the pelvic outlet." [Williams Obstetrics. 2001:56]

Significant posterior sagittal diameter of the pelvic outlet is denied when
women give birth semisitting or dorsal.

Semisitting and dorsal are the most common medical delivery positions...

Thus the women studied to yield the "70% chance" of vaginal delivery likely
delivered on their backs or semisitting - thereby denying them significant
amounts of posterior sagittal diameter.

In other words Rivka, it seems likely that since you plan on staying off
your sacrum^^^, your chances for a vaginal delivery are better than 70%.

^^^See PULLING positions (Rivka's euphemism works for *pulling* positions
too!)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3207

To increase my chances of a vaginal delivery, I am delivering with
midwives who have a reputation for being both very skilled and
unnaturally patient, and preparing for an unmedicated labor and
delivery. That won't help if my pelvis really is too narrow to let the
baby through, but it will certainly help make sure that if I *do* have
a C-section, it will only be because it was the *only* option.

At 36 weeks, the head midwife in my practice (who has been delivering
babies since before I was born) is going to do a pelvic exam to see if
she can feel whether there's enough room for the baby to come out.

Again, you wrote:


I have also had eight hip surgeries, one of which is known to carry
the risk of narrowing the diameter of the mid-pelvis. So *that* might
make vaginal delivery impossible.

Just FYI...

MIDPELVIS

From Williams Obstetrics [2001]:

"The midpelvis at the level of the ishial spines (midplane, or plane of
least pelvic dimensions) is of particular importance following engagement of
the fetal head in obstructed labor. The interspinous diameter, 10 cm or
somewhat more, is usually the smallest diameter of the pelvis..." [Williams
Obstetrics. 2001:56]

"Clinical examination of midpelvis CAPACITY by any direct form of
measurement is not possible." [Williams Obstetrics: 2001:60, emphasis added]

"[i]f the biischial diameter of the outlet is less than 8cm, then suspicion
suspicion is aroused about a contraction in this region." [2001:60]

She
said that in all her years of practice, she's only told one or two
women that they had pelvic anomalies too severe to be worth trying
vaginal delivery. So let's hope I don't add to her count.


It is likely that your midwife has done semisitting and dorsal deliveries -
closing the birth canal up to 30% - so it is good that you are
euphemistically saying, "Don't close my birth canal the 'extra' up to
30%"...

BIRTH PLAN IDEA...

To any pregnant women reading, you may have included in your birth plan
(like Rivka did) a euphemistic statement regarding your desire for PUSHING
positions that allow the birth canal to open the "extra" up to 30%.

I urge you to include in your birth plan a similar euphemistic statement
regarding PULLING positions - i.e. - you don't want them PULLING on your
baby's spine with the birth canal closed the "extra" up to 30%.

See again: PULLING positions (Rivka's euphemism works for *pulling*
positions too!)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3207

Remember...

Some OBs and CNMwives let women "try" alternative delivery positions but
then roll them back to semisitting or dorsal (close their birth canals the
"extra" up to 30%) for the actual delivery...

When babies get stuck, OBs routinely KEEP women semisitting or dorsal - keep
the birth canal closed the "extra" up to 30% as they pull with hands,
forceps or vacuums.

Sometimes OBs pull so hard that they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal
cords.

Some babies die - some get paralyzed - most "only" have their spines
gruesomely wrenched.

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

So a euphemistic stipulation that you ALSO don't want your birth canal
closed the "extra" up to 30% if pulling becomes necessary would be a good
thing to put in a birth plan.

Incidentally, putting a euphemistic "pulling" position stipulation in the
birth plan did not occur to me until Rivka posted her birth plan draft.

Thanks Rivka!

Rivka
Li'l Critter due 4/3/05

--
Visit my weblog at http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com



Rivka,

I visited your weblog awhile back and noted that you say,

"I'm a psychologist working in HIV research..."
http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/

See HIV researcher decides not to circumcise...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...3b26071c7af348

Regarding HIV...

You link to a 2001 article by well-respected scientist David Rasnick, PhD
who mentions the army of
doctors and researchers who are making their livings from the HIV/AIDS
hypothesis...

"There are more than 100 thousand doctors and scientists who have built
their careers and reputations by simply accepting the articles of faith
about AIDS. At this late date, it is simple human embarrassment that is the
biggest obstacle to bringing the AIDS insanity to an end. It is the fear of
being so obviously and hopelessly wrong about AIDS that keeps lips sealed,
the money flowing and AIDS rhetoric spiraling to stratospheric heights of
absurdity.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/drblunder.htm

You are apparently a member of that army of researchers making your living -
at least in part - from the HIV hypotheis...

You publicly pejorize Dr. Rasnick as an "AIDS denialist" and link to an
article where he writes:

"I'm a scientist with 20 years' experience, and there are only two things
that I'm absolutely certain of in science...One is that AIDS is not
contagious. It's not a thing that you can 'catch' from anybody. And the
other thing is it's not caused by a virus, in particular HIV."
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/mcinterviewdr.htm

I myself am an AIDS skeptic, in part because...

Back in 1987, AIDS was defined as "the presence of laboratory evidence for
HIV" - REGARDLESS OF THE PRESENCE OF OTHER CAUSES OF IMMUNODEFICIENCY!

Here's the quote from JAMA [1987]...

"Regardless of the presence of other causes
of immunodeficiency, in the presence of laboratory evidence for HIV, any
disease [we have] listed...indicates a diagnosis of AIDS." [U.S. Centers
for Disease Control: JAMA, 1987;258:1143-1154]

I only looked harder at the HIV hypothesis back in 1987 because of the
bizarre thing that happened immediately after I exposed the phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology which was being used to perpetuate American
medicine's grisly most frequent (no medical indication!) surgical behavior
toward males.

(In 1987 American nurses did a study which found that MDs could not agree
whether babies could feel pain! And it wasn't until 2000 that American MDs
explicitly indicated that babies can feel pain!)

After I exposed the American medical religion's phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology, instead of simply immediately ending their $400 million
dollar per year mass child abuse for profit scheme, American medical priests
(MDs) ignored their own scientific board and took a voice vote and declared
their en masse ripping and slicing of baby penises to be "an effective
public health measure" - one that suddenly prevented transmission of
HIV/AIDS!

It's sad to say but... BILLIONS of dollars' worth of infant screams ago,
American medical priests (MDs) used AIDS hysteria to cover-up massive
crime...

And they are STILL promoting their hypothesis that en masse ripping and
slicing of infant penises prevents AIDS!

See MD circumcision 'logic'...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...114d2acc8a0cf1

Rivka, Dr. Rasnick is not the only top scientist who says there's no
scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

Kerry Mullis, PhD, the guy who won a Nobel prize for inventing the PCR
technique that is used in HIV reseearch also says there's no scientific
evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

If you must, publicly pejorize scientists like Dr. Rasnick as "AIDS
denialists" - but the notion that HIV does not cause AIDS is certainly no
crazier than "babies can't feel pain" obstetric "scientists" lying to
cover-up the fact that they are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping
birth canals closed when babies get stuck...

How sad that women have to tell obstetricians and CNMwives to let their
birth canals open maximally!

How sad that women have to tell OBs and CNMwives not to rip and slice baby
penises - another good part of your birth plan...

Again, it was your birth plan draft that got me thinking about women
stipulating PULLING positions which allow the birth canal to open the
"extra" up to 30%.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS In the same article (quoted above), Dr. Rasnick says:

"Think about it. If you're an HIV-positive pregnant woman and you tell your
doctor, 'I'm not going to take AZT,' he'll want to throw you in jail and
threaten to take your child away!"

Are MDs still giving the DNA chain terminator AZT to pregnant women?!

That always seeemed MAJORLY bizarre to me - giving a DNA chain terminator to
a woman as her baby is growing/rapidly replicating DNA!

There seemed to be a hint on your blog that they've stopped...

BTW, Dr. Rasnick is a protease expert. I very much liked his argument
against protease inhibitors. Thanks for linking to that article...

You wrote on your blog regarding a "BBC piece":

"There is no mention of the decline in death rates since protease inhibitors
were introduced in 1997."

Whatever the decline in death rates...

I do hope CDC changed its surveillance definition of AIDS...

Maybe Dr. Rasnick has changed his position on protease inhibitors now that
some time has passed?

He is a board member of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the
HIV-AIDS Hypothesis...

Hopefully his email address (and the others) are still good...

Copied to:

THE GROUP FOR THE SCIENTIFIC REAPPRAISAL OF THE HIV-AIDS HYPOTHESIS

Board of Directors...
http://216.36.255.81/BoardMembers/

Roberto A. Giraldo (President) MD, Infectious Disease Specialist; New York
City
email:


Paul Philpott (Editor) MS, Mech. Engineering; Detroit
email:

David Rasnick PhD, Chemistry; BS Biology; Visiting Scientist; UC-Berkeley
email:

Charles A. Thomas, Jr. PhD, Biochemistry; Prof. (ret.) Med., Harvard, San
Diego
email:

Harvey Bialy PhD, Biology; Editor-at-Large, Nature Bio/Technology,
1996-2000; Mexico
email:

Celia Farber, Writer, Gear Magazine; New York City
email:

Russell Schoch, Editor, California Monthly; Berkeley
email: russ@

Tom Bethell, Washington (DC) Correspondent of The American Spectator
email:

Charles Geshekter PhD, African History; Prof., Cal. State Univ.; Chico, CA
email:

Gordon Stewart MD, PhD; Public Health, Epidemiology; Prof. (emeritus, ret.),
Glasgow Univ
email:.

Peter H. Duesberg PhD, Biology; Nat'l Acad. Sciences; Prof., UC-Berkeley
email:

Mark Craddock PhD, Mathematics; Lecturer, Univ. of Sydney
email:

John Lauritsen, Market Researcher/Analyst (ret.); Author; Journalist, Cape
Cod, MA
email:

Christine Maggiore, Founder and Director, Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives
email: christine@

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "HIV in pregnancy (also: Birth plan
idea) (also: Good news for Rivka W)"