Do-it-yourself C-section!

"Todd Gastaldo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >
DO-IT-YOURSELF C-SECTION!

Quoted message said:

"She took three small glasses of hard liquor and, using a
kitchen knife, sliced her abdomen in three attempts...>

HOLY COW! I can't believe this! I started having sympathy
pains just reading this article!

<plonk>

"Todd Gastaldo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

PREGNANT WOMEN: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up
to 30% and it's EASY to allow your birth canal to OPEN the
"extra" up to 30%.

See below.

DO-IT-YOURSELF C-SECTION!

"She took three small glasses of hard liquor and, using a
kitchen knife, sliced her abdomen in three attempts...and
delivered a male infant that breathed immediately and
cried," said Dr R.F. Valle, of the Dr Manuel Velasco
Suarez Hospital in San Pablo, Mexico." cnn.com-cnn.com-Open ↗
/2004/HEALTH/04/06/health.caesarean.reut/index.html

KATE ELLIOTT, MD posted the just cited URL. THANKS Kate!
More on Kate below.

Here's the PubMed abstract for the Do-it-yourself C-
section...

Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004 Mar;84(3):287-90. PubMed
abstract

Self-inflicted cesarean section with maternal and fetal
survival.

Molina-Sosa A, Galvan-Espinosa H, Gabriel-Guzman J,
Valle RF.

Hospital General Dr. Manuel Velasco Suarez, San Pablo,
Huixtepec,

Zimatlan,

Quoted message said:

Oaxaca, Mexico.

An unusual case of self-inflicted cesarean section with
maternal and child survival is presented. No similar event
was found in an Internet

literature

Quoted message said:

search. Because of a lack of medical assistance and a
history of fetal

death

Quoted message said:

in utero, a 40-year-old multiparous woman unable to
deliver herself alone vaginally sliced her abdomen and
uterus and delivered her child. She was transferred to a
hospital where she underwent repair of the incisions and
had to remain hospitalized. Mother and child survived the
event. Unusual

and

Quoted message said:

extraordinary measures to preserve their offspring
sometimes moves women

to

Quoted message said:

extreme decisions endangering their own lives. Social,
educational, and health measures should be instituted all
over the world, particularly in rural areas of developing
countries, to avoid such extreme events.

KATE ELLIOTT, MD

HOW TO AVOID GIVING YOURSELF A C-SECTION was the subject
line when Kate Elliott, MD ("Akuvikate"
[email hidden]) posted the URL for the Do-it-
yourself C-section article...

Kate graduated from medical school last year...

lm=bd04cb99.0305162109.655059a5%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-
8&output=gplain

Quoted message said:

I didn't understand Kate's subject line!

How would the Do-it-yourself C-section story help women
avoid giving themselves c-sections?

It seems to me that such a story would encourage women
unfortunate enough

to

Quoted message said:

be in outlying areas without medical and surgical help to
do it to save their lives. When c-section is necessary it
is a life-saver.

I wondered...Could Kate be indirectly encouraging women to
take my birth position advice?

I mention this possibility (as unlikely as it is) because
Kate apologized

to

Quoted message said:

me in her birth story as follows...

"I started pushing, and continued just doing my thing.
They suggested I try on my back with my legs pulled up
(sorry, Gastaldo) so I did. I then tried hands and knees,
but didn't like it particularly any better, and really was
not in the mood to support my weight any more than that.
So I went back to that position [on my back with my legs

pulled

Quoted message said:

up] , which the intern told me was working quite
well...The only wrinkle came toward the end, as she
continued to have the big drops in heartrate with each
contraction. They got worse and her recovery from them
slowed, and I was told at this point no more easing her
out slowly -- she needed to come now. So I had to start
holding my breath and pushing through incredible pain to
get her out. The last few pushes I was screaming like a
banshee, and when the OB urged me to push *hard* and get
her out, I replied "I can't -- it hurts too much -- use
the vacuum!". But I could, and did. At 9:44am, Margaret
Hope K. entered the world weighing in at 8lbs 10oz. She
had a tight nuchal cord, which accounted for her heartrate
drops, and [she] was a tad stunned at first..."

groups.google.comgroupsOpen ↗
8&selm=bd04cb99.0306110306.2be3155e%40posting.google.com

Quoted message said:

KATE'S LITTLE MAGGIE (some of what follows is a slightly
edited excerpt of my response to being mentioned in Kate's
birth story)...

Kate apparently gave birth on her back. (She wrote "Sorry,
Gastaldo" in

her

Quoted message said:

birth story, see above.)

I certainly HOPE (as Kate averred) that it was little
Maggie's "tight

nuchal

Quoted message said:

cord" (unavoidable so far as I know) and not also a
birth canal

senselessly

Quoted message said:

closed up to 30% that caused Kate's little Maggie to
suffer "big drops in heartrate with each contraction"
after which she was born "a tad stunned."

Perhaps Kate didn't actually give birth on her back/on her
butt - on her sacrum - closing her birth canal up to 30%?

If so, why did she write, "Sorry, Gastaldo"?

Assuming she did give birth on her sacrum - I do thank
Kate for publicly apologizing to me in her birth story -
but if she did indeed deliver on

her

Quoted message said:

sacrum - she apologized to the wrong person.

Quite simply, even when one's baby is NOT suffering "big
drops in

heartrate

Quoted message said:

with each contraction," one does NOT knowingly keep the
birth canal closed with each contraction.

If this is what happened, to avoid repeat performances,
Kate (now an MD) should now explicitly inform her usenet
readers that she knowingly closed her birth canal even as
her daughter showed signs of distress...

I emphasize that Kate is an MD because, sadly, some
people blindly accept behaviors of MDs and RNs - babies
be damned.

Nurse Hawki wrote:

"[A] DC cannot 'protest' what an MD does...[P]erhaps you
need to get the chain of command in the proper
order..chiros are not at the top...tho I have the utmost
respect for my chiro,,he doesn't belong in the delivery
room..nor does he have the 'right' to protest what a duly
educated and licensed MD or DO does..or does not do..."

groups.google.comgroupsOpen ↗
8&selm=20030602231

Quoted message said:

755.23008.00000616%40mb-m13.aol.com

NOTE: If Kate Elliott, MD or Nurse Hawki - have evidence
that standard medical delivery positions
(semisitting and dorsal) do NOT close the birth
canal up to 30% - they (or anyone else who has such
evidence) should offer cites and quotes from the
medical literature. The most

recent

Quoted message said:

relevant study - an MRI study - poorly planned and
conducted as it was - indicated that MDs are denying
babies "significant" amounts of pelvic

outlet

Quoted message said:

area - which is what last century's clinical and x-ray
studies indicated.

Incidentally Nurse Hawki is simply wrong: DCs have an
ETHICAL OBLIGATION

to

Quoted message said:

protest MDs gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines at
birth. (I define as

gruesome

Quoted message said:

any pushing or pulling with the birth canal
senselessly/stupidly closed up to 30%.)

I read some of Kate's posts about little Maggie. Maggie
seems to be doing quite well.

Not all babies do well after birth. Some babies die, some
are paralyzed - most "only" have their necks wrenched -
with birth canals senselessly

closed

Quoted message said:

up to 30%.

Some babies don't manifest motor and perceptual deficits
until later...

Again...

HOW TO AVOID GIVING YOURSELF A C-SECTION was the subject
line when Kate posted the URL for the Do-it-yourself C-
section article...

I didn't get Kate's meaning but...

There is a simple way that women can help avoid an
unnecessary c-section...and other unnecessary medical and
surgical procedures.

It's a simple way for them to allow their birth canals to
OPEN the "extra" up to 30%...

Nearly all of my posts give the simple instructions - and
tell how to

avoid

Quoted message said:

other unnecessary medical and surgical procedures...

And they give the simple PROOF that MDs are knowingly
closing birth canals up to 30%...

For example...

See Difference between God and an MD? health.groups.yahoo.comchiroOpen ↗
list/message/2438

See also: Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns
School of

Medicine

Quoted message said:

health.groups.yahoo.comchiroOpen ↗
list/message/2256

And see: Helping baby open birth canal (Why obstetrics is
criminal medical CAM)... health.groups.yahoo.comchiroOpen ↗
list/message/2391

LADIES: It is EASY for you to allow your birth canal to
OPEN the "extra"

up

Quoted message said:

to 30%. Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out
- or deliver on hands-and-knees, kneeling, standing,
squatting, etc.

BEWARE though: 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!

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

MDs/MBs: If you must push or pull - and sometimes you must
- first get

the

Quoted message said:

woman off her sacrum - off her back/butt.

REMEMBER: MDs are CAUSING cephalopelvic disproportion (and
failure to progress) - then performing c-sections BEcause
of cephalopelvic disproportion (and failure to
progress)...

It's not right.

Todd Gastaldo said:

PREGNANT WOMEN: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up
to 30% and it's EASY to allow your birth canal to OPEN the
"extra" up to 30%.

That is a blatant lie.

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
Vollalternative Schmerzbehandlung

ariplex.comamalanc1.htmOpen ↗

DO-IT-YOURSELF C-SECTION!

"She took three small glasses of hard liquor and, using a
kitchen knife, sliced her abdomen in three attempts...and
delivered a male infant that breathed immediately and
cried," said Dr R.F. Valle, of the Dr Manuel Velasco Suarez
Hospital in San Pablo, Mexico." cnn.comHEAOpen ↗
LTH/04/06/health.caesarean.reut/index.html

See: health.groups.yahoo.comchiroOpen ↗
list/message/2462

I wrote: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30%...

Aribert Deckers responded: "That is a blatant lie."

Aribert is sort of right.

1. Not all OBs know they are closing birth canals; and

2. In some women OBs are closing birth canals MORE than 30%.

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! See:
home1.gte.netpart2ftc.htmlOpen ↗

MORE THAN 30%...

SOME BABIES ARE **REALLY** GETTING HAMMERED

Check out the following "head must rotate around a line
joining the ischial tuberosities" quote from the 21st (2001)
edition of Williams Obstetrics:

"In obstructed labor caused by a narrowing of the...pelvic
outlet, the prognosis for vaginal delivery often depends on
the length of the posterior sagittal diameter of the pelvic
outlet (p. 56)...The posterior triangle [of the pelvic
outlet]...is limited at its apex by the tip of the last
sacral vertebra (not the coccyx) (p. 437)...With increasing
narrowing of the pubic arch, the occiput cannot emerge
directly beneath the symphysis pubis but is forced
increasingly farther down...the ischiopubic rami. In extreme
cases, the head must rotate around a line joining the
ischial tuberosities [!] (p. 438)..."

Stated another way, if the mother has a narrow pubic arch,
the baby's head doesn't go into the arch very far - which
greatly increases the influence of sacro-iliac motion.

Again, some babies are REALLY getting hammered.

In such women the pelvic outlet is likely closed WAY more
than 30% if sacroiliac motion is denied.

MDs knew about what I am talking about early last
century....

Harvard obstetrician Arthur B. Emmons, MD wrote in 1913

"[M]oving backward of the tip of the sacrum...enlarges the
available space not merely directly in proportion to the
distance backward, but more nearly by the square of that
distance." [Emmons, AB. A study of the variations in the
female pelvis, based on observations made on 217 specimens
of the American Indian squaw. Biometrika 1913; 9:34-47.]

And here's what was added to Williams Obstetrics at my
request:

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

Unfortunately, the authors of Williams Obstetrics left in
their text - in the same paragraph (!) the "dorsal widens"
bald lie that first called my attention to their text)!!
home1.gte.netpart2ftc.htmlOpen ↗

I had discovered the "dorsal widens" bald lie that Ohlsen
(see above) stimulated...

It is still in the latest (2001) edition of Williams
Obstetrics!

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo [email hidden]

Happy Oyster never posts any evidence or reasoning with his
posts, most of them are just sentences like "That's a
blatant lie" etc. Anth

"Todd Gastaldo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DO-IT-YOURSELF C-SECTION!

"She took three small glasses of hard liquor and, using a
kitchen knife, sliced her abdomen in three attempts...and
delivered a male infant that breathed immediately and
cried," said Dr R.F. Valle, of the Dr Manuel Velasco
Suarez Hospital in San Pablo, Mexico." cnn.com-cnn.com-Open ↗
/2004/HEALTH/04/06/health.caesarean.reut/index.html

See: health.groups.yahoo.comchiroOpen ↗
list/message/2462

I wrote: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up
to 30%...

Aribert Deckers responded: "That is a blatant lie."

Aribert is sort of right.

1. Not all OBs know they are closing birth canals; and

2. In some women OBs are closing birth canals MORE
than 30%.

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

Quoted message said:

authors of Williams Obstetrics were claiming that the
pelvic diameters

don't

Quoted message said:

change during delivery - so the authors of Williams
Obstetrics decided (erroneously) that dorsal delivery
widens! See: home1.gte.netpart2ftc.htmlOpen ↗

MORE THAN 30%...

SOME BABIES ARE **REALLY** GETTING HAMMERED

Check out the following "head must rotate around a line
joining the ischial tuberosities" quote from the 21st
(2001) edition of Williams Obstetrics:

"In obstructed labor caused by a narrowing of the...pelvic
outlet, the prognosis for vaginal delivery often depends
on the length of the posterior sagittal diameter of the
pelvic outlet (p. 56)...The

posterior

Quoted message said:

triangle [of the pelvic outlet]...is limited at its apex
by the tip of the last sacral vertebra (not the coccyx)
(p. 437)...With increasing narrowing of the pubic arch,
the occiput cannot emerge directly beneath the

symphysis

Quoted message said:

pubis but is forced increasingly farther down...the
ischiopubic rami. In extreme cases, the head must rotate
around a line joining the ischial tuberosities [!] (p.
438)..."

Stated another way, if the mother has a narrow pubic arch,
the baby's head doesn't go into the arch very far - which
greatly increases the influence of sacro-iliac motion.

Again, some babies are REALLY getting hammered.

In such women the pelvic outlet is likely closed WAY more
than 30% if sacroiliac motion is denied.

MDs knew about what I am talking about early last
century....

Harvard obstetrician Arthur B. Emmons, MD wrote in 1913

"[M]oving backward of the tip of the sacrum...enlarges the
available space not merely directly in proportion to the
distance

backward,

Quoted message said:

but more nearly by the square of that distance." [Emmons,
AB. A study of

the

Quoted message said:

variations in the female pelvis, based on observations
made on 217

specimens

Quoted message said:

of the American Indian squaw. Biometrika 1913; 9:34-47.]

And here's what was added to Williams Obstetrics at my
request:

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

in

Quoted message said:

original]

Unfortunately, the authors of Williams Obstetrics left in
their text - in the same paragraph (!) the "dorsal widens"
bald lie that first called my attention to their text)!!
home1.gte.netpart2ftc.htmlOpen ↗

I had discovered the "dorsal widens" bald lie that Ohlsen
(see above) stimulated...

It is still in the latest (2001) edition of Williams
Obstetrics!

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo [email hidden]

WEIRD!

What possessed MD-obstetricians?

See below ########

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RMKdnSoE67-X3xfdRVn-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Happy Oyster never posts any evidence or reasoning with
his posts, most of them are just sentences like "That's a
blatant lie" etc. Anth

"Todd Gastaldo" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message -"]news:[email hidden]-
hlink.net...

Quoted message said:

DO-IT-YOURSELF C-SECTION!

"She took three small glasses of hard liquor and, using
a kitchen knife, sliced her abdomen in three
attempts...and delivered a male infant that breathed
immediately and cried," said Dr R.F. Valle, of the Dr
Manuel Velasco Suarez Hospital in San Pablo, Mexico."
cnn.comhealth.caesarean.rOpen ↗
eut/index.html

See: health.groups.yahoo.comchiroOpen ↗
list/message/2462

I wrote: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up to
30%...

Aribert Deckers responded: "That is a blatant lie."

Aribert is sort of right.

1. Not all OBs know they are closing birth canals; and

2. In some women OBs are closing birth canals MORE than
30%.

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

Quoted message said:

authors of Williams Obstetrics were claiming that the
pelvic diameters

don't

Quoted message said:

change during delivery - so the authors of Williams
Obstetrics decided (erroneously) that dorsal delivery
widens! See: home1.gte.netpart2ftc.htmlOpen ↗

MORE THAN 30%...

SOME BABIES ARE **REALLY** GETTING HAMMERED

Check out the following "head must rotate around a line
joining the ischial tuberosities" quote from the 21st
(2001) edition of Williams Obstetrics:

"In obstructed labor caused by a narrowing of
the...pelvic outlet, the prognosis for vaginal delivery
often depends on the length

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the posterior sagittal diameter of the pelvic outlet (p.
56)...The

posterior

Quoted message said:

triangle [of the pelvic outlet]...is limited at its apex
by the tip of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

last sacral vertebra (not the coccyx) (p. 437)...With
increasing

narrowing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the pubic arch, the occiput cannot emerge directly
beneath the

symphysis

Quoted message said:

pubis but is forced increasingly farther down...the
ischiopubic rami.

In

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

extreme cases, the head must rotate around a line
joining the ischial tuberosities [!] (p. 438)..."

Stated another way, if the mother has a narrow pubic
arch, the baby's head doesn't go into the arch very far
- which greatly increases the influence of sacro-iliac
motion.

Again, some babies are REALLY getting hammered.

In such women the pelvic outlet is likely closed WAY
more than 30% if sacroiliac motion is denied.

MDs knew about what I am talking about early last
century....

Harvard obstetrician Arthur B. Emmons, MD wrote in 1913

"[M]oving backward of the tip of the sacrum...enlarges
the available space not merely directly in proportion to
the distance

backward,

Quoted message said:

but more nearly by the square of that distance."
[Emmons, AB. A study of

the

Quoted message said:

variations in the female pelvis, based on observations
made on 217

specimens

Quoted message said:

of the American Indian squaw. Biometrika 1913; 9:34-47.]

WEIRD!

######### In the 70s, why *was* Williams Obstetrics saying
######### that the pelvic
diameters don't change? See Ohlsen discussion at:
home1.gte.netpart2ftc.htmlOpen ↗

######### In 1911, J. Whitridge Williams, original author
######### of Williams
Obstetrics clinically demonstrated truly MASSIVE changes in
AP pelvic outlet diameter!

######### How could MD-obstetricians get something so very
######### important so
very wrong?

######### What if MD-obstetricians INTENTIONALLY got it
######### wrong?

WEIRD!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...here's what was added to Williams Obstetrics at my
request:

"It should be noted...that the increase in the diameter
of the pelvic outlet occurs **only** if the sacrum is
allowed to rotate posteriorly, that is, only if the
sacrum is not forced anteriorly by the weight of the

maternal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pelvis against the delivery table or bed." [Cunningham,
MacDonald,

Leveno,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Gant and Gilstrap, Williams Obstetrics Appleton-Lange
1993:285,

**italics

Quoted message said:

in

Quoted message said:

original]

Unfortunately, the authors of Williams Obstetrics left
in their text -

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the same paragraph (!) the "dorsal widens" bald lie that
first called my attention to their text)!!
home1.gte.netpart2ftc.htmlOpen ↗

I had discovered the "dorsal widens" bald lie that
Ohlsen (see above) stimulated...

It is still in the latest (2001) edition of Williams
Obstetrics!

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo [email hidden]