Discussion:
Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's ongoing intellectual dishonesty)
(too old to reply)
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-23 19:31:15 UTC
Permalink
AMY: OBs ARE ROBBING **LOTS** OF BABY BLOOD...

(Up to 50%! See below. Attn: Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers
***@state.or.us.)

ALSO: AMY'S ONGOING INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

(Anyone know the answer to the question at the very end of this post? Maybe
medical doctor Sarah Vaughan knows?)

(Note: It's not just Amy's baby blood robbery intellectual dishonesty I
discuss herein. I also discuss Amy's opium alkaloid/codeine intellectual
dishonesty. Definitely, if the risks of not taking this narcotic outweigh
the risk of taking it - TAKE it. I still though take issue with Amy's
doctor's opinion that it only makes babies "tired." When women take the
narcotic codeine, their babies MAY be getting as much as 40 times the
"usual" dose for children - but check my math and assumptions below.)

BABY BLOOD

OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL HARDY MYERS...

Should babies have to "donate" up to 50% of their blood volume at birth?

Since obstetricians do this daily, why don't WE all donate 50% of OUR blood
volumes!?

An obvious obstetric crime is occuring...

PREGNANT WOMEN: Do NOT let the obstetrician or CNMwife clamp your baby's
cord until it has stopped pulsating and your baby is pink and breathing and
not in need of resuscitation. Women shouldn't have to make sure their OBs
don't rob baby blood - that's just the way it is - so talk to your OB or
CNMwife today.

WARNING According to retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB
FACOG, immediate cord clamping (robbing baby of up to 50% of his/her blood
volume) may be causing some cases of AUTISM and CEREBRAL PALSY...

See "Peter's dodge" discussion in "If Amy's baby is born blue..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/133a4c9b6d827f7a

Note: "Peter's dodge" involves the false notion that TIMING of umbilical
cord clamping has nothing whatsoever to do with cord blood "donation." Due
in part to this sordid timing dodge, some babies are being robbed of up to
50% of their blood volume by immediate cord clamping.

See Linderkamp et al. 1992 below.

Amy engaged in intellectual dishonesty in discussion of
baby-blood-robbery/"Peter's dodge"...

Amy later blithely PROMOTED baby-blood-robbery/"Peter's dodge"...

She wrote:

"[My doctor]...assured me that donating the cord blood would be done in such
a
way so that it would not reduce the baby's blood volume at all. The
collection is done after the cord is clamped and cut, as I thought. I
said, 'Collecting the cord blood isn't going to affect the baby's blood
volume, is it? Because I read on the internet that it can rob the baby
of its blood...' and he said, 'Absolutely not'..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/0a20d279ba3c6067

OF COURSE "donating" what has been ALREADY ROBBED is not going to further
reduce the baby's blood volume...

THIS IS GRUESOME...

In 2001, CNMwife Judy Mercer wrote that early cord clamping behavior "can
reduce the red
blood cells an infant receives at birth by more than 50%." (!)

In the same paper, she wrote that she reviewed the medical literature from
1980 to 2001...

See Mercer JS^^^. Current best evidence: a review of the literature on
umbilical cord
clamping.J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001 Nov-Dec;46(6):402-14. PubMed
abstract

^^^Nurse-Midwifery Program, University of Rhode Island College of Nursing,
Kingston 02881-2021, USA.

HERE'S A 1992 STUDY THAT CNMwife MERCER MUST HAVE SEEN...

"Neonatal blood volume...was 50% higher in the late cord-clamped infants
than in the early cord-clamped infants. [Linderkamp et al. ^^^Acta Paediatr.
1992 Oct;81(10):745-50. PubMed abstract]

(Early clamping was < 10 seconds and and late clamping was 3 min.)

^^^ Linderkamp O, Nelle M, Kraus M, Zilow EP Department of Pediatrics,
University of Heidelberg, Germany.


30 SECONDS IS "DELAYED" CORD CLAMPING?


I RECENTLY WROTE (as above)...

How about we all go out and "donate" 50% of *our* blood volumes!

Donna Young replied:

Today, Todd, the new delayed is 30-second clamping. did you read Judith S.
Mercer's article...she counted, 10, 20, 30 seconds clamp. The mothers were
given the choice delayed clamping (30-second) or instant.......tricky eh.
NO informed choice for no clamping, ever, primal birth rights... Why
not?...<snip>


My thanks to Donna Young (www.lotusbirth.com) for calling my attention to
the immediate cord clamping child abuse.

It's BIZARRE that 30 seconds was defined as "delayed" cord clamping.

It's almost as if the cord blood banking interests RECRUITED the CNMwives to
help "scientifically" DEFINE "delayed" to mean IT'S OK TO ROB BLOOD FROM
BABIES.


In 2002: Judith Mercer, CNM (and Skovgaard) suggested early cord clamping
can cause DEATH...

"Early clamping of the umbilical cord at birth...causes neonatal blood
volume to vary 25% to 40%. Such a massive change occurs at no other time in
one's life without serious consequences, even death."
[J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2002 Mar;15(4):56-75. PubMed abstract]

In 2003: Judith Mercer, CNM et al. REPORTED ON (participated in?) early cord
clamping...

HERE'S THE ABSTRACT EXCERPT:

...A randomized controlled trial recruited 32 infants between 24 and 32
weeks. Immediately before delivery, mothers were randomized to ICC (cord
clamped at 5 to 10 seconds) or DCC (30- to 45-second delay in cord clamping)
groups. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analyses revealed that the DCC group
were more likely to have higher initial mean blood pressures (adjusted OR
3.4) and less likely to be discharged on oxygen (adjusted OR 8.6). DCC group
infants had higher initial glucose levels (ICC=36 mg/dl, DCC=73.1 mg/dl;
p=0.02). CONCLUSION: The research design is feasible. The immediate benefit
of improved blood pressure was confirmed and other findings deserve
consideration for further study.

Mercer et al.^^^J Perinatol. 2003 Sep;23(6):466-72. PubMed Abstract

^^^Mercer JS, McGrath MM, Hensman A, Silver H, Oh W. College of Nursing,
University of Rhode Island, White Hall, 2 Heathman Road, Kingston, RI
02881-2021, USA.

PREGNANT WOMEN: PLEASE don't let the OB or CNMwife immediately clamp your
baby's umbilical cord!! Talk to him or her today.


AMY AND "THIS PETER DUDE"...

Amy blithely snipped my discussion of "Peter's dodge" and wrote:

"Ok, you know what, this Peter dude is NOT my doctor..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1474a2efaa85aecf

Then, later, she had her doctor STATING part of "Peter's dodge"!!

Again, she wrote:

"[My doctor]...assured me that donating the cord blood would be done in such
a
way so that it would not reduce the baby's blood volume at all. The
collection is done after the cord is clamped and cut, as I thought. I
said, 'Collecting the cord blood isn't going to affect the baby's blood
volume, is it? Because I read on the internet that it can rob the baby
of its blood...' and he said, 'Absolutely not'..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/0a20d279ba3c6067

Babies ARE being robbed of up to 50% of their blood volume and (again
quoting CNMwife Mercer):

"Such a massive change [in blood volume] occurs at no other time in
one's life without serious consequences, EVEN DEATH."
[J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2002 Mar;15(4):56-75. PubMed abstract, emphasis
added]

AMY (I know you have me filtered - but just in case someone quotes this back
and you are reading):

FIRST YOU **SNIPPED** "PETER'S DODGE" (IN ORDER TO PROMOTE BLIND TRUST IN
DOCTORS)...

THEN YOU **PROMOTED* "PETER'S DODGE"...AFTER VISITING YOUR DOCTOR!


MORE OF AMY'S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY...

Amy recently suggested that **I** have bad "netiquette"...

To be sure, I am not the politest person online - LOL!

But Amy's intellectual dishonesty - as babies are robbed of blood - is the
pinnacle of bad "netiquette"
Todd, I snip *everything* down to the barest minimum, generally, to
conserve
bandwidth.
I do too. It's good netiquette in general.
Good netiquette is to be intellectually honest.


Amy has been intellectually dishonest.

Good netiquette is to SAY one has snipped when one has snipped.

Amy failed to do this. See below.

Good netiquette is not to snip key information.

Amy snipped key information. See above.

When I pointed out Amy's intellectual dishonesty, she engaged in MORE
intellectual dishonesty, including telling me screw myself (in Latin : ) -
then threatening to report me to my ISP for "harassment"...

See Re: Umbilical assault (also: Amy: Futue te ipsum et caballum tuum : )
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ca14c118d25df8fa

Amy now continues her intellectual dishonesty.
Additionally, I figure
that the people who read Todd have read his main point 5 or 6 times by
the time they get to my reply to a reply to him, so there's no reason
for me to allow him to continue shouting in my posts, too.
Amy's intellectual dishonesty: There was NOTHING about my "main point" in
what Amy snipped.

%%%%%%%%%%%% [BEGIN: Todd's text that Amy snipped]
Amy,
I am sorry you are in pain and hope you feel better soon.
It is good that codeine is there to help us...
But Amy, for the benefit of other pregnant women reading...
I suspect there are no studies which demonstrate - as your obstetrician so
breezily opined - that babies only get "tired" due to the alkaloid of
opium called codeine and then "wake up fine" afterwards.
The amount of codeine to cause pain relief in an adult mother has got to
be major dose for her tiny fetus.
%%%%%%%%%%%%% [END: Todd's text that Amy snipped]


So yet again, Amy has taken yet another intellectually dishonest public
swipe.

<snip>

Again...

OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL HARDY MYERS...

Should babies have to "donate" up to 50% of their blood volume at birth?

Since obstetricians do this daily, why don't WE all donate 50% of OUR blood
volumes!?

An obvious obstetric crime is occuring...

PREGNANT WOMEN: Do NOT let the obstetrician or CNMwife clamp your baby's
cord until it has stopped pulsating and your baby is pink and breathing and
not in need of resuscitation. Women shouldn't have to make sure their OBs
don't rob baby blood - that's just the way it is - so talk to your OB or
CNMwife today.


Amy mentioned my "main point"...

Some pregnant women reading may not know what my "main point" is...

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

OBs are pulling with hands, forceps and vacuums - with birth canals closed
up to 30%.

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%.

OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL HARDY MYERS WHERE ARE YOU?

THE TINIEST OREGON RESIDENTS ARE NEEDLESSLY SUFFERING...

CNMwives (MEDwives) are helping with the mass child abuse....

See Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i''s John A Burns School of Medicine...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/ea65e8f1a78c19da

CNMwives are NURSES - they are still MD handmaidens. As such, their
"science" is highly suspect.

CNMwives are promoting KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30%
when babies get stuck!

Arrrrgggghhhh....

BTW, my all-time favorite MD fraud is British obstetrician Jason Gardosi's
1989 Lancet "randomised controlled trial of squatting" - where nobody
squatted.

See Britain's 1982 Squatting Rally (also: Dr. Gardosi's squatting fraud)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/b6d237bb39ca6e29

Note: Before his 1989 squatting fraud, Gardosi published a study wherein in
he stated the grisly biomechanics of semisitting delivery - but said he had
to "compromise" with midwives and allow semisitting!

He in effect blamed midwives for obvious obstetric crime.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
***@chiromotion.com



CODEINE DISCUSSION...


PREGNANT WOMEN

Codeine is a narcotic. If you have to take it - if the risk of not taking
it outweighs the risk to the fetus...

Then - of course - take it...

Amy's obstetrician breezily opined that babies only get "tired" due to the
alkaloid of opium called codeine and then "wake up fine" afterwards.

I don't think there is any evidence for that.

(Amy, if you are reading, I say again, I am interested to know if your
obstetrician has evidence that the alkaloid of opium called codeine only
makes babies "tired.")



IF I WERE A FETUS

If I were a fetus, unless my mother HAD to give me 40 times the "usual" dose
for children of the alkaloid of opium called codeine - I wouldn't want her
to dose me with it....

Here (again) are my calculations. Perhaps my math or my assumptions are
wrong?
BEGIN Todd's response to Amy's reply to Jennifer regarding codeine
dose...
CODEINE (ALKALOID OF OPIUM): FETUS GETS HOW MUCH OF MOM'S DOSE?

Amy says, "I don't read Todd."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/6655d3e022f22ee4

<snip>

Amy indicated to Jennifer that she could be taking "the maximum dose of two
pills" over a few hour period, as in,
I also plan to take half a tablet, wait half and hour to
see if it worked, another half if it didn't, wait 30 minutes, another
half if I still am in pain, wait again, and a final half (to get me up
to the maximum dose of two pills) 30 minutes later. I'm not going to
take a huge dose, certainly not what a dependent person would take!
Amy didn't give the dose in her pills...

Assuming Tylenol 3, there are apparently two codeine doses available - 30 mg
and 60 mg codeine doses/per tablet...

300 mg/30 mg -- Each white, round, scored tablet imprinted R001/3
contains 300 mg of Acetaminophen and 30 mg of
Codeine Phosphate. Tablets are supplied in bottles
of 100 (NDC 0228-2001-10) and 1000 (NDC 0228-2001-96).

300 mg/60 mg -- Each white, round, scored tablet imprinted R001/4
contains 300 mg of Acetaminophen and 60 mg of
Codeine Phosphate. Tablets are supplied in bottles
of 100 (NDC 0228-2003-10) and 500 (NDC 0228-2003-50).

CODEINE DOSES: MOTHER/FETUS

The usual adult codeine dosage is: 15 mg to 60 mg - Single Dose (360 mg
maximum 24 Hour Doses)

The usual child codeine dose is 0.5 mg/kg
http://www.druginfonet.com/index.php?pageID=acetamin.htm

I think there are 2.2 lb per kg. Using the 0.5 mg/kg "usual dose" for
children factor...

The "usual dose" for 6.6 lb fetus would be 1.5 mg, right?

The mother is taking roughly 10 times that - 20 times that if a [6]0 mg
tablet
is taken.

AMY'S FETUS...

If Amy takes two 30 mg tablets of codeine, it appears that she is giving her
fetus (assuming a 6.6 lb fetus) roughly 40 times "the usual child dose."

My math might be wrong though.

And maybe the placental blood does not have as much as
the mother's blood.



Here again are the abstracts I originally posted - and my the rest of my
original comments to Amy...

CODEINE DURING PREGNANCY: MORPHOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL CHANGES IN RAT
PROGENY

Interestingly,Slamberova [2004] mention "morphological and behavioral
changes in the progeny of mothers that received or abused opioides during
pregnancy," as in,

"[Exogenous o]pioides [the alkaloids of opium, such as morphine and codeine]
may...induce long-term changes in the numbers and binding activities of
opioid receptors. Some of our studies in fact demonstrate that prenatal
morphine exposure can alter opioid receptors of adult rats. This may begin
to provide insight into the sources of some of the morphological and
behavioral changes in the progeny of mothers that received or abused
opioides during pregnancy." [Cesk Fysiol. 2004;53(4):159-66. PubMed abstract
excerpt]


The term "opiate-dependent" appears in the some of the following abstracts -
but was not defined in the abstract...


CODEINE DURING PREGNANCY AND NEUROBLASTOMA...

Cook et al [2004] say it might just be bias, confounding or chance but...

"Mothers of cases [of neuroblastoma] were more likely to report using
medications containing opioid agonists while they were pregnant or nursing
than were mothers of controls (odds ratio=2.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.3,
4.3). Specifically, more mothers of cases reported using medications
containing codeine while pregnant or nursing than did mothers of controls
(odds ratio=3.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.4, 8.4). This preliminary
finding may be due to bias, confounding, or chance, and additional studies
are needed for confirmation." [Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr 15;159(8):721-31.
PubMed abstract]



CODEINE AND NEONATAL ABSTINENCE SYNDROME (POTENTIALLY LIFE THREATENING)

The neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is a potentially life threatening
illness associated with significant morbidity especially in the neonatal
period. A case of NAS due to codeine prescribed for pain relief during
pregnancy is reported. Clinicians should be aware that narcotic derivatives
prescribed in late pregnancy can give rise to this type of problem.

[Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1997 Jan;76(1):F59-60. PubMed abstract]



CODEINE DURING PREGNANCY AND STRABISMUS


Gill et al. [2003] write:

"The rate of strabismus in infants of opiate-dependent mothers was at least
10 times that in the general population." [Acta Paediatr. 2003;92(3):379-85.
PubMed abstract excerpt]

(Strabismus at www.dictionary.com: A visual defect in which one eye cannot
focus with the other on an object because of imbalance of the eye muscles.
Also called squint.)

Again Amy, the amount of codeine to cause pain relief in an adult mother has
got to be major dose for her tiny fetus.

Who knows how many kids don't show overt effects?

I suspect there are no studies which demonstrate - as your obstetrician so
breezily opined - that babies only get "tired" due to the alkaloid of opium
called codeine and then "wake up fine" afterwards.

If your obstetrician has such studies, I hope you will share the cites.

Thanks

Todd

PS In a reply to Jennifer, I wrote...

No question that a woman should take it if she's got to have it - if the
risk of not taking it exceeds the risk of taking it...

I posted only because fetus-getting-"tired" was blithe assurance by the OB.

There is more to it than that.

I hope Amy's headaches are better.

Todd
END Todd's response to Amy's reply to Jennifer regarding codeine
dose...
EARLY ON...
Amy snipped the remarks of retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB
ChB, FACOG...


She said of Dr. Morley's remarks, "I'm so bored with this."


I continue to be FASCINATED by Dr. Morley's remarks...


According to Dr. Morley, immediate cord clamping creates "asphyxiated,
hypovolemic" babies - perhaps causing some cases of AUTISM and CEREBRAL
PALSY, as in,


"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is
immediate cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies. The child's only
functioning source of oxygen - the placenta - is amputated together with 30%
to 50+% of its natural blood volume. Total asphyxia is imposed until the
lungs function...[as]...the depressed (asphyxiated, hypovolemic) child
starts its extra-uterine life in hypovolemic shock...


"B138 was first published in 1993. Every cesarean section baby, every
depressed child, every premie, and every child born with a neonatal team
in the delivery room has its cord clamped immediately to facilitate the
panicked rush to the resuscitation table. The current epidemic of
immediate cord clamping coincides with an epidemic of autism.


"For the trial lawyers, it is essential that the 'true genesis' of
cerebral palsy remains unknown, because that 'true genesis' (B.138) is a
standard of medico-legal care..."
http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm


IF THE CHILD IS NOT BREATHING...

Amy wrote:

"It seems to me that if the baby isn't breathing, it makes sense to get
him or her to start breathing as quickly as possible, and that they
can't well do that if they can't get access to his little body because
he's still attached to me. What would you have them do? Wait, and
watch the baby get bluer and bluer, until your precious blood has been
transfused (even though the total volume of blood isn't transfused -
see below, re: meat)? What if by then irreperable damage has been
done? You just love your hypotheticals... What if by waiting, you do
more harm than would've been done if you had cut the frigging cord and
gotten that baby to breathe? "
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1474a2efaa85aecf



POSSIBLE AGREEMENT WITH AMY...


If as Amy indicates, it is impossible to bring the resuscitation machinery
to mother and baby, then I have to agree with her that if the child is not
breathing it is necessary to "[amputate] the child's only functioning source
of oxygen - the placenta...together with 30% to 50+% of its natural blood
volume." (Quote is from Dr. Morley.)


THEN AGAIN...


There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:


"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc


It seems likely that most babies who are immediately clamped ARE
breathing...


Again quoting Dr. Morley:


"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is
immediate cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies...Every cesarean
section baby, every depressed child, every premie, and every child born with
a neonatal team in the delivery room has its cord clamped immediately to
facilitate the panicked rush to the resuscitation table. The current
epidemic of immediate cord clamping coincides with an epidemic of autism."


Surely all can agree that robbing the baby of massive amounts of blood
volume to obtain cord blood pH is wrong?



As I wrote to Amy...
This discussion stimulated me to think more about babies born not
breathing - it is a good point you make.


I do like the idea of wheeling mother and baby UNDER resuscitation equipment
with baby still attached to nature's oxygenation/transfusion device (mother
and placenta).


It's such a simple idea - it's no doubt been thought of - and perhaps
discarded - or maybe not?

Anyone know?

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
***@chiromotion.com

This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood
(also: Amy's ongoing intellectual dishonesty)"
a***@gmail.com
2005-02-23 20:45:16 UTC
Permalink
I warned you before that if you didn't stop using my name in your
posts, I'd report you to your ISP. I'm sorry that you chose not to
heed that warning.

You are harassing me. I have asked you to stop and have taken
reasonable measures to ensure that our paths don't cross. However, you
continue to attack me.

Frankly, I think that you're a complete nutjob, and I would sooner
listen to Pee Wee Herman about how to have a baby than listen to you.
You are totally wasting bandwidth addressing me. I hope to God that
your service provider has had enough complaints to TOS you.
Melania
2005-02-23 20:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
I warned you before that if you didn't stop using my name in your
posts, I'd report you to your ISP. I'm sorry that you chose not to
heed that warning.
You are harassing me. I have asked you to stop and have taken
reasonable measures to ensure that our paths don't cross. However, you
continue to attack me.
Frankly, I think that you're a complete nutjob, and I would sooner
listen to Pee Wee Herman about how to have a baby than listen to you.
You are totally wasting bandwidth addressing me. I hope to God that
your service provider has had enough complaints to TOS you.
Todd, I generally respect you and your opinions (in fact, I've been
known to solicit your opinions!), but I cringe now every time I see you
use Amy's name in a post. It's dirty pool. It's not cricket. It's
hitting below the belt. And every other sports and recreation cliche
going. I feel, and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this, that you
are letting a juvenile grudge cloud your mission, and it's compromising
your perceived integrity. And don't haul out some kind of "but she
started it . . ." excuse. As my mom said to me when I was five, "I
don't care who started it, you finish it."

Please leave Amy alone.

Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
tech27
2005-02-23 21:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Todd Gastaldo is mentally unbalanced, perhaps more now than before. Any
communication with him is a big mistake. I encourage you to take whatever
steps necessary to stop his harassment of you.
Post by Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
I warned you before that if you didn't stop using my name in your
posts, I'd report you to your ISP. I'm sorry that you chose not to
heed that warning.
You are harassing me. I have asked you to stop and have taken
reasonable measures to ensure that our paths don't cross. However,
you
Post by a***@gmail.com
continue to attack me.
Frankly, I think that you're a complete nutjob, and I would sooner
listen to Pee Wee Herman about how to have a baby than listen to you.
You are totally wasting bandwidth addressing me. I hope to God that
your service provider has had enough complaints to TOS you.
Todd, I generally respect you and your opinions (in fact, I've been
known to solicit your opinions!), but I cringe now every time I see you
use Amy's name in a post. It's dirty pool. It's not cricket. It's
hitting below the belt. And every other sports and recreation cliche
going. I feel, and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this, that you
are letting a juvenile grudge cloud your mission, and it's compromising
your perceived integrity. And don't haul out some kind of "but she
started it . . ." excuse. As my mom said to me when I was five, "I
don't care who started it, you finish it."
Please leave Amy alone.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
a***@gmail.com
2005-02-23 21:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by tech27
Todd Gastaldo is mentally unbalanced, perhaps more now than before. Any
communication with him is a big mistake. I encourage you to take whatever
steps necessary to stop his harassment of you.
I did. Thank you. I'm glad to know that others see things my way, and
that I'm not just overreacting to a troll. I find his behavior
abusive.

I came to this group (misc.kids.pregnancy) to talk to other women about
being pregnant - not to talk to kooks about whatever agenda they're
pushing today. Unfortunately, Mr. Gastaldo has become a very dark spot
in an otherwise wonderful pregnancy, in spite of my best efforts to
ignore him. You can't exactly ignore someone who uses your name in the
subject line (which is exactly why he does it, I know).

We now return you to your regularly scheduled newsgroup...

Sincerely,
Amy
Larry McMahan
2005-02-24 02:06:16 UTC
Permalink
In misc.kids.pregnancy Melania <***@hotmail.com> wrote:


: Todd, I generally respect you and your opinions (in fact, I've been
: known to solicit your opinions!), but I cringe now every time I see you
: use Amy's name in a post. It's dirty pool. It's not cricket. It's
: hitting below the belt. And every other sports and recreation cliche
: going. I feel, and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this, that you
: are letting a juvenile grudge cloud your mission, and it's compromising
: your perceived integrity. And don't haul out some kind of "but she
: started it . . ." excuse. As my mom said to me when I was five, "I
: don't care who started it, you finish it."

What she said! Your just starting to become at least semi-respected
for your well researched views, and an ability to state them in a
less antagonistic way. Don't spoil it with personal attacks on
a birthing member of the community.

And don't tell me the bad things she did that she hasn't repented
for or owned up to! Your intolerant attack of her perceived
inability to see the light is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than her
actual views.

You will convert more people faster and PROTECT MORE BABIES (your
stated goal) if you leave her alone! Stick to presenting your good
information. Do not attack those who disagree with you even if
you think they personally deserve it. It may make you feel better,
but it reduces your credibility.

Larry
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-24 04:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry McMahan
: Todd, I generally respect you and your opinions (in fact, I've been
: known to solicit your opinions!), but I cringe now every time I see you
: use Amy's name in a post. It's dirty pool. It's not cricket. It's
: hitting below the belt. And every other sports and recreation cliche
: going. I feel, and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this, that you
: are letting a juvenile grudge cloud your mission, and it's compromising
: your perceived integrity. And don't haul out some kind of "but she
: started it . . ." excuse. As my mom said to me when I was five, "I
: don't care who started it, you finish it."
What she said! Your just starting to become at least semi-respected
for your well researched views, and an ability to state them in a
less antagonistic way. Don't spoil it with personal attacks on
a birthing member of the community.
And don't tell me the bad things she did that she hasn't repented
for or owned up to! Your intolerant attack of her perceived
inability to see the light is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than her
actual views.
You will convert more people faster and PROTECT MORE BABIES (your
stated goal) if you leave her alone! Stick to presenting your good
information. Do not attack those who disagree with you even if
you think they personally deserve it. It may make you feel better,
but it reduces your credibility.
Larry,

Thank you for making reference to my "well-researched views"/"good
information."

And thank you for echoing Melania's criticism.

Todd

PS Here is what I wrote to Melania....

Melania,

I did not come to misc.kids.pregnancy to be popular.

I came here to advocate for babies first and pregnant women second.

OBs are doing horrible things to babies - like for example robbing babies of
up to 50% of their blood volume.

When Amy (or anyone else) takes public swipes at me or my information I
swipe back.

Amy said publicly that she told her OB that she read on the internet that
cord blood donation "robs" babies of blood.

Amy said publicly that her OB said, "Absolutely not"...

In the same post, she blithely put out part of "Peter's dodge" - which she
had intellectually dishonestly snipped previously.

AFTER her intellectually dishonest performance - she quoted her OB in effect
promoting "Peter's dodge" by indicating that cord clamping TIMING has
nothing to do with cord blood COLLECTION...

See again: Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's ongoing
intellectual dishonesty)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1add9d58aaa0d6ed

Melania, you say it is "hitting below the belt"/"not cricket" to "use Amy's
name in a post."

Weren't you really objecting to me using Amy's name ON THE SUBJECT LINE?

When someone (Amy or anyone else) is being obviously intellectually
dishonest - suggesting that OBs are NOT robbing babies of blood - my putting
the obviously intellectually dishonest one's name on the subject line is the
least I can do.

Babies are indeed being robbed of blood. Many babies are being robbed of
MASSIVE AMOUNTS of blood.

And now Amy is lying saying I am trying to scare women into not donating...

I replied...

Amy E. Austin wrote to Beth:

"Don't listen to Todd - he's going to try to scare you into not donating..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/42a83242f19d67e0

Amy is lying through her teeth.

I am NOT opposed to cord blood donation.

I AM, though, opposed to Amy publicly posting misleading crap about cord
blood donation - like her OB's blithe assurance that cord blood donation
"absolutely" doesn't rob babies of blood.

See Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's ongoing
intellectual dishonesty)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1add9d58aaa0d6ed

Immediate cord clamping can rob a baby of up to 50% of its blood volume and
cord clamping at 30 seconds has been crookedly defined as "delayed" cord
clamping. "Delayed" cord clamping also can rob a baby of blood volume.

I say again: Amy is lying through her teeth.

I totally support the practice of harvesting cord blood AFTER the baby has
had a chance to transfuse to her/himself as much as s/he wants.

Todd
Post by Larry McMahan
END Todd's reply to Amy's bald lie
Again Melania, I did not come to misc.kids.pregnancy to be popular.

I came here to advocate for babies first and pregnant women second.

I am glad you replied - but I disagree with your analysis.

Amy needs to leave BABIES alone. Publicly pretending that OBs aren't using
"Peter's dodge" contributes to the bizarre spectacle of OBs robbing babies
of massive amounts of blood.

Sincerely,

Todd
Buzzy Bee
2005-02-24 12:52:38 UTC
Permalink
On 23 Feb 2005 19:06:16 -0700, Larry McMahan
Post by Larry McMahan
Stick to presenting your good
information. Do not attack those who disagree with you even if
you think they personally deserve it. It may make you feel better,
but it reduces your credibility.
Well said Larry. Its so sad to see a very very good message spoiled
by the delivery so often.

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)
bapayne
2005-02-25 16:01:55 UTC
Permalink
I agree with both of you and you said exactly what needed to be said.

Moving on...
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-24 03:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
I warned you before that if you didn't stop using my name in your
posts, I'd report you to your ISP. I'm sorry that you chose not to
heed that warning.
You are harassing me. I have asked you to stop and have taken
reasonable measures to ensure that our paths don't cross. However,
you
Post by a***@gmail.com
continue to attack me.
Frankly, I think that you're a complete nutjob, and I would sooner
listen to Pee Wee Herman about how to have a baby than listen to you.
You are totally wasting bandwidth addressing me. I hope to God that
your service provider has had enough complaints to TOS you.
Todd, I generally respect you and your opinions (in fact, I've been
known to solicit your opinions!), but I cringe now every time I see you
use Amy's name in a post. It's dirty pool. It's not cricket. It's
hitting below the belt. And every other sports and recreation cliche
going. I feel, and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this, that you
are letting a juvenile grudge cloud your mission, and it's compromising
your perceived integrity. And don't haul out some kind of "but she
started it . . ." excuse. As my mom said to me when I was five, "I
don't care who started it, you finish it."
Please leave Amy alone.
Melania,

I did not come to misc.kids.pregnancy to be popular.

I came here to advocate for babies first and pregnant women second.

OBs are doing horrible things to babies - like for example robbing babies of
up to 50% of their blood volume.

When Amy (or anyone else) takes public swipes at me or my information I
swipe back.

Amy said publicly that she told her OB that she read on the internet that
cord blood donation "robs" babies of blood.

Amy said publicly that her OB said, "Absolutely not"...

In the same post, she blithely put out part of "Peter's dodge" - which she
had intellectually dishonestly snipped previously.

AFTER her intellectually dishonest performance - she quoted her OB in effect
promoting "Peter's dodge" by indicating that cord clamping TIMING has
nothing to do with cord blood COLLECTION...

See again: Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's ongoing
intellectual dishonesty)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1add9d58aaa0d6ed

Melania, you say it is "hitting below the belt"/"not cricket" to "use Amy's
name in a post."

Weren't you really objecting to me using Amy's name ON THE SUBJECT LINE?

When someone (Amy or anyone else) is being obviously intellectually
dishonest - suggesting that OBs are NOT robbing babies of blood - my putting
the obviously intellectually dishonest one's name on the subject line is the
least I can do.

Babies are indeed being robbed of blood. Many babies are being robbed of
MASSIVE AMOUNTS of blood.

And now Amy is lying saying I am trying to scare women into not donating...

I replied...

Amy E. Austin wrote to Beth:

"Don't listen to Todd - he's going to try to scare you into not donating..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/42a83242f19d67e0

Amy is lying through her teeth.

I am NOT opposed to cord blood donation.

I AM, though, opposed to Amy publicly posting misleading crap about cord
blood donation - like her OB's blithe assurance that cord blood donation
"absolutely" doesn't rob babies of blood.

See Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's ongoing
intellectual dishonesty)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1add9d58aaa0d6ed

Immediate cord clamping can rob a baby of up to 50% of its blood volume and
cord clamping at 30 seconds has been crookedly defined as "delayed" cord
clamping. "Delayed" cord clamping also can rob a baby of blood volume.

I say again: Amy is lying through her teeth.

I totally support the practice of harvesting cord blood AFTER the baby has
had a chance to transfuse to her/himself as much as s/he wants.

Todd
Post by Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
END Todd's reply to Amy's bald lie
Again Melania, I did not come to misc.kids.pregnancy to be popular.

I came here to advocate for babies first and pregnant women second.

I am glad you replied - but I disagree with your analysis.

Amy needs to leave BABIES alone. Publicly pretending that OBs aren't using
"Peter's dodge" contributes to the bizarre spectacle of OBs robbing babies
of massive amounts of blood.

Sincerely,

Todd
Melania
2005-02-24 04:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
I warned you before that if you didn't stop using my name in your
posts, I'd report you to your ISP. I'm sorry that you chose not to
heed that warning.
You are harassing me. I have asked you to stop and have taken
reasonable measures to ensure that our paths don't cross.
However,
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Melania
you
Post by a***@gmail.com
continue to attack me.
Frankly, I think that you're a complete nutjob, and I would sooner
listen to Pee Wee Herman about how to have a baby than listen to you.
You are totally wasting bandwidth addressing me. I hope to God that
your service provider has had enough complaints to TOS you.
Todd, I generally respect you and your opinions (in fact, I've been
known to solicit your opinions!), but I cringe now every time I see you
use Amy's name in a post. It's dirty pool. It's not cricket. It's
hitting below the belt. And every other sports and recreation cliche
going. I feel, and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this, that you
are letting a juvenile grudge cloud your mission, and it's
compromising
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Melania
your perceived integrity. And don't haul out some kind of "but she
started it . . ." excuse. As my mom said to me when I was five, "I
don't care who started it, you finish it."
Please leave Amy alone.
Melania,
I did not come to misc.kids.pregnancy to be popular.
I came here to advocate for babies first and pregnant women second.
OBs are doing horrible things to babies - like for example robbing babies of
up to 50% of their blood volume.
When Amy (or anyone else) takes public swipes at me or my information I
swipe back.
Amy said publicly that she told her OB that she read on the internet that
cord blood donation "robs" babies of blood.
Amy said publicly that her OB said, "Absolutely not"...
In the same post, she blithely put out part of "Peter's dodge" - which she
had intellectually dishonestly snipped previously.
AFTER her intellectually dishonest performance - she quoted her OB in effect
promoting "Peter's dodge" by indicating that cord clamping TIMING has
nothing to do with cord blood COLLECTION...
See again: Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's ongoing
intellectual dishonesty)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1add9d58aaa0d6ed
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Melania, you say it is "hitting below the belt"/"not cricket" to "use Amy's
name in a post."
Weren't you really objecting to me using Amy's name ON THE SUBJECT LINE?
When someone (Amy or anyone else) is being obviously intellectually
dishonest - suggesting that OBs are NOT robbing babies of blood - my putting
the obviously intellectually dishonest one's name on the subject line is the
least I can do.
Babies are indeed being robbed of blood. Many babies are being robbed of
MASSIVE AMOUNTS of blood.
And now Amy is lying saying I am trying to scare women into not donating...
I replied...
"Don't listen to Todd - he's going to try to scare you into not donating..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/42a83242f19d67e0
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Amy is lying through her teeth.
I am NOT opposed to cord blood donation.
I AM, though, opposed to Amy publicly posting misleading crap about cord
blood donation - like her OB's blithe assurance that cord blood donation
"absolutely" doesn't rob babies of blood.
See Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's ongoing
intellectual dishonesty)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1add9d58aaa0d6ed
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Immediate cord clamping can rob a baby of up to 50% of its blood volume and
cord clamping at 30 seconds has been crookedly defined as "delayed" cord
clamping. "Delayed" cord clamping also can rob a baby of blood volume.
I say again: Amy is lying through her teeth.
I totally support the practice of harvesting cord blood AFTER the baby has
had a chance to transfuse to her/himself as much as s/he wants.
Todd
Post by Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
END Todd's reply to Amy's bald lie
Again Melania, I did not come to misc.kids.pregnancy to be popular.
I came here to advocate for babies first and pregnant women second.
I am glad you replied - but I disagree with your analysis.
Amy needs to leave BABIES alone. Publicly pretending that OBs aren't using
"Peter's dodge" contributes to the bizarre spectacle of OBs robbing babies
of massive amounts of blood.
Sincerely,
Todd
As I said in my original response, "don't haul out some kind of 'but
she started it . . .' excuse. As my mom said to me when I was five, 'I
don't care who started it, you finish it.'"

I'm very sorry to learn that you can't do that.

I also have no interest in discussing this any further with you, so
please don't exhaust your fingers on my account.

Sincerely,
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-24 05:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
I warned you before that if you didn't stop using my name in your
posts, I'd report you to your ISP. I'm sorry that you chose not
to
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
heed that warning.
You are harassing me. I have asked you to stop and have taken
reasonable measures to ensure that our paths don't cross.
However,
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Melania
you
Post by a***@gmail.com
continue to attack me.
Frankly, I think that you're a complete nutjob, and I would sooner
listen to Pee Wee Herman about how to have a baby than listen to
you.
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
You are totally wasting bandwidth addressing me. I hope to God
that
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
your service provider has had enough complaints to TOS you.
Todd, I generally respect you and your opinions (in fact, I've been
known to solicit your opinions!), but I cringe now every time I see
you
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Melania
use Amy's name in a post. It's dirty pool. It's not cricket. It's
hitting below the belt. And every other sports and recreation
cliche
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Melania
going. I feel, and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this, that
you
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Melania
are letting a juvenile grudge cloud your mission, and it's
compromising
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Melania
your perceived integrity. And don't haul out some kind of "but she
started it . . ." excuse. As my mom said to me when I was five, "I
don't care who started it, you finish it."
Please leave Amy alone.
Melania,
I did not come to misc.kids.pregnancy to be popular.
I came here to advocate for babies first and pregnant women second.
OBs are doing horrible things to babies - like for example robbing
babies of
Post by Todd Gastaldo
up to 50% of their blood volume.
When Amy (or anyone else) takes public swipes at me or my information
I
Post by Todd Gastaldo
swipe back.
Amy said publicly that she told her OB that she read on the internet
that
Post by Todd Gastaldo
cord blood donation "robs" babies of blood.
Amy said publicly that her OB said, "Absolutely not"...
In the same post, she blithely put out part of "Peter's dodge" -
which she
Post by Todd Gastaldo
had intellectually dishonestly snipped previously.
AFTER her intellectually dishonest performance - she quoted her OB in
effect
Post by Todd Gastaldo
promoting "Peter's dodge" by indicating that cord clamping TIMING has
nothing to do with cord blood COLLECTION...
See again: Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's
ongoing
Post by Todd Gastaldo
intellectual dishonesty)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1add9d58aaa0d6ed
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Melania, you say it is "hitting below the belt"/"not cricket" to "use
Amy's
Post by Todd Gastaldo
name in a post."
Weren't you really objecting to me using Amy's name ON THE SUBJECT
LINE?
Post by Todd Gastaldo
When someone (Amy or anyone else) is being obviously intellectually
dishonest - suggesting that OBs are NOT robbing babies of blood - my
putting
Post by Todd Gastaldo
the obviously intellectually dishonest one's name on the subject line
is the
Post by Todd Gastaldo
least I can do.
Babies are indeed being robbed of blood. Many babies are being
robbed of
Post by Todd Gastaldo
MASSIVE AMOUNTS of blood.
And now Amy is lying saying I am trying to scare women into not
donating...
Post by Todd Gastaldo
I replied...
"Don't listen to Todd - he's going to try to scare you into not
donating..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/42a83242f19d67e0
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Amy is lying through her teeth.
I am NOT opposed to cord blood donation.
I AM, though, opposed to Amy publicly posting misleading crap about
cord
Post by Todd Gastaldo
blood donation - like her OB's blithe assurance that cord blood
donation
Post by Todd Gastaldo
"absolutely" doesn't rob babies of blood.
See Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's ongoing
intellectual dishonesty)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1add9d58aaa0d6ed
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Immediate cord clamping can rob a baby of up to 50% of its blood
volume and
Post by Todd Gastaldo
cord clamping at 30 seconds has been crookedly defined as "delayed"
cord
Post by Todd Gastaldo
clamping. "Delayed" cord clamping also can rob a baby of blood
volume.
Post by Todd Gastaldo
I say again: Amy is lying through her teeth.
I totally support the practice of harvesting cord blood AFTER the
baby has
Post by Todd Gastaldo
had a chance to transfuse to her/himself as much as s/he wants.
Todd
Post by Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
END Todd's reply to Amy's bald lie
Again Melania, I did not come to misc.kids.pregnancy to be popular.
I came here to advocate for babies first and pregnant women second.
I am glad you replied - but I disagree with your analysis.
Amy needs to leave BABIES alone. Publicly pretending that OBs aren't
using
Post by Todd Gastaldo
"Peter's dodge" contributes to the bizarre spectacle of OBs robbing
babies
Post by Todd Gastaldo
of massive amounts of blood.
Sincerely,
Todd
As I said in my original response, "don't haul out some kind of 'but
she started it . . .' excuse. As my mom said to me when I was five, 'I
don't care who started it, you finish it.'"
I'm very sorry to learn that you can't do that.
I also have no interest in discussing this any further with you, so
please don't exhaust your fingers on my account.
Melania,

To the extent that I can, EVERY time I see blithe assurances by OBs being
passed off as fact - I will challenge them - ESPECIALLY when the blithe OB
assurances involve babies being robbed of massive amounts of blood.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Todd Gastaldo
See again: Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's
ongoing
Post by Todd Gastaldo
intellectual dishonesty)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1add9d58aaa0d6ed
Again, I am not here to be popular.

Todd
Nan
2005-02-23 23:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
I warned you before that if you didn't stop using my name in your
posts, I'd report you to your ISP. I'm sorry that you chose not to
heed that warning.
You are harassing me. I have asked you to stop and have taken
reasonable measures to ensure that our paths don't cross. However, you
continue to attack me.
Frankly, I think that you're a complete nutjob, and I would sooner
listen to Pee Wee Herman about how to have a baby than listen to you.
You are totally wasting bandwidth addressing me. I hope to God that
your service provider has had enough complaints to TOS you.
Typical Todd. Disagree with him and he goes on the warpath against
you.
He'll stop as soon as someone else says something he doesn't like,
then he'll target them.
Nutjob is putting it mildly.

Nan
a***@gmail.com
2005-02-23 23:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nan
Typical Todd. Disagree with him and he goes on the warpath against
you.
He'll stop as soon as someone else says something he doesn't like,
then he'll target them.
Nutjob is putting it mildly.
My original plan was to keep reporting him to Earthlink until they
TOS'd him, but I did a little homework and he has been doing this for
YEARS. I can't be the first person to have thought of that...

Besides, he would just go out and get a new ISP within 10 minutes.

My next plan was to fight fire with fire, but I hate to subject the
rest of the newsgroup to that.

For now, I'm going to go back to ignoring him... although the thought
of tracking down his address and mailing him something nasty, yet
legal, like a dead fish, has crossed my mind.

Amy
Nan
2005-02-24 00:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
My original plan was to keep reporting him to Earthlink until they
TOS'd him, but I did a little homework and he has been doing this for
YEARS. I can't be the first person to have thought of that...
Besides, he would just go out and get a new ISP within 10 minutes.
My next plan was to fight fire with fire, but I hate to subject the
rest of the newsgroup to that.
For now, I'm going to go back to ignoring him... although the thought
of tracking down his address and mailing him something nasty, yet
legal, like a dead fish, has crossed my mind.
He's been in my killfile since the first time he attacked someone in
mkp.
The pathetic part of it all is that he's got some valid issues to
point out, but he ends up losing so many people he *could* have
reached, had he not resorted to the attacks.

Nan
tech27
2005-02-24 03:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Listen folks, just put him on your plonk list (check your reader to find out
how to stop seeing any messages from him. If you can't stop him at least you
can ignore him. By not reading any of his posts you can at least not get
aggravated by them, and more importantly, resist the urge to reply to him.
If EVERYONE just ignored ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING he posts, he will lose
interest. This is also important, because as long as anyone replies to his
posts you will see it, but I'm sure you can configure a rule to block
anything with his name in the body also. Depends on your software. It's that
simple.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Nan
Typical Todd. Disagree with him and he goes on the warpath against
you.
He'll stop as soon as someone else says something he doesn't like,
then he'll target them.
Nutjob is putting it mildly.
My original plan was to keep reporting him to Earthlink until they
TOS'd him, but I did a little homework and he has been doing this for
YEARS. I can't be the first person to have thought of that...
Besides, he would just go out and get a new ISP within 10 minutes.
My next plan was to fight fire with fire, but I hate to subject the
rest of the newsgroup to that.
For now, I'm going to go back to ignoring him... although the thought
of tracking down his address and mailing him something nasty, yet
legal, like a dead fish, has crossed my mind.
Amy
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-24 03:43:17 UTC
Permalink
I agree with tech27 here.

I support filtration - of anyone - including me.

Todd
Post by tech27
Listen folks, just put him on your plonk list (check your reader to find
out how to stop seeing any messages from him. If you can't stop him at
least you can ignore him. By not reading any of his posts you can at least
not get aggravated by them, and more importantly, resist the urge to reply
to him. If EVERYONE just ignored ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING he posts, he will
lose interest. This is also important, because as long as anyone replies
to his posts you will see it, but I'm sure you can configure a rule to
block anything with his name in the body also. Depends on your software.
It's that simple.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Nan
Typical Todd. Disagree with him and he goes on the warpath against
you.
He'll stop as soon as someone else says something he doesn't like,
then he'll target them.
Nutjob is putting it mildly.
My original plan was to keep reporting him to Earthlink until they
TOS'd him, but I did a little homework and he has been doing this for
YEARS. I can't be the first person to have thought of that...
Besides, he would just go out and get a new ISP within 10 minutes.
My next plan was to fight fire with fire, but I hate to subject the
rest of the newsgroup to that.
For now, I'm going to go back to ignoring him... although the thought
of tracking down his address and mailing him something nasty, yet
legal, like a dead fish, has crossed my mind.
Amy
Michelle J. Haines
2005-02-24 18:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
My next plan was to fight fire with fire, but I hate to subject the
rest of the newsgroup to that.
Why bother? Use a killfile.
Post by a***@gmail.com
For now, I'm going to go back to ignoring him... although the thought
of tracking down his address and mailing him something nasty, yet
legal, like a dead fish, has crossed my mind.
Well. That's nice.

Michelle
Flutist
a***@gmail.com
2005-02-24 19:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
My next plan was to fight fire with fire, but I hate to subject the
rest of the newsgroup to that.
Why bother? Use a killfile.
Google groups - none available. "I don't read him..." is the best I
can do. My ISP doesn't do newsgroups.

It's hard to ignore a thread where your name is in the subject though,
and he knows it, which is why he does it...
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
For now, I'm going to go back to ignoring him... although the thought
of tracking down his address and mailing him something nasty, yet
legal, like a dead fish, has crossed my mind.
Well. That's nice.
Do you think something else might be better? Maybe some liverwurst?
Produce? Potatoes rot nicely, but it takes a while...

I'm open to suggestions, here. :)

Amy
Cellist
Melania
2005-02-24 19:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
My next plan was to fight fire with fire, but I hate to subject the
rest of the newsgroup to that.
Why bother? Use a killfile.
Google groups - none available. "I don't read him..." is the best I
can do. My ISP doesn't do newsgroups.
Glad to know I'm not the only Google regular. It's dicky, sure, but we
move around a lot and I use a few different computers, so it's just
most convenient for me.

I do think you'd be a lot happier if you just couldn't see the posts,
though, Amy! I really feel for you on this one.

Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
It's hard to ignore a thread where your name is in the subject
though,
Post by a***@gmail.com
and he knows it, which is why he does it...
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
For now, I'm going to go back to ignoring him... although the
thought
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
of tracking down his address and mailing him something nasty, yet
legal, like a dead fish, has crossed my mind.
Well. That's nice.
Do you think something else might be better? Maybe some liverwurst?
Produce? Potatoes rot nicely, but it takes a while...
I'm open to suggestions, here. :)
Amy
Cellist
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-24 20:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
My next plan was to fight fire with fire, but I hate to subject
the
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
rest of the newsgroup to that.
Why bother? Use a killfile.
Google groups - none available. "I don't read him..." is the best I
can do. My ISP doesn't do newsgroups.
Glad to know I'm not the only Google regular. It's dicky, sure, but we
move around a lot and I use a few different computers, so it's just
most convenient for me.
I do think you'd be a lot happier if you just couldn't see the posts,
though, Amy! I really feel for you on this one.
Melania,

I think Amy would be a lot happier if she didn't intellectually dishonestly
promote blind trust in OBs by ignoring/snipping the EVIDENCE that cord blood
donation often involves OBs robbing massive amounts of blood from babies (up
to 50% of the baby's blood volume).

I think Amy would be a lot happier if she didn't intellectually dishonestly
FOLLOW UP such behavior with a post about how she asked her OB if babies are
robbed of blood and quote him saying "Absolutely not" - repeating the very
dodge that she so intellectually dishonestly snipped in previous argument.

But you are right. Amy would be a lot happier if she just couldn't see my
posts.

Similarly, I would be a lot happier if pregnant women didn't see Amy's
posts.

Since pregnant women CAN see Amy's posts...

And since Amy's posts help to perpetuate the OB practice of robbing babies
of massive amounts of blood.

I respond to them.

Pregnant women can have a choice - blind trust that OBs are not robbing
massive amounts of blood - or the evidence that they are...

Amy has resorted to overtly LYING about me.

Also, according to Amy, most everyone on MKP is an "idiot" - except for a
"few" who have a clue.

Instead simply admitting her lie and apologizing for calling most everyone
on MKP and "idiot"...

Instead of admitting that OBs *are* robbing massive amounts of blood from
babies (or offering substantive evidence they aren't)...

Amy is busying herself thinking of nasty food items to send me in the mail.
See below.

LOL!

See also: Ol' 'dead fish' Amy says MKP 'a bunch of idiots' - only 'a few'
have a clue...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3258

Todd
Post by Melania
Melania
Post by a***@gmail.com
It's hard to ignore a thread where your name is in the subject
though,
Post by a***@gmail.com
and he knows it, which is why he does it...
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
For now, I'm going to go back to ignoring him... although the
thought
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
of tracking down his address and mailing him something nasty, yet
legal, like a dead fish, has crossed my mind.
Well. That's nice.
Do you think something else might be better? Maybe some liverwurst?
Produce? Potatoes rot nicely, but it takes a while...
I'm open to suggestions, here. :)
Amy
Cellist
a***@gmail.com
2005-02-24 22:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melania
Glad to know I'm not the only Google regular. It's dicky, sure, but we
move around a lot and I use a few different computers, so it's just
most convenient for me.
Same here. I post from work and home... I would have a hard time
keeping up with all the groups I read if I were to use a
computer-specific newsreader. Plus, my ISP is the only broadband game
in town (small town).
Post by Melania
I do think you'd be a lot happier if you just couldn't see the posts,
though, Amy! I really feel for you on this one.
Thanks. :)

Amy
Michelle J. Haines
2005-02-24 20:15:15 UTC
Permalink
cross-posting snipped again.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Google groups - none available. "I don't read him..." is the best I
can do. My ISP doesn't do newsgroups.
It's hard to ignore a thread where your name is in the subject though,
and he knows it, which is why he does it...
So, switch ISPs. It's not like their's only one in existence.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you think something else might be better? Maybe some liverwurst?
Produce? Potatoes rot nicely, but it takes a while...
I'm open to suggestions, here. :)
Since you asked?

Grow up.

Michelle
Flutist
a***@gmail.com
2005-02-24 22:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michelle J. Haines
cross-posting snipped again.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Google groups - none available. "I don't read him..." is the best I
can do. My ISP doesn't do newsgroups.
It's hard to ignore a thread where your name is in the subject though,
and he knows it, which is why he does it...
So, switch ISPs. It's not like their's only one in existence.
Well, they're the only one in this area that supplies broadband, so in
effect, they are the only option for us at this point.
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you think something else might be better? Maybe some
liverwurst?
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
Produce? Potatoes rot nicely, but it takes a while...
I'm open to suggestions, here. :)
Since you asked?
Grow up.
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I was trying to be funny. I
wouldn't waste the postage, really, I'm awfully cheap. I can see how
certain subsets of society (fish rights activists, postal workers,
etc.) would think it wasn't funny.

I do hope that you see my other post, in reply to Nan, where I have
apologized for egging him on, and have sworn to stop immediately. And
I hope that you and I can move on with no hard feelings, Michelle,
because I've always thought flutists were a fun bunch... My best
friend in middle school was a flutist. To you pronounce it with a long
"u" or an "ow" sound in the middle?

Amy
Larry McMahan
2005-02-24 23:03:30 UTC
Permalink
***@gmail.com <***@gmail.com> writes:

:>
:> So, switch ISPs. It's not like their's only one in existence.

: Well, they're the only one in this area that supplies broadband, so in
: effect, they are the only option for us at this point.

If you have broadband access to the internet, then you can get to
any news server on the internet. You may have to buy a subscription
to use it, but that's got to be better than using google!

:> > Do you think something else might be better? Maybe some
: liverwurst?
:> > Produce? Potatoes rot nicely, but it takes a while...
:> >
:> > I'm open to suggestions, here. :)
:>
:> Since you asked?
:>
:> Grow up.

: Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I was trying to be funny.

I have to admit that I also thought you were expressing a
desire for at least symbolic retribution for his ad-hominums.
I think a number of people got that impression.

Larry
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-25 15:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry McMahan
:>
:> So, switch ISPs. It's not like their's only one in existence.
: Well, they're the only one in this area that supplies broadband, so in
: effect, they are the only option for us at this point.
If you have broadband access to the internet, then you can get to
any news server on the internet. You may have to buy a subscription
to use it, but that's got to be better than using google!
:> > Do you think something else might be better? Maybe some
: liverwurst?
:> > Produce? Potatoes rot nicely, but it takes a while...
:> >
:> > I'm open to suggestions, here. :)
:>
:> Since you asked?
:>
:> Grow up.
: Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I was trying to be funny.
I have to admit that I also thought you were expressing a
desire for at least symbolic retribution for his ad-hominums.
I think a number of people got that impression.
Larry,

Amy was taking "at least symbolic retribution" for my having pointed out HER
ad hominems (and other intellectual dishonesties which she used to help
perpetuate OBs robbing babies of massive amounts of blood volume).

AMY is the one throwing around the vast majority of ad hominems.

Amy chose intellectual dishonesty - snipping/ignoring the fact that OBs are
robbing babies of massive amounts of blood volume - up to 50% - to argue in
favor of blind trust of OBs.

Amy chose FURTHER intellectual dishonesty when she subsequently EXHIBITED
blind trust in OBs - saying publicly she spoke to her OB and asked him if
cord blood collection "robs" babies of blood volume - and quoting her OB
saying in reply, "Absolutely not."

Amy still hasn't acknowledged her intellectual dishonesty.

Instead, Amy took a further public swipe - suggesting that I am not a
legitimate MKP poster.

I may not be as polite as people might like - but I am a legitimate MKP
poster legitimately protesting Amy's ongoing intellectual dishonesty.

Todd
Larry McMahan
2005-02-25 19:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Todd. Please try to read my words dispassionately. Try to understand
WHY you are not being effective in getting your message across.

First. You are trying to right a wrong. (OBs and MWs closing birth
canals and early clamping of umbilical cords, etc). Listen to the
NEXT thing I say VERY CAREFULLY.

In order to effectively right a wrong when you are addressing the
public (which is what you are doing by posting in mkp, you must
attack the wrong and NOT the wrongdoer.

Read the above paragraph 100 times! When you call the wrongdoer
a criminal or dishonest or whatever you are engaging in persnal
attacks that shows your emotionality and reduces your credibility.

Say semisitting is wrong. Say early clamping is wrong. DON'T
say X is a criminal for clamping early or Y is a criminal for
forcing women to give birth semisitting, or Z is dishonest for
supproting thier views. You are trying to wipe out the practice,
not send a bunch of people to jail! Drop it!!!

I am not saying this because your cause is unimportant. I am
saying this because your cause IS important and you are f***ing
it up! You are driving away birthing mothers who would otherwise
listen to you and force thier caregivers to change practice. Stop
iut! Drop this ineeffective personal attack shtick and get with
the program! Do some REAL good!

Say WHAT is wrong. Say HOW it is wrong. Post peer-reviewed
studies to back up your contentions. Be firm but polite. Not
because your are being a wimp by being polite, but because
that's what you NEED to do if you want the poor mothers who
are receiving substandard treatment to rise up and demand better!

Now, when you reply to this post just indicate one word, whether
you understand it or not. No explanations, no excuses, NO
REFERENCES TO WJAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID OR DID. Yes or No.

Good luck
Larry
Kelly
2005-02-28 01:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Go Larry Go. Go Larry Go!!

I agree with you, oh mighy well spoken one.

Kelly
#4 2/15/05
Post by Larry McMahan
Todd. Please try to read my words dispassionately. Try to understand
WHY you are not being effective in getting your message across.
First. You are trying to right a wrong. (OBs and MWs closing birth
canals and early clamping of umbilical cords, etc). Listen to the
NEXT thing I say VERY CAREFULLY.
In order to effectively right a wrong when you are addressing the
public (which is what you are doing by posting in mkp, you must
attack the wrong and NOT the wrongdoer.
Read the above paragraph 100 times! When you call the wrongdoer
a criminal or dishonest or whatever you are engaging in persnal
attacks that shows your emotionality and reduces your credibility.
Say semisitting is wrong. Say early clamping is wrong. DON'T
say X is a criminal for clamping early or Y is a criminal for
forcing women to give birth semisitting, or Z is dishonest for
supproting thier views. You are trying to wipe out the practice,
not send a bunch of people to jail! Drop it!!!
I am not saying this because your cause is unimportant. I am
saying this because your cause IS important and you are f***ing
it up! You are driving away birthing mothers who would otherwise
listen to you and force thier caregivers to change practice. Stop
iut! Drop this ineeffective personal attack shtick and get with
the program! Do some REAL good!
Say WHAT is wrong. Say HOW it is wrong. Post peer-reviewed
studies to back up your contentions. Be firm but polite. Not
because your are being a wimp by being polite, but because
that's what you NEED to do if you want the poor mothers who
are receiving substandard treatment to rise up and demand better!
Now, when you reply to this post just indicate one word, whether
you understand it or not. No explanations, no excuses, NO
REFERENCES TO WJAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID OR DID. Yes or No.
Good luck
Larry
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-28 04:38:22 UTC
Permalink
KELLY, A NURSE, DID SOME CHEERLEADING...
Post by Kelly
Go Larry Go. Go Larry Go!!
I agree with you, oh mighy well spoken one.
Larry McMahan had written (in part)...
Post by Kelly
Post by Larry McMahan
Todd. Please try to read my words dispassionately. Try to understand
WHY you are not being effective in getting your message across.
First. You are trying to right a wrong. (OBs and MWs closing birth
canals and early clamping of umbilical cords, etc). Listen to the
NEXT thing I say VERY CAREFULLY.
In order to effectively right a wrong when you are addressing the
public (which is what you are doing by posting in mkp, you must
attack the wrong and NOT the wrongdoer.
Read the above paragraph 100 times! When you call the wrongdoer
a criminal or dishonest or whatever you are engaging in persnal
attacks that shows your emotionality and reduces your credibility.
Kelly,

I think there is some evidence that Larry is simply wrong on a key point...

I AM being effective - both with some women and with at least one
INSTITUTION.

Remember what I mentioned about Oregon's only medical school, OHSU?

Since you are a nurse, I asked...
Post by Kelly
Are you informing patients that semisitting closes the birth canal up to
30% and that OBs pull with hands, forceps and vacuums KEEPING the birth
canal closed the "extra" up to 30%. If the answer to this is yes, then I
am quite pleased.
You replied...

"Well, then be pleased with me and my coworkers."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/0961ebc5d...

I responded:

YAY! I *am* pleased with you and your coworkers!


I'm also pleased (I think) with Oregon's only medical school - OHSU...


OHSU (I think) has taken down its webpage promoting semisitting and
immediate cord clamping.


Here are the OHSU quotes now gone (hopefully permanently) from OHSU's
website...


"...With semi-sitting positions, gravity can help the mother in pushing the
baby through the birth canal..."
http://www.ohsuhealth.com/cwh/healthinfo/pregnancy/labor/deliver.html


"When a baby first enters the world, there are several immediate
steps...including...umbilical cord...cut and clamped shut near the navel."
http://www.ohsuhealth.com/cwh/healthinfo/pregnancy/labor/deliver.html


(Clicking on the links now takes you automatically to
http://www.ohsuwomenshealth.com/)


Hopefully OHSU isn't closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30% anymore - or
immediately clamping cords anymore.

I do not think it beyond the pale to suggest that OHSU took down its
(birth-canal-closing/semisitting/temporary-asphyxiation/immediate-cord-clamping
promotion) web page in part because I explicitly identified these OB
behaviors as the crime called child abuse...

See: Birth child abuse: Oregon's only medical school (OHSU)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2986

Regardless whether I influenced OHSU, I have influenced some women.

Larry is simply wrong to state: "[Y]ou are not being effective in getting
your message across."

1. I HAVE been effective with some women - and possibly with OHSU too; and

2. This is NOT just "my" message - it should be the message of any and all
nurses working in labor and delivery.

As indicated above, I was extremely glad to read that you and your
co-workers are informing patients that semisitting closes the birth canal
up to 30% and that OBs are pulling with hands, forceps and vacuums and
KEEPING the birth
canal closed the "extra" up to 30%.

When ALL nurses start doing this - when all nurses (in addition) inform
patients that OBs are robbing babies of up to 50% of blood volume, maternity
care will change dramatically - birth will be easier and babies will be
healthier - or so I say...

Again, congratulations - and welcome to little Beckham.

Sincerely,

Todd

PS In case you are interested, my responses to Larry are pasted in below.
Post by Kelly
Post by Larry McMahan
Todd. Please try to read my words dispassionately. Try to understand
WHY you are not being effective in getting your message across.
First. You are trying to right a wrong. (OBs and MWs closing birth
canals and early clamping of umbilical cords, etc). Listen to the
NEXT thing I say VERY CAREFULLY.
In order to effectively right a wrong when you are addressing the
public (which is what you are doing by posting in mkp, you must
attack the wrong and NOT the wrongdoer.
Read the above paragraph 100 times! When you call the wrongdoer
a criminal or dishonest or whatever you are engaging in persnal
attacks that shows your emotionality and reduces your credibility.
Say semisitting is wrong. Say early clamping is wrong. DON'T
say X is a criminal for clamping early or Y is a criminal for
forcing women to give birth semisitting, or Z is dishonest for
supproting thier views. You are trying to wipe out the practice,
not send a bunch of people to jail! Drop it!!!
I am not saying this because your cause is unimportant. I am
saying this because your cause IS important and you are f***ing
it up! You are driving away birthing mothers who would otherwise
listen to you and force thier caregivers to change practice. Stop
iut! Drop this ineeffective personal attack shtick and get with
the program! Do some REAL good!
Say WHAT is wrong. Say HOW it is wrong. Post peer-reviewed
studies to back up your contentions. Be firm but polite. Not
because your are being a wimp by being polite, but because
that's what you NEED to do if you want the poor mothers who
are receiving substandard treatment to rise up and demand better!
Now, when you reply to this post just indicate one word, whether
you understand it or not. No explanations, no excuses, NO
REFERENCES TO WJAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID OR DID. Yes or No.
Good luck
Larry
LARRY'S SORDID PRETENSE


Larry McMahan wrote to me:


"Listen to the NEXT thing I say VERY CAREFULLY...In order to effectively
right a wrong when you are addressing the public (which is what you are
doing by posting in mkp), you must attack the wrong and NOT the
wrongdoer...Read the above paragraph 100 times! When you call the wrongdoer
a criminal or dishonest or whatever you are engaging in persnal attacks that
shows your emotionality and reduces your credibility."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/f89225cb9...


Larry, I am addressing EVERYONE - the criminal OBs - the innocent women they
assault - and the criminally negligent law enforcement officers who are
ignoring the assaults. (I will *again* cc Oregon's second highest law
enforcement officer, Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers via
***@state.or.us.)


It is sheer SORDID PRETENSE to state that I reduce my credibility by calling
OBs criminals.


Larry, the medical and legal professions have created a medico-"legal" "just
us" system - babies be damned.


Some women whose babies have been paralyzed are as flabbergasted as I am
that birth trauma attorneys are not yet telling juries (for example) that
OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals
closed when babies get stuck.


I assure you Larry, I have received PLENTY of support from women whose
babies have been paralyzed.


You are engaging in sheer sordid pretense.


If you don't think that OBs closing birth canals up to 30% and robbing
babies (ALL cesarean babies!) of up to 50% of their blood volume is
criminal - then state your reasons and we can discuss them.


But please stop your pretense: When a crime is being committed, it is a
civic DUTY to point it out.


It is *OBs* who are committing the personal attacks - and some babies are
not surviving.


As usual, I am in favor of pardons in advance. As med students, MDs are
TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.
Post by Kelly
Post by Larry McMahan
Bullshit! You are massaging your own wounded ego. You are not reaching
the woman you pretend to be helping. They are NOT listening to you.
I tried to tell you why. You adamantly refuse to listen to common sense.
<snip>
Stop feeding this idiot. Gastaldo is a psychotic moron. He's in my kill
file so I don't have to see his dribble. I only see responses from others
to him, and respond with a simple: JUST IGNORE HIM!!!
Tech27 offers no substantive criticism indicating that Gastaldo is an
"idiot"/"psychotic moron." - only drivel.

Larry pretends that I am only pretending to be helping women.

Larry also pretends that when MDs are perpetrators of crimes (perpetrators
is Larry's word; crimes is mine) it is wrong to go after them - because
women will be scared off.

I still don't get Larry's logic. If one doesn't go after the MD
perpetrators, one doesn't avail oneself of the opportunity to potentially
help ALL women by changing the behavior of the MD perpetrators. (Criminals
tend to stop their crimes when people are watching them commit crime.)

Yes - some women are likely scared off to learn that - yes THEIR medical
doctor has been committing crime - but others are not: Witness the women
who have gotten my message.

Medical doctors do a lot of things RIGHT - but they are doing KEY things
very WRONG.

Medical doctors are KNOWINGLY doing these key things wrong: Even after
being informed - they continue!

Stopping their crimes would be tantamount to admitting their crimes.

They fear prosecution for their crimes.

I know that.

I hope that eventually Larry will join me in calling for pardons in advance
for MDs. As medical students MDs are TRAINED to perform felonies.

It is simply WRONG (Larry) - CRIMINALLY SO (Todd) - for OBs to close birth
canals up to 30% and rob babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.

See OBs are PERPETRATORS (says Larry - I think)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/fd1fafb3673b1501

Working together (albeit differently) Larry and I - and anyone else who
cares to - will eventually end the obvious OB crimes.

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
***@chiromotion.com
bapayne
2005-02-28 17:25:04 UTC
Permalink
*some* but not all women.

As a woman, I myself cannot get past your shrill sense of writing.
Larry McMahan
2005-02-28 21:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Hi folks, (Kelly, Todd, all you preggos out there,,,)

I hope you had a good weekend. I did. I didn't think, read,
or write about this issue for the whole darned weekend, but
I had a good weekend with my family and got started on a new
fence.

I will warn you now, that you are NOT going to see anything
new in this post. I'm not even going to try to make it "flow".
I am just going to make some conterpoints to a few points
raised in Todd's reply.

I will try to snip as liberally as possible. It's going to be
to long to begin with. No use exacertabing the problem...

Todd Gastaldo <***@earthlink.net> writes:

: Kelly,

: I think there is some evidence that Larry is simply wrong on a key point...

: I AM being effective - both with some women and with at least one
: INSTITUTION.

Todd, let me clarify here a little. I don't think that you are TOTALLY
ineffective. I just think that you are less effective than you would be
if you focussed solely on the wrong that is done and simply prove that
it is harmful rather than attacking anyone who either 1) does it, 2)
stands by and let it be done, or 3) does go on a crusade to attack
wrongdoers.

[details about where Todd talks about successes deleted] Again, I am
NOT saying you haven't had ANY successes. I am saying that you would
have more faster if you adopted a less shrill tone.

: Larry is simply wrong to state: "[Y]ou are not being effective in getting
: your message across."

: 1. I HAVE been effective with some women - and possibly with OHSU too; and

Don't disagree. Just saying being polite would be MORE effective.

: 2. This is NOT just "my" message - it should be the message of any and all
: nurses working in labor and delivery.

This may be important for other reasons (reducing bad practices), but it
is irrelevant to whether you are personally being as effective as you can.

: LARRY'S SORDID PRETENSE

You know, we usually think we know what words mean, but I wanted to be
sure what Todd was accusing me of, so I decided to check it out in
websters...

sordid: 1. a. dirty, filthy, b. wretched, squalid, 2. marked by
baseness or grossness : vile (motives).

Hmmm. I think he seems to be saying my motives for posting are vile.

Vile: 1. morally despicable or abhorrent (eg: nothing is so vile as
intelledtual dishonesty).

OK. Now, lets try pretense..

pretense: a claim not supported by the facts.

I think we can sort it out now. Todd is saying that because of morally
despicable or abhorrent motives I am posting a claim taht he is
ineffective which is not supported by the facts.

Think about it Todd. We can simply disagree on whether I think my
clami is supported by the facts or not, but do you really believe
my motives are vile, sordid, morrally despicable? Do you think I
am a shill of the medical establishment?

: It is sheer SORDID PRETENSE to state that I reduce my credibility by calling
: OBs criminals.

OK. Let me answer you one simple question. Why? Answer directly please.
Why am I being morally despicable by making the statement.

: Some women whose babies have been paralyzed are as flabbergasted as I am
: that birth trauma attorneys are not yet telling juries (for example) that
: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals
: closed when babies get stuck.

How do you change the system? You need numbers. Facts don't make a
damn if a sufficient number of people don't believe and understand
them. Before you can accost the people in charge of the system and
you need to convince a crirical mass of ordinary people that there is
a problem and it needs to be fixed. Attacking the problem is the most
effective way to do taht. Attacking the people who run the system
without a critical mass of support only gives them a chance to create
a plausible defense and to create statemwents to discredit you.

: I assure you Larry, I have received PLENTY of support from women whose
: babies have been paralyzed.

I am sure you have, but compared to the total number of birthing women
each year its a small number. Look back at the last paragraph on
critical mass.

: You are engaging in sheer sordid pretense.

"I am making statement unsupported by the facts because of morally
despicable motives on my part." Oh, I forgot to say that another
excellent way to reduce your effectiveness is to attack those that
agree with you!

: If you don't think that OBs closing birth canals up to 30% and robbing
: babies (ALL cesarean babies!) of up to 50% of their blood volume is
: criminal - then state your reasons and we can discuss them.

Time to go back to the dictionary:

criminal (adj) related to, involving, or being a crime

crime an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the
omission of a duty that is commanded by public law, taht make the
act liable to punishment by the law.

While I think the things you mention above are wrong, and I would say,
morally and medically indefensible, I don't think that there are any
specific laws that forbid them or any specific punishments for the
acts. Therefore, by definition they are NOT crimina. If you disagree
please quote the code sections that apply (Oregon or California code).

: But please stop your pretense: When a crime is being committed, it is a
: civic DUTY to point it out.

There are two issues here:
1. Pretense. As I have pointed out, no criminal act has been demonstrated,
so by not pointing it out I am NOT engaging in a unsupported statement.

2. Even if it WERE criminal, when do you have a duty to point it out.
I would say that once an alleged crime is pointed out to a prosecuting
attorney (in the US) there is nothing to be gained by pointing it out
to the DA again. Now, you might want to point it out to the press in
order to pressure the prosecutign attorney into prosecuting, but once
you have pointed it out to the press once, there is also probably
nothing to be gained from pointing it out again. Once the alleged
crime is known to the proper authorities, you legal duty to point it
out ends. Once it is pointed out to the press, you ability to effect
a moral change (beyond your legal duty) ends.

: It is *OBs* who are committing the personal attacks - and some babies are
: not surviving.

: As usual, I am in favor of pardons in advance. As med students, MDs are
: TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.

In the first place here Todd is equating the inferior birthing practices
above to assault and battery. The problem is that no attorney or
prosecuting attorney in the world (not just US) would make such a
connection. Todd, why should I believe your legal opinion over the
collected legal opinion of all the attornery? Now, I believe that
the practices are wrong to do (at least routinely) and when done so
lead to more harm than if the were discouraged more vigorously in
medical school. However, that does not legally make them assault.

Therefore, I don't think the pardons are needed. :-) However, I do
agree that reeducation is!

: Larry pretends that I am only pretending to be helping women.

Actually, I actually think taht you are *TRYING* to help women, not
just pretending. However, I also think you have an antipathy
toward medical practices that introudces an emotional content to
your objections that is less effective than a purely intellectual
approach.

: Larry also pretends that when MDs are perpetrators of crimes (perpetrators
: is Larry's word; crimes is mine) it is wrong to go after them - because
: women will be scared off.

No. You misread completely WHY I suggested you focus solely on the
wrongs. Now because women will be *scared* off by your words, but
because when you make personal attacks, people (women especially!)
preceive it as "emotion speaking" and discount the message. If you
calmly discuss the problem (dorsal position) and the harm it does
(brain damage, for example) and provide relevant cites, people will
listen. That is why!

: I still don't get Larry's logic.

I had figured this part out.

: If one doesn't go after the MD
: perpetrators, one doesn't avail oneself of the opportunity to potentially
: help ALL women by changing the behavior of the MD perpetrators. (Criminals
: tend to stop their crimes when people are watching them commit crime.)

I disagree completely. This is where you are wrong. In the fiert place
you statement in parenthesis does not apply because MDs do NOT consider
themselves criminals, so it does not apply. In the second place, you do
NOT change practice by forcing change on MDs who offer services. You
change practice by educating women to DEMAND appropriate service. You do
that by attacking the *problem* and not the MDs. This is exactly where
and why you could be more effective if you switched from attacking MDs to
attacking the problem being created.

: Medical doctors do a lot of things RIGHT - but they are doing KEY things
: very WRONG.

I agree completely.

: Medical doctors are KNOWINGLY doing these key things wrong: Even after
: being informed - they continue!

I only half way agree here. Many doctors who were taught to practice
this way still think they are right, even after being told that they
are wrong! Why? Because the critic engages in shrill rhetoric and
personal attacks, so they say this person can't know anything if he
talks this way. There are probably hundreds of doctors who have been
told these practices are wrong, but they read contradictory views
that they still work, so still believe that the critics are wrong,
and they were right in the first place.

: Stopping their crimes would be tantamount to admitting their crimes.

You are wrong here again. In the first place, as I mentioned above they
are, strictly speaking, not criminal activities. In the second place,
no prosecuring attorney would charge them.

: They fear prosecution for their crimes.

No, they fear litigation. Their activity, right or wrong, has become
the standard of care. To deviate from the standard of care, is to
risk liability. THAT is the problem.

: I know that.

You misread their motives.

: I hope that eventually Larry will join me in calling for pardons in advance
: for MDs. As medical students MDs are TRAINED to perform felonies.

The pardons are not needed, as I pointed out above. What IS needed is
reeducation.

: It is simply WRONG (Larry) - CRIMINALLY SO (Todd) - for OBs to close birth
: canals up to 30% and rob babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.

Again, agree completely that these things should NOT be done as a part
of routine care. But I think the use of the word "criminal" creates an
incendiary backlash that stops progress.

: Working together (albeit differently) Larry and I - and anyone else who
: cares to - will eventually end the obvious OB crimes.

My objective on this list is to help all parents (and birth professionals)
make the informed choices that will enable them to take responsibility
for and obtain the best birth experience possible. It is also to learn
from my fellow posters and learn more.

Have a nice day,
Larry

Michelle J. Haines
2005-02-25 14:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I was trying to be funny. I
wouldn't waste the postage, really, I'm awfully cheap. I can see how
certain subsets of society (fish rights activists, postal workers,
etc.) would think it wasn't funny.
I do hope that you see my other post, in reply to Nan, where I have
apologized for egging him on, and have sworn to stop immediately.
Well, that's good.
Post by a***@gmail.com
And
I hope that you and I can move on with no hard feelings, Michelle,
because I've always thought flutists were a fun bunch... My best
friend in middle school was a flutist. To you pronounce it with a long
"u" or an "ow" sound in the middle?
Depends on the circumstances.

Michelle
Flutist
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-25 16:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Michelle J. Haines
cross-posting snipped again.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Google groups - none available. "I don't read him..." is the best
I
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
can do. My ISP doesn't do newsgroups.
It's hard to ignore a thread where your name is in the subject
though,
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
and he knows it, which is why he does it...
So, switch ISPs. It's not like their's only one in existence.
Well, they're the only one in this area that supplies broadband, so in
effect, they are the only option for us at this point.
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you think something else might be better? Maybe some
liverwurst?
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
Produce? Potatoes rot nicely, but it takes a while...
I'm open to suggestions, here. :)
Since you asked?
Grow up.
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I was trying to be funny. I
wouldn't waste the postage, really, I'm awfully cheap. I can see how
certain subsets of society (fish rights activists, postal workers,
etc.) would think it wasn't funny.
I do hope that you see my other post, in reply to Nan, where I have
apologized for egging him on, and have sworn to stop immediately.
Amy

When you "apologized for egging [me] on" - you "egged me on" FURTHER -
publicly suggesting that I am not a legitimate MKP poster - publicly
suggesting that it is not legitimate for me to point out your intellectual
dishonesty.

Your "apology" was further intellectual dishonesty.

Todd
Post by Todd Gastaldo
And
I hope that you and I can move on with no hard feelings, Michelle,
because I've always thought flutists were a fun bunch... My best
friend in middle school was a flutist. To you pronounce it with a long
"u" or an "ow" sound in the middle?
Amy
Tori M.
2005-02-25 16:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Michelle J. Haines
cross-posting snipped again.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Google groups - none available. "I don't read him..." is the best
I
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
can do. My ISP doesn't do newsgroups.
It's hard to ignore a thread where your name is in the subject
though,
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
and he knows it, which is why he does it...
So, switch ISPs. It's not like their's only one in existence.
Well, they're the only one in this area that supplies broadband, so in
effect, they are the only option for us at this point.
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you think something else might be better? Maybe some
liverwurst?
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
Produce? Potatoes rot nicely, but it takes a while...
I'm open to suggestions, here. :)
Since you asked?
Grow up.
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I was trying to be funny. I
wouldn't waste the postage, really, I'm awfully cheap. I can see how
certain subsets of society (fish rights activists, postal workers,
etc.) would think it wasn't funny.
I do hope that you see my other post, in reply to Nan, where I have
apologized for egging him on, and have sworn to stop immediately.
Amy
When you "apologized for egging [me] on" - you "egged me on" FURTHER -
publicly suggesting that I am not a legitimate MKP poster - publicly
suggesting that it is not legitimate for me to point out your intellectual
dishonesty.
Your "apology" was further intellectual dishonesty.
Todd
Post by Todd Gastaldo
And
I hope that you and I can move on with no hard feelings, Michelle,
because I've always thought flutists were a fun bunch... My best
friend in middle school was a flutist. To you pronounce it with a long
"u" or an "ow" sound in the middle?
Amy
Tori M.
2005-02-25 16:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Todd you have just been added to my ignore list. I am tired of seeing you
act like a spoiled 3rd grader.
Someone let me know when this is over as I do enjoy reading Todd's "human"
posts rather then the over processed drivel.

Tori
--
Bonnie 3/02
Xavier 10/04
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Michelle J. Haines
cross-posting snipped again.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Google groups - none available. "I don't read him..." is the best
I
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
can do. My ISP doesn't do newsgroups.
It's hard to ignore a thread where your name is in the subject
though,
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
and he knows it, which is why he does it...
So, switch ISPs. It's not like their's only one in existence.
Well, they're the only one in this area that supplies broadband, so in
effect, they are the only option for us at this point.
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you think something else might be better? Maybe some
liverwurst?
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
Produce? Potatoes rot nicely, but it takes a while...
I'm open to suggestions, here. :)
Since you asked?
Grow up.
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I was trying to be funny. I
wouldn't waste the postage, really, I'm awfully cheap. I can see how
certain subsets of society (fish rights activists, postal workers,
etc.) would think it wasn't funny.
I do hope that you see my other post, in reply to Nan, where I have
apologized for egging him on, and have sworn to stop immediately.
Amy
When you "apologized for egging [me] on" - you "egged me on" FURTHER -
publicly suggesting that I am not a legitimate MKP poster - publicly
suggesting that it is not legitimate for me to point out your intellectual
dishonesty.
Your "apology" was further intellectual dishonesty.
Todd
Post by Todd Gastaldo
And
I hope that you and I can move on with no hard feelings, Michelle,
because I've always thought flutists were a fun bunch... My best
friend in middle school was a flutist. To you pronounce it with a long
"u" or an "ow" sound in the middle?
Amy
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-25 17:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tori M.
Todd you have just been added to my ignore list. I am tired of seeing you
act like a spoiled 3rd grader.
Someone let me know when this is over as I do enjoy reading Todd's "human"
posts rather then the over processed drivel.
Tori,

It is not "overprocessed drivel" for me to protest someone who is egging
someone on all the while saying she is stopping.

Accepting an apology to the group that contained Amy's further swiping at me
is strange.

Oh well.

Best to ignore.

Todd

PS Regarding your suggestion that my protest posts are not "human." It is
EMINENTLY "human" for me to protest ongoing intellectual dishonesty that
helps to perpetuate OBs robbing massive amounts of blood from babies.
Post by Tori M.
Tori
--
Bonnie 3/02
Xavier 10/04
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Michelle J. Haines
cross-posting snipped again.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Google groups - none available. "I don't read him..." is the best
I
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
can do. My ISP doesn't do newsgroups.
It's hard to ignore a thread where your name is in the subject
though,
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
and he knows it, which is why he does it...
So, switch ISPs. It's not like their's only one in existence.
Well, they're the only one in this area that supplies broadband, so in
effect, they are the only option for us at this point.
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you think something else might be better? Maybe some
liverwurst?
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by a***@gmail.com
Produce? Potatoes rot nicely, but it takes a while...
I'm open to suggestions, here. :)
Since you asked?
Grow up.
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I was trying to be funny. I
wouldn't waste the postage, really, I'm awfully cheap. I can see how
certain subsets of society (fish rights activists, postal workers,
etc.) would think it wasn't funny.
I do hope that you see my other post, in reply to Nan, where I have
apologized for egging him on, and have sworn to stop immediately.
Amy
When you "apologized for egging [me] on" - you "egged me on" FURTHER -
publicly suggesting that I am not a legitimate MKP poster - publicly
suggesting that it is not legitimate for me to point out your
intellectual dishonesty.
Your "apology" was further intellectual dishonesty.
Todd
Post by Todd Gastaldo
And
I hope that you and I can move on with no hard feelings, Michelle,
because I've always thought flutists were a fun bunch... My best
friend in middle school was a flutist. To you pronounce it with a long
"u" or an "ow" sound in the middle?
Amy
Michelle J. Haines
2005-02-25 16:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Gastaldo
When you "apologized for egging [me] on" - you "egged me on" FURTHER -
publicly suggesting that I am not a legitimate MKP poster - publicly
suggesting that it is not legitimate for me to point out your intellectual
dishonesty.
Your "apology" was further intellectual dishonesty.
Oh, just zip it already. :P

Michelle
Flutist
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-25 18:04:22 UTC
Permalink
"ZIP IT" (ALSO: "EVERY CESAREAN BABY")

See below
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by Todd Gastaldo
When you "apologized for egging [me] on" - you "egged me on" FURTHER -
publicly suggesting that I am not a legitimate MKP poster - publicly
suggesting that it is not legitimate for me to point out your
intellectual dishonesty.
Your "apology" was further intellectual dishonesty.
Oh, just zip it already. :P
Michelle,

Just go back to ignoring my posts.

Amy intellectually dishonestly ignored/snipped the Morley quote below - then
quoted her her OB saying that it is "Absolutely not" true that babies are
being robbed of blood.

OBs are robbing babies of LOTS of blood - up to 50% of their blood volume...

Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG says that "every
cesarean section baby" is subjected to this bizarre OB practice, as in the
following quote (which Amy is still ignoring):

"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is immediate
cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies. The child's only functioning
source of oxygen - the placenta - is amputated together with 30% to 50+% of
its natural blood volume. Total asphyxia is imposed until the lungs
function, and the depressed (asphyxiated, hypovolemic) child starts its
extra-uterine life in hypovolemic shock...

"B138 was first published in 1993. Every cesarean section baby, every
depressed child, every premie, and every child born with a neonatal team in
the delivery room has its cord clamped immediately to facilitate the
panicked rush to the resuscitation table. The current epidemic of immediate
cord clamping coincides with an epidemic of autism.
"For the trial lawyers, it is essential that the 'true genesis' of cerebral
palsy remains unknown, because that 'true genesis' (B.138) is a standard of
medico-legal care..."
http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm

Again, Amy intellectually dishonestly ignored/snipped the Morley quote -
then quoted her her OB saying that it is "Absolutely not" true that babies
are being robbed of blood.

Sorry, no can "zip it" Michelle - babies are being robbed of blood and one
MKP poster - Amy - is intellectually dishonestly promoting the practice -
and egging me on as she says she isn't egging me on.

Todd
Michelle J. Haines
2005-02-25 18:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Sorry, no can "zip it" Michelle - babies are being robbed of blood and one
MKP poster - Amy - is intellectually dishonestly promoting the practice -
and egging me on as she says she isn't egging me on.
Quit mixing up the personal fight with the political agenda.

For one thing, you're repeatedly talking PAST Amy on the political
agenda front. I don't think she's being "intellectually dishonest" by
saying that cord blood donation doesn't rob babies of 50% of their blood
volume, and you aren't even asserting that! You're asserting that early
cord clamping, including 30 seconds, 45 seconds, whatever isn't delayed
enough. Great, I agree. But you can still do cord blood collection
after the cord completely stops pulsing.

And I think everyone's beyond tired of the personal fight mixed into it.

Michelle
Flutist
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-24 05:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nan
Post by a***@gmail.com
I warned you before that if you didn't stop using my name in your
posts, I'd report you to your ISP. I'm sorry that you chose not to
heed that warning.
You are harassing me. I have asked you to stop and have taken
reasonable measures to ensure that our paths don't cross. However, you
continue to attack me.
Frankly, I think that you're a complete nutjob, and I would sooner
listen to Pee Wee Herman about how to have a baby than listen to you.
You are totally wasting bandwidth addressing me. I hope to God that
your service provider has had enough complaints to TOS you.
Typical Todd. Disagree with him and he goes on the warpath against
you.
"Typical Todd" goes on the warpath against FALSEHOODS - esp. when they (for
example) perpetuate the OB practice of robbing babies of up to 50% of their
blood volume.

See again: Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's ongoing
intellectual dishonesty)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1add9d58aaa0d6ed
Post by Nan
He'll stop as soon as someone else says something he doesn't like,
then he'll target them.
This is false.
Post by Nan
Nutjob is putting it mildly.
LOL! Nan once indicated that I am a ***@ss for identifying as rapes,
American medicine's most frequent surgical behaviors towards males and
females....


Here is a substantial excerpt of my response....

Nan has "worked extensively with domestic violence and rape victims..."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vfpbq0hv2a2vi2ittegccoue8369cqif...


Nan suggests that I am a ***@ss for identifying as rapes, American
medicine's most frequent surgical behaviors towards males and females.


I say this because when I wrote: Nan: 'nice' rape (also: infant penis
shocker)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2974
Post by Nan
Nan, unnecessary penetration of a genital orifice is a felony in
California - yet California MDs are allowed to penetrate male gential
orifices and SLICE THEM OFF! (The infant foreskin/prepuce has a "floppy
tip" which forms an orifice into "the preputial niche.")
Of course, there is also the matter of MDs slicing VAGINAS en masse -
surgically/fraudulently inferring they are doing everything possible to
OPEN
birth canals - even as they CLOSE birth canals up to 30%.
I know, I know.. MDs aren't using penises - but it is rape, Nan - "nice"
"clinical" rape by a man (or woman) in a nice white coat...
JUST THINK NAN! We sort of have similar work - similar agendas!
The National Center for Victims of Crime says:

"In most jurisdictions, the term sexual assault has replaced the term rape
in the state statutes...Some examples of sexual assault include...A doctor,
nurse, or other health care professional giving you an unnecessary internal
examination or touching your sexual organs in an unprofessional, unwarranted
and inappropriate manner..."
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=3...


TWO QUESTIONS FOR NAN AND THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME...


1. Do you agree it is sexual assault (unprofessional, unwarranted and
inappropriate) for MDs to close birth canals up to 30% and then use scissors
to SLICE vaginas - sometimes clear to the anus - thereby
surgically/fraudulently claiming to be doing everything possible to open
birth canals?


2. Do you agree it is sexual assault (unprofessional, unwarranted and
inappropriate) for MDs to SLICE OFF male genital orifices en masse?


Thanks for reading,


Sincerely,


Todd


Dr. Gastaldo
***@chiromotion.com


PS Since "some state codes define Sexual Assault in the First Degree or
Aggravated Sexual Assault as physically or psychologically forced vaginal,
anal or oral penetration - which has typically been thought of as rape."
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=3...


I'm thinking that closing the birth canal up to 30% without informing the
woman then slicing the vagina (in a lame attempt to surgically solve the
problem one has created) makes routine episiotomy "psychologically forced"
AGGRAVATED sexual assault.


Same goes for MD-pediatricians perpetuating the lie that babies can't feel
pain (and perpetuating more recently the lie that the ancient Jewish ritual
that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis is the same as the medical
religion's TOTAL foreskin amputation).


This quasi-religious "psychological force" from MD-pediatricians makes
**routine infant circumcision** aggravated sexual assault - except that it's
psychologically forced PENILE penetration followed (as noted above) by the
"doctor, nurse, or other health care professional" SLICING OFF the sexual
orifice that has been unlawfully penetrated.


BTW, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students, they
are TRAINED to perform felonies.


I am also in favor of an exemption from the child abuse laws for the ancient
Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis...


See Pediatrician 'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2908


Nan has apparently worked so "extensively" with domestic violence and rape
victims that she is blind to the far more obvious (and far more frequent)
"nice" "clinical" rapes that are occurring thousands of times per day in
hospitals across America.


Attn: National Center of Victims of Crime (via ***@ncvc.org)...


As I noted for Nan...


MDs aren't using penises - but it is rape.."nice" "clinical" rape by a man
(or woman) in a nice white coat...


MDs can legally commit felonies - I know that - but it is time to call them
felonies - and stop them...


See SLAPP: How MDs get away with grisly felonies: Censor Bob Dubin, DC and
the Schroeder-SLAPP-censored chirolist
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2959


Above substantial excerpt is from One question for Hillary...and two for
Nan...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/14dfedfc83e1dd18


Nan can't see that the mass vagina and penis slicing is mass sexual assault
(see above)...

Only a "nutjob" would expect her to agree with me that Amy shouldn't be
engaging in intellectual dishonesty that perpetuates OBs robbing babies of
massive amounts of blood.

See again: Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's ongoing
intellectual dishonesty)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1add9d58aaa0d6ed

Todd
Jamie Clark
2005-02-24 06:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Todd,
You may not be here to be popular, but people will killfile you faster than
you can spell it. People don't listen to the crazy (even if they are true)
rantings of a lunatic. I hate seeing another post of yours dragging out
some old bullshit. This circ post crap with Nan was last November, for
goodness sake. I hate seeing you mention any of our members in your posts.
Don't attack your fellow MKP members. We are a loyal bunch, and we stick by
our own when attacked. In general, these people haven't attacked you,
they've just either disagreed with you, or said something that you disagree
with. Calling Amy a liar is uncalled for. Do you really think some
newcomer to MKP is going to read through your diatribes against MKP members
to get down to your real message, the 30%? No, they won't. Because they'll
be turned away by your methods. And anyone who is already a member her
knows your message, and is likely getting tired of your rants against
friends. I think you are continually shooting yourself in the foot, despite
some regular posters best attempts at "training" you. You always lose sight
of the goal. Ripping Amy, or Nan, or me, or anyone else a new asshole
because we said something you don't like doesn't further your 30% agenda
(not by any percent!). In fact, I'd say it seriously sets you back. The
whole public relations side of life has seriously passed you by.
Informative, concise, educational posts about giving birth in optimal
positions, that could further your agenda. Stop lambasting OB's, and
instead, try teaching women how to do it better. If you give a woman the
knowledge and the power, she'll run her own birth, and be much more likely
to stand up to her doctor.

Sorry dude, but you're going back in my killfile.
--
Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- Little Miss Manners, who says, "No skank you" and
"Tank you very much, momma."
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- The Prodigy, who can now roll over, and pull
herself to standing while holding onto someone's fingers!

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-24 07:39:01 UTC
Permalink
EPISIOTOMY: IS IT RAPE?

See below.
Post by Jamie Clark
Todd,
You may not be here to be popular, but people will killfile you faster
than you can spell it.
That's the risk I take. Really, it's OK for everyone to killfile me.
Really.
Post by Jamie Clark
People don't listen to the crazy (even if they are true) rantings of a
lunatic.
Some have listened. Your "crazy/lunatic" pejoration is noted.
Post by Jamie Clark
I hate seeing another post of yours dragging out some old bullshit.
Jamie, I didn't drag out just any "old bullshit"...

I dragged out CRIMINAL "old bullshit"...
Post by Jamie Clark
This circ post crap with Nan was last November, for goodness sake.
Nan has "worked extensively with domestic violence and rape victims..."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vfpbq0hv2a2vi2ittegccoue8369cqif...

Nan suggests that I am a ***@ss for identifying as rapes, American
medicine's most frequent surgical behaviors towards males and females.

The National Center for Victims of Crime says:

"In most jurisdictions, the term sexual assault has replaced the term rape
in the state statutes...Some examples of sexual assault include...A doctor,
nurse, or other health care professional giving you an unnecessary internal
examination or touching your sexual organs in an unprofessional, unwarranted
and inappropriate manner..."
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=3...

I'll ask you the same two questions I asked Nan...

1. Do you agree it is sexual assault (unprofessional, unwarranted and
inappropriate) for MDs to close birth canals up to 30% and then use scissors
to SLICE vaginas - sometimes clear to the anus - thereby
surgically/fraudulently claiming to be doing everything possible to open
birth canals?

2. Do you agree it is sexual assault (unprofessional, unwarranted and
inappropriate) for MDs to SLICE OFF male genital orifices en masse?
Post by Jamie Clark
I hate seeing you mention any of our members in your posts.
Don't attack your fellow MKP members. We are a loyal bunch, and we stick
by our own when attacked.
MKP is not so monolithic as you imagine, I don't think.
Post by Jamie Clark
In general, these people haven't attacked you, they've just either
disagreed with you, or said something that you disagree with.
LOL! Amy told me to go screw myself (in Latin!) when I pointed out her
intellectual dishonesty!
Post by Jamie Clark
Calling Amy a liar is uncalled for.
Amy *is* a liar! LOL!

She lied to Beth:

"Don't listen to Todd - he's going to try to scare you into not donating..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/42a83242f19d67e0

As I've noted elsewhere...

I am NOT opposed to cord blood donation.

I AM, though, opposed to Amy publicly posting misleading crap about cord
blood donation - like her OB's blithe assurance that cord blood donation
"absolutely" doesn't rob babies of blood.

See Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's ongoing
intellectual dishonesty)...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/1add9d58aaa0d6ed

Immediate cord clamping can rob a baby of up to 50% of its blood volume and
cord clamping at 30 seconds has been crookedly defined as "delayed" cord
clamping. "Delayed" cord clamping also can rob a baby of blood volume.

I totally support the practice of harvesting cord blood AFTER the baby has
had a chance to transfuse to her/himself as much as s/he wants.
Post by Jamie Clark
Do you really think some newcomer to MKP is going to read through your
diatribes against MKP members to get down to your real message, the 30%?
Believe it or not, some newcomers DO read my "diatribes" and get the
message!

I will defend myself when people like Amy take public swipes at me or my
information.
Post by Jamie Clark
No, they won't.
Again, believe it or not... (See above.)
Post by Jamie Clark
Because they'll be turned away by your methods.
Believe it or not, some people are turned away when people are
intellectually dishonest!

Amy is intellectually dishonest - and now she has shifted to overt lying
about me. See above.
Post by Jamie Clark
And anyone who is already a member her knows your message, and is likely
getting tired of your rants against friends.
This is a risk I run. Some people will defend a friend rather than point
out their intellectual dishonesty. It is part of life. I accept it.
Post by Jamie Clark
I think you are continually shooting yourself in the foot, despite some
regular posters best attempts at "training" you.
I submit that it is quite impossible to train me to ignore intellectual
dishonesty that helps to perpetuate the OB practice of robbing massive
amounts of blood from babies.
Post by Jamie Clark
You always lose sight of the goal.
I NEVER lose sight of the goal.
Post by Jamie Clark
Ripping Amy, or Nan, or me, or anyone else a new asshole because we said
something you don't like doesn't further your 30% agenda (not by any
percent!).
Jamie, I know you probably won't see this - but just in case...

How is that new asshole working out - LOL!

Remember when "Fer" posted
an animation of vacuum extraction and you remarked but made no mention of
the fact the vacuum extraction animation was done with the mother's birth
canal closed up to 30%?

Hopefully, as a consequence of my posting, you now know that you don't crank
with vacuums and forceps with the birth canal closed up to 30%.
Post by Jamie Clark
In fact, I'd say it seriously sets you back. The whole public relations
side of life has seriously passed you by.
No, I've been watching all the birth-canal-closing/semisitting births on
cable daily...

The birth-canal-closers make sure that NO one escapes "the whole public
relations side of life."

I think Noam Chomsky has a book out titled "Manufacturing Consent."
Post by Jamie Clark
Informative, concise, educational posts about giving birth in optimal
positions, that could further your agenda.
When the helpless are being harmed by powerful cultural authorities, it's
EVERYONE'S agenda to stop the crime - or should be.
Post by Jamie Clark
Stop lambasting OB's, and
I am NOT beating anyone with a cane - LOL!

lambast

v 1: beat with a cane [syn: cane, flog, lambaste] 2: censure severely or
angrily; "The mother scolded the child for entering a stranger's car"; "The
deputy ragged the Prime Minister"; "The customer dressed down the waiter for
bringing cold soup" [syn: call on the carpet, rebuke, rag, trounce, reproof,
lecture, reprimand, jaw, dress down, call down, scold, chide, berate, bawl
out, remonstrate, chew out, chew up, have words, lambaste]

I am, though, censuring OBs severely...

When OBs stop robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume and stop
closing birth canals up to 30% - THEN I will stop lambasting...stop
censuring...

tr.v. cen·sur·ing
To criticize severely; blame
Post by Jamie Clark
instead, try teaching women how to do it better.
I do this regularly.
Post by Jamie Clark
If you give a woman the knowledge and the power, she'll run her own birth,
and be much more likely to stand up to her doctor.
I will continue to tell women that they shouldn't have to ASK for the
"extra" up to 30% - that's just the way it is - so talk to your OB today.

And I will continue to publicly censure OBs. Women should NOT have to ask
for the "extra" up to 30%.
Post by Jamie Clark
Sorry dude, but you're going back in my killfile.
--
Really, it's OK to killfile me.

Todd
bapayne
2005-02-24 00:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Todd,

Where is all of this coming from? I haven't noticed anything lately
about cord clamping. Coming out of left field?
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-24 06:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by bapayne
Todd,
Where is all of this coming from? I haven't noticed anything lately
about cord clamping. Coming out of left field?
A long time ago, Canadian grandma Donna Young (www.lotusbirth.com) called my
attention to the grisly spectacle of OBs robbing babies of up to 50% of
their blood volume.

Donna recently reminded me that clamping at 30 seconds has been defined in
the medical literature as "delayed" clamping.

On a lark, I looked in Williams Obstetrics and found them promoting 30
second clamping, as in,

"If after delivery, the infant is placed at or below the level of the
vaginal introitus for 3 minutes and the fetoplacental circulation is not
immediately occluded by clamping the cord, an average of 80ml of blood may
be shifted from the placenta to the infant...Our policy is to clamp the cord
after first thoroughly clearing the airway...which takes about 30 seconds."
(Williams Obstetrics 2001:319-320)

Donna does not think MDs deserve pardons in advance - she's sort of a
meanie. : )

Todd
Michelle J. Haines
2005-02-24 16:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Donna recently reminded me that clamping at 30 seconds has been defined in
the medical literature as "delayed" clamping.
Well, Todd, I'm in the middle of my EMT-B training, and I read through our
chapter on obstetrics the other day, even though we haven't reached it yet.

It's mixed.

It told us to have a delivering mother lie on her back. Boo!

But, it also said never to clamp a cord until it was completely done
pulsing,
unless it's a case of a nupal cord preventing the delivery of a baby. Yay!

Michelle
Flutist
Todd Gastaldo
2005-02-24 17:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michelle J. Haines
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Donna recently reminded me that clamping at 30 seconds has been defined
in the medical literature as "delayed" clamping.
Well, Todd, I'm in the middle of my EMT-B training, and I read through our
chapter on obstetrics the other day, even though we haven't reached it yet.
Training to be an EMT?! Great! After I graduated UCLA with a degree in
biochem, I worked as a lab tech in Texas (no ASCP certification required
back then). I used to take call at a hospital and got to know the EMTs and
emergency docs. Emergency medicine is medicine at its best, IMO.
Post by Michelle J. Haines
It's mixed.
It told us to have a delivering mother lie on her back. Boo!
If I had the book, I would write the authors with the quote and cite and
urge them to correct their next edition. You probably don't have much time
to do so with your studies and all - but it would be good if you did.
Post by Michelle J. Haines
But, it also said never to clamp a cord until it was completely done
pulsing,
unless it's a case of a nuchal cord preventing the delivery of a baby.
Yay!
Yay is right!

I hope they emphasized "preventing delivery of a baby" because nuchal cords
are extremely common - 1 in 5 births according to a study cited in the 2001
Williams Obstetrics.

Todd
Loading...