http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part1ftc.html Part 1 FTC Complaint

Part 1 of FTC Complaint

By Todd Gastaldo, D.C.

Attention FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION:  The following should NOT be sold in the U.S.:  Books by foreign obstetricians that are censored to cover-up grisly ongoing  obstetric criminal negligence and books by American obstetricians which contain bald lies which cover-up the same grisly ongoing criminal negligence.  Titles and explanation given below.

Since the grisly criminal negligence being perpetuated (via censorship and via bald lies) involves thousands of American fetuses per day being subjected to the possibility of death and brain bleeds and neonatal encephalopathy (the American authors indirectly admit they are killing some fetuses; see URLs below), all persons who might have bought these books should be somehow reached and informed that these books perpetuate routine fetal skull squashing.

Attention FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION:  This is a two part complaint.  I am sending it to your crc@ftc.gov address because your complaint form - http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.htm - apparently allows only 30 lines. Please copy me whenever you send my information out for verification - whether by surface mail or by e-mail.  My e-mail address is above and my surface mail address is below.  Please also e-mail me or surface mail me copies of any responses you receive from any experts you employ to verify my claims...

Part 1 of my complaint:

The American obstetrician-authors of Williams Obstetrics may be contributing to brain bleeds, neonatal encephalopathy and deaths of some fetuses by intentionally publishing erroneous information.   They actually indirectly admit they are killing some fetuses.  See URLs below.

Foreign obstetricians Iain Chalmers, MD and Murray Enkin, MD - who sell books in the U.S. (via their publisher Oxford University Press) - buttress the erroneous American information via censorship of 1992 information from the 1995 edition of their Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth.

In the 1992 edition of the foreign Guide, relevant radiographic studies (discussed below) were mentioned; however, the 1995 edition made no mention of these relevant radiographic studies - and this occurred after I spoke to both Enkin and Chalmers in 1993 about the importance of these studies.  No reason was given in the 1995 edition as to why mention of the studies was deleted.  My interaction with Enkin on this matter - including his "Lilford group" "reason" to censor - is briefly discussed in Part 2.

Prof. Marc JNC Keirse, MD is a co-editor of the Guide who is reportedly interested in what I am saying here. (Prof. Keirse, see especially books you have co-edited and  "Part 2: FTC/Marc JNC Keirse, MD.")

In 1973, Ohlsén pointed out that the authors of Williams Obstetrics were still, in the 70s, erroneously claiming that pelvic diameters don't change at delivery... [Ohlsén H. Moulding of the pelvis during labour. Acta Radiol Diag 1973;14:417-434]

Apparently in response to Ohlsén [1973], the authors of Williams Obstetrics began claiming (falsely) that the AP outlet diameter increases by 1.5 to 2.0 cm in dorsal lithotomy delivery; when in fact simple biomechanics (see URLs below) indicates that  AP outlet diameter is DECREASED by 1.5 to 2.0 cm in dorsal lithotomy...

As I wrote in my CRYING EMERGENCY (again - still) post - which Prof. Keirse largely ignored...

>>According to Dr. James Smeltzer "[McRoberts] simultaneously reverses almost
>>all of the factors tending to cause shoulder dystocia CREATED BY THE DORSAL
>>LITHOTOMY POSITION... (emphasis added) [Smeltzer. Clin Obstet Gynecol

>>1986;29(2):299-308]
>>
>>Dr. Smeltzer continues:
>>

>>"...the maneuver removes all weight-bearing forces from the sacrum, the
>main
>>pressure point of the pelvis in the lithotomy position..."
>>
>>GASTALDO comments:  Dr. Smeltzer makes a key observation here.  The sacral
>>apex is not only the "main pressure point of the pelvis" in dorsal
>lithotomy
>>delivery, it is also the "main pressure point of the pelvis" in semisitting
>>deliveries - which is why OB-GYN-Lister Gardosi says SEMISITTING creates
>>"many" cases of shoulder dystocia. [See URLs below]  It is good that Dr. Smeltzer believes
>>DORSAL LITHOTOMY creates shoulder dystocia - he just doesn't have the
>>biomechanics down...perhaps intentionally...  (Under "Treatment of Shoulder
>>Dystocia," Smeltzer writes, "Immediately recognize that the dystocia has
>>occurred when the fetal face tends to disappear, from reverse traction by
>>the posterior shoulder at or ABOVE the inlet..." (!) This is [an "ABOVE] the
>>inlet" version of Western medicine's grisly "inlet" shoulder dystocia
>>myth...  I ask again:  With the posterior shoulder stuck way up the Curve
>of
>>Carus at [ABOVE?!] the sacral promontory, what force pushes the head out
of the
>>vagina?)
The biomechanics are simple...

At my request, the authors of Williams Obstetrics finally published the correct biomechanics in their 1993 edition and again in their 1997 edition; but oddly (though not-so-oddly considering the gravity of even a single brain bleed or fetal death), the authors of Williams Obstetrics PERPETUATED THEIR LIE - i.e., they perpetuated the lie that first called my attention to their text - their false claim that a common delivery position - dorsal lithotomy - widens the birth canal.  (I say again, the authors of Williams Obstetrics  started this lie after Ohlsén [1973] pointed out to them that they were erroneously claiming that pelvic diameters did not change during delivery.)

It is most significant that in another part of the 1993 and 1997 editions of Williams Obstetrics, the authors indirectly admit that they are killing fetuses, i.e., they claim that 0.5 cm of fetal skull distortion can kill... See URLs below...

Also significant is the fact that in 1911, the original author of Williams Obstetrics reported in effect that *4* cm of fetal skull distortion can occur.

This brings me to the fact that Prof. Marc JNC Keirse, MD questions this 4 cm number given by the original author of Williams Obstetrics, J. Whitridge Williams, MD, in 1911 (see below).

Apparently, Prof. Keirse is unaware that Herbert Thoms, MD repeated Williams' experiment in a larger series and found a woman in whom sacral excursion was 3.5 cm.

Apparently, Prof. Keirse is also unaware of the radiographic studies which Enkin and Chalmers censored from the Guide WHICH HE CO-EDITED.  One of those radiographic studies -  Borell and Fernstrom [1957] - demonstrated (via x-rays taken during delivery) that the average amount of sacral tip excursion (fetal skull squashing) is 1.5 to 2.0 cm - a value which matched rather well Williams' and Thoms' average - which may be part of the reason the 1.5 to 2.0 cm number was used in Williams Obstetrics starting in the 70s...

Prof. Keirse questions whether there is evidence that 20 to 30% of pelvic outlet area may be denied the fetus in routine medical delivery; yet radiographic evidence for this  [Russell 1969] was mentioned in the 1992 Guide and cited in the 1989 Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth - BOTH OF WHICH TEXTS PROF. KEIRSE CO-EDITED - along with Censors Enkin and Chalmers...

Prof. Keirse of The Netherlands (currently teaching in Australia) appears to me to be stonewalling - attempting to cover-up erroneous Chalmers' and Enkin' censorship...

Then again, Prof. Keirse does claim to be interested in evidence to the contrary of his claimed ignorance...

In any event, books that are censored to cover-up grisly criminal negligence should not be sold in the U.S.

Nor should books which contain bald lies which cover-up grisly criminal negligence.

Onward to my response to Prof. Keirse's non-response to my CRYING EMERGENCY post...

Professsor Marc J.N.C. Keirse, MD, DPhil, FRACOG, FRCOG
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
The Flinders University of South Australia
Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA 5042
Fax: 61-8-8204.5454  Phone: 61-8-8204.4471
Email:marc.keirse@flinders.edu.au

Dear Professor Keirse,

Thanks so much for responding to my CRYING EMERGENCY post. (Your response is forwarded below with comments interspersed.)

First, let me comment upon your numbered points...

(NOTE:  If the URLs below appear in blue on your screen you may be able to click on them to get to them.)

You wrote:

>1. I do not know what you mean by Enkin and Chalmers censored my 1995
>edition.  I am not aware of any censoring by them.

See the following URLs...

>>>>>http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0128.html
>>>>>http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0153.html
>>>>>(See also the article by Brazilian obstetrician Moysés Paciornik, M.D.
>in
>>>>>Birth 1990;17:104-5; and see Gastaldo Birth 1992;19:230; and see
>Gastaldo
>>>>>Mothering Jul/Aug/Sep1997:17, reproduced at the URLs above.)
>2. I don't know what behaviour you are considering as not being
professional >(the censoring of the 1995 edition, the censoring with full knowledge, me
>currently being in Australia, or anything else).

The behavior of censoring of the 1995 edition is not professional...  See the URLs above.

>3. I have no idea what URLs are.

URL stands for Universal Resource Locator. Essentially it is the internet address of whatever you are trying to find.  See the URLs above.  Here they are again...

>>>>>http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0128.html
>>>>>http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0153.html
>>>>>(See also the article by Brazilian obstetrician Moysés Paciornik, M.D.
>in
>>>>>Birth 1990;17:104-5; and see Gastaldo Birth 1992;19:230; and see
>Gastaldo
>>>>>Mothering Jul/Aug/Sep1997:17, reproduced at the URLs above.)

>4. I cannot even guess by what mechanism either my behaviour or that of
>Enkin and Chalmers might be costing the lives of fetuses.

See the URLs above.  Here they are again...
>>>>>http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0128.html
>>>>>http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0153.html
>>>>>(See also the article by Brazilian obstetrician Moysés Paciornik, M.D.
>in
>>>>>Birth 1990;17:104-5; and see Gastaldo Birth 1992;19:230; and see
>Gastaldo
>>>>>Mothering Jul/Aug/Sep1997:17, reproduced at the URLs above.)

Further comments interspersed below...

-----Original Message-----
From: Professor Marc JNC Keirse
To: Todd Gastaldo
Date: Monday, September 07, 1998 11:19 PM

>Dear Todd,
>
>Yes, you apparently reached me.  At least, I  am one of the editors of
>Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth published by Oxford University
>Press in 1989 and a subsequent author of A Guide to Effective Care in
>Pregnancy and Childbirth.
>
>I am glad to note that you are all ears if - as you state - I'd care to
>comment responsibly.  However, what would be the point of commenting
>irresponsibly?

Commenting irresponsibly can perpetuate fraud and cover-up one's profession's grisly ongoing criminal negligence.

>You may have seen that my only contribution ever to the
>OB-GYN-List was reasonably responsible in that it referred people to
>published evidence rather than to unsubstantiated opinion and hear-say.
>

Yes, I like this approach.  Unfortunately, when push came to shove, Chalmers and Enkin resorted to censorship...  See the URLs above.  I repeated the URLs three times above in hopes of making it clear to you what URLs are... (No one in your office knew what a URL was?  They didn't show up in "clickable" blue on your screen?))

>Nevertheless, I am at a loss as to what I would need to comment about.  You
>seem to suggest that either I or Chalmers are responsible for behaviour that
>is not professional and is costing some fetuses their lives.

Censorship of pertinent radiographic studies is very likely costing some fetuses their lives.  The authors of Williams Obstetrics make reference to one of these radiographic studies (Borell and Fernstrom 1957) as they perpetuate the LIE that this study showed that dorsal lithotomy widens the outlet 1.5 to 2.0 cm - while in another part of their text they indirectly claim that 0.5 cm of fetal skull squashing can KILL...  See URLs above.

Such lying - along with Enkin and Chalmer's censorship - allows MDs to persist in jamming sacral tips up to 4 cm into fetal skulls...

>I don't have
>any substantive criticism of your comments to that effect and I cannot say
>that your comments are not responsible either.

It is kind of you to acknowledge this.

> Indeed, I have at a total
>loss of what this is all about. So, how could I judge whether you are being
>responsible or not.

To be sure, if you were at a TOTAL loss, you could not judge anything.

But I do not think you are at a total loss.  Even without knowing what  a URL is, a professor of obstetrics could have read my post and gotten the gist of organized medicine's phony biomechanics - if he wanted to - especially since the gist of organized medicine's phony biomechanics was published in two texts edited by that professor of obstetrics.

>
>In particular:
>1. I do not know what you mean by Enkin and Chalmers censored my 1995
>edition.  I am not aware of any censoring by them.
>2. I don't know what behaviour you are considering as not being professional
>(the censoring of the 1995 edition, the censoring with full knowledge, me
>currently being in Australia, or anything else).
>3. I have no idea what URLs are.
>4. I cannot even guess by what mechanism either my behaviour or that of
>Enkin and Chalmers might be costing the lives of fetuses.
See the URLs above.  And remember, even without the URLs, there was plenty of "meat" in my post to help the good professor understand what I was saying...

>
>The rest of your email amounted to 11 printed pages of interactions among I
>do not how many people.
It is good to know that you printed out my e-mail.

>I note from it that J. Whitridge Williams is quoted
>as a great authority on jamming FOUR CENTIMETRES into the pelvic inlet.  Of
>course, he is also the same Williams who extolled about the virtues of blood
>letting as a treatment in obstetrics stating among others that a pint of
>blood should be withdrawn immediately from women admitted with eclampsia.
>So, let us not take these 4 jammed centimetres (if that is what Williams
>said and not what is merely attributed to him) at face value without more
>substantive evidence.

AP outlet diameter is rather easily and accurately measured.  Thoms repeated Williams study and found 3.5 cm on sacral tip excursion in one woman...

And, of course, Borell and Fernstrom [1957] radiographically demonstrated 1.5 to 2 cm of sacral tip excursion - which average matched the averages found earlier by Williams and Thoms...

Borell and Fernstrom [1957], as noted above, was mentioned in the 1992 edition of the Guide you co-edited as well as being actually cited in the 1989 Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth which you also co-edited.

>
>I am not aware that Odent is an authority on biomechanics and I certainly
>have never read any substantive research that was conducted by Odent on this
>subject.

The biomechanics are simple, Prof. Keirse.  The substantive research (clinical and radiographic) has already been done.  It is easily understood by those who care to look - which is likely the reason why Chalmers and Enkin chose to censor - and why the authors of the 1993 Williams Obstetrics chose to perpetuate their lie that dorsal lithotomy widens the outlet. (Their lie was what called my attention to their text.  It was perpetuated in the same paragraph that they acknowledged the correct biomechanics, at my request.  See Williams Obstetrics [1993,1997] and the URLs above.)

>To the best of my knowledge, there is no known human activity
>(other than accidents involving fractures of the pelvic bones) that will
>reduce dimensions of the fully grown human pelvis by as much as 30 to 40
>percent. If you have any evidence to the contrary I should be glad to hear
>about it.

The evidence to the contrary was mentioned in the 1992 Guide you co-authored and was censored from the 1995 edition of the Guide - also co-authored by you.

The evidence to the contrary was actually CITED in the 1989 text Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth which you co-edited.

Discussion of this evidence - and its manipulation by obstetric "scientists" - will appear in "Part 2: FTC/Marc JNC Keirse, MD."

BTW, Prof. Keirse, I do not know where you got the 40 percent figure. Russell [1969] was one of the radiographic studies censored by Enkin and Chalmers.  In that 1969 study, Russell in effect reported that pelvic outlet area was effectively diminishable by 20 to 30%...

As noted above, Ohlsén [1973] reported that he had verified Russell's 20% figure.

Also noted above, Ohlsén [1973] reported also that Williams Obstetrics was still claiming that no changes in pelvic outlet diameter occur at delivery. Soon after that, the authors of Williams Obstetrics began publishing Borell and Fernstrom's 1.5 to 2.0 cm AP outlet diameter increase - *and* the BALD LIE that dorsal lithotomy offers this increase...

Later authors (Gudgeon and Jarrett, somewhere in Australia), acknowledged Russell's "massive" number - and did an awfully lame job in a failed attempt to refute Russell's "massive" number... Significantly, Gudgeon and Jarrett only parrotted the flawed 1989 and 1991 studies of the two Brits, Lilford and Gupta - as they utterly failed to mention that Russell [1969] used Borell and Fernstrom's 1957 radiographically derived figures to come up with most of "his" "massive" outlet area estimate - as they also forgot to mention that Ohlsén [1973] verified Russell's "massive" estimate... See "Part 2: FTC/Marc JNC Keirse, MD."

Prof. Keirse, you claim, in effect, that you know of no evidence that 20 to 30 percent of outlet area is denied in semisitting and dorsal lithotomy delivery positions and you say:  "If you have any evidence to the contrary I should be glad to hear about it."

See the 1989 and 1992 texts you co-edited and see "Part 2: FTC/Marc JNC Keirse, MD."

>
>At least I learned something new. This is that there is a Curve of Carus. I
>knew that - in Europe - there is a river of Napoleon (the Elbe) and
>mountains of Hannibal, albeit that people - both in and outside Europe -
>usually refer to them by their proper geographic names.  However, I was not
>aware that there is a Curve of Carus in the pelvis. I had not heard of it
>before.  I still do not know what it is (but if it is the sacral curve or
>hollow, then surely it is not confined to the pelvic inlet, but represents
>the dorsal wall of the pelvic cavity).

This assertion of yours that the Curve of Carus is not just at the pelvic inlet might have been gathered from the context in which I used the phrase "Curve of Carus," as in, "way up the Curve of Carus at the sacral promontory/pelvic inlet..."

It is good for the professor of obstetrics to learn new things about his profession.

>
>I also get the impression that someone is arguing that there are two types
>of "inlet" shoulder dystocia: the *organized medicine* type and another
>type. I could not figure out in what way they differ from each other,
>though. Also, I am totally unaware of an "INLET" DYSTOCIA FRAUD to which
>someone appears to refer.

"Someone" is arguing?

It is Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. who is arguing - and he is arguing that there are two types of "inlet" shoulder dystocia: Organized medicine's fraudulent, physically impossible head-out-of-the-vagina "inlet" dystocia - and Gastaldo's far more plausible head-in-the-vagina inlet dystocia...

Here is what I wrote in my post to you:

>>My "fetal head INSIDE the vagina" shoulder dystocia hypothesis is an INLET
>>shoulder dystocia hypothesis - like - but significantly different from -
>>*organized medicine's* inlet shoulder dystocia hypothesis.
>>
>>Organized medicine's inlet hypothesis similarly posits the posterior fetal
>>shoulder impacted at the sacral promontory/pelvic inlet but places the
>fetal
>>head OUTSIDE the vagina - an obvious physical impossibility.

My head INSIDE the vagine inlet dystocia hypothesis occurred to me as means of explaining the paradoxical findings of Gherman and Ouzounian et al. [Gherman RB, Ouzounian JG, Miller DA, Kwok L, Goodwin TM. Spontaneous vaginal delivery: a risk factor for Erb's palsy? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998 Mar;178(3):423-427]

Prof. Keirse concludes:

>
>Of course, given how little I understand of all of this, I may have been
>reading it all wrongly...
This is a wonderful disclaimer.  Open expression of ignorance is the way of science.

Intentional ignorance - eg. lying and censorship - is the way of the criminally negligent - fetuses be damned...

> and the whole of this may simply be a convoluted way
>of discussing the relative merits of different birth positions.

Alternatively, "the whole of this" might be a rather straight forward discussion of convoluted medical attempts to cover-up grisly criminal negligence.

>Therefore,
>I am passing your message on to someone who has done quite a bit of
research >in this particular area.

Prof. Keirse, please pass on - to this same someone - Part 1 and 2 of "FTC/Marc JNC Keirse, MD."

And please pass to *me* the name of this someone who the esteemed obstetrics professor has called upon to decipher Gastaldo's "convolutions"...

Please also pass on to Australians Gudgeon and Jarrett, Part 1 and Part 2 of "FTC/Mark JNC Keirse, MD."  Their published reference to Russell's "massive" estimate is discussed in Part 2...

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.
8948 SW Barbur Blvd. #6
Portland, OR 97219

--
IMPORTANT NOTE:  I am not currently practicing chiropractic - except insofar as the practice of chiropractic includes freedom of speech. While in Oregon doing library research I have voluntarily forfeited my California chiropractic license so as not to have to pay the annual licensing fee. (Under California law, any licensed D.C. may voluntarily forfeit his/her license, and may, at any time, reactivate said license by providing the Board of Examiners with "twice the annual amount of the renewal fee...[He or she]...shall not be required to submit to an examination for the reissuance of the certificate." [Section 12, Act Regulating the Practice of Chiropractic...Issued by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners...Act Includes Amendments Through October 1993]

"Yes, I sold [Gastaldo] a modem.  That was one of the biggest mistakes of my entire life and I regret it more than any other error of my life."
                                                Howard Leighty, D.C.
FTC (or anyone else), click here to send a reply to Gastaldo.