Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Nov 17, 2009 20:37:45 GMT
If anyone attends, please take photos and post them in this thread. Also if you can take any video, or wrangle an interview with anyone present please let me know and I can use it on BPTV
When? Tuesday, November 24 at 6:30PM
Where? The Maypole 20a Portugal Place Cambridge CB5 8AF
Who? Simon Singh i127.Report this post to Admin please.com/albums/p134/JonDonnis/Simon.jpg[/img] What's the talk about? Prince Charles is a staunch defender and millions of people swear by alternative medicine, but most UK doctors consider it to be little more than superstition and a waste of money. And whilst much of this ‘medicine’ is free on the NHS, does it really work and is it safe? Indeed, does it even matter as long as patients are satisfied with the end results?
Based on the conclusions of his book 'Trick or Treatment?' (co-authored with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine), Simon Singh will look at which alternative therapies are safe and effective, and which are useless and even downright dangerous. From acupuncture to homeopathy, from herbal medicine to Hopi ear candling, Singh will also look at the origins of these therapies, their rapid growth in popularity in the West and their supposed modes of action.
Simon Singh is the author of "Fermat's Last Theorem", "The Code Book" and "Big Bang". Before becoming a journalist, he was a TV director at the BBC, working on programmes such as "Tomorrow's World" and Horizon". He is currently being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association, a case that has been at the centre of Keep Libel Laws Out of Science Campaign. He will touch on issue of libel and talk generally about his own case during the launch of Skeptics in the Pub in Cambridge.
Hi there, I have read what you have written. I kind of get what you are saying but could be wrong and that is that the full picture is not being presented. There is a lot of info to get through. Could you please sum up in a nutshell exactly what you are saying? Many thanks
Last Edit: Nov 22, 2009 18:11:29 GMT by kensington
"Dont forget to cover your bum, or you'll get a red bum"
Meanwhile "skeptics" like Singh, Ernst, Colquhoun and Goldacre ignore this white elephant and whine about chiropractors claiming to be able to treat infant colic with spinal manipulation.
As I noted:
CONCLUSION
It is GOOD that Singh and Ernst are pointing out apparent lack of efficacy and possible dangers of alternative treatments of non-MD "CAM" providers...
It is BAD that Singh and Ernst are publicly pretending that most of conventional/allopathic medicine is not "CAM" as they fail to point out that much allopathic "CAM" is obviously CRIMINAL...
I'm a little unclear as to why you're targetting Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst on the subject of "dangerous" Obstetric practice. Criticism of one group of people does not imply that the critic believes its opposite group is perfect. For example, I am happy to criticise the BNP for their views on race, that doesn't then imply that I believe black people are never racist, that would be a ludicrous position to take. By your logic, any criticism of a person/group should include a detailed study of all the faults of any group with opposing ideas. It just not practical.
Meanwhile "skeptics" like Singh, Ernst, Colquhoun and Goldacre ignore this white elephant and whine about chiropractors claiming to be able to treat infant colic with spinal manipulation.
As I noted:
CONCLUSION
It is GOOD that Singh and Ernst are pointing out apparent lack of efficacy and possible dangers of alternative treatments of non-MD "CAM" providers...
It is BAD that Singh and Ernst are publicly pretending that most of conventional/allopathic medicine is not "CAM" as they fail to point out that much allopathic "CAM" is obviously CRIMINAL...
I'm a little unclear as to why you're targetting Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst on the subject of "dangerous" Obstetric practice. Criticism of one group of people does not imply that the critic believes its opposite group is perfect. For example, I am happy to criticise the BNP for their views on race, that doesn't then imply that I believe black people are never racist, that would be a ludicrous position to take. By your logic, any criticism of a person/group should include a detailed study of all the faults of any group with opposing ideas. It just not practical.
Very good point
"Dont forget to cover your bum, or you'll get a red bum"
Ive taken the time to look around the net at some of your postings etc in a bid to try and understand better what your point is here.
I take it you are the same Todd Gastaldo DC Private Chiropractic Research Sunnyvale CA Graduated UCLA (Biochem 1975)Graduated Los Angeles College of Chiropractic (DC, 1979)that i found many posts from ?
My question is this Todd , im open to considering your claims surrounding "conventional" semisitting and dorsal delivery and the teaching of this as being the prefered option in birthing perhaps contributing to a lack of willingness to explore other methods that may or may not be preferable but as im not an expert in the field of Obstetrics you must understand that from that position all a layman can do is consider the evidence and research out there from both sides and try and figure out the truth.
My question is if the evidence and research is there to show a preferable method that is proven as reducing the danger why is it not adopted by the majority ?
Why would it not be considered , tested and then prefered ?
Why would and what would the motive be to discount it ?
If as you claim these practises are resulting in a higher percentage of deaths or damage than the present conventional methods do then im all for highlighting it but if its more a case of there are just as considerable dangers involved in other ways by adopting an alternative method id like to know what those dangers are and have them evidenced also.
Post by lovelyyoungman on Nov 23, 2009 18:11:06 GMT
First let me thank you for putting (sperm) after my psuedonym, it brought a wry immature smile to my face.
Secondly let me say you remind me very much of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist church except instead of the anus its the birth canal you're obsessed with. You also appear a little manic in your writing style, but enough of the Ad Hominems...
#### Again, I target the practice
But you're not targetting the practice, you're targetting Singh and Ernzt. Is it co-incidence that they happen to have criticised your profession?
#### Where are the prominent "skeptics"? They are whining about chiropractors advertising spinal manipulation treatments for infant colic all the while IGNORING gruesome, sometimes-fatal birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation treatments that likely CAUSE infant colic! (Prof. Colquhoun ignored OB Lie #1 and offered ignorance of obstetrics as a lame excuse for not commenting! OB Lie #1 is OBVIOUS. The pelvic diameters cannot both change and not change - one needs NO knowledge of obstetrics to figure this out. Similarly, it is easy to see that if OBGYNs are offering a way to allow the birth canal to open when baby's shoulders get stuck, they are indirectly admitting on video that they KNOW they are routinely closing birth canals up to 30%. Prof. Colquhoun's dodge helps perpetuate mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation child abuse - even as he criticizes minority, non-MD spinal manipulators for killing the occasional patient. How very bizarre.)
#### Again - YES - "skeptics" should criticize chiropractic spinal manipulation performed without evidence of efficacy - but FIRST (or at least simultaneously) they should criticize ABSOLUTELY CONTRAINDICATED/SOMETIMES-FATAL mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation by OBGYNs (obstetricians) that may be causing parents to seek GENTLE spinal manipulation after birth...
Again, I would say it is impossible for anyone to fully round up ALL the pro and cons on a subject as large as "medicine". Most people would agree. And even if Singh and Ernzt had included your point about birth canals (though its a little unclear what that point exactly is) someone else would be posting here complaining that they'd ignored the illegitimacy of "Schziophrenia" as a diagnosis or the dangers of insulin dependence. You simply cannot cover all bases.
And btw I only put quotation marks around the word "dangerous" as from your postings I cannot discern what the evidence is and so have no idea if it is dangerous or not.
Todd if its ok to call you that , i think targeting Singh and Ernzt for NOT commenting on something isnt the best approach if you wish Skeptics like them and others for that matter to support or at least further investigate your claims which then may allow them to comment from a position of having at least been aware of the issue and having researched it suitably to form a view one way or the other. Lambasting them for not sharing your need to highlight the issues you have or being aware of it isnt going to cause or encourage them to do so and instead may indicate to some a wish to include them in your arguement because of their stance on other issues rather than the specific one your tackling.
Your point is very specific and its unlikely that its something they would specifically tackle head on without it being made apparent or directly questioned of them, which may account for them not mentioning it specifically or questioning its dangers , or of course they may have looked into it and disagreed with your findings which is entirely possible also .
Either way im not sure that including them when trying to make your point about birth practises is the best way to highlight the main thing you want to change as it diverts and divides away from the main arguement your trying to put.
Id have thought your points would have been better directed at those who you feel are actually promoting the practises you disagree with or at researchers whom you feel are incorrect in their conclusions surrounding it rather than at those who arent promoting it or who are unaware of it specifically.
Im guessing that you have an alternative method that you feel would reduce the problems you say conventional medicine is causing in the this specific subject , and id imagine that if that is the case research and evidence to back up this methods prefered results would be the best way to prove your case.
You have mentioned some figures and research that might indicate the pitfalls and dangers of the practises you disagree with , but it would be valuable to offer hard and fast research and evidence of an alternative that might be preferable ....so far its hard to compare the figures against any figures or research that shows a better method with better results for the child and mother to reach anykind of context of what might be best as you havent so far suggested your alternative or shown evidence to indicate that its far safer or has less dangers.
Sorry if it seems reluctant to just take what your saying at face value , the point about closing the birth canal does make sense to me (even from a laypersons view) and i can see the point your trying to make about that and other practises , what im not clear on is the alternative and the facts and figures behind it that might show it to be far more favourable or equally as fraught with problems of another nature .
Also i cant fathom out a motive or reason for conventional practioners to deliberatly stick to a practise that might not provide statistically and scientifically tried and tested the best possible percentage of positive outcome, if as you claim this practise can be proven to result in far more disasters than is acceptable why would you think it is that it continues to be held as the prefered method by them ? What is the benefit or motive for them to continue it if this is the case ? I guess id like to hear the arguement for as well as the arguement against to better understand the whole thing .
Post by lovelyyoungman on Nov 24, 2009 15:40:50 GMT
### Actually, it IS coincidence that Singh and Ernst happen to have criticized my profession. I myself criticize my profession for remaining silent about the bizarre OBGYN birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation practice - just like I criticize Singh and Ernst for the same thing.
Ok, for arguments sake I'll accept that it is complete coincidence that a Chiropractor is attacking 2 people who have extensively criticised chiropractic.
But that still doesn't address my original point which was that you're not targetting the practice as you claim, you're targetting Singh and Ernst. Clearly.
#### Lovelyyoungman (Sperm), you're creating a straw man. I never said Singh and Ernst need to "round up ALL the pro and cons on a subject as large as 'medicine.'"
#### What I've said is that Singh and Ernst are PRETENDING that conventional medicine is mostly "scientific" - when in fact conventional medicine is mostly CAM (unproven) - with much of conventional medicine being CRIMINAL unproven/CAM therapy - like for example the SOMETIMES FATAL birth-canal-closing/SPINAL MANIPULATION child abuse crime of OBGYNs that likely CAUSES infant colic and sends parents to chiropractors for GENTLE spinal manipulation in an attempt to stop babies from crying so much after birth.
Most people would agree.
#### Hopefully, most people can see your straw man argument.
It wasn't straw man argument as much as me misunderstanding what you are trying to say. Which isn't surprising considering your arguments are almost completely unintelligeable.
For that reason I'll state first what I think you're trying to say before I reply to it: You think that most of conventional medicine is unproven and that Singh and Ernst have ignored this.
Erm, ok. I'd invite you to take a look at any conventional (another word for conventional would be "proven") treatment and then look at some peer reviewed journals and the randomised double blind trials within them. That's where you'll find your evidence for "conventional" medicine.
#### Your straw man argument train of thought just took a dirt road.
Post by lovelyyoungman on Nov 24, 2009 19:03:54 GMT
Deeeep breath, ok here goes:
@@@@ I was protesting the bizarre OBGYN birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation practice long before I ever heard about the liars Singh and Ernst.
Yes you might have been, but my point is that WHEN you heard about Singh and Enrnzt's criticism of chiropractic you began to attack them.
@@@@ I am targeting their LIES.
So you admit you're not "targetting the practice". Thankyou.
@@@@ "COMPLETELY UNINTELLIGIBLE"?
Yes, yes and yes for many reasons but then main one being that in the middle of a normal sentence you do this OBGYNS LIE about the 30% opening of the birth canal and all forceps and CAM unproven conventional medicine blah blah blah......Instead of sticking to the point. You do not need to keep restating your claims about birth canals.
@@@@ Most medical procedures are allopathic CAM (unproven) therapies - with many being CRIMINAL allopathic CAM therapies - like for example birth-canal-closing (most births) and birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation when babies get stuck and forceps/vacuums are used to pull (1 in 10 births) - with OBGYNs (obstetricians) LYING to cover-up.
See what I mean?
The incredibly long sentences with multiple sub-clauses do not help either.
Erm, ok. I'd invite you to take a look at any conventional (another word for conventional would be "proven") treatment
@@@@ That's the LIE. Conventional does NOT mean proven.
This bit made me laugh, it makes you sound about 7yrs old. I am aware that the definition of conventional and proven are not the same, however in this case the two words could be interchangeable. This isn't a "LIE", it is simple fact. Conventional medicine is proven to work, that is why it is conventional medicine. We are never going to agree on this topic and I'm not even going to start on your vaccination statements.
Quote: #### Your straw man argument train of thought just took a dirt road.
No it didn't.
@@@@ Yes it did. You are WRONG to say "another word for conventional would be 'proven'" - you are only repeating Singh's lie.
Um, when you said my train of thought had "taken a dirt road" you weren't referring to the sentence above as I hadn't written it then.
I'd also be interested to know why you haven't adequately responded to Fluffet's question about the motivation of obstetricians. You have stated nowhere what gain they might have for continuing this practice that is apparently so dangerous.
To be honest Todd, I'm a little worried for you, from the appearance of your letters it sounds very much like you are in the middle of a manic episode. It might be an idea for you to visit your local Doctor and request a Mood Stabiliser and perhaps some Benzodiazepines and a atypical anti-psychotic.
Post by lovelyyoungman on Nov 25, 2009 13:05:23 GMT
Todd, rejoice, you have browbeaten me into submission and you're right, you have reduced me to ad honinem attacks.
But ask yourself this, after your many posts on here all I have in my brain is something vague about 30% birth canal openings, so was it worth it? I have little idea of the point your trying to make other than its something to do with "tiny spinal columns". I would genuinely be interested to know more about the subject but find any debate with you instantly becomes confrontational and nonsensical. Others on here have had a similar experience.
Your approach to getting your message out is a very bizarre and indirect one, I think fluffet puts it far better than me in the thread "God as the best psychic - ancient anti-Semitism". You also genuinely come across as someone with a mental health problem, that wasn't meant as a dig, it was said out of genuine concern. If you're not mentally ill then I seriously think you need to reconsider how you present your evidence/argument.
I feel sad for you as you obviously believe passionately in what you do but it has become very apparent that you simply don't have the skills to put your message across effectively.
I also feel sad as I know that you're going to cut up what I say here and indisperse it with %%%% and write thinks like....
"Lovelyoungman (sperm) wrote 'I feel sad'
@@@@ I feel sad that babies are dying because of OB lie#1"
And there was me thinking the 'God as the best psychic' thread was difficult to understand. Lovelyoungman you have the patience of a saint mate. I just cannot be ars*d wading through Todds posts here and try to make sense of them - I'm only 47 and got my life ahead of me yet.
morganp
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
Intracranial hemorrhages are COMMON: One recent MRI study indicated that a whopping 26% of babies suffer unexplained intracranial hemorrhages
You mean the study that ended with this discussion of their results: "We found that 26% of asymptomatic neonates delivered vaginally had ICH * at MR imaging, and this finding suggests that ICH is a fairly common consequence of a normal vaginal delivery. ICH has been thought to be unusual in full-term neonates (1,8,20–27), though the results of this study and those of the study of Whitby et al (28) suggest otherwise. "
"In our study, neither assisted vaginal delivery nor evidence of neonatal birth trauma could be used to predict the presence of ICH; most (13 of 17, 76%) of the cases of ICH were in the setting of nonassisted vaginal birth. This finding is in agreement with that of Whitby et al (28), who described nine neonates with asymptomatic hemorrhage; in six of the nine neonates, hemorrhage was associated with assisted delivery; in only two of nine neonates with subdural hemorrhages, external birth trauma was an associated finding. The authors concluded that a subdural hematoma was not necessarily associated with obvious birth trauma."
"Our findings indicate that vaginal birth may be inherently traumatic to the neonatal brain and can result in a spectrum of ICHs, which include subdural hematomas and subarachnoid, intraparenchymal, and germinal matrix hemorrhages. Holden et al (16) pointed out that retinal hemorrhage also is observed in 20%–40% of newborns and that red blood cells often are found in the cerebrospinal fluid of newborns, and these findings indicate that there is trauma after vaginal birth. The long-term consequences of these hemorrhages are unknown at this time, though it is likely that small subdural hemorrhages resolve quickly without substantial consequence."
*(ICH refers to intracranial hemorrhages)
So the study is suggesting that ICH and/or trauma has always been a factor in vaginal birth and nowhere in it did it specify exactly which sort of birth each woman undertook so there is no way we can make any assumption between ICH and semi-sitting/dorsal. Also, if 26% of births have ICH (keep in mind this was a small study and the sample size was limited) then 74% were without major problems to the baby. Even if this trauma was linked to your claim that the birth canal is knowingly and with malevolence closed (would you mind linking us to a precise study that actually references this as 30%) that doesn't immediately denote chiropractic methods as worthwhile. It's a separate issue.
Semi-sitting is not the best position for birth because it's not an upright position, I agree, but it is the best position for medical access. Medics don't want this better access so they can enjoy the show or unleash their psychopathic urges upon your baby's head - they want better access so they can help with the birth's complications. All birthing positions have advantages and disadvantages and claiming that this one's disadvantages outweigh the benefits and are intentionally practiced to harm the baby or even purposefully cause their deaths is ignorant. Or just willfully manipulating the 'information'.
Can you provide us with evidence for these deaths occurring during that birthing position? You don't provide proficient evidence/studies/scientific links/medical journals for the most extreme pieces of 'data' you give.
One question I would like to know your opinion on is (though I don't share your belief in it): what's the benefit in doctors lying?
Post by lovelyyoungman on Nov 25, 2009 16:26:44 GMT
MissTea you have my utmost admiration (and a Karma). One, for presenting a clearly thought out argument based on analysis of the evidence. Two, for presenting a far better case than I have over the last few days. But mainly you have my admiration for the fact that you've seen the bizarre rantings over the last couple of pages and you're still prepared to wade in on this. Fair play.
Yep, I was right. Does that make me this site's first Good Psychic?
Now dont you go getting a diamonique earing , spray tan and dental work that would blind at ten paces LYM....anymore of this psychic career consideration and im afraid i will have to don the my tinfoil BS helmet and invoke the intervention siren
Post by lovelyyoungman on Nov 25, 2009 22:44:26 GMT
Well, I already spend a lot of time in dark buildings telling lies to dim women, so I'm halfway there! Maybe I should get the earring/tan/dental work, then they might stop running away......