Women’s Health Risks

by Gary Null, Ph.D., Debora Rasio, M.D.,
and Martin Feldman, M.D.


During the past century, a
medical establishment has
evolved that has positioned
itself as the exclusive provider
of so-called scientific, evidencebased
therapies. For the first
70 years of the 20th century,
little effort was made to
challenge the establishment’s
paradigm, which we call the
orthodox medical approach.
In the past 30 years, however,
there has been a growing
awareness of the importance
of an alternative approach to
medical care, one that, either
on its own or as a complement
to orthodox medicine, emphasizes
nontoxic and noninvasive
treatments and prevention.
Unfortunately, this new perspective has been fought vigorously. We’ve been
told that it is only the treatments of orthodox medicine that have passed
careful scientific scrutiny involving double-blind placebo-controlled studies.
We’ve also been told that alternative or complementary health care does
not have any science to back it up, only anecdotal evidence. These two ideas
have led to the widely accepted “truths” that anyone offering an alternative
or complementary approach is depriving patients of the proven benefits
of safe and effective care, and that people not only do not get well with
alternative care but actually are endangered by it.
With this report, we question the status quo in one area of orthodox medicine:
practices related to women’s health. Our review of the medical literature
shows that the safety and effectiveness of many orthodox treatments cannot
be assumed. We present dozens of research summaries which reveal that
conventional treatments may not deliver the expected benefits or may be
associated with an increased risk of various health disorders.
This review will be presented in several parts, covering topics ranging from
the use of oral contraceptives to surgical practices such as hysterectomies
and cesarean sections. In this section, we focus on antenatal care, fetal heart
monitoring, and home versus hospital deliveries.
Note that all of the studies included in this report come from mainstream
medicine’s own respected journals, such as the Journal of the American
Medical Association and The Lancet. There is nothing subjective or political
about the conclusions drawn here. The criticism of various therapies in this
series comes not from the “alternative” world but from the very heart of
orthodox medicine itself.
The journal articles speak for themselves. We are a society that claims to live by
the gold standard of scientific research, but this report shows that statement to
be at odds with reality. It shows that we routinely cause iatrogenic conditions
and unnecessary suffering—as well as waste vast sums of money—through a
systemic negligence of the facts. This situation must be challenged and remedied.
Women’s Health Risks
Associated with Orthodox Medicine - Part I
by Gary Null, Ph.D., Debora Rasio, M.D.,
and Martin Feldman, M.D.
20 spring 2004
Antenatal Care
If you assume that more prenatal care equals better
pregnancy outcomes, the following research reports
may come as a surprise. Several studies have found
that fewer prenatal visits to the doctor or fewer medical
procedures resulted in similar or better outcomes than
more visits or more care.
Other studies show that routine ultrasound screening
of low-risk women does not translate to improved health
in newborns. And when it comes to detecting cases of
Down’s syndrome, traditional screening by ultrasound
and maternal age is just as effective as the more costly
method of blood serum screening.
The results of this study, conducted on over 57,000
women, show that those who received the most
amount of prenatal care by their physicians had the
worst pregnancy outcomes and the highest rate of
cesarean sections and induced labor.
—Gissler M, Hemminki E, Amount of antenatal care and
infant outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994
Jul; 56(1):9-14.
The results of this study show that the introduction
of a new program of prenatal care consisting of an
average of 2.7 fewer than usual prenatal visits was
associated with maternal and infant outcomes that
were similar to those of women receiving standard
number of prenatal visits.
—McDuffie RS Jr, Beck A, Bischoff K, Cross J, Orleans M,
Effect of frequency of prenatal care visits on perinatal
outcome among low-risk women. A randomized
controlled trial. JAMA 1996 Mar 20; 275(11):847-51.
This randomized study, conducted on approximately
16,000 women in Zimbabwe, evaluated the effects of
a new prenatal program for pregnant women consisting
of fewer physician visits (an average of 4 instead of
6 visits), and fewer medical procedures per visit, on
maternal and infant outcomes. Women who received
less prenatal visits and less medical procedures had
significantly lower risk of delivering preterm babies
and of experiencing severe hypertension and eclampsia.
Other outcomes were similar in the two groups.
—Munjanja SP, Lindmark G, Nystrom L, Randomised
controlled trial of a reduced-visits programme of
antenatal care in Harare, Zimbabwe. Lancet 1996
Aug 10; 348(9024):364-9.
The results of this study show that routine ultrasound
screening during pregnancy is not associated with
improved newborn health. The study was conducted
on 15,151 low-risk pregnant women randomized into
two groups. Women in the first group received two ultrasound
tests during their pregnancy, those in the second
group received an ultrasound scan only if their doctor
saw a specific medical need for the exam. No differences
in perinatal outcome were detected between the two
groups, indicating that routine ultrasound screening in
low-risk women may increase health care costs without
improving the health of women and their newborns.
—Ewigman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD, LeFevre ML, Bain
RP, McNellis D, Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening
on perinatal outcome. RADIUS Study Group. N Engl J
Med 1993 Sep 16; 329(12):821-7.
The results of this study show that routine ultrasonographic
screening in low-risk pregnant women is not
associated with higher rates of abortion for congenital
anomalies or with improved health outcomes of infants
born with treatable malformations.
—Crane JP, et al., A randomized trial of prenatal
ultrasonographic screening: impact on the detection,
management, and outcome of anomalous fetuses.
The RADIUS Study Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994
Aug; 171(2):392-9.
The results of this study show that blood serum screening,
introduced as the most effective screening method
for Down’s syndrome since 1993, is no more effective
than traditional screening by ultrasound and maternal
age at detecting cases of Down’s syndrome, and is
significantly more costly. The retrospective study was
conducted on all women who gave birth at one institution
in the period 1993 to 1998. Overall, there were
31,259 deliveries, including 53 cases of Down’s syndrome.
The traditional method of screening using maternal age
in combination with ultrasound scans detected 68%
cases of Down’s syndrome, corresponding to the same
effectiveness of screening through blood markers.
Traditional screening has been replaced by blood screening
based on the unverified assumption that traditional
screening could only detect one-third of Down’s cases.
This study, however, demonstrates that the benefits of
blood screening may be much less than supposed, and
undermines the costs-benefit arguments for it.
—DT Howe, et al., Six year survey of screening for
Down’s syndrome by maternal age and mid-trimester
ultrasound scans. BMJ 2000; 320:606-610 (4 March).
pathways 21
Fetal Heart Monitoring
Electronic monitoring of fetal heart rates gets a negative
report card from the research presented here in terms of
its ability to improve fetal outcomes. These studies suggest
that the practice is unnecessary and perhaps harmful.
One study found that fetal heart monitoring does not lead
to a reduced incidence of neurological complications or
perinatal mortality, while another found that premature
babies monitored electronically have a worse neurological
outcome than those monitored with periodic auscultation.
Electronic fetal monitoring also is associated with an
increased rate of cesarean deliveries and a low Apgar
score,8 which is a numerical rating of a baby’s health
immediately after delivery.
This article emphasizes that, despite early results from
uncontrolled trials documenting the beneficial effects
of fetal monitoring, randomized trials have consistently
failed to demonstrate its efficacy in improving fetal outcome.
Electronic monitoring of fetal-heart rates does not
result in a decreased incidence of neurological complications
or perinatal mortality and is, therefore, unnecessary.
—Kaiser G, Do electronic fetal heart rate monitors
improve delivery outcomes? J Fla Med Assoc 1991
May; 78(5):303-7.
This article presents evidence from randomized controlled
trials indicating that fetal heart rate monitoring does not
improve fetal outcome, and its use is therefore unjustified.
—Parer JT, King T, Fetal heart rate monitoring: is it salvageable?
Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000 Apr; 182(4):982-7.
The results of this study indicate that premature babies
who undergo electronic fetal heart rate monitoring have
a worse neurological outcome, compared to those monitored
with periodic auscultation. In the study, 189 premature
babies were randomly assigned to either electronic
fetal monitoring or periodic auscultation. Neurological
assessment performed at the age of 4, 8, and 18 months
revealed that babies monitored electronically had lower
mental- and psychomotor-development scores, compared
to those monitored by periodic auscultation. In addition,
babies who underwent electronic monitoring had a 2.5-
fold increased incidence of cerebral palsy, compared to
those followed by auscultation. Median time to delivery
after the recognition of an abnormal heart rate pattern
was 104 minutes in babies monitored electronically and
60 minutes in those monitored by auscultation. These
data indicate that fetal heart monitoring is ineffective
in improving neurological outcome in prematurely born
babies, and its use may be associated with harm.
—Shy KK, et al., Effects of electronic fetal-heart-rate
monitoring, as compared with periodic auscultation,
on the neurologic development of premature infants.
N Engl J Med 1990 Mar 1; 322(9):588-93.
The results of this study show that electronic fetal monitoring
does not improve delivery outcome, while being
associated with an increased rate of cesarean deliveries
and low Apgar score.
—McCusker J, Harris DR, Hosmer DW Jr., Association of
electronic fetal monitoring during labor with Cesarean
section rate and with neonatal morbidity and mortality.
Am J Public Health 1988 Sep; 78(9):1170-4.
Home Versus
Hospital Delivery
The medical literature offers
some encouraging news
about the option of delivering
at home. A handful of
studies, most published
since 1995, attest to the
safety and effectiveness of
home deliveries.
These studies attribute a
variety of positive results
to midwife-managed care.
In one study, the risk of
infant and neonatal death
and the likelihood of delivering
a low-birth-weight
baby were lower in
midwife-attended births,
compared with physicianattended
births. Another
study found that women
in midwife-attended
22 spring 2004
deliveries were less likely to undergo a cesarean
section and that fewer diagnoses of fetal distress
were made.
In total, the studies point to less intervention in midwife-
assisted deliveries. A 1996 study in The Lancet
found that labor was initiated less often in women
attended by midwives only than in women attended
by physicians and midwives. Significantly more women
were satisfied with the midwife-managed care than
with the care managed by a physician and midwife.
The results of this study show that the pregnancy
outcome of women who delivered their first baby
at home is as good as that of women who gave birth
to their first baby in the hospital. On the other hand,
women who gave birth to at least one child and
planned to deliver at home had significantly better
pregnancy outcomes than those who planned to
deliver in the hospital, indicating that home delivery
is as safe, or safer, than hospital delivery.
—Wiegers TA, Keirse MJ, van der Zee J, Berghs GA,
Outcome of planned home and planned hospital births
in low risk pregnancies: prospective study in midwifery
practices in The Netherlands. BMJ 1996 Nov 23;
313(7068):1309-13.
This letter was written in reply to an article published
on the Times of May 20, describing hospital delivery
as being 3 times safer than home delivery. The letter
emphasizes that the author of the Times article
compared data from different countries to reach his
conclusions, although data were actually not comparable.
Evaluation of the National Birthday Trust survey of home
births in the U.K., a certainly more appropriate approach
to the question of safety of home versus
hospital delivery, shows that within a group formed by
3,896 women who delivered at home, there was only one
neonatal death (occurring from 0 to 27 days after birth)
and no stillbirths, compared to 2 neonatal deaths and
2 stillbirths in a control group of similar, low-risk women
who delivered in the hospital. The author concludes that
there is no evidence indicating that home delivery carries
more risk than hospital delivery in properly screened
women. The letter emphasizes that women should
receive accurate, up-to-date information, so that they
may properly choose between home and hospital delivery.
—Chamberlain G, Choosing between home and hospital
delivery. Risk of home birth in Britain cannot be compared
with data from other countries. Letter. BMJ 2000;
320:798 (18 March).
This randomized study, conducted on 1,299 low-risk
pregnant women, evaluated pregnancy outcome in
women attended by midwives only, or by a combination
of midwives, hospital doctors and general physicians.
Labor was initiated significantly more often in women
followed by physicians and midwives than in those
followed by midwives only (33.3% vs. 23.9% of cases).
Women attended only by midwives were more likely
to have an intact perineum and less likely to undergo
episiotomy (surgical enlargement of the vulval orifice
during delivery). Perineal tears and rate of complications
were similar in the two groups. Significantly more women
expressed satisfaction with the midwife-managed care
than with the physician-midwife managed care.
—Turnbull D, et al., Randomised, controlled trial of
efficacy of midwife-managed care. Lancet 1996 Jul 27;
348(9022):213-8.
The results of this study, conducted on all women who
in 1991 delivered by the vaginal route a single baby at
35-43 weeks gestation, show that the risk of infant and
neonatal death is 19% and 33% lower, respectively, in
pathways 23
midwife-attended births compared to physician-attended
births. The likelihood of delivering a low-birth-weight
infant is 31% lower in midwife- versus physician-assisted
deliveries. These results suggest that delivery care
provided by midwives may be superior to that provided
by physicians.
—MacDorman MF, Singh GK, Midwifery care, social
and medical risk factors, and birth outcomes in the USA.
J Epidemiol Community Health 1998 May; 52(5):310-7.
The results of this study show that women attended by
midwives are 30% less likely to undergo cesarean section
compared to those attended by physicians. Furthermore,
a diagnosis of fetal distress is made 50% less often
in babies delivered by midwives, compared to those
delivered by physicians.
—Butler J, Abrams B, Parker J, Roberts JM, Laros RK Jr.,
Supportive nurse-midwife care is associated with a
reduced incidence of Cesarean section. Am J Obstet
Gynecol 1993 May; 168(5):1407-13.
The results of this study show that pregnancy outcomes in
women whose pregnancy has been followed by midwives
are similar to those of women followed by obstetricians,
indicating that routine visits of low-risk pregnant women
by obstetricians are unnecessary. Women who experienced
complications during labor were promptly recognized by
midwives and transferred to obstetrician care.
—Law YY, Lam KY, A randomized controlled trial comparing
midwife-managed care and obstetrician-managed care
for women assessed to be at low risk in the initial intrapartum
period. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1999 Apr;
25(2):107-12.
The results of this study show that pregnancy outcomes
in women who choose to deliver at home and are attended
by midwives are similar to those of women who choose
to deliver in hospital and are attended by obstetricians.
Women who delivered at home received significantly
less medication and fewer medical interventions,
compared to those who delivered in the hospital.
In the case of complications or suspected complications,
women were transferred to the hospital and were
followed up by obstetricians.
—Ackermann-Liebrich U, et al., Home versus hospital
deliveries: follow up study of matched pairs for procedures
and outcome. Zurich Study Team. BMJ 1996 Nov 23;
313(7068):1313-8.
Gary Null, nationally syndicated talk show host & producer
of PBS specials, is a consumer advocate, investigative
reporter, NY Times best-selling author and an award-winning
documentary filmmaker. Gary believes that, “You must be
empowered before you can be whole,” and he empowers all
who will listen with life-changing facts that promote wellness.
Gary has conducted over a hundred major investigations
and has produced numerous documentaries in which
he encourages his viewers to take charge of their lives
and health. Among his dozens of videos are titles like
“The Pain, Profit and Politics of AIDS,” “Chronic Fatigue,”
“Diet for a Lifetime, and “Cancer, A Natural Approach.”
Gary Null lives the active, healthful life that he advocates.
He regularly competes in races and marathons and has
trained thousands of people in his “Natural Living Walking
and Running Club” to do the same.
www.garynull.com/Article.aspx?article=/Documents/
WomenRisksOrthodoxMedPt1.htm
References available online:www.icpa4kids.com
24 spring 2004
Other studies show a sizeable
increase in illnesses throughout
all of childhood for those who were
never breastfed or prematurely
weaned. In fact, an increased risk
of death throughout life has been
well documented for people who were
formula-fed. Higher blood pressure,
more heart disease, obesity, diabetes
and artery disease, a nearly doubled
rate of Crohn’s disease and tripled
rates of celiac disease have all been
associated with early formula feeding.
What your doctor
doesn’t tell you
Pediatricians spend much time frightening
parents with 1 in 100,000 risks
from vaccine-preventable diseases
when parents question the utility
and safety of vaccines. “Would you
want to risk the life of your child?”
they demand. Yet these very same
professionals offer formula samples
with the other hand—when the
magnitude of health risks associated
with the use of formula is 500
times greater.
Parenting is all about making choices
and weighing risks and benefits.
Many parents need to make the
riskier choice of formula feeding in
order to balance other factors that
benefit the family. Yet some parents
who have lost their children, possibly
based on pediatric advice condoning
or encouraging formula-feeding,
would surely wish that they had
been informed of the very real risks
related to using formula.
References available online:
www.icpa4kids.com
Dr. Linda Folden Palmer consults
and lectures on natural infant health,
optimal child nutrition and attachment
parenting. After running a successful
chiropractic practice focused on
nutrition and women’s health for more
than a decade, Linda’s life became
transformed eight years ago by the
birth of her son. Her research into his
particular health challenges led her to
write Baby Matters: What Your Doctor
May Not Tell You About Caring for Your
Baby. Extensively documented, this
healthy parenting book presents the
scientific evidence behind attachment
parenting practices, supporting baby’s
immune system, preventing colic and
sparing drug usage.
You can visit Linda’s web site at
www.babyreference.com.
You can buy her book at
www.icpa4kids.com
incumbent upon you to carry all the weight anymore.
DENNIS: So this is true in microcosm about the Masters
Circle, but in macrocosm about the entire chiropractic
profession, indeed about the world.
BRUCE: About the world, and the nature from anywhere
from a cell going into an organism, a human that’s in relationship,
or a human being a cell in a larger organism or
organization…it is all the same thing. That is why Nature has
always promoted the formation of communities, because it
showed there are limitations on awareness of the individual
but no limitations on awareness of groups of individuals. It’s
as simple as that.
DENNIS: Yes! That sounds simple, but amazingly profound.
I wish everyone knew what you just said.
DENNIS: In finishing up this interview, I would like you
to make a comment about where you see the [chiropractic]
profession is headed. You have a unique perspective, being
a scientist and also being a philosopher. You can see how
society will integrate some of the things we are talking
about. What do you see for Chiropractic down the road?
BRUCE: Well, if they are not self-destructive, which is a
possibility the way I have seen it because of the in-fighting
and all that. If they are not self-destructive, then they are the
wave of the future. Allopaths are the ones who are going to
drop by the wayside, because their abilities are highly
restricted to trauma cases, and outside of that there is very
limited use for them. Since most of us don’t have traumas,
most of us have experiences where our beliefs and perceptions
are altering our physiology and making us sick. This
isn’t trauma, it just means we have to adjust our beliefs
and perceptions, which is part of the whole chiropractic
philosophy. I remember a quote from D.D. Palmer when he
said, “When a member of society has fallen, call upon an
educator to help remove the stumbling block and to teach
them.” This is what Chiropractic can offer. It can offer
to remove stumbling blocks, but it also has the correct
philosophy to be aligned with the science. By following the
philosophy and science of Chiropractic, you will then be
generating health just by your beliefs and your education—
your character when people come into your office. The
nature of it is, Chiropractic has the potential to grow and
become the center of the health profession.
DENNIS: Thank you, Dr. Bruce Lipton, you are one of the most
important people going forward in the Chiropractic profession,
I thank you so very much for the work that you do.
An Interview with Dr. Bruce Lipton continued from page 7