Things one cannot mention on Mothing.com 

1) your child’s death was preventable

2) links to the skeptical OB blog

3) links to your own blog

4) the fact that you can’t post these things and that they are all being deleted  

Please go to MDC and post the link to Childbirth Truth Squad so it can be added to this illustrious list.

liz p
OFF topic, but stupid MDC! they took off a thread where someone was talking about MY birth and i responded and was participating in a good discussion and they removed the thread “for review” now it is back, months later-with EVERY ONE of my posts removed, without any explanation of a chance for me to edit.and i was SOOOOO nice on that thread.
so naturally i responded again…
http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1286514/read-a-scary-story-questioning-homebirth/20#post_16130368

Here’s a post that denies the existence of the bulk of the data and research cytotec.  Like all drugs, most the research and data is within the pharmaceutical industry and for regulatory functions.   Pharmaceutical companies recruit medical school faculty from large, big-name institutions to publish select parts of their work as their own.  

This was not done for Cytotec and its OB indications because its manufacturer, Searle, did not want to be seen as pushing a drug that could also be used as an abortion pill, due to threats of boycotts.     Only a few independent studies, case reports really, exist outside in the literature, as a result.   The bulk of the data on this drug is in regulatory archives. 

This author is blissfully unaware of this and expresses complete confidence in conclusions that are based on her skewed, minsicule section of the data.

http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=1189#comments

 

     Henci Groer

1. August 7th, 2010 at 13:01 | #4

Reply | Quote

I’m not exactly sure what you are referring to, but Searle has NEVER conducted research into misoprostol’s use as an obstetric agent, and, as my blog post makes clear, other agents are just as effective (prostaglandin E2 results in identical cesarean rates) while carrying a lower risk profile. Specifically, with respect to pre-eclampsia, as I also made clear in my blog post, misoprostol is MUCH more dangerous than prostaglandin E2.

b

August 10th, 2010 at 06:35 | #5

Reply | Quote

“I’m not exactly sure what you are referring to, but Searle has NEVER conducted research into misoprostol’s use as an obstetric agent”

This is completely ridiculous. Searle and its successors have about 20 re-lablings of the drug. In every single blasted one of them, as in the original research, its abortifacient/obstetrical properties must be addressed.

Your extremely limited knowledge and unscientific skills don’t allow you to know about these and access them. This is obvious plain-as-the-nose on-your-face level stuff to anyone in pharma or medicine. And you don’t even know it exists!!!

The only way anyone knows cytotec can do these things is because it was found to cause spontaneous abortions in Phase III.   Searle originally explored marketing this drug as the first abortion pill, but backed away due to threats of boycott or vandelism by anti-abortion groups. Its induction properties were also investigated at the same time, which is where the OB community got the idea from!!!!!

They have to file reports. They have to keep track of adverse effects and other things, whether they are in label or not.

Searle and successors have been able to have their cake and it too by not seeking FDA approval.   They avoided the anti-abortion anger and then later any product liability related to for OB.   Nevertheless, it is widely used for both.   I mean really, who uses this drug for ulcers anymore?   It would have been relegated to the generic heap a long time ago, if that was the case.   They have also been accused from time to time for covertly marketing it as an OB drug.   Its acquistion of Roche’s women’s health product line in the 90’s was partly motivated by the need to have an excuse for it to be doing things with OBs!!!

They have been researching this “side effect” for over 25 years.

If you disagree with the blatantly obvious facts presented here, what is your story as to how this drug came to be so widely used for these off-label uses?   I can’t wait to hear the laughably implausiable “old midwives tale”.   The OBs that, you know, just don’t follow the evidence, just grabbed any ol’ drug off the formulary shelf and gave it to a mom in labor…….

Bottom line is you don’t know what you are talking about because you know so little about medicine, research, and pharma. You only access data that unscientific amateurs can find through Google while watching Grey’s Anatomy.

Obviously, your comments demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about the pharmaceutical industry and its research and regulation. Your comments, like most of this forum are amateurish attempts to present your agenda, beliefs and professional self-interests as science.

b

August 12th, 2010 at 10:43 | #6

Reply | Quote

Oh, yeah, right Searle NEVER did research on cytotec for obstetrics. Geez.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/29/world/us-may-allow-anti-ulcer-drug-tied-to-abortion.html

“Ms. Bruno said the drug’s abortion-inducing effects were tested only to assess the dangers to patients taking it for other reasons.”

“To test the drug’s hazards in pregnancy, Ms. Bruno said, Searle gave Cytotec to a small group of women in their first trimester of pregnancy who planned on having abortions. The tests, conducted in West Germany in the early 1980’s, showed that the drug caused ”uterine expulsion and bleeding,” Ms. Bruno said.”

“Dr. Richard Glasow, another official of National Right to Life, said the group had not yet decided what actions to take against Searle, but that a boycott of Searle products, including Nutrasweet, was a possiblity.”

Once again, there is ignorance of the meaning of a confidence interval that excludes or is skewed away from the null hypothesis — no matter how wide.  In fact if it is wide is very, very bad,  if it is against your position.   There’s also an ignorance that this one is probably wide for reasons other than lack of power.   Lastly, even if it is from lack of power, the basic conclusion is extremely unlikely to change when interval excludes the null or is skewed.   

http://academicobgyn.com

In response to childbirthtruthsquad on July 27, 2010 at 8:39 pm:

From original comment

The CI gets narrower, most likely around the center of the CI, since there’s a 95% the true is somewhere in there and is normally distributed within it. So, if the CI was about .3-6, the true, when it gets “powered up” (BTW, how does one do that statistically?) will probably be around 3. How [...]

>> So, if the CI was about .3-6, the true, when it gets “powered up” (BTW, how does one do that statistically?) will probably be around 3.

Fogelson

“This is really not true. Theoretically the most common true value is in the center, but in aggregate it is most likely that it is not near the center, as there are many other values. In a standard distribution, the center is still only about 20% of the volume of the curve.”

Explain how this is different than what I said.  The absolute center is the single most likely value.   The fact that all the others combined have a greater likelihood is hardly interesting or a gotcha point.     Besides, you are completely missing the point.   When power increases (NOT the main problem here BTW) the CIs get narrower.  That  increases the chance that the true is closer to the mean in absolute terms,  because the SD gets smaller.    

“In a standard distribution, the center is still only about 20% of the volume of the curve.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

Umm, no.   Within one std. deviation is about 2/3 of the data.   If you want to target a smaller percentage that is less than 1 SD, that’s your choice, but that’s all it is.   

Fogelson

“The point is that you don’t know where in the distribution the truth.”

Uhh, yeah.  That’s why God invented confidence intervals.  And your point is….?

If they are normally distributed one can calculate the probability of the true value being above or below a value in the CI , below, or in between 2.    The single most likely answer, though, is in the exact middle.     Try this, see if it helps.

http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/z_table.html

“ If we could just assume it was in the middle we wouldn’t need more power.”

No one (well, no one who knows what they are talking about) said you needed more power.   The reason this one is wide probably isn’t due to lack of power.    It is more likely due to the number of non-random variables from combining studies in a meta.    If you get your info from the Statistics for Non-Majors book,  the simplistic soundbite won’t tell you that wide=lack of power is limited to, well, simplistic situations like  single study randomized controls.  

And the kicker is, even if it needed more power and you got it, it is unlikely that it would change the basic conclusion of homebirth as deadly and unlikely to change the multiple by which it is that it is very deadly.

We are not assuming the middle.  Simply the mathematical fact is that it is the single most likely and as you go farther out on either side one is more and more likely to encompass the true.   But going only slightly out captures the bulk pretty quickly.   If you lack power and add more subjects, it only make the CI narrower.   It is still most likely to be centered around the mean or close to it.    And narrower it gets, the more likely the true is closer to the mean.

Got any links to back-up your points?

The most important thing in this example is that the entire CI falls to the right.  The right, in this case, is contrary to equal/favorable position of midwifery argument.   Everything to the right means the midwives are more deadly.  So, the fact that it is wide and the entire interval falls to the right is much, much worse for your argument.   When the null is not within the 95% CI, or skewed away from it,  the chance of equality between the options is miniscule.

From the link:

http://www.childrens-mercy.org/stats/journal/confidence.asp

“How to Interpret a Confidence Interval

Here’s an example of a confidence interval that excludes the null value. If we assume that larger implies better, then the interval shown below would imply a statistically significant improvement.”   (See graphic illustration in link)

When entire 95% confidence interval is to the right of the null, and the right is the opposite of your position it is very, very bad for that position.  You have this problem, a problem that widens the CI, that should have *helped you* move towards and encompass and be more centered over the null (i.e. the null supports that homebirth was equal).   Nevertheless the entire friggin’ thing was to the right!

It addresses lay midwives that have gotten the licensure they have craved.  Now, that it means regulation goes with it, oh they don’t want that part, they only want the advantages!!   Note how on-line behavior mirrors off-line. 

They seek to “delete” complaints made to the state licensing board about them, the way they delete critics on their blogs.    Again, it turns into personal attacks on their critics and claims of  persecution, instead of addressing the criticisms.

@russ

“Anony-b said – “In Oregon, this seems to have morphed into “have your cake and eat it too”. In other words, they licensing to get access to insurance and to help get the patients via the impression of the state’s seal of approval. They want all the benefits. But, they don’t people to actually be able to complain about them to the state licensing board!!””

“First of all, let me suggest you slow down and review your posts more carefully before releasing them. You make a lot of mistakes in putting your words together which does not help you develop credibility.”

No, most reasonable people in cyberspace will assume that my fantabulous geekiness and winning personality give me a lot of off-line competition for my time and attention.  Therefore, I have little time to spend on this.   Plus, my credibility is enhanced by the lack of self-promotion.

Those seeking objective information appreciate that I spent what little time I have to check the so-called “validation” of the Netherlands so-called “data” that is the main subject of this post.  I discovered that it was fabricated by the researchers.    Ya can’t get doozies like that from a spell-check can, ya?   If I wrote  “the dada wuz fabercated” its still the biggest news in the commentary, if it is documented via citations.

Why can’t anyone address this?

 “As for the Oregon issue, the experience from around the country is that the vast majority of complaints against licensed midwives arise from healthcare providers in the hospital who are hostile to home birth after an intrapartum transport.”

Who cares?   Answering complaints is part of what you sign up for when you get licensed.  They might be patients who didn’t understand.  Most professional discipline is from other health professionals who don’t like you.   People who love you don’t file complaints even when they are deserved.  None of this is anything new.   Again, it shows how clueless midwives are about how things work.    How self-referential they are.   How often they expect special treatment.  

You are supposed to answer them on the merits.  Not evade them. 

But this should surprise no one since they evade valid criticisms on-line and instead attack those who raise the issue.

This was submitted over a day ago.   It hasn’t been posted, yet.    It is another example of an orchestrated ending.  Debate is allowed up to a point.   Then, it is cut off to give the false impression that the Midwifery side was soooo right, the opponent conceded and didn’t reply.

This post is essentially CBTS Cliff Notes.   It summarizes all the bad behavior of midwives, just on-line and, by doing so, shows why those who debate them need to be anonymous to protect themselves from these sociopaths. 

Their tactics of attacking dissenters instead of addressing the rather dry, boring scientific criticisms speaks louder than their words.

It also highlights the midwifery double standard.   They can choose to be anonymous, but no one else should.

@russ

“Greetings Anony-b,”

Oh, no, you have me mistaken with your friend Anony-B (big B that is).  That’s OK.  We look so much alike that I mistook myself for her.   Or maybe your other friend Anony-bennifer or your other friend Anony-bmanda, or pretty much all your friends.

“I must point out that there is a bit of a mismatch in this contest. You are entirely anonymous, b, and free to say whatever you like with no accountability, while I am accountable for my words.”

Not really. People can’t be accountable for their words when they can’t be assured they will be theirs.  They are always subject to the selective censorship and the editing of others.   And non-midwifery types don’t act like sociopaths, on-line or off-line, so you are not risking anything or doing anything noble.    

If midwifery is such a great thing for women, why do they always have to resort to these dirty tactics.  Why are they always trying to control the information women see?  Why do they attack and silence dissent and dissenters?   

Do you get your blog comments deleted? (http://childbirthtruthsquad.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/can%e2%80%99t-see-the-forest-through-the-trees/)

Do you get your blog comments held back, posted out of order and long after the discussion has moved on? (http://childbirthtruthsquad.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/keeping-baby-close-the-importance-of-high-touch-parenting-and-deleting-correct-information/)

Do you get your quotes truncated to change their meaning?  (Indiana fanny comment #12, chopping and re-imaging #10)

Do your comments get banned towards the end so your debate partner can have the last word and orchestrate the ending she would like?  (http://childbirthtruthsquad.wordpress.com/our-bodies-ourselves-our-delete-button/) 

Do you get people telling tall tales about things that you never posted on your own blog on other blogs?  (http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2010/08/breastfeeding-and-what-it-means-to-be.html   in the comment, I don’t mean the post itself)

Do you non-midwifery blogs not safeguard information covertly collected?  http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/

Do you face tangible off-line retaliation ?  (http://childbirthtruthsquad.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/midwife-on-midwife-violence/)

Do your comments get deleted on neutral websites via strategic use of the Flag for Abuse button?

“Why don’t we make it more fun and you can tell us who you are with all of your outstanding credentials.”

What credentials do you need to state the main counter-argument to this post? 

If you look up the Mother of All Birth Studies, the subject of this post, it says nothing like what the poster or its authors claim it does when you look up the paper AND its citations.   She posits we should all accept the conclusion and move along.    But, the  ‘data’ relied on here, the “study” that is supposed to convince us all to let midwives take over US maternity care, isn’t “data” or a “study” at all.    It is a couple of midwives that used a completely invented connection between homebirth and its outcomes.

I mean, c’mon, why doesn’t any one address this, the silence is deafening.   No pat answer in the Statistics for Non-Majors book eh?

REPEAT

Amy Romona opined:
“de Jonge: midwives routinely record the planned place of birth in a national perinatal database that covers 99% of births and is linked to another database of neonatal deaths by a validated method.”

There’s no “perinatal database” RTFM. The entire thing was through statistical guessing linking Midwife to OB and then peds databases. There’s no actual data in this so-called study!! Where babies that died were intended to be born in this is no more than a guess.

THIS IS THE CITATION IN DEJONGE NEXT TO THE CLAIM THE DATA WAS VALIDLY LINKED

From the J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;60(9):883-91. Epub 2007 May 17.Probabilistic record linkage is a valid and transparent tool to combine databases without a patient identification number.Méray N, Reitsma JB, Ravelli AC, Bonsel GJ.
Academic Medical Centrum (AMC), Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. (document listed by DeJonge as the method they used)

“All four perinatal caregivers create records in one of four independent registries: the registry of midwives (LVR1 or MR), of general practitioners (LVR-h), of obstetricians (LVR2 or OR), and of pediatricians (LNR or PR), respectively, with partial records in case of transfer. Because of privacy laws of the Netherlands, no unique personal identifier (of the mother or child) is available to combine records.”

And in case you weren’t aware, there’s no way to definitive validate anonymous databases, otherwise, ya know, they wouldn’t be anonymous. Only a small percentage matched on a small set of variables, and only a very small percent of those were unique.

The full text is up at science direct http://www.sciencedirect.com/

J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;60(9):883-91. Epub 2007 May 17.Probabilistic record linkage is a valid and transparent tool to combine databases without a patient identification number.Méray N, Reitsma JB, Ravelli AC, Bonsel GJ.
Academic Medical Centrum (AMC), Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

“In absence of a large sample of validated pairs to independently estimate the awards and penalties, we used standard maximum likelihood techniques to estimate these weights from the data itself and to estimate the threshold”

In other words, they guessed.

There was a huge discussion on “Skeptical OB” about the website “My OB Said What” and how the owners/sponsors were not listed on the site.

Who is the owner of this website? Why are you hiding your identity?

Posters have to share their name and their email before they post, why are yours hidden?

 | NavelgazingMidwife
August 21, 2010 at 1:42 am | edit

Oooo, your site is delicious. Of course I hope I never find myself here but in the comments, but I fully support what you are doing. I’ve been viciously attacked, on-line and off, for speaking out about midwives and their actions towards clients, their need for more education and, just last week, I was removed from my Peer Review because I “spend too much time on the Internet and might not have the proper discretion” when it comes to midwives and their care. Not kidding. I was also advised to move because I was, for all intents and purposes, a midwife-non-grata.

Well, I’m not leaving and now feel an even greater urge to disclose the inner workings of homebirth midwifery. I might never work here again, but at least I will be speaking the truth.

Thank you for being here. Very, very much.

You see, home birth declined in the 1930s… the exact same time social security was invented!!!!   So, therefore….…..  

Jennifer

August 18th, 2010 at 21:38 | #33

Reply | Quote

@Amanda- You might expect this kind of bias from someone with an interest in the collection and analysis of birth data. Before 1986, people didn’t get a Social Security number until around age 14. By 1990, the age was lowered to 1 year and now parents apply for Social Security numbers for their children at birth. Giving birth in an institution allows for cleaner data and facilitates tracking, which helps prevent fraudulent claiming of dependents. Which, of course, helps our country’s bottom line financially.

The idea that women who give birth outside of institutions and the notion that midwives are lawless rule-despisers working off-the-grid is old. Really old. Birth moved from the home to hospitals around the time that the Social Security Act of 1935 was enacted. The act was passed in 1935 and between 1938 and 1948, the hospital birth rate went from 55% to 90%. Social security taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and, obviously, the point of the SS number was to track individual’s accounts within the Social Security program and has become the de facto identifier of U.S. tax payers.

The tracking of maternally-linked perinatal data would be much easier if everyone just gave birth in the hospital. Out of hospital births are seen as potentially fraudulent and off-the-grid and midwives are viewed by statisticians as a potentially dishonest disruption in the production of clean, uncorrupted data.

“Giving birth in an institution allows for cleaner data and facilitates tracking, which helps prevent fraudulent claiming of dependents. Which, of course, helps our country’s bottom line financially.”

 

August 20th, 2010 at 09:03 | #44

Reply | Quote

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@jennifer

“@b- I was baiting you with … history from your web site.”

So, in other words, you are now claiming you were doing something sneaky to victimize women. And then you rant for an entire post that midwives are falsely accused of doing sneaky things to victimize women?!!!

ROTFLMAO!!!! And you wonder why most women don’t want you. Remember, actions speak louder than words. You guys (sorry, gals) are your own worst enemies.

Or maybe you really were a conspiracy theorists and are changing your story, because you are embarrassed when things are pointed out like this one. http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2010/08/uks-leading-midwife-caught-using-make.html Either way, it’s bad for you and your so-called cause.

I must have really struck a nerve to elicit the hat trick of posts deleted again . http://childbirthtruthsquad.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/home-birth-and-neonatal-death-who-do-we-believe/ , the patellar reflex “witchhunt” accusations and the other Groupthink defensiveness.

“This, combined with your previous comment about border midwives, shows that you believe”

No, I think it shows what you believe and what you are like:

Since no one can respond to main topic here, the cheerleading about a midwifery study that has turned out to have completely fabricated data, you changed topic and solicited comments on midwifery bad behavior. Then, you complain “how dare someone have heard about patterns of midwifery bad behavior”. I believe you have called that derailing in another post.

The only thing midwives want to censor more than data that shows they are deadly is evidence of bad behavior. Patterns (not isolated l incidents of individuals) of dishonesty (like fabricating your supporting facts or data, admitting you were trying to deceive women), patterns of criminal behavior, evidence that they are aware deaths are higher but value midwifery birth more, and mostly patterns of being really, really mean to pregnant women that they screw up on to name a few.

They don’t want people to know about all the collateral damage they cause in the lives of other people.

But, your sexism is really showing here.

Fraudulent birth certificates don’t require a conspiracy between a midwife and a sneaky *woman*. The dad or some male relative could have done it. And they could have been desperate or deceived, by the midwife for all we know. The parents were not accused of any wrongdoing. But, the innocent victims are all those babies, now middle aged. Regardless of whether some adults did something wrong on their behalf or not, they were all victims because could not get passports and denied other rights we enjoy, for a long time, because of midwifery criminal activity.

Drug addicted moms? Since drug addicts really don’t have full control of their faculties, they are hardly some “sneaky woman” who can “conspire”. Again, they are desperate and disabled….and taken advantage of by midwives. A health professional that sees them and knows, has an obligation to them to address this, not enable it by giving the drug addict whatever she asks for, because the midwife can’t attract enough patients. Again, she is really a secondary victim.

And the rest – those reports comes from the horse’s mouth.
http://blogs.babble.com/famecrawler/2010/07/22/mayim-bialik-childbirth-home-birth/

“There are those among us who believe that if the baby can’t survive a home labor, it is OK for it to pass peacefully,” she writes. “I do not subscribe to this, but I know that some feel that … if a baby cannot make it through birth, it is not favored evolutionarily.”

BMJ 2005;330:1416 (18 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7505.1416 “Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America” Kenneth C Johnson, senior epidemiologist1, Betty-Anne Daviss, project manager2

“and three babies with fatal birth defects”

Lethal congenital anomalies (n = 3): Dwarf and related anomalies, Acrocallosal syndrome, Trisomy 13 “

Except, only one of these is considered a lethal anomaly.

The other two should have the majority survive.

This is, again, Midwiferyspeak with “rudeness”= showing their criticisms of studies unfavorable to midwives has no mathematical or scientific basis.   They are rather oblivious to the rudeness they visit on mothers.

“Could you be any more rude or condescending toward midwives and the women who choose to see them for care?”

No, I’m number two, because I don’t try as hard as LaMaze. ; )   LaMaze is the one doing focus groups that tell it most women actually *like* a scientific approach (as in doctors and hospitals)  in their maternity care.    Then, it dresses up its own non-scientific cult-like beliefs in statistical and research jargon in an attempt to deceive women and shove midwifery down our throats.

Could this be any more rude and condescending, http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=1370   saying  that majority of women who  don’t believe what they do, because it has no  basis in fact,  have to be worked on, persuaded until we believe the “right” way (their way).

Could this be any more condescending and rude http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=1386  Telling the majority of us women that if we don’t believe in their alternative parenting techniques, we are incompetent and uncaring parents?  

Could this be any more condescending and rude and really sick too? http://ecmama.blogspot.com/search/label/midwife%20malpractice    The way midwives and supporters treat their victims when the you-know-what hits the fan and the hidden truth that, no, they don’t do everything the same as doctors reaches its deadly conclusion , is truly vile.

“I myself have a Ph.D. in a science field”

Yeah, yeah, yeah, fine, whatever.  There’s an osteopath who frequents these discussions who tells everyone she’s a medical student, too.   And midwives claim their research is “high quality” even when it is researchers admit the data is their own fabrication.   This is on-line.  We could all be homeless people typing from a public terminal.    

If you have research know-how, show it.  Be able to use terms appropriately.  Be able to answer questions.  Be able to talk logically about the literature.    Don’t make excuses for your bad data with speculations that implausible one-in-a-million occurrences happen over and over and over again.

“that midwives and their clients aren’t intelligent enough to “figure out” the medical literature. That’s patently false, and in my opinion just plain rude.”

1)    If you think that the Pang study conclusions could change dramatically based on a few miscategorizations, then you can’t figure out the medical literature.

2)     If you imply the lack of a forest plot is some kind of fatal flaw then you can’t figure out the medical literature. 

3)    If you think that a confidence interval (95%), all of which falls on the side opposite your position, isn’t a big problem for your argument, you can’t figure out the medical literature. 

4)     If you think an analysis of two different databases where the researchers completely invented the association between the cause and effects is the Mother of All Birth Studies, then you can’t figure out the medical literature.   

How dare anyone notice this.   How dare anyone anger the women who are trying to promote themselves and profit from this façade.

“I approach research with objectivity, as everyone should. Your clear lack of objectivity severely undermines your credibility on this topic, at least with me…”

Yeah right.  You guys (gals really) are so Orwellian it is scary. 

Midwiferyspeak  

Lamaze Groupthink = Objectivity.  

Normal Birth = whatever LaMaze says it does and don’t you dare challenge us. 

High Quality Research = any writing, that is not even a study, that doesn’t even contain real data that denies the dangers of midwifery

Flawed, Poor Quality Research = any study that bends over backwards to have criteria and methods that favors midwives, yet finds they are deadly anyway