|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: serious scientific controversial issue in basic GynecologyFrom: kamala nag (kamainvent@yahoo.com)Thu Aug 28 13:48:54 2008
Dear Dr. Raymond, Dear Steve Raymond, Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your time. Answers to your queries are already in the web content and again I will explain you: 1. Using the catheter is not the only step to give you 'take home baby', but offers major contribution ( along with quality of other variables), to the physiology of the complex process of conception. It is one of the seven prerequisites of conception. In my private practice, I used the catheter to get successful results for infertile patients, 20 years ago. We are physicians to treat patient scientifically in right manner using our in-depth knowledge. To conduct comparative study, nobody can use the technology unless transferred to one authority. Faculties are interested for it¢s educational potential and FDA is ready with CRADA agreement. 2. However, my evidence based study in 29 patients sonography films shows the mathematical difference in accurate angles that the technique straightens the uterocervical angle, and the tip of the extremely soft catheter in the lower uterine segment. It is impossible to insert the invented catheter without using the special technique that dilates it's passage to enable smooth entry. The in-depth knowledge is how to get these results with absolutely empty urinary bladder and comfortable position of the patient. Please see details in my clinical study page on the website. 3. In 1885, when Gray¢s book was published, there was no other way to teach students, the continuity of the three dimensional passage of reproductive system. So, entire passage was represented in two dimensional diagram as a straight passage. As seen on operating table, the uterus is acutely angulated on cervix, as also seen in the side view illustration. We see the back surface of the uterus first and not the front surface. No woman in the world has straight reproductive passage, but all gynecological instruments are designed straight to match the straight diagram and taught accordingly with straight anatomical models. May be you will have more questions, and I will be more than happy to answer you. Regards. Kamala Mokha-Nag M.D. Phone 415-933-5771 --- On Wed, 8/27/08, Raymond Stephen <Stephen.Raymond@dhhs.tas.gov.au> wrote: From: Raymond Stephen <Stephen.Raymond@dhhs.tas.gov.au> Subject: Re: serious scientific controversial issue in basic Gynecology To: "Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L" <ob-gyn-l@mail.obgyn.net> Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 6:22 PM My response to this is: 1. Where is the evidence that this catheter improves outcomes? Have you any comparative studies to show an improvement in "take home baby" rates over other techniques. 2. Why do you presume that no-one can re-interpret a two dimensional drawing into three dimensions especially after years of residency and hours spent in operating on the female pelvis? The allegation that "errorful (sic) medical teaching" is a "serious scientific and ethical issue" is just laughable. If you have invented a new instrument, which you feel is an advance, then prove the advantages and present it seriously without the emotional and hysterical hype that the web site displays. Steve Raymond Ph (03)62227898 Cell 0438372395 -----Original Message----- From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of kamala Mokha-Nag Sent: Thursday, 28 August 2008 7:53 AM To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L Subject: serious scientific controversial issue in basic Gynecology Hello, I am inviting the world audience to participate in open discussion on the serious scientific and ethical issue presented on website http://www.geneticpeace.com The issue is about the errorful medical teaching and practice all over the world. Nobody has authority to rectify the error being continued for 150 years, that is although wrongful, it is legal and implement new advanced knowledge with all credibility. Thank you. Kamala Mokha-Nag M.D. P.O.Box 190893 San Francisco, CA 94119 Phone : 415-933-5771 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER The information in this transmission may be confidential and/or protected by legal professional privilege, and is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you are not such a person, you are warned that any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised. If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately contact this office by telephone, fax or email, to inform us of the error and to enable arrangements to be made for the destruction of the transmission, or its return at our cost. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission. If the transmission contains advice, the advice is based on instructions in relation to, and is provided to the addressee in connection with, the matter mentioned above. Responsibility is not accepted for reliance upon it by any other person or for any other purpose.
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 05:12:25 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.