Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

'Terrible acts': Rima Laibow, MD - hypocrite - babies be damned - was Re: Codex, babies and Congressman/Obstetrician Ron Paul, MD

67 views

Skip to first unread message

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 11:54:03 AM9/14/05

"TERRIBLE ACTS": RIMA LAIBOW, MD - HYPOCRITE - BABIES BE DAMNED

PREGNANT WOMEN: There are SIMPLE things you can do to help your baby at
delivery. See below.

OPEN LETTER TO RIMA LAIBOW, MD... (archived for global access; search at
http://groups.google.com)

SHORT VERSION...

Rima, to save time see the very end of this post...

Sorry to be so blunt - calling you a hypocrite.

Your CODEX project is important - but your fellow MDs are committing MASS
BABY ASPHYXIATION - before and after birth.

Your fellow MDs are LYING to cover-up what you call their "terrible acts"...

The MD lies are OBVIOUS (see below). You are violating law and stated
medical ethics (quoted below), helping to perpetuate what you call "terrible
acts"...

Women shouldn't have to ASK for the "extra" up to 30% of pelvic outlet area
for their babies.

Women shouldn't have to ask for the "extra" up to 50% of blood for their
babies.

I am sure that 100% of babies being asphyxiated would agree that the CODEX
problem is a relatively minor emergency (though I see where CODEX could
eventually become a major emergency in your professional natural healing
practice).

By focusing on CODEX, you are failing to do the minimum to stop the mass
baby asphyxiation. You are demonstrating interest in your PROFESSIONAL
"health and freedom" - babies' health and freedom be damned.

You are a hypocrite.

Again, sorry to be blunt - but it's true.

LONG VERSION...

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
rima....@healthfreedomusa.org

Rima,

You wrote:

<snip>
> I agree that unnatural birthing positions, bright lights, separation of
> mother and baby after birth, unanesthetized circumcision, prematurely
> clamping of the cord, etc. are all terrible acts.

I was glad to see your use of the phrase "terrible acts"...

Graphic descriptions of your euphemisms will help people understand why your
euphemisms are misguided...

1. "UNNATURAL BIRTHING POSITIONS": Obstetricians are knowingly closing birth
canals up to 30% - knowingly KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to
30% when babies get stuck - as they pull with hands, forceps and vacuums -
sometimes pulling so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords.

See the Four OB Lies below - they are whoppers...

See also: RNs: 'Stitches, episiotomy, and postpartum complications'
(Maternal care learning needs)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3725

2. "UNANESTHESIZED CIRCUMCISION": American medicine's mass ripping and
slicing of infant penises abruptly went from "no medical indication" to
"effective public health measure" (by voice vote and over the objections of
a Scientific Board) immediately after I exposed American medicine's phony
"babies can't feel pain" neurology.

Even "anesthetized" circumcision/infant penis ripping and slicing is obvious
child abuse. Even if the anesthesia was complete - and there were no wound
pain after the anethesia wore off - it would still be child abuse.
"Anesthetizing" a no medical indication procedure that sometimes kills or
causes loss of penis does not stop it from being obvious child abuse.

Look what happened when I called for an exemption from the child abuse laws
for the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the
penis...

See Emerson on Circumcision; also: Africa and [Fore]skin Freaks (American
MDs)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3774

3. "PREMATURELY CLAMPING THE CORD": Immediately amputating mother from baby,
asphyxiating umbilical cord oxygen, forcing baby to breathe with lungs
before ready, robbing baby of up to 50% of blood volume.

Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG says this happens
to EVERY CESAREAN BABY. It also happens in most "cord blood banking"
vaginal births...

Dr. Morley is recommending a sort of temporary baby strangling experiment to
help obstetricians understand that they shouldn't permanently
asphyxiate/deny umbilical cord oxygen and rob babies of massive
amounts of blood...

Here is Dr. Morley's temporary baby strangling experiment:

"[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The
[fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color
will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue
(vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be
able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on
a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon
release the finger and thumb."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ac og-cp.htm

PREGNANT WOMEN: To make sure your baby gets the "extra" up to 50% of blood
volume, do not let the obstetrician or midwife clamp your baby's umbilical
cord until it has stopped pulsating and your baby is pink and breathing and
not in need of resuscitation. Talk to your obstetrician or midwife today.

Rima Laibow, MD continued...

> I am not sure they
> are child abuse since they are taught as good practice.

It is OBVIOUS they are child abuse - complete with MD cover-up lies and
obvious baby asphyxiation experiment (see above).

That said, in accord with your "taught as good practice" observation, I am
in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students, MDs are
TRAINED to perform these obvious felonies.

> The object is
> to make sure that the teaching changes
>

Agreed - hence my call for pardons in advance for MDs.

> and the key there is the
> "customer".

There are TWO "customers"...

Women shouldn't have to ASK for the "extra" up to 30% of room in the birth
canal for the second "customer"/baby; nor should women have to ask for the
"extra" up to 50% of blood for the second "customer"/baby.

Most women don't KNOW to ask - MDs are LYING to cover-up the crime.

> If women stop going to docs who do things wrong, they will
> change.
> They always do.

Women are FORCED to "go to docs who do things wrong" - because the docs
don't tell them they are doing things wrong - as they lord their legal
medical/surgical monopoly over women.

You say: "Health freedom means the freedom to choose your own health
products, treatments, and practitioners. No one, government or corporation,
should dictate or limit these choices."
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/

Your birth-canal-closing profession USED government - is STILL using
government - to deny women free access to HOMEBIRTH and Homebirth
midwives...

> Consider Lamaze Birthing: empty delivery suites led to obstetrical
> enlightenment.

Lamaze also advocated (may still advocate) semisitting/closing the birth
canal up to 30%.

"Obstetrical enlightenment" was obstetricians calling homebirth "child
abuse"...

> Money talks.
>

Money talks? So do Suspected Child Abuse Reports from MDs...

You ignore obvious MD lies and fail to officially suspect the "terrible
acts" as child abuse - or report them - babies be damned.

You are in obvious violation of both law and medical ethics...

RELEVANT AMA PRINCIPLES OF MEDICAL ETHICS....

"[AMA physician[s] shall...strive to expose those physicians...who engage in
fraud or deception."

"[AMA p]hysician[s] shall...seek changes in those requirements which are
contrary to the best interests of the patient."

"[AMA p]hysician[s] shall...make relevant information available to patients,
colleagues, and the public..."
http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/ethics/ethics_opinions53101.cfm

Relevant quote from the AMA website:

"[P]hysicians must strive to ensure patient safety and should play a central
role in identifying, reducing, and preventing health care errors. This
responsibility exists even in the absence of a patient-physician
relationship."
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/11968.html

Rima, filing a report is the MINIMUM "striving" required by law when
"terrible acts" against children are so much as SUSPECTED.

> Thanks for your input.
>

You are welcome. Thanks for your reply, such as it was...

> Yours in health and freedom,
> Dr. Laibow
>

You are a hypocrite. Your priority is the health and freedom of your
PROFESSION.

Meanwhile your profession DENIES freedom (for example) by lying - and tying
male babies to boards to rip and slice their penises...not to mention
denying freedom by keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when
babies get stuck - and lying to cover-up THAT "terrible act" as you called
it...

HERE ARE THE FOUR OB LIES (they are whoppers) that support medicine's
bizarre birth-canal-closing behavior:

OB LIE #1. After MASSIVE change in the AP pelvic outlet diameter was
clinically demonstrated in 1911 and radiographically demonstrated in 1957,
the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that pelvic
diamaters DON'T CHANGE at delivery.

OB LIE #2. After Ohlsen pointed out in 1973 that pelvic diameters DO
change - the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that
their most frequent delivery position - dorsal - widens the outlet.

OB LIE #3. After I pointed out in 1992 that dorsal CLOSES - and so does
Semisitting [Gastaldo TD. Birth. 1992;19(4):230] - the authors of Williams
Obstetrics - put the correct
biomechanics in their 1993 edition - but kept in their text (in the same
paragraph!) - the dorsal widens bald lie that first called my attention to
their text...

OB LIE #4. OBs are actually KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get
stuck - and claiming they are doing everything to allow the birth canal open
maximally - an indirect admisssion that obstetricians are KNOWINGLY closing
birth canals the "extra" up to 30% routinely. (See the ACOG Shoulder
Dystocia video. Note also: forceps and vacuum births
are performed with the mother in lithotomy, birth canal closed the "extra"
up to 30%.)

Rima, maybe you weren't aware of the LIES underlying what you called
"terrible acts"??

Whatever - I urge you to end your hypocrisy and report the obvious child
abuse - and urge other MDs to report.

Write about your action on your website, www.healthfreedomusa.org.

Urge Hypocrite/Obstetrician/Congressman Ron Paul, MD to report and speak out
in Congress.

Obstetricians are asphxiating babies - robbing them of up to 50% of their
blood volume - ROUTINELY.

And this baby blood robbery/asphyxiation happens after the routine
birth-canal-closing asphyxiation which may cause brain bleeds.

(An estimated 4.6% of "healthy" term babies are born with unexplained brain
bleeds as MDs senselessly close birth canals the "extra" up to 30% - then
rob massive amounts of baby blood.)

These are indeed "terrible acts."

EMERGENCY, RIMA...Just do the minimum required of you by law and state
medical ethics (quoted above).

Do it for health and freedom of babies...

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com

> Todd Gastaldo wrote:
>
>> CODEX, BABIES AND CONGRESSMAN/OBSTETRICIAN RON PAUL, MD
>>
>> OPEN LETTER (archived for global access at http://groups.google.com)
>>
>> Rima E. Laibow, MD
>> Medical Director
>> Natural Solutions Foundation
>> rima....@healthfreedomusa.org
>>
>> Rima,
>>
>> I was pleased to see that Congressman/Obstetrician Ron Paul, MD helped you
>> get the Codex briefing going.
>>
>> Sorry that the briefing now seems to have changed/disappeared. (Your post
>> below was emailed to me via Jake.)
>>
>> Be advised: Congressman/Obstetrician Ron Paul, MD is a member of a specialty
>> that is closing birth canals up to 30% and robbing babies of up to 50% of
>> their blood volume.
>>
>> See Libertarians: Crooked obstetrician Ron Paul, MD (also: Michael Badnarik
>> for Congress)
>> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3789
>>
>> I hope that Congressman/Obstetrician Paul has not diverted his attention
>> from the Codex briefing matter in order to perpetuate his speciality's
>> obvious criminal negligence.
>>
>> I hope that your Natural Solutions Foundation will get the word out about
>> the obstetric criminal negligence.
>>
>> I have asked that a few obstetricians be arrested...
>>
>> See Arresting obstetricians - Lt. Bill Hunt: 11165PC Suspected (Mass) Child
>> Abuse Report
>> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3848
>>
>> But I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As med students, MDs are
>> TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.
>>
>> You yourself were probably trained to close birth canals up to 30%.
>>
>> Please help stop this madness.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Todd
>>
>> Dr. Gastaldo
>> Hillsboro, Oregon
>> to...@chiromotion.com
>>
>>
>> RIMA LAIBOW, MD wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Whoops! The Codex Briefing is Now About Something Else!
>>
>> Which Forces Do You Think Have Been At Work?
>>
>> This is war. I've been saying that and perhaps some of you thought that I
>> was merely using a figure of speech. No, there is a war on your health and
>> your health freedom and the adversaries are very big and very, very rich.
>> They use their power and wealth ruthlessly. Here's what just happened:
>>
<snip>
>> PS- Get ready for our next big project: raising funds in new way on the
>> Internet
>>

Rima, babies are being ASPHYXIATED en masse - both before birth (see The
Four OB Lies) and after birth (see Dr. Morley's obviously illegal temporary
baby asphyxiation experiment quoted above)...

It would cost you nothing to report this obvious mass child abuse. It would
cost you nothing to urge other MDs to report - right on your webpage. THAT
should be your next project. You could do it in a day.

First do the minimum to help stop the mass baby asphyxiation by your fellow
MDs....

THEN move on to fundraising. (Incidentally, stopping the mass child abuse
would nearly instantly save America BILLIONS per year.)

Good luck in your CODEX battle. I encourage everyone to visit Rima's web
page at: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com

This Open Letter to Rima Laibow, MD will be archived for global access in
the Google usenet archive.

Search http://groups.google.com for "'Terrible acts': Rima Laibow, MD -
hypocrite - babies be damned."

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 2:01:33 PM9/14/05

DR. LAIBOW "ALIENATED" BY DR. GASTALDO

Women should not have to ASK for obstetricians not to rob their babies of up

to 50% of their blood volume.

Most women don't KNOW to ask.

This mass baby blood robbery is happening to EVERY CESAREAN BABY - and in
most "cord blood bank" vaginal births...

It's MASS BABY ASPHYXIATION and it could end soon if MD-friendlies spoke
out...

So I risk further "alienating" an MD-friendly who emphasizes the term INNATE
(yay Dr. Laibow!)
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/about/medicaldirector.shtml

Rima, I do like your use of the term INNATE - but you are shirking a LEGAL
obligation to children as your fellow MDs rob them of blood that Innate
furnishes them - see below...

Rima, my responses are interspersed ######

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Dr. Laibow" <in...@healthfreedomusa.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:59:24 -0400
To: Todd Gastaldo <tgas...@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: 'Terrible acts': Rima Laibow, MD - hypocrite - babies be damned
- was Re: Codex, babies and Congressman/Obstetrician Ron Paul, MD

Todd,
Hold it right there! You are way off the mark.

##### False. Mass baby asphyxiation is being committed by your fellow MDs -
you call it a "terrible act" - you obviously suspect child abuse - yet you
are failing to do the MINIMUM required of you by law and report.

I fight for health and freedom and support others who do the same.

##### Good. Babies are being asphyxiated en masse. Do the minimum required
by law - do it for the babies.

I have a career long record of speaking out for exactly that regardless of
the consequences.

##### Good. What is keeping you from reporting the mass baby asphyxiation
and publicly urging your fellow MDs to report? Put it up on your web page.

I have no idea why you are so aggressive toward someone who is on your
side...

##### A friendly MD's failure to do the MINIMUM required by law to help is I
imagine QUITE pleasant for law enforcement to observe. SHE's not even on
his side they might say...

and why you are spending your time attacking me for not focusing on exactly
the same issue that you do.

##### I am focusing on the fact that you are ignoring a MANDATORY focus -
babies be damned. MASS BABY ASPHYXIATION - plus other obvious "terrible
acts" (your phrase) are being committed against babies by your fellow MDs -
and you are failing to do the minimum to stop them.

Sorry to say it, but your intolerant rage is mis-directed.

##### I suspect my "intolerant rage" is NOTHING compared to the rage a baby
feels as s/he is pulled by the skull through a birth canal senselessly
closed up to 30% or asphyxiated and robbed of up to 50% of his/her blood
volume. Read the law. If you so much as SUSPECT child abuse ("terrible
acts") - you are MANDATED to report. Anything less is intolerable - IT'S
THE LAW.

I am not a hypocrite:

##### Yes you are a hypocrite. You want PROFESSIONAL health and freedom
from CODEX so you can practice and help your patients - but you are silent
(in violation of the law!) about BABIES' health and freedom from "terrible
acts"...

there are quite enough people attacking us for us to not need to attack
each other.

##### Please note: I support your CODEX fight. I do not support your
failures to report suspected child abuse and publicly urge other MDs to do
so. You are blithely failing to the the minimum required by law in the face
of MASS BABY ASPHYXIATION.

##### Incidentally, failure to report suspected child abuse is a crime
because it can perpetuate child abuse - attacks on children. Your failure
to speak up about MASS BABY ASPHYXIATION is an indirect attack on children.

Take a deep breath and remember that there are many paths to freedom: you
fight on yours and I will support you. I will fight on mine and expect the
same support from you.

##### You don't get it. When child abuse is so much as SUSPECTED - the path
for freeing children from it is MANDATORY. Please immediately take that
path and urge your fellow MDs to do the same until the MASS BABY
ASPHYXIATION ends.

I am equally appalled at the mandatory drugging of children (and adults) and
see that as another major threat to health, life and liberty. Does that
mean that since this is not your battle YOU are a hypocrite?

##### WHAT? You think as a chiro I am not opposed to mandatory drugging of
children (and adults)?!! LOL!

See Tell Congress to get the F out of the water!
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3881

See also: A dentist's child abuse crime (also: Pregnant citizens: URGENT)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3859

And see: CDC ruse: 'It's the thimerosal, stupid' - was Re: Forced
Vaccination
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3875

##### Rima Laibow, MD continued...

...we each choose our battles and, all told, they ARE the Health Freedom
War.

###### FALSE. When it is so much as SUSPECTED that children are being
abused - there is no choice - reporting is MANDATORY - which accords with
stated medical ethics quoted in my post to you, forwarded below.

I hope you can calm down and stop acting so self righteously when there are
allies all around you.

##### After all these years, I am quite calm. Children have mandatory
"allies" who are (excuse my French) pissing on the child protection statutes
and screwing children. MASS BABY ASPHYXIATION - mass baby blood robbery -
birth canals kept closed as MDs pull - these obvious crimes are being
committed by MDs who are LYING to cover-up.

Don't alienate them just because you are so involved with you battle that
you can't tell the friend from the foe.

##### There is NOTHING in the child protection laws about ignoring one's
obligation to report suspected child abuse because one feels "alienated" by
someone calling attention to one's suspected child abuse reporting
obligation.

Yours in health and freedom,

Rima E. Laibow, MD

#### Again Rima - sorry to be blunt - you are a hypocrite.

#### If you report the massive crimes as child abuse - and publicly urge
your fellow MDs to do the same - I think you will be the first MD to do so.

#### Use your INNATE ability to heal (nice phrase, nice INNATE emphasis,
BTW)...
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/about/medicaldirector.shtml

###### Do the minimum required by law (and medical ethics) to stop MASS BABY
ASPHYXIATION by your fellow MDs.

###### I say again...

> RELEVANT AMA PRINCIPLES OF MEDICAL ETHICS....
>
> "[AMA physician[s] shall...strive to expose those physicians...who engage in
> fraud or deception."
>
> "[AMA p]hysician[s] shall...seek changes in those requirements which are
> contrary to the best interests of the patient."
>
> "[AMA p]hysician[s] shall...make relevant information available to patients,
> colleagues, and the public..."
> http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/ethics/ethics_opinions53101.cfm
>
> Relevant quote from the AMA website:
>
> "[P]hysicians must strive to ensure patient safety and should play a central
> role in identifying, reducing, and preventing health care errors. This
> responsibility exists even in the absence of a patient-physician
> relationship."
> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/11968.html
>
> Rima, filing a report is the MINIMUM "striving" required by law when
> "terrible acts" against children are so much as SUSPECTED.
>

#### Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com

This response to Dr. Laibow will be archived for global access in the Google
usenet archive.

Search http://groups.google.com for "Dr. Laibow 'alienated' by Dr. Gastaldo"

in article BF4D960A.B0EC%tgas...@earthlink.net, Todd Gastaldo at
tgas...@earthlink.net wrote on 9/14/05 8:54 AM:

Robert

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 2:39:26 PM9/14/05

"Todd Gastaldo" <tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BF4DB3E6.B116%tgas...@earthlink.net...

> DR. LAIBOW "ALIENATED" BY DR. GASTALDO
>
> Women should not have to ASK for obstetricians not to rob their babies of
up
> to 50% of their blood volume.
>
> Most women don't KNOW to ask.
>
> This mass baby blood robbery is happening to EVERY CESAREAN BABY - and in
> most "cord blood bank" vaginal births...
>
> It's MASS BABY ASPHYXIATION and it could end soon if MD-friendlies spoke
> out...
>
> So I risk further "alienating" an MD-friendly who emphasizes the term
INNATE
>

The average hematocrit is very high in the 55 to 60% on most babies I have
seen and with very few nucleated red cells indicative of hypoxia.

I can't see your point that babies are losing 50% of their blood supply and
are being made hypoxic on average.

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 3:35:31 PM9/14/05

HOLY BABIES WITH SLOWED HEARTS, BATMAN!

EXTREME BRADYCARDIA!

IS "ROBERTSSONG" AN MD? I HOPE SO...

See below.

in article mJednXIAxcc...@got.net, Robert at Rober...@hotmail.com
wrote on 9/14/05 11:39 AM:

"RobertsSong" are you an MD?

I hope so...

I have seen the up to 50% figure in the medical literature...

Here is "50%+" in an article by retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley,
MB ChB FACOG...

"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is immediate
cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies. The child's only
functioning
source of oxygen - the placenta - is amputated together with 30% to 50+% of
its natural blood volume. Total asphyxia is imposed until the lungs
function, and the depressed (asphyxiated, hypovolemic) child starts its
extra-uterine life in hypovolemic shock... B138 was first published in 1993.
Every cesarean section baby, every depressed child, every premie, and every
child born with a neonatal team in
the delivery room has its cord clamped immediately to facilitate the
panicked rush to the resuscitation table. The current epidemic of
immediate
cord clamping coincides with an epidemic of autism...For the trial lawyers,
it is essential that the 'true genesis' of cerebral
palsy remains unknown, because that 'true genesis' (B.138) is a standard of
medico-legal care..."
http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm

What if it's "only" 30%? Or "only" 20%? Or "only" 10%?

EXTREME BRADYCARDIA...

And what about MDs blithely causing extreme bradycardia, as in,

"[E]xtreme bradycardia [heart rate under 80 bpm] is always an expression of
fetal distress and is a consequence of reduced gas exchange at the
placenta."
--From CARDIOPULMONARY BYPASS IN PREGNANT PATIENTS.
By Maria Helena L. Souza, CCP (BR)* & Decio O. Elias, MD**
* Perfusionist / ** Pediatric Cardiac Surgeon
http://perfline.com/textbook/local/pregnancy.html

Dr. Morley blithely has obstetricians causing 60 bpm bradycardia!

RobertsSong - MD or not - do you suspect Dr. Morley's temporary baby
asphyxiation experiment to be child abuse?

Robert

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 4:30:24 PM9/14/05

"Todd Gastaldo" <tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:BF4DC9F5.B12F%tgas...@earthlink.net...

> HOLY BABIES WITH SLOWED HEARTS, BATMAN!
>
> EXTREME BRADYCARDIA!
>
> IS "ROBERTSSONG" AN MD? I HOPE SO...
>

Not an MD just somebody who can see through all that stuff, to call it
mildly, that you have been posting.

Get you head out of vaginas and baby pee-pees.

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 5:13:19 PM9/14/05

ROBERTSSONG TRIVIALIZES MASS CHILD ABUSE..

See below.

in article 282dnWqD0b8...@got.net, Robert at Rober...@hotmail.com
wrote on 9/14/05 1:30 PM:

Robertssong,

I once had my head in a vagina as the MD senselessly narrowed it and perhaps
sliced it.

I never had my head in a "baby pee-pee": though I once had an MD rip and
slice my pee-pee.

You are trivializing mass child abuse by MDs...

I say again...

...what about MDs blithely causing extreme bradycardia, as in,

Dr. Morley blithely has obstetricians causing 60 bpm bradycardia!

Up to 50% of blood volume robbed - routinely.

And Robertssong trivializes the obvious mass child abuse.

Do you work in a hospital Robertssong?

Todd

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 5:14:19 PM9/14/05

Attention Oregon Atty Gen'l Hardy Myers via hardy...@state.or.us...

Rima E. Laibow, MD suspects NUTRITIONAL child/teen/elder abuse discussed
below - and I do too.

Obviously though, mass baby asphxiation by MDs is the greater emergency.
Please end it. (Dr. Laibow believes it to be a "terrible act.")

DR. LAIBOW'S TRAIN OF LOGIC TAKES DIRT ROAD...

See below.

Usenetters, delete now or forever hold your peace.

Attention Rima E. Laibow, MD:

IN A NUTSHELL:

1. Women shouldn't have to ASK for the "extra" up to 50% of blood volume for
their babies;

2. Most women don't KNOW to ask;

3. Babies must count on MDs (like Rima) who suspect child abuse to file
MANDATORY reports.

4. Attorneys general (like Hardy, mentioned above) place a high value on
reports from MDs. MDs are our cultural authorities in matters of
obstetrics.

(MDs can serve as expert witnesses - esp. obstetricians in the case of mass
baby asphyxiation. The Four OB Lies are self-evident; Hardy shouldn't need
MD-experts - but that is just the medico-"legal" "just us" system for you.
Rima, I urge you to report - and to urge other MDs to report.)

Further remarks to Dr. Laibow interspersed below #####

DR. LAIBOW'S TRAIN OF LOGIC TAKES A DIRT ROAD...

###### I wrote:

>> RELEVANT AMA PRINCIPLES OF MEDICAL ETHICS....
>>
>> "[AMA physician[s] shall...strive to expose those physicians...who engage in
>> fraud or deception."
>>
>> "[AMA p]hysician[s] shall...seek changes in those requirements which are
>> contrary to the best interests of the patient."
>>
>> "[AMA p]hysician[s] shall...make relevant information available to patients,
>> colleagues, and the public..."
>> http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/ethics/ethics_opinions53101.cfm
>>
>> Relevant quote from the AMA website:
>>
>> "[P]hysicians must strive to ensure patient safety and should play a central
>> role in identifying, reducing, and preventing health care errors. This
>> responsibility exists even in the absence of a patient-physician
>> relationship."
>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/11968.html
>>
>> Rima, filing a report is the MINIMUM "striving" required by law when
>> "terrible acts" against children are so much as SUSPECTED.

##### Rima E. Laibow, MD replied:

Uh, hate to tell you but I don't belong to, or subscribe to, the AMA code of
just about anything. Quoting it to me does not do much.

##### Rima, your train of logic takes a dirt road here. The **AMA** doesn't
subscribe to the AMA Code of Ethics. So using your logic, you should
consider subscribing - ESPECIALLY since - in accord with the AMA code - the
law mandates that you report suspected child abuse.

Further more, I did not take the Oath of Hippocrates (in case you were about
to quote that to me).

##### Think LAW Rima. You suspect child abuse ("terrible acts") committed
by your fellow MDs. You are mandated to report suspected child abuse.

I took, and live by, the Oath of Maimonides which,

#### Relevant phrase from the Oath of Maimonides:

"...my lofty aim of doing good to Thy children."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/rambam-oath.html

##### By law, when you suspect child abuse, "doing good to Thy children" is
defined as reporting immediately.

unlike the OH, does not prohibit me from cutting from gall stones or giving
a pessary (e.g., birth control).

##### Is there an extra "from" in there somewhere?

Those are just another couple of ways that I am different from most MDs.

##### You are IDENTICAL to most MDs in failing to report obvious mass child
abuse by MDs.

I was thinking after I wrote to you, why is it less important than birthing
issues if all of the food available to pregnant mom and gestating fetus,
and all of the food available to baby and family after birth is
disease-inducing, toxic, tainted food and there are no natural products
available to prevent, treat or cure the preventable diseases of chronic
under nutrition and toxification that this tainted food produced since their
use has been criminalized?

##### If you suspect abuse, you are mandated to report.

Isn't that child (and teen and adult and geriatric) abuse? Isn't that worth
reporting and taking the battle to the people over?

##### I will report by copying this email to Oregon Attorney Gen'l Hardy
Myers via hardy...@state.or.us.

Why does your concern for the welfare of humanity stop at the post partum
period?

##### Surely you jest. You must not have read the post to which you
responded. See below.

Why aren't you going to school to become an MD or a DO or a midwife so you
can personally make a difference?

###### This is monumental arrogance that derives from licensure. Licensure
currently stifles innovation and creates a false "administrative" shield
behind which MDs commit obvious crimes because law enforcement pretends with
medical "science" that MDs should not be criminally prosecuted.

##### Licensure creates crooked political leverage which in turn increases
drug profits and the drug profits sustain regulated/licensed MD drug
salesmen who benefit from things like CODEX, I imagine.

Get down from your high horse.

##### Ummm.... My horse is only "high" because I happen to be right. When
child abuse is so much as SUSPECTED it is to be reported - immediately -
IT'S THE LAW...

I AM on your side, even if you make it really unpleasant to be there.

##### Rima, my "side" observes your fellow MDs committing MASS BABY
ASPHYXIATION and you failing to do the minimum required of you by law to end
it. My "side" does not think that in regard to the mass child abuse you are
on my side - or on the side of babies...

Take a moment to reflect that life is a web and so is wellness. The part of
the web that you have staked out as most meaningful to you is only a part of
the web.

###### You suspect child abuse ("terrible acts") - so you staked out the
same part of the web - or rather - the LAW stakes it out for you.

I could get all pissy over people who don't agree with me, too. No point to
it, though.

###### You are pissing on my shoe and telling me it is raining - as you piss
on the child protection statutes - babies be damned.

Get over your outrage and think strategically. Good strategy does not make
enemies of natural friends!

###### The LAW's strategy is that you are MANDATED to report. The law does
not say that you can fail to report if you regard as an enemy someone who is
calling your attention to your legal reporting obligation.

##### Report and keep reporting until the MASS BABY ASPHYXIATION ends - and
publicly urge your fellow MDs to do the same....

###### JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT... Here is the mass baby asphyxiation
discussed in an article by retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley,
MB ChB FACOG...

EXTREME BRADYCARDIA...

Dr. Morley blithely has obstetricians causing 60 bpm bradycardia!

"[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The

[fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color
will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue
(vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be
able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on
a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon
release the finger and thumb."
http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Laibow

##### Health and freedom? Again, your priority is your PROFESSIONAL health

and freedom - babies' health and freedom be damned.

##### Rima, I am glad that you are writing. Keep writing and I will keep
responding publicly the best I can.

##### I would rather, though, that you spend the time helping children by
meeting your suspected child abuse reporting obligation - and urging your
fellow MDs to do the same.

##### It would only take a second to email this to law enforcement and say
"Dr. Gastaldo is right" - assuming you still believe the various OB crimes
and OB cover-up lies are "terrible acts"...

##### Sincerely,

##### Your friend,

##### Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com

in article BF4DB3E6.B116%tgas...@earthlink.net, Todd Gastaldo at
tgas...@earthlink.net wrote on 9/14/05 11:01 AM:

PF Riley

unread,

Sep 15, 2005, 11:41:01 PM9/15/05

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:39:26 -0700, "Robert" <Rober...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>The average hematocrit is very high in the 55 to 60% on most babies I have
>seen and with very few nucleated red cells indicative of hypoxia.
>
>I can't see your point that babies are losing 50% of their blood supply and
>are being made hypoxic on average.

In the last 5 years I have cared for exactly one neonate who didn't
have his "blood robbed" immediately by an obstetrician at birth. (He
was born at home.) He was incredibly polycythemic and had to be
admitted for phototherapy just a few days later because of
hyperbilirubinemia. He barely escaped an exchange transfusion.

I sure hope obstetricians keep clamping cords right away. Go
obstetricians!

PF Riley

unread,

Sep 15, 2005, 11:47:42 PM9/15/05

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:01:33 GMT, Todd Gastaldo
<tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>DR. LAIBOW "ALIENATED" BY DR. GASTALDO
>

>[Dr. Laibow writes:]

>
>I have no idea why you are so aggressive toward someone who is on your
>side...
>

> and why you are spending your time attacking me for not focusing on exactly
>the same issue that you do.
>

>[...}

>
>I hope you can calm down and stop acting so self righteously when there are
>allies all around you.
>

>Don't alienate them just because you are so involved with you battle that
>you can't tell the friend from the foe.

Well put, Dr. Laibow. This has been a prevailing theme to Gastaldo's
interactions on the Usenet for, what, 15 years now? Gastaldo will
never, ever, win or acknowledge any useful allies to make any
substantial changes in obstetrical practice that he wants. Never. And
this is only because of his tactics -- it has nothing to do with the
veracity of his arguments. He is and always will be doomed to utter
failure. Mark my words.

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 9:23:06 AM9/16/05

PEDIATRICIAN CHEERLEADS CHILD ABUSE...

Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD wrote:

> I sure hope obstetricians keep clamping cords right away. Go
> obstetricians!
>

Perhaps PF Riley, MD cheerleads for child abuse/routine asphyxiation of
babies because he is embarrassed that his fellow pediatricians
(neonatologists) aid and abet obstetricians in the obvious mass child abuse
crime...

Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG indicates that
"every child born with a neonatal team in the delivery room" is asphyxiated:

OBSTETRICIANS ARE KNOWINGLY CAUSING FETAL DISTRESS - EXTREME BRADYCARDIA -
slowing the heart - as in -

"[E]xtreme bradycardia [heart rate under 80 beats per minute] is always an

expression of
fetal distress and is a consequence of reduced gas exchange at the
placenta."
--From CARDIOPULMONARY BYPASS IN PREGNANT PATIENTS.
By Maria Helena L. Souza, CCP (BR)* & Decio O. Elias, MD**
* Perfusionist / ** Pediatric Cardiac Surgeon
http://perfline.com/textbook/local/pregnancy.html

Dr. Morley blithely has obstetricians causing 60 beat per minute TEMPORARY
bradycardia - to help obstetricians demonstrate to themselves why they
shouldn't PERMANENTLY deny umbilical oxygen and rob babies of blood:

Pediatrician KC Finkel once noted that pediatricians are guilty of failing
to report child abuse:

"What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have
chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse.
AJDC, 1986;140:329-330]

Failure to report child abuse is a child abuse crime because it can
perpetuate child abuse.

THINK ABOUT IT...

1. Instead of reporting the obvious mass baby blood robbery child abuse, Dr.
Morley has obstetricians performing a TEMPORARY baby asphyxiation child
abuse experiment (see above)...

2. Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD not only fails to report -
he publicly CHEERLEADS the obvious crime, saying: "I sure hope obstetricians

keep clamping cords right away. Go obstetricians!"

As always, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs.

As medical students, MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies that harm
and sometimes kill children....

Law enforcement is looking the other way - babies be damned.

See Arresting obstetricians - Lt. Bill Hunt: 11165PC Suspected (Mass) Child
Abuse Report
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3848

SJ Doc

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 11:24:55 AM9/16/05

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:23:06 GMT, Todd Gastaldo wrote:

>1. Instead of reporting the obvious mass baby blood robbery child abuse, Dr.
>Morley has obstetricians performing a TEMPORARY baby asphyxiation child
>abuse experiment (see above)...
>
>2. Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD not only fails to report -
>he publicly CHEERLEADS the obvious crime, saying: "I sure hope obstetricians
>keep clamping cords right away. Go obstetricians!"
>
>As always, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs.
>
>As medical students, MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies that harm
>and sometimes kill children....

And chiropractors are trained to deliver babies? A certain
minimum familiarization with the techniques involved in handling
precipitous labor is merely good common sense (you teach
such things to EMTs and police officers, too, despite their pallor
and nausea during the training films and their desperate hope
that they will die in a fiery crash before ever having to employ
such knowledge), but I doubt that Dr. Gastaldo has more
familiarity with antenatal care than such as is gained when he
notices on one of his innumerable postural x-rays the fact that
there's a fetal skeleton obscuring his visualization of the patient's
lumbosacral spine. Whoops!

----------------
If a man, being ill of a pus appendix, resorts to a shaved and
fumigated longshoreman to have it disposed of, and submits
willingly to a treatment involving balancing him on McBurney's
spot and playing on his vertebra as on a concertina, then I am
willing, for one, to believe that he is badly wanted in Heaven.
And if that same man, having achieved lawfully a lovely babe,
hires a blacksmith to cure its diphtheria by pulling its neck,
then I do not resist the divine will that there shall be one
less radio fan later on.

-- H.L. Mencken, "Chiropractic" (1924)

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 11:59:53 AM9/16/05

CODEX: LAST E-MAIL TO RIMA E. LAIBOW, MD WHO FAILS TO REPORT SUSPECTED
CHILD ABUSE...

Rima E. Laibow, MD publicly pretends that it is OK for her to fail to report
obvious child abuse crimes routinely performed by her fellow MDs ("terrible
acts" she called them)...

Babies sometimes DIE because of the ongoing MD crimes/Rima's "terrible
acts"...

See The Four OB Lies in "Birth Danger: Cal Chiro Bd - SIMPLE QUESTION"
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3526

OREGON ATTY GEN'L HARDY MYERS: Rima E. Laibow, MD suspects children will
die under CODEX - she and I both suspect Codex is child abuse (see the very
end of this post)...

Meanwhile Rima E. Laibow, MD indicates that it is wrong for me to
"aggressively" point out her suspected child abuse reporting obligation
under the child protection statutes...

>>
>> I have no idea why you are so aggressive toward someone who is on your
>> side...
>>
>> and why you are spending your time attacking me for not focusing on exactly
>> the same issue that you do.
>>
>> [...}
>>
>> I hope you can calm down and stop acting so self righteously when there are
>> allies all around you.
>>
>> Don't alienate them just because you are so involved with you battle that
>> you can't tell the friend from the foe.

Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD chimed in to echo Rima's
falsehood that MDs who fail to report suspected child abuse are on my
side...

>
> Well put, Dr. Laibow. This has been a prevailing theme to Gastaldo's
> interactions on the Usenet for, what, 15 years now? Gastaldo will
> never, ever, win or acknowledge any useful allies to make any
> substantial changes in obstetrical practice that he wants. Never. And
> this is only because of his tactics -- it has nothing to do with the
> veracity of his arguments. He is and always will be doomed to utter
> failure. Mark my words.
>

Sadly, PF Riley, MD literally CHEERLEADS massive MD baby asphyxiation crime
("Go obstetricians!") - as he pretends with Rima E. Laibow, MD that when one
suspects child abuse it is OK to fail to report it.

See Pediatrician cheerleads child abuse
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3888

THE PROBLEM: LAW ENFORCEMENT IS LOOKING THE OTHER WAY...

1. Law enforcement ignores (for example) The Four OB Lies and generally
pretends that only MDs can testify regarding the obviously illegal medical
practices I protest.

2. MDs refuse to testify - with Rima E. Laibow, MD falsely claiming she is
on my side as she fails to even even do the minimum required by law: She
refuses to file mandatory suspected child abuse reports as she describes the
mass child abuse as "terrible acts."

Lack of law enforcement is the problem...

Steve B. Harris, MD arrogantly boasts - babies be damned:

"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9

See Steve B. Harris, MD is a coward - babies be damned
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3846

As long as law enforcement fails to protect children....

I have to agree, in part, with PF Riley, MD's statement that,

"Gastaldo will never, ever, win...it has nothing to do with the veracity of
his arguments."

With law enforcement dragging its feet, I will never win BIG - but I WILL
have "small" individual victories as for example when women mention me in
their birth stories and say that they birthed on their side or kneeling in
order to offer their babies the "extra" up to 30%....

I was particularly pleased when British general practitioner Dr. Sarah
Vaughn birthed kneeling and mentioned me in her birth story and alluded to
The Four OB Lies....

I will take these "small" wins - they are gold - en route to the big win...

Law enforcement cannot look the other way forever.

MDs know this.

I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students, MDs are

TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com

PS Rima E. Laibow, MD in effect pretended that it is OK to fail to report
suspected child abuse because OTHER child abuse she suspects (Codex) is not
being reported...

I went ahead and publicly reported the other suspected child abuse - to
Oregon Atty Gen'l Hardy Myers - saying I agreed with Dr. Laibow...

See Dr. Laibow's train of logic takes dirt road...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3886

Rima E. Laibow, MD replied to Atty Gen'l Hardy Myers and chiro-list...

(Note her titular etiquette slap.)

"To Whom It May Concern:
I have no association whatsoever with Mr. Todd Gastaldo. He does not have
my permission to associate me with him in any way whatsoever.
Sincerely,
Rima E. Laibow, MD"

Rima wrote me privately, threatening me with a libel suit...

My responses to Rima are interspersed #####

Todd,
How dare you associate my name with your disproportionate and irrational
beliefs in a public manner of this sort?

##### Rima, I AGREED with you about the other massive child abuse - and
reported it to Oregon Atty Gen'l Hardy Myers. Doing the MINIMUM required by
law to stop mass child abuse is hardly "disproportionate and irrational."

Cease and desist immediately or I will be forced to pursue legal measures
against this unauthorized use of my name and professional status.

##### Rima, I do not need your authorization. You obviously suspect mass
child abuse above and beyond that which I am pointing out. I only AGREED
with you - and reported it in accord with the law - and publicly noted for
the Oregon Atty Gen'l that you are failing to report suspected mass child
abuse - which is a crime in itself.

Do not communicate further with me...

##### As noted on the subject line, this is my last email to you.

and do not use my name to bolster your beliefs. I would also advise you not
to engage in liable or slander unless you are eager for litigation.
Rima E. Laibow, MD

##### Rima, it is neither libel nor slander for me to point out that you are
committing the crime of failing to report suspected child abuse.

##### Sue me for libel if you must but truth is not libel. I will come to
court and prove what I am saying - using your emails to me.

##### Please just report, Rima - babies need MDs who are TRULY on their
side. What a concept - using the child protection statutes to protect
children. Babies do NOT need MDs who suspect abuse but fail to report.

>>>>>END Dr. Gastaldo's response to Dr. Laibow.

As I indirectly indicated to Oregon Atty Gen'l Hardy

I SUSPECT CODEX IS CHILD ABUSE...assuming Rima is right about Codex...

Rima E. Laibow, MD writes:

"What happens to us and our children and our other loved ones when our food
is contaminated with compounds so deadly that every single country in the UN
has decided they are too dangerous to use?...[L]et me introduce you to a new
word: Nutraceutraceuticid[e], (new truh sue tih side)...The death of
individuals and populations through intentional restriction of vital
nutrients to sub-clinical doses in the presence of a massively adulterated
food supply...Nutriceuticide is rapidly being put in place by Codex
Alimentarius (Latin for łFood Rules˛) which classifies nutrients as toxins
from which we need protection (!) inappropriately using Risk Assessment (a
branch of toxicology) to determine permitted nutrient doses so low that, by
design, they have no impact on any human being. ...Created in 1962 as a UN
trade commission, Codex Alimentarius...regulations clearly serve the
interests of multinational Bigs: Big Pharma, Big Agribiz, Big Chema, Big
Biotechna and Big Medica....Codex permits pesticide and toxin residues which
are incompatible with human health and longevity...
What can we do?
1. Write Congress with a personalized letter telling them why you treasure
your health freedom and how they need to support it.
2. Organize your friends and visit your Congressional delegates. Tell them
to oppose the pro-illness legislation before them (and the many more to
follow). Write them a follow up letter after you see them.
3. Help everyone you know to take steps 1 and 2 above. Use the internet! It
works.
4. Listen to FREE US/FREE US!, the Voice of Health Freedom live every
Wednesday 7 -8 PM (Eastern) on Internet radio If the time isnąt good, for
you, listen on the archives when the time is ripe. But please do listen.
And donąt forget to support the Natural Solutions Foundation. We depend on
your donations to protect your health freedoms.
We need you and your enthusiasm: your health depends upon it.

Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/codexblog/page/4/

>>>>>END excerpt from Rima's codexblog...

Rima, you suspect children stand to DIE because of Codex.

Before you collect another dime to fight Codex - you should make sure law
enforcement (not just Congress) is hearing about Codex...

At the very least, you should join me in reporting Codex as suspected child
abuse.

You should also report what you call "terrible acts" (mass baby
asphyxiation, for example) as child abuse.

EVERY MD SHOULD REPORT - LAW ENFORCEMENT LISTENS TO MDs...

Failure to report suspected child abuse is a crime.

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com

Copied to: Oregon Atty Gen'l Hardy Myers via hardy...@state.or.us.

This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.

Search http://groups.google.com for "CODEX: Last email to Rima E. Laibow, MD
who fails to report suspected child abuse"

Steven Bornfeld

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 1:36:27 PM9/16/05

SJ Doc wrote:
>
>
> And chiropractors are trained to deliver babies? A certain
> minimum familiarization with the techniques involved in handling
> precipitous labor is merely good common sense (you teach
> such things to EMTs and police officers, too, despite their pallor
> and nausea during the training films and their desperate hope
> that they will die in a fiery crash before ever having to employ
> such knowledge), but I doubt that Dr. Gastaldo has more
> familiarity with antenatal care than such as is gained when he
> notices on one of his innumerable postural x-rays the fact that
> there's a fetal skeleton obscuring his visualization of the patient's
> lumbosacral spine. Whoops!
>
> ----------------
> If a man, being ill of a pus appendix, resorts to a shaved and
> fumigated longshoreman to have it disposed of, and submits
> willingly to a treatment involving balancing him on McBurney's
> spot and playing on his vertebra as on a concertina, then I am
> willing, for one, to believe that he is badly wanted in Heaven.
> And if that same man, having achieved lawfully a lovely babe,
> hires a blacksmith to cure its diphtheria by pulling its neck,
> then I do not resist the divine will that there shall be one
> less radio fan later on.
>
> -- H.L. Mencken, "Chiropractic" (1924)

I doubt extremely that I could have liked Mencken (nor he me) but
that's just boooteeefull!

Steve

--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
Arial;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
"nospam" to reply\par
}

Robert

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 2:24:07 PM9/16/05

"PF Riley" <pfr...@watt-not.com> wrote in message
news:8jfki1hd4omf19vsj...@4ax.com...

I have seen several of those and yes it does cause problems.

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 3:42:57 PM9/16/05

CHIROS AND HOMEBIRTH

ALSO: "SHAVED AND FUMIGATED" MD CRAZINESS...

See below...

in article 1aoli19p2184cp3f6...@4ax.com, SJ Doc at
pre...@NOSPAMeticomm.net wrote on 9/16/05 8:24 AM:

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:23:06 GMT, Todd Gastaldo wrote:
>
>> 1. Instead of reporting the obvious mass baby blood robbery child abuse, Dr.
>> Morley has obstetricians performing a TEMPORARY baby asphyxiation child
>> abuse experiment (see above)...
>>
>> 2. Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD not only fails to report -
>> he publicly CHEERLEADS the obvious crime, saying: "I sure hope obstetricians
>> keep clamping cords right away. Go obstetricians!"
>>
>> As always, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs.
>>
>> As medical students, MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies that harm
>> and sometimes kill children....
>
> And chiropractors are trained to deliver babies?
>

SJ Doc,

"Mere" homebirth midwives are trained to deliver babies. Homebirth midwives
did such a great job with their apprenticeship training that MDs had to
resort to lies and slander (anti-science) to create their childbirth
industry complete with "med"wives called CNMwives who used to champion
homebirth but (most of whom) ended up championing hospital birth and aping
MDs in trashing homebirth and non-nurse midwives.

It was California's licensure of CNMwives - and the use of Roe v. Wade -
that slammed homebirth hardest in the 1974 Bowland decision...

Before that, California MDs politically choked off California's supply of
licensed homebirth practitioners - by simultaneously stopping the issuance
of new homebirth chiropractic licenses (medical practice act drugless
practitioners) and new homebirth midwives (medical practice act midwives)...

Previous to that, the 1922 Chiropractic Initiative Act of California was
intended to bring together under the same umbrella the drugless
practitioner/homebirth chiros with the rest - and for a time it was a
requirement of the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners that doctors
of chiropractic attend one birth prior to licensure.

Circa 1987, Atty Mike Schroeder - a "chiropractic" attorney who later became
chairman of the California Republican Party - wrote Rule 302 - a regulation
that forbids chiros from severing umbilical cords.

The California Chiropractic Association/CCA liked Atty Schroeder so much
they made him an honorary member at about the time he wrote his Rule 302.

Subsequently, Atty Schroeder jumped to the California Board of Chiropractic
Examiners to defend his Rule 302 against the "attack" of 10 MD-obstetricians
et al. who managed to get Rule 302 judicially rubberstamped as Atty
Schroeder bilked the State of California out of hundreds of thousands in DC
licensing fees in the process...

Atty Schroeder later filed a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation/SLAPP against me - for saying he "bilked" the hundreds of
thousands. Schroeder's SLAPP was an illegal attempt to stop me from
exercising my First Amendment right to petition for a redress of grievances
caused when Atty Schroeder served as a public official (attorney for the
chiro board).

Schroeder's Rule 302 was written, I suspect, because "cord blood banking"
was coming of age and obstetricians and their masters feared that chiros
would one day wake up and realize that obstetricians are OBVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY
severing umbilical cords by clamping/cutting immediately.

Schroeder's Rule 302 was likely the reason a man calling himself Mike
Schroeder, Attorney for the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners told
me it was outside my scope of practice to tell pregnant women that
obstetricians are closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30%.

I am pretty sure this latter man WAS Schroeder, though I can't prove it.

I finally decided to explicitly ask the Board itself: IS it outside the
scope of chiropractic in California to tell pregnant women that
obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30%?

It's been two years - I've asked the Board a few times - no answer yet...

See Birth Danger: Cal Chiro Bd - SIMPLE QUESTION
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3526

Meanwhile, as California DCs are prohibited from severing umbilical cords -
MDs are closing birth canals up to 30%, gruesomely manipulating most babies'
spines - sometimes severing babies' SPINAL NERVES.

I think homebirth midwives are about to make a huge comeback - in California
and elsewhere.

I hope they do.

Before MDs created their gruesome childbirth industry, Dr. DD Palmer,
Founder of Chiropractic, wrote:

"Obstetrics is the art of midwifery...Mothers and their babes are liable to
be injured at childbirth...If the accoucheur is a Chiropractor, he can
adjust such, thereby preventing disease." [1910:789]

Marsden Wagner, MD^^^ once said in an amicus brief:

"Chiropractic physicians are conceivably
closest in philosophy to the midwives due to their training in the non-use
of drugs...If a nurse or [medical] physician desires
to practice midwifery, then it is necessary for each to [undergo one year or
more of training] to literally 'unlearn' the pathological vision to get the
proper perspective of normality."

^^^Marsden Wagner, MD served for 15 years as the director of women's and
children's health for the World Health Organization. The quote above
appeared in Wagner's amicus brief in the Peckman midwifery case and was
published in NAPSAC News Spring 1991 by the InterNational Association of
Parents and Professionals for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth, Rt. 1, Box
646, Marble Hill, MO 63764 USA.

To answer your question, SJ Doc

Chiropractors used to be trained to deliver babies - above and beyond the
didactic obstetrics course which most chiro students still take.

Chiropractors trained and licensed in Oregon are trained and licensed to
deliver babies; though I don't think any of them do.

Also noteworthy: The Oregon homebirth midwifery licensure law used to (and
may still) specifically state that a license is not required to practice
midwifery.

> A certain
> minimum familiarization with the techniques involved in handling
> precipitous labor is merely good common sense

Yes. Good common sense would include stopping obstetricians from closing
birth canals up to 30%. Good common sense would also include stopping
obstetricians from KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when
babies get stuck.

> (you teach
> such things to EMTs and police officers, too, despite their pallor
> and nausea during the training films and their desperate hope
> that they will die in a fiery crash before ever having to employ
> such knowledge),

I recently talked to an old EMT who used to pray for maternity transports.

He described how he handled births that didn't make it to the hospital.

He was astonished to learn that he had been closing birth canals the "extra'
up to 30%.

> but I doubt that Dr. Gastaldo has more
> familiarity with antenatal care than such as is gained

My primary familiarity is with a specific aspect of INTRAPARTUM care. The
authors of Williams Obstetrics published "my" biomechanics - but left in
their text the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my attention to
their text.

This bizarre behavior of the authors of Williams Obstetrics is one of The
Four OB Lies...

See again: Birth Danger: Cal Chiro Bd - SIMPLE QUESTION
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3526

> when he

> notices on one of his innumerable postural x-rays the fact that
> there's a fetal skeleton obscuring his visualization of the patient's
> lumbosacral spine. Whoops!
>

I am no longer in spinal adjusting practice - no longer taking x-rays - but
while I was in practice I was fastidious about doing my damndest never to
x-ray pregnant women. It was drilled into us in chiropractic college.

Following the Rule 302/Schroeder episode (see above), I chose to voluntarily
forfeit my chiropractic license. My focus now is exposing obvious obstetric
frauds. No license or degree is necessary - ANYONE can adjust without
touching the spine - educate to save tiny lives and tiny limbs and PREVENT
more putative vertebral subluxations than licensed/degreed DCs will ever be
able to adjust by hand.

Pretty funny "Chiropractic" quote from HL Mencken...

> ----------------
> If a man, being ill of a pus appendix, resorts to a shaved and
> fumigated longshoreman to have it disposed of, and submits
> willingly to a treatment involving balancing him on McBurney's
> spot and playing on his vertebra as on a concertina, then I am
> willing, for one, to believe that he is badly wanted in Heaven.

LOL! "...badly wanted in heaven" (!)

Thank goodness for surgery and surgical skill when necessary (the Founder of
Chiropractic said, "Look well to conservative surgery").

But I wonder how many "shaved and fumigated" MDs unnecessarily relieved
children of their appendices and tonsils and unnecessarily killed children
in the process...

CURRENT "shaved and fumigated" MD craziness includes routinely asphyxiating
babies/robbing them of massive amounts of blood AFTER asphyxiating babies by

keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck -

with "shaved and fumigated" MDs pulling on babies' spines as if involved in
a tug-of-war with longshoremen...

DJ Doc's Mencken quote cont'd:

> And if that same man, having achieved lawfully a lovely babe,
> hires a blacksmith to cure its diphtheria by pulling its neck,
> then I do not resist the divine will that there shall be one
> less radio fan later on.
>
> -- H.L. Mencken, "Chiropractic" (1924)

Hmmmm...

1924...

Massive numbers of lawfully and unlawfully "achieved" babes are being denied
massive numbers of free daily immunizations because medical "science"
adopted infant formula in the early twentieth century.

Science has discovered that breastfeeding women manufacture immunizations
that reportedly make MD-needle-vaccinations work better...

American MDs are mostly silent about this discovery - STILL denying massive
numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations.

What woman - explicitly informed that she can IMMUNIZE her baby daily and
(reportedly) make vaccinations work better is going to fail to at least
ATTEMPT to breastfeed?

American MDs are ignoring a simple way to make both the breastfeeding
(immunization) and vaccination rates skyrocket.

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 4:39:56 PM9/16/05

DELAYING CLAMPING TO REDUCE IRON DEFICIENCY ANEMIA...

See below.

in article cP2dncEh8Zy...@got.net, Robert at Rober...@hotmail.com
wrote on 9/16/05 11:24 AM:

Robert,

Do you join pediatrician PF Riley, MD in cheerleading obstetricians to "keep
clamping cords right away" thereby routinely asphyxiating babies and robbing
blood from them?

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics:

"[I]mmediate cord clamping aggressively...is unethical and should be
discouraged...."
PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118

Todd

DELAYING CLAMPING TO REDUCE IRON DEFICIENCY ANEMIA...

Trop Doct. 2004 Oct;34(4):218-22. PubMed abstract

The early effects of delayed cord clamping in term infants born to Libyan
mothers.
Emhamed MO, van Rheenen P, Brabin BJ.
Child and Reproductive Health Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine,
Liverpool, UK.
This study was conducted to evaluate the haematological effects of the
timing of umbilical cord clamping in term infants 24 h after birth in Libya.
Mother-infant pairs were randomly assigned to early cord clamping (within
10s after delivery) or delayed clamping (after the cord stopped pulsating).
Maternal haematological status was assessed on admission in the delivery
room. Infant haematological status was evaluated in cord blood and 24 h
after birth. Bilirubin concentration was assessed at 24 h. 104 mother-infant
pairs were randomized to delayed (n=58) or early cord clamping (n=46). At
baseline the groups had similar demographic and biomedical characteristics,
except for a difference in maternal haemoglobin, which was significantly
higher in the early clamping group (11.7 g/dL, SD 1.3 g/dL versus 10.9 g/dL,
SD 1.6 g/dL; P=0.0035). Twenty-four hours after delivery the mean infant
haemoglobin level was significantly higher in the delayed clamping group
(18.5 g/dL versus 17.1 g/dL; P=0.0005). No significant differences were
found in clinical jaundice or plethora. Surprisingly, blood analysis showed
that two babies in the early clamping group had total serum bilirubin levels
(> 15 mg/dL) that necessitated phototherapy. There were no babies in the
late clamping group who required phototherapy. Three infants in the delayed
clamping group had polycythaemia without symptoms, for which no partial
exchange transfusion was necessary. Delaying cord clamping until the
pulsations stop increases the red cell mass in term infants. It is a safe,
simple and low cost delivery procedure that should be incorporated in
integrated programmes aimed at reducing iron deficiency anaemia in infants
in developing countries.

Fuller excerpt of the PEDIATRICS quote above...

"[If] cord clamping is done too soon after
birth...the infant may be deprived of a placental blood transfusion,
resulting in lower blood volume and increased risk for anemia in later
life...There may be a temptation to practice immediate cord clamping
aggressively to increase the volume of cord blood that can be harvested for
cord blood banking. This practice is unethical and should be
discouraged...."
PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118

Again Robert, do you join pediatrician PF Riley, MD in cheerleading
obstetricians to "keep clamping cords right away" thereby routinely
asphyxiating babies and robbing blood from them?

You said you are not an MD.

Are you a PA? A nurse? A PT? A med tech?

Just curious.

Todd

Mark

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 7:21:27 PM9/16/05

I don't think Todd would know the meaning (or danger) of polycythemia
unless he looked it up in a book, and then only if he had the
opportunity to have someone else explain it to him...even then, I doubt
he'd believe this other person.

Hey Todd: "Kernicterus". Look it up.

Mark, MD

Mark

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 7:26:33 PM9/16/05

SJ Doc wrote:

> And chiropractors are trained to deliver babies? A certain
> minimum familiarization with the techniques involved in handling
> precipitous labor is merely good common sense (you teach
> such things to EMTs and police officers, too, despite their pallor
> and nausea during the training films and their desperate hope
> that they will die in a fiery crash before ever having to employ
> such knowledge), but I doubt that Dr. Gastaldo has more
> familiarity with antenatal care than such as is gained when he
> notices on one of his innumerable postural x-rays the fact that
> there's a fetal skeleton obscuring his visualization of the patient's
> lumbosacral spine. Whoops!

Todd doesn't practice chiropractic "medicine" anymore. I'm not sure of
the circumstances surrounding it, but he no longer posesses a license
to practice. Was it taken away? Did he surrender it willingly? I
don't know.

Mark, MD

P.S. Beware: If you piss him off, he'll blanket e-mail people in your
area and accuse you of child abuse. My colleagues in my town have
already been treated to this delight on at least one occasion...yes, we
all had a good laugh, but it's annoying nonetheless.

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 7:47:35 PM9/16/05

"GO OBSTETRICIANS!" (?)

See below.

in article 1126912887....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, Mark at
mlo...@bellsouth.net wrote on 9/16/05 4:21 PM:

Mark Lowry, III, MD has accurately stated my stance.

Statements that are explained in textbooks by people using textbooks should
indeed be questioned - especially for example - a statement I recently found
in two contemporary obstetrics texts indicating that it is ok to clamp cords
early.

Another example: When I found the erroneous statement in Williams
Obstetrics that "dorsal widens" - the authors of Williams Obstetrics changed
their text. At my request, they published "my" biomechanics indicating that
dorsal closes [Gastaldo TD. Birth 1992;19(4):231] - but they left in their
text - in the same paragraph (!) - their "explanation" that dorsal widens!

It's one of the Four OB Lies...

See Birth Danger: Cal Chiro Bd - SIMPLE QUESTION
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3526

Back to routine baby asphyxiation/immediate cord clamping.

Regarding PF Riley, MD's exhortation: "Go obstetricians!"

QUESTION: Do you join pediatrician PF Riley, MD in cheerleading

Todd

"[If - TG] cord clamping is done too soon after

birth...the infant may be deprived of a placental blood transfusion,
resulting in lower blood volume and increased risk for anemia in later
life...There may be a temptation to practice immediate cord clamping
aggressively to increase the volume of cord blood that can be harvested for
cord blood banking. This practice is unethical and should be
discouraged...."
PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118

Again Mark, do you join pediatrician PF Riley, MD in cheerleading

obstetricians to "keep clamping cords right away" thereby routinely
asphyxiating babies and robbing blood from them?

If you are filtering, maybe someone will quote this back and you can answer
then.

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 9:10:17 PM9/16/05

MARK LOWRY, III, MD RECOMMENDED MURDER BY RAPE...

See the very end of this post.

in article 1126913193.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, Mark at
mlo...@bellsouth.net wrote on 9/16/05 4:26 PM:

> SJ Doc wrote:
>
>
>> And chiropractors are trained to deliver babies? A certain
>> minimum familiarization with the techniques involved in handling
>> precipitous labor is merely good common sense (you teach
>> such things to EMTs and police officers, too, despite their pallor
>> and nausea during the training films and their desperate hope
>> that they will die in a fiery crash before ever having to employ
>> such knowledge), but I doubt that Dr. Gastaldo has more
>> familiarity with antenatal care than such as is gained when he
>> notices on one of his innumerable postural x-rays the fact that
>> there's a fetal skeleton obscuring his visualization of the patient's
>> lumbosacral spine. Whoops!
>
> Todd doesn't practice chiropractic "medicine" anymore.
>

Mark,

If you are saying I don't practice chiropractic anymore, you are quite
wrong.

Dr. DD Palmer, Founder of Chiropractic, wrote "Chiropractic came as an
educator" and he defined chiropractic, in part, as "the mental act of
accumulating knowledge."

With MDs RESTRICTING "the mental act of accumulating knowledge" (lying)...

With MDs keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% as they pull with

hands, forceps and vacuums - sometimes pulling so hard they rip spinal

nerves out of tiny spinal cords...

I practice that vast largely unpracticed portion of chiropractic (education
regarding obvious medical crime) that requires neither license nor degree.

ANYONE can adjust/educate women to inform them that obstetricians are
closing birth canals up to 30% and committing other obvious crimes.

> I'm not sure of
> the circumstances surrounding it, but he no longer posesses a license
> to practice. Was it taken away? Did he surrender it willingly? I
> don't know.
>
> Mark, MD
>

SHORT ANSWER...

I voluntarily forfeited my chiropractic license years ago - after I was
informed by a man calling himself Mike Schroeder, attorney for the
California Board of Chiropractic Examiners that it was outside my scope of
practice to inform pregnant women that obstetricians are closing birth
canals up to 30%.

LONG ANSWER (posted in reply to SJ Doc)

SJ Doc asked...

>
> And chiropractors are trained to deliver babies?
>

I replied to SJ Doc...

See Birth Danger: Cal Chiro Bd - SIMPLE QUESTION
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3526

Meanwhile, as California DCs are prohibited from severing umbilical cords -

I hope they do.

may still) specifically state that a license is not required to practice
midwifery.

Mark Lowry, III, MD concluded:

> P.S. Beware: If you piss him off, he'll blanket e-mail people in your
> area and accuse you of child abuse. My colleagues in my town have
> already been treated to this delight on at least one occasion...yes, we
> all had a good laugh, but it's annoying nonetheless.
>

LOL!

I remember that!

But Mark's version is sketchy...

Here's what happened...

Mark in effect told me I had to go to medical school and start delivering
babies to call attention to criminal assaults being committed by
obstetricians...

"Hey 'Dr.' Todd...start delivering babies and get on staff in your
neighborhood NICU...you'll gain a little more credibility in your criticism
of the 'criminal assault' perpetrated by MDs against neonates."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&selm=586e065b.01091007...
20fd%40posting.google.com

Here is the Open Letter I composed and cc'd to his colleagues in hopes that
they would act to STOP the mass child abuse....

OPEN LETTER (posted to the following usenet newsgroups: misc.kids.pregnancy,
misc.health.alternative, sci.med)

Mark Lowry III, M.D. (mlo...@chc.net)
1030 Brookhaven Road
Franklin, KY 42135
Phone: (270) 598-4900
Fax: (270) 598-4930
Specialty: Pediatrics
Medical School: University of Kentucky College of Medicine
Residency: Michigan State University/Kalamazoo Center for Medical Studies
http://www.mcbg.org/PD/Main.asp?ID=4515344&sReq=25

Hi Mark,

Thank you for posting in reply to my recent usenet post, "Babies forced to
donate 1/3 cup of blood!"
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&selm=mIYm7.10882%24d86...
%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net

I saw your CHC.NET address, looked on the web and found that obstetrics is
one of the services offered at CHC's Bowling Green Women's Clinic...
http://www.mcbg.org/WomensClinic/servicesoffered.htm

Curious as to what delivery positions are used by CHC obstetricians, I
telephoned CHC's Bowling Green Women's Clinic (270-781-0075).

No deliveries there.

I was advised to call the Medical Center with which the Women's Clinic is
associated - which I did (270-745-1000).

Laura at the Medical Center told me that most births there are performed in
the lithotomy position - but the head of the bed can be raised so women can
semisit - if women ask...

Mark, let me be explicit: If Laura's info is accurate, most births at
Medical Center Bowling Green (www.mcbg.org) are being conducted dorsal or
semisitting - with birth canals closed up to 30%.

Mark, if you fail to join me in stopping dorsal and semisitting deliveries,
you will be an accessory to the criminal assaults.

I say AGAIN Mark...

You might have a look at
the grisly spectacle of MD-obstetrician experts LYING as their
MD-obstetrician colleagues routinely deny babies up to 30% of pelvic outlet
area at delivery by placing women ON their butts - on their sacra - by using
semisitting and dorsal delivery.

THE GASTALDO MANEUVER...

OBSTETRICIANS: Keeping women OFF their butts is the simple (and free)
Gastaldo maneuver. The Gastaldo maneuver is a CHIROPRACTIC maneuver that
will save tiny lives and tiny limbs and PREVENT vertebral subluxations. It
includes most every birth position BUT semisitting and dorsal. The Gastaldo
maneuver includes side-lying, hands-and-knees, squatting, standing,
crouching on one knee, etc. The Gastaldo maneuver includes ALL delivery
positions that keep the woman OFF her butt - off her sacrum. To those who
cringe at me calling ancient birth positions the Gastaldo maneuver, call
them what you want but please understand: I made this shameless grab for
eponymic immortality when I watched the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists/ACOG's Shoulder Dystocia Drill video and saw that
McRoberts maneuver keeps women ON their butts - on their sacra - even as the
narrator falsely claims that McRoberts maneuver fully opens the pelvic
outlet!

BIRTH TRAUMA PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS: The error-ridden ACOG Shoulder Dystocia
Drill video was recently ruled an exception to the hearsay rule - admissible
as evidence in Costantino v. Herzog [2000]. Besides the fact that ACOG's
McRoberts method to open birth canals doesn't open birth canals - by telling
MDs to fully open birth canals in the minority of births when the shoulders
get badly stuck - ACOG is admitting on videotape that MDs are CLOSING birth
canals in MOST births! (To that baby on the video whose head is a nice deep
shade of blue - the birth canal is indeed closed.) Note well: Even "just"
making a big slash in the mother's vagina (euphemism "big episiotomy") in
shoulder dystocia cases is obvious assault and battery. Indeed, ALL vagina
slashings - ostensibly to open the birth canal fully even as one closes the
birth canal up to 30% - are OBVIOUS assault and battery.

See Prof. Andre A Moenssens to help babies?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=27c8eb7ba0fa92a6,1&...
Xr87.936%246V.271972%40dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net#p

See also MDs kill - PTs silently suck up...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&selm=EzMm7.7770%245r.6...
0newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net

If Google.com is down, my articles are archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list.

Finally this, Mark...

Betty Martini quotes you saying,

"I know what I'm talking about most of the time, but if I don't, I'm willing
to learn and correct my mistakes."
--Mark Lowry, III, MD
http://www.nancymarkle.com/lowry/Letters/Lowry1/lowry1.html

Please do learn and correct your mistakes.

It's your duty as a "high-falutin' medical professional...[with a]...natural
pugnacious tendency."
http://www.wwforum.com/bios/files/MLowry_11-6-99.html
via Betty Martini's website: http://www.nancymarkle.com/lowry/

With your pugnacious tendency, you resorted to intellectual dishonesty/ad
hominem attack.

You should have either found fault with my facts or joined me in my protest.

Instead, you committed psychological violence against me.

"[Withholding] information by restricting scholarly exchange...[is a form
of]...psychological violence."
--Ralph Crawshaw, MD. Academic sanction: targeting South African science.
JAMA 1989;262(11):1499-1503

Babies need your help Mark - not your snide remarks about chiropractic.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gastaldo
t...@chiromotion.com

Copied to the following CHC-affiliated obstetricians:

Bryson, Keith M.D. Bowling Green, KY 42101
Davis, Joe T. M.D. Bowling Green, KY 42104
Dobson, Carl W. M.D. Bowling Green, KY 42103
Fee, Kela Lyons M.D. Bowling Green, KY 42104
Gass, Joseph C. M.D. Bowling Green, KY 42101
Granese, Diana M.D. Bowling Green, KY 42101
Hatcher, Ronald M.D. Bowling Green, KY 42104
Hewitt, Keith M.D. Bowling Green, KY 42104
McCool, Randy M.D. Bowling Green, KY 42101
Morgan, Martha L. D.O. Bowling Green, KY 42101
Nemec, Jeffery M.D. Bowling Green, KY 42101
Priebe, Philip N. M.D. Bowling Green, KY 42101
Walker, Allen M.D. Bowling Green, KY 42101
Yurchisin, Mark J. M.D.

via...

Jay Tomes Davis, M.D.
Obstetrics/Gynecology
Commonwealth Medical Plaza
720 Second Street, Suite 203
Bowling Green, KY 42101
WebSite: www.DrJayDavis.com
Phone: (270) 843-5133
Fax: (270) 843-5028
O...@DrJayDavis.com

>>>>END Gastaldo's Open Letter to Lowry

MARK LOWRY, III, MD AND RAPE...

Actually, it's instrumental rape that slices vaginas...and Mark Lowry, III,
MD is silent about it.

Obstetricians are slicing vaginas en masse - surgically fraudulently
inferring they are doing everything possible to open birth canals - even as
they close birth canals the "extra" up to 30%.

MARK LOWRY, III, MD RECOMMENDED MURDER BY RAPE...

Mark Lowry, III, MD is the fine fellow who can't manage to stop mass sexual
assault by his fellow MDs - MASS VAGINA SLICING - but he found the time to
publicly recommend murder by rape of a man already convicted of murdering
his son:

"I hope Yurko is repeatedly and violently raped in prison, over and over, on
many, many occasions until he dies of blood loss from a
shredded rectum...I mean it."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=5ee850fe.0201021320.18e277...
sting.google.com

I don't think Alan Yurko killed his son - and I was glad when he got out of
his life sentence.

But let's say Alan (or anyone else DID kill) - WHY would Mark Lowry, III, MD
call for murder by rape of an imprisoned man - and ignore his fellow MDs
ROUTINELY/instrumentally raping women?

ANSWER: Mark is part of a "gang" mentality - he is part of a gang - the
medical gang.

Most women do fine after having their vaginas sliced.

But some women suffer fecal incontinence for the rest of their lives.

Mark's fellow gang members are STILL promoting vagina slicing to prevent
severe tears - even after Shiono et al. at NIH demonstrated in 1991 that
episiotomized women suffer 50X more severe tears clear to the anus than
women who are not episiotomized.

See

It's the damndest thing - it's mass rape by our most trusted cultural
authorities - MDs.

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com

I JUST FOUND THIS...

It's part of the reason they let Alan Yurko out of his life sentence...

Here's an excerpt of Yurko's complaint (THIS IS INCREDIBLE): "[Shashi B.
Gore, MD] testified that he did not seek or review medical history of the
decedent, which would have revealed a 75-hour course of heparin overdose in
an absolutely contraindicated setting (decedent had received iatrogenically
1095 IUs of heparin every five hours, whereas maximum dosage for this
infant, according to the Physicians Desk Reference (2002 and 1997 editions),
is only 125 IUs of heparin every five hours...heparin was absolutely
contraindicated due to the high risk of hemorrhage...Also attached is an
article which reports on Dr. Gore's incompetence, and an internal
investigation which revealed that, among other things, hundreds of cases in
his care have been cross-contaminated as early as 1994..."
http://www.freeyurko.bizland.com/gorecompl.html

I remarked: Alan has won an
appeal of his life in prison conviction. Quite a feat. As I've said
before, REGARDLESS whether Alan is guilty - MDs are *routinely* abusing
babies - sometimes killing them - and lying to cover-up. To be logically
consistent, the gang prison rape and murder guy - Mark Lowry, MD - should be
calling for the gang prison rape and murder of MDs who are abusing science -
and babies - sometimes fatally.

The medical gang is a tough gang.

Mark is a medical tough - nothing more nothing less - babies be damned.

I am sure Mark is skilled - but he hangs with the medical gang - regardless
of truth.

The chiro gang is now aping the medical gang in many ways.

Chiros too are silent - as obstetricians keep birth canals closed the
"extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.

Sometimes I think about what it must feel like for baby to have an MD-
obstetrician pull so hard that a spinal nerve rips out of the spinal cord.

Medical gang member Mark Lowry, III, MD must never think of such things.

But if a NON-MD harms a baby, medical gang member Mark demands murder by
rape...

Medical gang member Mark says:

Again, I don't think Alan Yurko killed his son (see above) - and I was glad
when he got out of his life sentence.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
to...@chiromotion.com

SJ Doc

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 2:33:16 AM9/17/05

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:42:57 GMT, Todd Gastaldo wrote
yet again about "closing birth canals the 'extra' up to 30%"
and some further stuff about *Williams Obstetrics* (McGraw-
Hill; which edition, I wonder?).

The first question - Jeez, I know I'm gonna catch it for this,
but I just *gotta* ask - is just what the hell do you mean
by this repeated goddam expression "closing birth canals the
'extra' up to 30%," anyway? On those few occasions when
I had to sit there and get amniotic fluid all over my shoes in
the course of a normal spontaneous (or pitocin induced)
vaginal delivery, the fetal presenting part slid down the curve
of Carus like a goddam battering ram, shoving past the non-
generative contents of the pelvis with a "get-the-hell-outta-my-
way" impact that Carol Burnett once characterized as being
"...like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head."

If that canal was anything *but* open, how the hell did I
manage to get my Size-8˝-gloved hand into the uterus on
certain rare and scrotum-tightening occasions to seek out
and gently remove retained placental cotyledons that were
responsible for excessive third stage bleeding?

Are you referring to all the c-sections that the OB guys perform
so promiscuously, or are you talking about episiotomy repair?
And what the hell is with this perpetual "extra" in quotation
marks? If there's any sense in this expression, it's sailing *way*
the hellangone past anything I ever read or heard in school or in
practice over the course of a fun-filled and occasionally terrifying
life in the ranks of Them Wot Got Betadyne Stains on Their
Sweatsocks.

I know all about how the politically connected medicos have
done every damned thing they can to restrict patient access
to health care providers who charge lower fees for their services
than licensed physicians do, including nurse practitioners, physi-
cian assistants, and nurse midwives. It's the same with lawyers
and their hatred for paralegals providing "boilerplate" legal
services. Every form of professional licensure throughout the
history of civilization has been designed to allow established
practitioners to get a chokehold on market entry and either
create or preserve an oligopoly. That's what licensing is *for*,
government maundering about "quality of care" be damned.

No less an authority than Nobel laureate Milton Friedman stated:

"There is no occupation so remote that an attempt has not been
made to restrict its practice by licensure...The justification offered
is always the same: to protect the consumer. However, the reason
is demonstrated by observing who lobbies at the state legislature
for the imposition or strengthening of licensure. The lobbyists are
invariably representatives of the occupation in question rather than
of the customers. True enough, plumbers presumably know better
than anyone else what their consumers need to be protected
against. However, it is hard to regard altruistic concern for their
customers as the primary motive behind their determined efforts
to get legal power to decide who may be a plumber."

Not that I agree much with the socialist sucking-up of George
Bernard Shaw, but - like the proverbial stopped clock being
right at least twice a day - he could occasionally catch the facts
of a matter and fix them upon the printed page. In his preface
to *The Doctor's Dilemma*, he wrote: "The effect...is to make
the medical profession a conspiracy to hide its own shortcomings.
No doubt the same may be said of all professions. They are all
conspiracies against the laity."

Politics aside, what is it that's getting your freak on about
>obstetricians...OBVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY severing
>umbilical cords by clamping/cutting immediately,
f'chrissake? And (yet again) what d'you mean by
>...closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30%
so repeatedly that you seem to have a keyboard macro
configured to do the job for you? Is there some kind of
federal statute (reflected in some Title of the U.S. Code
of Federal Regulations) by which the criminality of closing
an umbilical clamp at a particular moment has been estab-
lished?

As for....

>Chiropractors used to be trained to deliver babies - above
>and beyond the didactic obstetrics course which most chiro
>students still take.
>
>Chiropractors trained and licensed in Oregon are trained and
>licensed to deliver babies; though I don't think any of them do.

I should sure as hell think so. Ever think that maybe the
plaintiff's bar has something to do about that? I knew a
GP down in Cumberland County (probably retired by now)
who used to do so many deliveries that he met with the
obstetrics section of the Department of Surgery instead
of with the rest of us in the Department of Medicine. The
joke was that the only way for a patient to get into his practice
was to be born in it. I don't want to think what the annual
professional liability insurance premiums must be like for any
primary care "provider" who might be insane enough to seek
and secure obstetrical privileges at any hospital in any state
in the present union. The lawyers would be on the poor
bastard like barracudas on a boatload of refugees.

>I recently talked to an old EMT who used to pray for
>maternity transports.

Ah, yes. That's symptomatic of something the EMT-P guys
call the "Jolly Volly Syndrome." We've got a bit of that in
the volunteer ambulance corps hitherabouts. "Good Sam-
aritan" laws provide something of a shield, but from what I've
been told the local corps are *very* particular about docu-
menting in each case that they have done bloody *everything*
necessary to get Mom to the nearest Emergency Department
rather than break out the L&D kit in the back of the truck.

And you say that...

>He was astonished to learn that he had been closing birth
>canals the "extra" up to 30%.

...eh? Well, jeez, I'll betcha he was astounded to learn that
anybody could keep spouting that phrase without specifying
just what the hell it means, too.

And you're not familiar with Mencken's "Chiropractic" essay?
The damned thing has been continuously in print (in Mencken's
first *Chrestomathy*) since before the man died in 1956. Just
how the hell deep was the hole in which you were raised that
you could not know about Mencken, or never have read that
essay before? You're a *chiropractor* and this little bit of prose
is new to you? Yeesh!

---------------
Government is the great fiction through which everybody
endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "Government" (1848)
http://bastiat.org/en/government.html

PF Riley

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 2:41:09 AM9/17/05

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:47:35 GMT, Todd Gastaldo
<tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"GO OBSTETRICIANS!"

>
>According to the American Academy of Pediatrics:
>
>"[I]mmediate cord clamping aggressively...is unethical and should be
>discouraged...."
>PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118

Liar! Todd is a liar!

(Hint: Whenever you see a Usenet kook using ellipses, go read the full
quotation. Liar frauds like Gastaldo like to clip important text to
serve their own needs.)

Here's what the Work Group on Cord Blood Banking REALLY said:

"There may be a temptation to practice immediate cord clamping
aggressively to increase the volume of cord blood that can be
harvested for cord blood banking. This practice is unethical and
should be discouraged."

And:

"[T]he cord blood stem cell collection program should not alter
routine practice for the timing of umbilical cord clamping."

So tell me: Just what IS "routine practice"?

cathyb

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 4:36:03 AM9/17/05

PF Riley wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:47:35 GMT, Todd Gastaldo
> <tgas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >"GO OBSTETRICIANS!"
> >
> >According to the American Academy of Pediatrics:
> >
> >"[I]mmediate cord clamping aggressively...is unethical and should be
> >discouraged...."
> >PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118
>
> Liar! Todd is a liar!
>
> (Hint: Whenever you see a Usenet kook using ellipses, go read the full
> quotation. Liar frauds like Gastaldo like to clip important text to
> serve their own needs.)
>
> Here's what the Work Group on Cord Blood Banking REALLY said:
>
> "There may be a temptation to practice immediate cord clamping
> aggressively to increase the volume of cord blood that can be
> harvested for cord blood banking. This practice is unethical and
> should be discouraged."

Ah. Gastaldoo was obviously having a Lollipop moment.

Cathy

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 9:31:48 AM9/17/05

SJ Doc wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:42:57 GMT, Todd Gastaldo wrote
> yet again about "closing birth canals the 'extra' up to 30%"
> and some further stuff about *Williams Obstetrics* (McGraw-
> Hill; which edition, I wonder?).
>
> The first question - Jeez, I know I'm gonna catch it for this,
> but I just *gotta* ask - is just what the hell do you mean
> by this repeated goddam expression "closing birth canals the
> 'extra' up to 30%," anyway? On those few occasions when
> I had to sit there and get amniotic fluid all over my shoes in
> the course of a normal spontaneous (or pitocin induced)
> vaginal delivery, the fetal presenting part slid down the curve
> of Carus like a goddam battering ram, shoving past the non-
> generative contents of the pelvis with a "get-the-hell-outta-my-
> way" impact that Carol Burnett once characterized as being
> "...like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head."

Was that Carol Burnett? I once heard Bill Cosby use that as his wife's
description of what labor feels like.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

O'Hush

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 9:49:59 AM9/17/05

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
news:8VUWe.973$T55.942@trndny06...

> > "...like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head."
>
> Was that Carol Burnett? I once heard Bill Cosby use that as his wife's
> description of what labor feels like.

If you've ever awoken with a terrible leg cramp, you're a lot closer to the
sensation, only that's over in a minute or two.

cathyb

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 9:55:34 AM9/17/05

My God, you have terrible leg cramps!

Cathy

cathyb

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 10:08:45 AM9/17/05

SJ Doc wrote:

Whilst I had midwife care for my four deliveries, and I understand that
this is perfectly safe for a normal pregnancy and delivery, I have to
agree with the Australian doctors who (for perhaps selfish as well as
good reasons) are objecting to midwifery-alone centres being set up
here. The midwives are furious (naturally), but frankly, no birth is
risk-free. If something goes wrong, I want to be in reach of a neonatal
specialist unit. And I was. The midwife pelted up the corridor with my
son to the unit where they proceeded to save his life. Maybe he would
have been ok after an ambulance journey...but maybe not.

Cathy

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 10:29:56 AM9/17/05

cathyb wrote:

I had the same thought.

Steve

O'Hush

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 10:39:53 AM9/17/05

"cathyb" <cathyb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1126965334.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Yes, they suck. I had them when I was pregnant, and I've seen DH wake up
with one, and he looked to be in exquisite pain, pouring sweat by the time
it was over. If you'd like to have the experience yourself, avoid foods
containing potassium, get plenty of weight-bearing exercise,and get
dehydrated.

O'Hush

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 10:46:59 AM9/17/05

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message

news:ELVWe.1689$LV5.1037@trndny02...

> cathyb wrote:
>
> > O'Hush wrote:
> >
> >>"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
> >>news:8VUWe.973$T55.942@trndny06...
> >>
> >>
> >>>>"...like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head."
> >>>
> >>>Was that Carol Burnett? I once heard Bill Cosby use that as his wife's
> >>>description of what labor feels like.
> >>
> >>If you've ever awoken with a terrible leg cramp, you're a lot closer to
the
> >>sensation, only that's over in a minute or two.
> >
> >
> > My God, you have terrible leg cramps!
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> I had the same thought.

(I had an unmedicated delivery with a midwife as well.) IMO the uterine
contractions are a lot more painful than the perineal stretch, because for
me anyway, there was so much pressure on the perineum that I had no
sensation there, and I didn't even feel the episiotomy. I just meant it's a
similar feeling, if you generalize the nocturnal leg cramp sensation to your
whole pelvis and abdomen.

Patti

SJ Doc

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 10:48:40 AM9/17/05

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:31:48 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:

...in response to the following comment:
>>...the fetal presenting part slid down the curve

>> of Carus like a goddam battering ram, shoving past the non-
>> generative contents of the pelvis with a "get-the-hell-outta-my-
>> way" impact that Carol Burnett once characterized as being
>> "...like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head."

> Was that Carol Burnett? I once heard Bill Cosby use
>that as his wife's description of what labor feels like.

If so, Cosby may have been plagiarizing Burnett. I'm old enough
to remember when she made that remark live on her television show
back in the '60s (the way I remembered it, she'd said "...forcing
it *up* over your head" [emphasis added]). I've checked online,
and several sources support the attribution.

------------------------
Whatever it is that government does, sensible Americans
would prefer that the government do it to somebody else.
This is the idea behind foreign policy.

-- P.J. O'Rourke

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 11:10:08 AM9/17/05

O'Hush wrote:

We were visiting my brother in law and his family over Labor Day. One
morning his wife asked if he'd awakened us with his screaming (he
hadn't). Apparently severe leg cramps. He's fit, 50 years old. Hadn't
happened before. This guy is not a complainer--if he was screaming it
was pretty bad.

Steve

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 11:12:04 AM9/17/05

O'Hush wrote:

> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
> news:ELVWe.1689$LV5.1037@trndny02...
>
>>cathyb wrote:
>>
>>
>>>O'Hush wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:8VUWe.973$T55.942@trndny06...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>"...like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head."
>>>>>
>>>>>Was that Carol Burnett? I once heard Bill Cosby use that as his wife's
>>>>>description of what labor feels like.
>>>>
>>>>If you've ever awoken with a terrible leg cramp, you're a lot closer to
>
> the
>
>>>>sensation, only that's over in a minute or two.
>>>
>>>
>>>My God, you have terrible leg cramps!
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>I had the same thought.
>
>
> (I had an unmedicated delivery with a midwife as well.) IMO the uterine
> contractions are a lot more painful than the perineal stretch, because for
> me anyway, there was so much pressure on the perineum that I had no
> sensation there, and I didn't even feel the episiotomy. I just meant it's a
> similar feeling, if you generalize the nocturnal leg cramp sensation to your
> whole pelvis and abdomen.
>
> Patti
>
>

My wife suffered 12 hours with induced labor before she relented and
had an epidural.

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 11:13:35 AM9/17/05

SJ Doc wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:31:48 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
> ...in response to the following comment:
>
>>>...the fetal presenting part slid down the curve
>>>of Carus like a goddam battering ram, shoving past the non-
>>>generative contents of the pelvis with a "get-the-hell-outta-my-
>>>way" impact that Carol Burnett once characterized as being
>>>"...like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head."
>
>
>> Was that Carol Burnett? I once heard Bill Cosby use
>>that as his wife's description of what labor feels like.
>
>
> If so, Cosby may have been plagiarizing Burnett. I'm old enough
> to remember when she made that remark live on her television show
> back in the '60s (the way I remembered it, she'd said "...forcing
> it *up* over your head" [emphasis added]). I've checked online,
> and several sources support the attribution.

Cosby may have. I remember him saying, "Take your lip...and pull it
ovuh yo heeeeeyyyyd!"

Steve

>
> ------------------------
> Whatever it is that government does, sensible Americans
> would prefer that the government do it to somebody else.
> This is the idea behind foreign policy.
>
> -- P.J. O'Rourke

O'Hush

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 11:20:52 AM9/17/05

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message

news:klWWe.1485$T55.1063@trndny06...

See what I mean? They suck. I had a bout of them recently while on a
very-low-carb diet. (It's hard to get enough potassium without fruit, and
it's very easy to get dehydrated.) I've heard hypomagnesemia can have the
same effect.

O'Hush

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 11:29:18 AM9/17/05

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message

news:8nWWe.1486$T55.794@trndny06...

> > (I had an unmedicated delivery with a midwife as well.) IMO the uterine
> > contractions are a lot more painful than the perineal stretch, because
for
> > me anyway, there was so much pressure on the perineum that I had no
> > sensation there, and I didn't even feel the episiotomy. I just meant
it's a
> > similar feeling, if you generalize the nocturnal leg cramp sensation to
your
> > whole pelvis and abdomen.

> My wife suffered 12 hours with induced labor before she relented and
> had an epidural.

Ow. I've heard the pitocin contractions are very intense. I begged for
narcotics starting at 10:00 p.m. (he was born at 5:30 a.m.). My surly
midwife told me I was "not in enough pain" so meds weren't indicated. I had
chosen the birth center because the midwives convinced me I'd have more
control there than in the hospital. I don't expect to have another baby,
but if I do, I'll go to a hospital where I'll at least have some control
over whether or not I get pain meds.

~~Patti

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 11:47:17 AM9/17/05

O'Hush wrote:
>
>
> Ow. I've heard the pitocin contractions are very intense. I begged for
> narcotics starting at 10:00 p.m. (he was born at 5:30 a.m.). My surly
> midwife told me I was "not in enough pain" so meds weren't indicated. I had
> chosen the birth center because the midwives convinced me I'd have more
> control there than in the hospital. I don't expect to have another baby,
> but if I do, I'll go to a hospital where I'll at least have some control
> over whether or not I get pain meds.
>
> ~~Patti

This was of course in the hospital. She was induced because she was
late, and the placenta was degenerating.
About 5 hrs after the first epidural and after all that pain, our
daughter was delivered by c-section anyway.

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 12:45:29 PM9/17/05

CORD CLAMPING BABY ASPHYXATION: PEDIATRICIAN NOT CHEERING SO LOUD NOW...

Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD CHEERED for obstetricians to
"keep clamping cords right away" - "Go obstetricians!" he exclaimed...

I quoted PF's own specialty (pediatrics) indicating "immediate cord clamping
aggressively" is "unethical" - something that should be discouraged...

PF called me a "liar fraud" - accused me of leaving out key text.

PF SNIPPED the very text that he says I left out.

PF may be backing off his blithe cheerleading for routine baby
asphyxation/immediate cord clamping.

See below.

in article BF50A808.B35F%tgas...@earthlink.net, Todd Gastaldo at
tgas...@earthlink.net wrote on 9/16/05 4:47 PM:

> According to the American Academy of Pediatrics:
>
> "[I]mmediate cord clamping aggressively...is unethical and should be
> discouraged...."
> PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118
>

> life...There may be a temptation to practice immediate cord clamping

> aggressively to increase the volume of cord blood that can be harvested for
> cord blood banking. This practice is unethical and should be

> discouraged...."
> PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118
>

> Again Mark, do you join pediatrician PF Riley, MD in cheerleading
> obstetricians to "keep clamping cords right away" thereby routinely
> asphyxiating babies and robbing blood from them?
>
> If you are filtering, maybe someone will quote this back and you can answer
> then.
>
> Todd
>
> Dr. Gastaldo
> Hillsboro, Oregon
> USA
> to...@chiromotion.com
>

[PF Riley, MD] Liar! Todd is a liar!

[PF Riley, MD] (Hint: Whenever you see a Usenet kook using ellipses,

[Gastaldo] I am a "usenet kook" in PF's mind at least in part because I
point out obvious crimes being committed by his religion - medical
"science."

[PF Riley, MD] ...go read the full quotation. Liar frauds like Gastaldo like

to clip important text to serve their own needs.)

[PF Riley, MD] Here's what the Work Group on Cord Blood Banking REALLY said:

[Gastaldo] I GAVE this quote at the end of my post - and PF snipped it and
quoted it back as if I hadn't!

[Gastaldo] PF offered this further quote:

"[T]he cord blood stem cell collection program should not alter
routine practice for the timing of umbilical cord clamping."

[PF Riley, MD] So tell me: Just what IS 'routine practice"?

GASTALDO RESPONDS FURTHER TO PF RILEY, MD...

PF,

I often quote retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG
saying that immediate cord clamping happens to EVERY CESAREAN BABY (my
caps)...

Obviously, even if baby asphyxiation/immediate cord clamping now occurs in
"only" 50% of cesarean births it is quite routine.

You cheered:

"I sure hope obstetricians keep clamping cords right away. Go
obstetricians!"

Two medical doctors have indicated that, given that c-section is major
abdominal surgery, the cord MUST be clamped immediately - so as to reduce
the possibility of contaminating the sterile field.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that this is true and there are no
unnecessary c-sections caused by obstetricians closing birth canals up to
30% and keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get
stuck. (Another obvious medical crime that you ignore.)

Let us move on to your emphasis above: "the cord blood STEM CELL collection
program..."

You ask: "Just what IS 'routine practice'"?

PF, YOU HAVE JUST HIT UPON THE GRISLY GAME

I had a similar exchange already with international stem cell authority
PETER HOLLANDS, PhD....

Here is my record of that exchange from the Google usenet archive...

Dr. Hollands' glib response (re: umbilical cord clamping)

Todd Gastaldo Jan 18, 1:50 pm show options
Newsgroups: misc.kids.pregnancy, misc.health.alternative, sci.med
From: "Todd Gastaldo" <tgasta...@earthlink.net> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:50:43 GMT
Local: Tues, Jan 18 2005 1:50 pm
Subject: Dr. Hollands' glib response (re: umbilical cord clamping

"In terms of cord blood collection we do not advocate either early or late
clamping, simply normal practice."
--Peter Hollands, PhD to Todd Gastaldo, DC

Peter,

Your glib sentence is a dodge.

Immediate cord clamping IS "simply normal practice" - in babies with medical
problems at delivery (!), as in your statement,

...[B]abies with medical problems at delivery...[should have their cords]
clamped immediately so [they] can be attended to by neonatal
paediatricians..."

Babies with medical problems at delivery may be suffering BRAIN DAMAGE and,
as you say,

"If there were damaged areas of brain...then stem cells could potentially
repair these lesions."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Can stem cells cure Epilepsy?)

I was pleased to see that AAP says in its cord blood banking statement:
"Cord blood collection should not be done in complicated deliveries..."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/104/1/116

Complicated deliveries can be a cause of "medical problems at delivery."

I believe OBs are causing some complicated deliveries by closing birth
canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck.

I hope you will inform pregnant women in your circle of family and friends
and tell them how easy it is for them to allow their birth canals to open

the "extra" up to 30%.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
t...@chiromotion.com

PS I quoted AAP:

"[I]mmediate cord clamping aggressively...is unethical and should be
discouraged...."
PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118

I forgot to add: ALL immediate cord clamping is agressive if the baby is
robbed of blood or blood products that s/he would otherwise have tranfused
to him/herself - or so I say...

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Hollands
To: Todd Gastaldo

Cc: chiro-l...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: A sad birthday...and Dr. Hollands' 'logical medical
thought'...

Dear Todd,

Thank you for this interesting information. In terms of cord blood
collection we do not advocate either early or late clamping, simply normal
practice.

Regards,

Peter

Dr Peter Hollands PhD, CSci, FIBMS
Scientific Director
Cells for Life Ltd & Victoria Angel Registry of Hope
www.cellsforlife.com

All information in this email is confidential and intended solely for the
addressee. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this
information is prohibited and may be unlawful. Although Cells for Life
strives to maintain a virus-free network, all recipients are advised to
check this email and any attachments for viruses. Cells for Life shall not
accept any liability for the transmission or emanation of viruses from this
email.

----- Original Message -----
From: Todd Gastaldo
To: pet...@cellsforlife.com
Cc: chiro-l...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 3:04 PM
Subject: A sad birthday...and Dr. Hollands' 'logical medical thought'...

A SAD BIRTHDAY...AND DR. HOLLAND'S "LOGICAL MEDICAL THOUGHT"...

For the sad birthday, see below.

TIPS FOR PREGNANT WOMEN: Dr. Hollands' 'logical medical thought'
(immediate cord clamping so neonatologists can resuscitate) is NOT logical
according to George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB, FACOG, i.e.,

OB or CNMwives should not clamp your baby's cord until it has stopped
pulsating and your baby is pink and breathing and not in need of
resuscitation.

Also, do not let the OB or CNMwife place you dorsal or semisitting as
you push your baby out - unless you want your birth canal closed up to 30%.
It's easy to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%. See the
URL in the postscript.

Talk to your OB or CNMwife about these matters BEFORE your birth.

PETER HOLLANDS, PhD (Cells for Life, Ltd), please rethink your "logical
medical thought."

THE SAD BIRTHDAY...

Kelly Moscarello wrote to me on Jan. 16, 2005:

"Today is [little Bella's] 2nd birthday. No presents or party as she
cannot open up any presents and she will vomit at the sight of cake. Maybe
next year. :) I hope...My friend...who I met in Fort Lauderdale Florida,
had a severely brain injured child too. Her name was Lief. She died on
Thursday nite. She was born August 26th, and was comatose, vent-dependent,
tube-fed, etc, etc. She died without ever once having opened her eyes to
look at her mom. So sad."

OPEN LETTER

Kelly Moscarello

Kelly,

Thank you for calling my attention back to immediate cord clamping after
Donna Young first called my attention to it...

I will try to always mention your little Bella whenever I write about
immediate cord clamping.

I was really hoping that the idea of hospitals paying for oxygen for
brain-injured babies (HBOT) would catch on given that hospitals are blithely
DENYING babies oxygen at birth.

With hospitals STILL asphyxiating babies routinely, who knows the idea
still might catch on - it could even catch on after hospitals stop
asphyxiating babies at birth.

ASPHYXIATION OF BABIES

Some readers of this Open Letter may not yet be aware that
birth-canal-closing (see the postscript) and immediate cord clamping are
BOTH terrible asphyxiations.

WORSE...

Immediate cord clamping robs babies of significant numbers of STEM CELLS
thought to be able to repair brain tissue...

Peter Hollands, PhD (Cells for Life, Ltd) writes:

"If there were damaged areas of brain...then stem cells could
potentially
repair these lesions."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Can stem cells cure Epilepsy?)

Bizarrely, Peter Hollands, PhD (Cells for Life, Ltd) writes:

"This concept of not clamping until the cord stops pulsating has no
basis in logical medical thought...[B]abies with medical problems at
delivery...[should have their cords] clamped immediately so [they] can be
attended to by neonatal paediatricians..."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id15.htm (Click on "Share your learnings" then
on
"I don't recommend cord blood banking" <---Note: Someone else wrote
this. Peter RECOMMENDS blood banking - and so do I - but whereas I say we
should never immediately clamp cords - Peter is in favor of immediate
clamping "babies with medical problems.")

(Kelly, thanks for calling my attention to some of these quotes from
Peter Hollands, PhD.)

PETER...

WHAT ABOUT BABIES WITH **BRAIN DAMAGE** MEDICAL PROBLEMS AT DELIVERY?

What if stem cells DO repair brain lesions?

What if little Bella's cerebral palsy would have been LESS - perhaps FAR
less - had the paramedic not aped MDs in immediately clamping little Bella's
cord - cutting off her access to her placental stem cells?

We can't know - but we can WONDER whether little Bella would have used
more stem cells to repair her brain...

Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB, FACOG attacks your
"logical medical thought."

According to Dr. Morley, immediate cord clamping creates "asphyxiated,
hypovolemic" babies - perhaps causing some cases of AUTISM and CEREBRAL
PALSY, as in,
"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is
immediate
cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies. The child's only
functioning source of oxygen - the placenta - is amputated together with
30%
to 50+% of its natural blood volume. Total asphyxia is imposed until the
lungs function...[as]...the depressed (asphyxiated, hypovolemic) child
starts its
extra-uterine life in hypovolemic shock...

"B138 was first published in 1993. Every cesarean section baby, every
depressed child, every premie, and every child born with a neonatal team
in
the delivery room has its cord clamped immediately to facilitate the
panicked rush to the resuscitation table. The current epidemic of
immediate
cord clamping coincides with an epidemic of autism.

"For the trial lawyers, it is essential that the 'true genesis' of
cerebral
palsy remains unknown, because that 'true genesis' (B.138) is a standard
of
medico-legal care..."
http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm

Peter Hollands, PhD once wrote:

"It is well known that it is often difficult to obtain sufficient
cells for a transplant from an umbilical cord blood sample."
http://www.myelinresearch.com/2002_08_01_archive.html
http://www.ivf.net/artman/publish/article_89.shtml

It only "logical" to immediately clamp cords if one is trying to "obtain
sufficient cells for a transplant."

(There are truly logical occasions to immediately clamp - but they arise
only rarely.)

PEDIATRICIANS TO THE RESCUE...

"The importance of larger numbers of stem cells to the success of
engraftment could encourage...cord clamping is done too soon after

birth...the infant may be deprived of a placental blood transfusion,
resulting in lower blood volume and increased risk for anemia in later

life...There may be a temptation to practice immediate cord clamping

aggressively to increase the volume of cord blood that can be harvested for
cord blood banking. This practice is unethical and should be

discouraged...."
PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 1 July 1999, pp. 116-118

KEY POINT: Immediate cord clamping forces babies to "donate" cord stem
cells to OTHER PEOPLE.

Now, to be sure, in umbilical cord blood banking promotion, the OTHER
PEOPLE are the babies themselves - LATER IN LIFE - but...

F. Leonard Johnson, MD of Oregon Health and Science University/OHSU
says:
"...[A]t most only 0.04 percent of the cord blood units stored for
the baby's exclusive use might actually be used--and this is very likely
a
gross overestimate."
http://www.cord-blood.org/id21.htm
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3086

Since an estimated 4.6% of "healthy" term neonates suffer unexplained
brain bleeds.

Since there are unexplained paralyses and unexplained DEATHS following
birth...

I think 100% of babies would want ALL of their stem cells at birth and
not have some that they would otherwise have tranfused to themselves stored
for them for use later in life.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
t...@chiromotion.com

PS Kelly, thanks for writing to find out if I am doing OK. I was pretty
depressed recently. I'm much better now; but obviously, some depression
about this or that is a picnic compared to having to care 24-7 for a
brain-injured child.

Copied to:

Peter Hollands, PhD
Scientific Director
Cells for Life Ltd.
#201-377 Church Street
Markham, Ontario,
Canada L6B 1A1
Tel: 905 472 0060
Email: pet...@cellsforlife.com
http://www.ivf.ca/phollands.htm

Peter,

Some more "logical medical thought" for you...

Williams Obstetrics teaches medical students to close birth canals up to
30% and KEEP birth canals closed when babies get stuck. See The Four OB
Lies at the URL given below.

Williams Obstetrics teaches medical students to pull on tiny spines with
hands, forceps and vacuums - with the birth canal closed up to 30%.

It's gruesome mass spinal manipulation by MDs...

OBs sometimes pull so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal
cords.

Some babies die - some babies get paralyzed - most "only" have their
spines gruesomely wrenched.

ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal senselessly
closed up to 30%.

Additionally, OBs are committing SURGICAL felonies/batteries - slicing
vaginas/abdomens en masse (episiotomy/c-section) - surgically/fraudulently
inferring they are doing/have done everything possible to open birth
canals - even as they close birth canals up to 30%.

To be sure, allowing birth canals to open the "extra" up to 30% will not
prevent all episiotomies or c-sections or instrumental deliveries - but
there is no reason women should have to ask for the "extra" up to 30% - no
reason for OBs to keep birth canals closed when babies get stuck.

For The Four OB Lies - and for details on gruesome spinal manipulation
by OBs - and for simple
instructions on how easy it is for women to OPEN the birth canal the
"extra"
up to 30%...

See Pediatricians: What about DURING birth?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3142

Peter, you once offered a hypothetical situation...

"A couple with two children and one of the parents suffers damage to the
spine in an accident resulting in paralysis from the neck down. The couple
decide that they would like to create an embryo to provide stem cells to
repair the damage to the spine and give that parent the chance to return to
normal life. Is this acceptable?"
http://www.ivf.net/artman/publish/article_89.shtml

How can you say,

"...[B]abies with medical problems at delivery...[should have their
cords] clamped immediately so [they] can be attended to by neonatal
paediatricians..." (?)

What if the medical problem is paralysis as in your hypothetical
situation?

What if stem cells help repair brachial plexus paralysis?

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
t...@chiromotion.com

This post will be archived for global access within 24 hours. Search
http://groups.google.com for "A sad birthday...and Dr. Hollands' 'logical
medical thought.'"

David Wright

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 1:49:19 PM9/17/05

In article <qtaoi19vphg0b66at...@4ax.com>,

SJ Doc <pre...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:31:48 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>...in response to the following comment:
>>>...the fetal presenting part slid down the curve
>>> of Carus like a goddam battering ram, shoving past the non-
>>> generative contents of the pelvis with a "get-the-hell-outta-my-
>>> way" impact that Carol Burnett once characterized as being
>>> "...like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head."
>
>> Was that Carol Burnett? I once heard Bill Cosby use
>>that as his wife's description of what labor feels like.
>
>If so, Cosby may have been plagiarizing Burnett. I'm old enough
>to remember when she made that remark live on her television show
>back in the '60s (the way I remembered it, she'd said "...forcing
>it *up* over your head" [emphasis added]). I've checked online,
>and several sources support the attribution.

Oh, for pity's sake. Cosby does use that line in one of his
performances, which is available as a movie ("Bill Cosby Himself," I
believe is the title). However, he attributes the line to Carol
Burnett during the performance.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 3:36:50 PM9/17/05

DENTS IN BABIES' SKULLS (AND SJ DOC)

SJ Doc, see the very end of this post...

Please help stop "the OB guys" (your phrase) from closing birth canals the
"extra" up to 30% at your hospital.

PREGNANT WOMEN: It is easy to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up
to 30%.

See RNs: 'Stitches, episiotomy, and postpartum complications'
(Maternal care learning needs)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3725

LADIES: By allowing your birth canal to open the "extra" up to 30%, you
might just avoid an unnecessary episiotomy or c-section...

SJ Doc wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:42:57 GMT, Todd Gastaldo wrote
> yet again about "closing birth canals the 'extra' up to 30%"
> and some further stuff about *Williams Obstetrics* (McGraw-
> Hill; which edition, I wonder?).
>
> The first question - Jeez, I know I'm gonna catch it for this,
> but I just *gotta* ask - is just what the hell do you mean
> by this repeated goddam expression "closing birth canals the
> 'extra' up to 30%," anyway?

SJ Doc,

When I use what you call the "repeated goddamn expression" "closing birth
canals the 'extra' up to 30%" - I usually mention THE FOUR OB LIES - along
with a URL where one can read them...

Just in case you missed them...

Here are THE FOUR OB LIES...

OB LIE #3. After I pointed out in 1992 that dorsal CLOSES - and so does
semisitting [Gastaldo. Birth. 1992;19(4):230-1] - the authors of Williams
Obstetrics - put the correct
biomechanics in their 1993 edition - but kept in their text (in the same
paragraph!) - the dorsal widens bald lie that first called my attention to
their text...

OB LIE #4. OBs are actually KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get
stuck - claiming they are doing everything to allow the birth canal open
maximally - which is an indirect admission that they know they are routinely
closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30%. (See the ACOG Shoulder Dystocia
video. Note also: forceps and vacuum births
are performed with the mother in lithotomy, closing her birth canal the
"extra" up to 30%.)

> On those few occasions when
> I had to sit there and get amniotic fluid all over my shoes in
> the course of a normal spontaneous (or pitocin induced)
> vaginal delivery,

I am sorry you got amniotic fluid all over your shoes; but sounds like - as
is customary for MDs - you had the woman semisitting or dorsal - closing her
birth canal the "extra" up to 30%.

Uteri can usually force babies through pelvic outlets closed the "extra" up
to 30% - esp. if they are chemically whipped with pitocin to contract
violently, as in,

> the fetal presenting part slid down the curve
> of Carus like a goddam battering ram, shoving past the non-
> generative contents of the pelvis with a "get-the-hell-outta-my-

> way" impact...

The fetal presenting part is usually the cranium - and when it's not the
presenting part - there is the breech danger of "trapped after-coming
head"...

The fetal cranium is quite compressible/"mouldable" - and with the brain
inside - well - I am concerned about the estimated 4.6% of brain bleeds in
"healthy" term neonates.

I am also concerned about the unexplained lesser motor and and perceptual
deficits discovered later.

There are also unexplained baby paralyses and unexplained baby deaths -
Australian obstetrician Norman Beischer, MD once guessed that 10 to 15% of
stillbirths were just fine right before delivery.

Also noteworthy: In many births the fetal presenting part does NOT "slid[e]
down the curve of Carus like a goddamn battering ram"...

In many births, there is failure to progress "due to cephalopelvic
disproportion" obstetricians say - as they CAUSE cephalopelvic disproportion
by keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30%.

Further regarding failure to progress - it is possible that there is
NEUROLOGIC inhibition of delivery when semisitting or dorsal because the
mother is on her sacrum being made to torque her sacroiliac joints exactly
the opposite direction they need to go to allow the birth canal to open the
"extra" up to 30%.

> that Carol Burnett once characterized as being
> "...like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head."
>

Pretty funny.

> If that canal was anything *but* open, how the hell did I

> manage to get my Size-8½-gloved hand into the uterus...

If the woman was on her back or semisitting, she was on her sacrum - you had
her closing her birth canal up to 30%. The grisly birth-canal-closing
biomechanics are simple. See The Four OB Lies above.

You likely did not make a fist and try to shove it in. More likely, you
tried to let your hand become as slim as possible. The baby's skull is
FORCED to become as slim as possible - which may explain some of the
unexplained brain bleeds and dents (see the very end of the post).

You mentioned the Curve of Carus. There is also the Waste Space of Morris -
the baby's skull is forced down the ischial rami because of the pubic arch -
probably nature's way of protecting the mother's urogenital apparatus.

Williams Obstetrics used to state that sometimes the pubic arch is so narrow
the baby's head is forced WAY down - forced to rotate around a line joining
the ischial tuberosities, as in this quote from the 2001 edition:

"In obstructed labor caused by a narrowing of the...pelvic
outlet, the prognosis for vaginal delivery often depends on the length of
the posterior sagittal diameter of the pelvic outlet (p. 56)...The posterior
triangle [of the pelvic outlet]...is limited at its apex by the tip of the
last sacral vertebra (not the coccyx) (p. 437)...With increasing narrowing
of the pubic arch, the occiput cannot emerge directly beneath the symphysis
pubis but is forced increasingly farther down...the ischiopubic rami. In
extreme cases, the head must rotate around a line joining the ischial
tuberosities [!] (p. 438)..."

The pubic arch forcing the fetal head down the ischial rami is likely what
Harvard obstetrician AB Emmons, MD was alluding to when he wrote:

"[M]oving backward of the tip of the sacrum...enlarges the
available space not merely directly in proportion to the distance backward,
but more nearly by the square of that distance." [Emmons, AB. A study of the
variations in the female pelvis, based on observations made on 217 specimens
of the
American Indian squaw. Biometrika 1913; 9:34-47.]

The following was added to Williams Obstetrics at my
request (though the authors left in their text - in the same paragraph (!)

the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my attention to their

text)...

"It should be noted...that the increase in the diameter of the
pelvic outlet occurs **only** if the sacrum is allowed to rotate
posteriorly, that is,
only if the sacrum is not forced anteriorly by the weight of the maternal
pelvis against the delivery table or bed." [Cunningham, MacDonald, Leveno,
Gant and Gilstrap, Williams Obstetrics Appleton-Lange 1993:285, **italics in
original]

BTW, here is the reference for my 30% figure...

"[T]he outlet increases with moulding by approximately 20-30 per cent."
[Russell JGB. Moulding of the pelvic outlet. J Obstet Gynaec Brit Cwlth
1969;76:817-20. NOTE: In 1973, Ohlsen verified Russell's 20% figure on
Borell and Fernstrom's 1957 intrapartum x-rays. See:
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html]

NOTE: JGB Russell demonstrated a MINOR (transverse) sacroiliac motion then
pretended his minor sacroiliac motion was more important that the MAJOR
(sagittal) sacral tip motion demonstrated radiographically by Borell and
Fernstrom. For details, see http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html.

Also noteworthy: Russell promoted placing women semisitting/closing birth
canals - even as he
reported the "20-30 per cent" figure - after which the authors of Williams
Obstetrics attributed to Russell the simple biomechanic fact (quoted
above) that I had called to their attention. At the very least, they should
have quoted the original author of Williams Obstetrics who DEMONSTRATED the
simple biomechanics clinically - way back in 1911!

> on
> certain rare and scrotum-tightening occasions to seek out
> and gently remove retained placental cotyledons that were
> responsible for excessive third stage bleeding?
>

I am sorry your scrotum tightened. If some of the babies whose births you
have attended were boys, it is possible that their scrotums tightened when
you forced them through birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%.

I am sure you never pulled on the umbilical cord to speed up third stage -
but my understanding is that some MDs have done this and it can cause
"retained placental cotyledons" and "excessive third stage bleeding."

> Are you referring to all the c-sections that the OB guys perform
> so promiscuously,

"The OB guys" are "promiscuously" closing birth canals up to 30% and KEEPING
birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck. It's
massive criminal negligence. See the Four OB Lies above.

> or are you talking about episiotomy repair?
>

"The OB guys" are slicing vaginas en masse (routine episiotomy) -
surgically/fraudulently inferring they are doing everything possible to open
birth canals - even as they close birth canals the "extra" up to 30%.

Shiono et al. at NIH demonstrated in 1991 that episiotomized women suffer 50

times MORE severe tears clear to the anus than women who are not
episiotomized.

Yet "the OB guys" are STILL (in 2005) promoting the fraud that their
episiotomies are preventing severe tears clear to the anus.

See RNs: 'Stitches, episiotomy, and postpartum complications'
(Maternal care learning needs)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3725

> And what the hell is with this perpetual "extra" in quotation
> marks? If there's any sense in this expression, it's sailing *way*
> the hellangone past anything I ever read or heard in school or in
> practice over the course of a fun-filled and occasionally terrifying
> life in the ranks of Them Wot Got Betadyne Stains on Their
> Sweatsocks.
>

Yes, in medical school they are still teaching lies. See the Four OB Lies
above.

I put the word "extra" in quotes because obstetricians fraudulently behave
as if the room is "extra". When Williams Obstetrics co-author Norman F.
Gant, MD called me to thank me for notifying his publisher (then
Appleton-Lange) that he was promoting closing birth canals - he remarked
that "most women don't need the extra room."

> I know all about how the politically connected medicos
>

You are a perhaps-not-so-innocent beneficiary of the political connections
of organized medicine.

> have
> done every damned thing they can to restrict patient access
> to health care providers who charge lower fees for their services
> than licensed physicians do, including nurse practitioners, physi-
> cian assistants, and nurse midwives.

As I indicated, in the California Supreme Court's 1974 Bowland decision,
nurse-midwives (and abortion) became a political mechanism to stomp
homebirth midwives - both nurse and non-nurse.

> It's the same with lawyers
> and their hatred for paralegals providing "boilerplate" legal
> services. Every form of professional licensure throughout the
> history of civilization has been designed to allow established
> practitioners to get a chokehold on market entry and either
> create or preserve an oligopoly. That's what licensing is *for*,
> government maundering about "quality of care" be damned.
>

Again, you are a beneficiary.

> No less an authority than Nobel laureate Milton Friedman stated:
>
> "There is no occupation so remote that an attempt has not been
> made to restrict its practice by licensure...The justification offered
> is always the same: to protect the consumer. However, the reason
> is demonstrated by observing who lobbies at the state legislature
> for the imposition or strengthening of licensure. The lobbyists are
> invariably representatives of the occupation in question rather than
> of the customers. True enough, plumbers presumably know better
> than anyone else what their consumers need to be protected
> against. However, it is hard to regard altruistic concern for their
> customers as the primary motive behind their determined efforts
> to get legal power to decide who may be a plumber."
>

Yep.

> Not that I agree much with the socialist sucking-up of George
> Bernard Shaw, but - like the proverbial stopped clock being
> right at least twice a day - he could occasionally catch the facts
> of a matter and fix them upon the printed page. In his preface
> to *The Doctor's Dilemma*, he wrote: "The effect...is to make
> the medical profession a conspiracy to hide its own shortcomings.
> No doubt the same may be said of all professions. They are all
> conspiracies against the laity."
>

Keeping in mind your "scientific" medical religion's penchant for senseless
infant penis and adult vagina slicing...

I like this quote from Shaw:

"That any sane nation, having observed that you could provide for the supply
of bread by giving bakers a pecuniary interest in baking for you, should go
on to give a surgeon a pecuniary interest in cutting off your leg, is enough
to make one despair of political humanity."
--George Bernard Shaw, introduction to "The Doctor's Dilemma"

I also like this one:

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to
himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable
man."
-- George Bernard Shaw

> Politics aside,
>

LOL! It's ALL politics!

>what is it that's getting your freak on about
>> obstetricians...OBVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY severing
>> umbilical cords by clamping/cutting immediately,
> f'chrissake?

It's just that I don't think babies should be asphyxiated and made to
breathe through their lungs before they are ready - or robbed of up to 50%
of their blood volume.

See Cord clamping baby asphyxiation: Pediatrician not cheering so loud
now...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3896

I will always have "my freak on" as long as your religion is harming babies.

My religion - chiropractic - is just as religious BTW - but far less
harmful.

In this regard to this latter point, it is sordidly FUNNY to see MDs
shouting warnings about chiros GENTLY adjusting babies' spines all the while
remaining silent about the most prolific manipulators of babies' spines -
MD-obstetricians - GRUESOMELY manipulating most babies' spines - sometimes
pulling so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords.

ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal closed the "extra"
up to 30%.

> And (yet again) what d'you mean by
>> ...closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30%
> so repeatedly that you seem to have a keyboard macro
> configured to do the job for you?

See the Four OB Lies above.

> Is there some kind of
> federal statute (reflected in some Title of the U.S. Code
> of Federal Regulations) by which the criminality of closing
> an umbilical clamp at a particular moment has been estab-
> lished?
>

I don't know about federal law. State law though is pretty clear. The
common law doctrine of informed consent indicates that even a good medical
procedure performed without informed consent is a battery.

The battery is pretty obvious.

Here again (in case you missed it) is Dr. Morley's temporary baby
asphxiation experiment:

I doubt very much that obstetricians trying this grisly baby asphyxiation
experiment are obtaining informed consent first...

PREGNANT WOMEN: To make sure your baby gets the "extra" up to 50% of blood
volume, do not let the obstetrician or midwife clamp your baby's umbilical

cord until it has stopped pulsating and your baby is pink and breathing and

not in need of resuscitation. Talk to your obstetrician or midwife today.

> As for....
>> Chiropractors used to be trained to deliver babies - above
>> and beyond the didactic obstetrics course which most chiro
>> students still take.
>>
>> Chiropractors trained and licensed in Oregon are trained and
>> licensed to deliver babies; though I don't think any of them do.
>
> I should sure as hell think so. Ever think that maybe the
> plaintiff's bar has something to do about that?

I am pretty sure it is political medicine's fault.

As soon as people start realizing how badly/criminally medicine has mucked
up birth, I think there will be a resurgence of homebirth midwifery.

We will then have the best of both worlds available to women - true choice.

(If organized medicine had not anti-scientifically/anti-competitively hogged
up all "the clinical material" I am sure c-section would not be as safe as
it is today - so there is an upside to organized medicine's "scientific"
hoggish greed.)

> I knew a
> GP down in Cumberland County (probably retired by now)
> who used to do so many deliveries that he met with the
> obstetrics section of the Department of Surgery instead
> of with the rest of us in the Department of Medicine. The
> joke was that the only way for a patient to get into his practice
> was to be born in it. I don't want to think what the annual
> professional liability insurance premiums must be like for any
> primary care "provider" who might be insane enough to seek
> and secure obstetrical privileges at any hospital in any state
> in the present union. The lawyers would be on the poor
> bastard like barracudas on a boatload of refugees.
>

You may be referring to the obstetricians' fraudulent "malpractice liability
insurance crisis" hoax. There is a good book about it, written by a
lawyer/MD, Wachsman...

The obstetric hoax was coupled in California with the largest obstetric
malpractice liability insurer insisting at the legislature with the CMA that
obstetricians had to "supervise" homebirth midwives (without being present).

After the midwifery licensing law was passed - surprise, surprise - there
weren't any physician supervisors to be found - because malpractice
liability insurers wouldn't let them supervise those risky homebirths. The
kicker was that PHYSICIANS owned the largest insurer - LOL! And the former
judge who served as the lobbiest admitted in a meeting of the Medical Board
that the liability insurer for whom he was lobbying had no data on risk of
homebirth! It was slick politics.

>> I recently talked to an old EMT who used to pray for
>> maternity transports.
>
> Ah, yes. That's symptomatic of something the EMT-P guys
> call the "Jolly Volly Syndrome."

I don't understand the phrase, "Jolly Volly Syndrome."

> We've got a bit of that in
> the volunteer ambulance corps hitherabouts. "Good Sam-
> aritan" laws provide something of a shield, but from what I've
> been told the local corps are *very* particular about docu-
> menting in each case that they have done bloody *everything*
> necessary to get Mom to the nearest Emergency Department
> rather than break out the L&D kit in the back of the truck.
>

Understandable that they would document that.

> And you say that...
>> He was astonished to learn that he had been closing birth
>> canals the "extra" up to 30%.
> ...eh? Well, jeez, I'll betcha he was astounded to learn that
>
> anybody could keep spouting that phrase without specifying
> just what the hell it means, too.
>

Hopefully you now know "just what the hell it means, too."

> And you're not familiar with Mencken's "Chiropractic" essay?
> The damned thing has been continuously in print (in Mencken's
> first *Chrestomathy*) since before the man died in 1956. Just
> how the hell deep was the hole in which you were raised that
> you could not know about Mencken, or never have read that
> essay before? You're a *chiropractor* and this little bit of prose
> is new to you? Yeesh!

You falsely assume that the Mencken quote was new to me.

It was not.

Also, you snipped the part about your religion - medical "science" - denying

massive numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations.

Here is what I wrote again...

Hmmmm...

1924...

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

I ALMOST FORGOT...

DENTS IN BABIES' SKULLS...

It will make a good subject line...

For every dent that does NOT pop back out - there are probably many that do
pop out - and therefore go unrecorded...

According to John Ogden, MD,

"The developing skull, especially in an infant, may be deformed
substantially without sustaining an OBVIOUS (emphasis
added) fracture when...compressed (p. 78)...

Note well Dr. Ogden's words "temporary" and "restoration"...

"[Elasticity of the skull]...allows significant TEMPORARY indentation of the
skull toward the brain, with RESTORATION of the contour after 'release' of
the deforming force... (p. 79, emphasis added) [Ogden J. Skeletal Injury in
the Child. Third Edition, NY: Springer 2000]

Dr. Ogden offers good news...

"Despite considerable depression of the bone, there may be little brain
injury (p. 79)."

And he offers bad news...

"[D]espite the seeming absence of specific osseous injury, severe injury to
the brain may occur...(p. 79)"
[Ogden J. Skeletal Injury in the Child. Third Edition, NY: Springer 2000]

Maybe obstetricians are causing some depression skull fractures with
instruments?

Olivier Dupuis, MD et al. wrote in 2005:

"...A depressed skull fracture is an inward buckling of the calvarial bones
and is referred to as a 'ping-pong' fracture...Fifty depressed skull
fractures were associated with an instrument delivery, and 18 depressed
skull fractures were classified as 'spontaneous.'"
--Olivier Dupuis, MD et al.^^^

^^^Dupuis O, Silveira R, Dupont C, Mottolese C, Kahn P, Dittmar A, Rudigoz
RC. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jan;192(1):165-70. PubMed abstract

DENTS IN BABIES' SKULLS CAN BE SERIOUS....

MD-obstetricians should not be closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30%.

MD-obstetricans should not be KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to
30% as they pull with instruments.

And they should not be lying to cover-up the massive crime. See The Four OB
Lies above.

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com

I say again to SJ Doc...

Please help stop "the OB guys" (your phrase) from closing birth canals the
"extra" up to 30% at your hospital

O'Hush

unread,

Sep 17, 2005, 10:26:10 PM9/17/05

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message

news:9UWWe.3214$N35.2426@trndny09...

> O'Hush wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ow. I've heard the pitocin contractions are very intense. I begged for
> > narcotics starting at 10:00 p.m. (he was born at 5:30 a.m.). My surly
> > midwife told me I was "not in enough pain" so meds weren't indicated. I
had
> > chosen the birth center because the midwives convinced me I'd have more
> > control there than in the hospital. I don't expect to have another
baby,
> > but if I do, I'll go to a hospital where I'll at least have some control
> > over whether or not I get pain meds.
> >
> > ~~Patti
>
> This was of course in the hospital. She was induced because she was
> late, and the placenta was degenerating.
> About 5 hrs after the first epidural and after all that pain, our
> daughter was delivered by c-section anyway.

Mmmm. Now that I think of it, I don't think I've ever heard a happy labor
story. They nearly all suck. They're always so sappy and gleeful on TV,
but in real life it's a crisis from start to finish, and then you take the
baby home and you don't get to sleep much for months. Why *do* people have
babies? (Actually now he's 7 and so delightful. He's reasonable and
considerate and a pleasure to be with. I was so often *sure* I was a rotten
mother. Anyway, when he was 2, strangers at the grocery store always seemed
to think so.) How old is your little one?

~~Patti

PF Riley

unread,

Sep 18, 2005, 12:56:38 AM9/18/05

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:56:31 -0400, SJ Doc <pre...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>In an earlier post, he informed that he had surrendered his license
>voluntarily - not that I have any particular respect for any state
>licensing board.

I believe he surrendered it "voluntarily" because he knew it was going
to be suspended or revoked involuntarily. It's kind of like shouting
"I quit!" right before your boss says "You're fired!"

Jo

unread,

Sep 18, 2005, 1:33:34 AM9/18/05

My labour was happy. Yeah, it hurt - not worse than I expected though,
just a different sensation. I didn't go to hospital, but stayed home
and pushed my little boy out while in a tub of warm water. In no way
was it scary or a crisis at all. It didn't suck :)

Jo ( Mum to Will, 16 weeks old)

O'Hush

unread,

Sep 18, 2005, 10:08:26 AM9/18/05

"Jo" <breast...@portjackson.net> wrote in message
news:dgiu72$3fd$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...

Congrats! And I probably had it coming. Karma, you know. ;)
~~Patti

Steven Bornfeld

unread,

Sep 18, 2005, 2:32:28 PM9/18/05

She's nine. This is more like the kind of neighborhood where childless
are intimidated by the fertile.

Steve

>
>

--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
Arial;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
"nospam" to reply\par
}

Steven Bornfeld

unread,

Sep 18, 2005, 2:34:09 PM9/18/05

David Wright wrote:
> In article <qtaoi19vphg0b66at...@4ax.com>,
> SJ Doc <pre...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:31:48 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>
>>...in response to the following comment:
>>
>>>>...the fetal presenting part slid down the curve
>>>>of Carus like a goddam battering ram, shoving past the non-
>>>>generative contents of the pelvis with a "get-the-hell-outta-my-
>>>>way" impact that Carol Burnett once characterized as being
>>>>"...like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head."
>>>
>>> Was that Carol Burnett? I once heard Bill Cosby use
>>>that as his wife's description of what labor feels like.
>>
>>If so, Cosby may have been plagiarizing Burnett. I'm old enough
>>to remember when she made that remark live on her television show
>>back in the '60s (the way I remembered it, she'd said "...forcing
>>it *up* over your head" [emphasis added]). I've checked online,
>>and several sources support the attribution.
>
>
> Oh, for pity's sake. Cosby does use that line in one of his
> performances, which is available as a movie ("Bill Cosby Himself," I
> believe is the title). However, he attributes the line to Carol
> Burnett during the performance.

Thanks. I just happened to hear it on the car radio. I'm sure it's
just my memory failing me again.

Steve

>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
> -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 18, 2005, 3:58:55 PM9/18/05

CHIRO X-RAY FRAUD

See below

ALSO: WHY DR. GASTALDO IS UNLICENSED - VOLUNTARILY

WARNING: Delete now or forever hold your peace - this post is even long by
Y standards - LOL!

IN A NUTSHELL: How very, very odd that the Californi Board of Chiropractic
Examiners is silent about CHIRO X-RAY FRAUD (discussed below)...

The California Board of Chiropractic xaminers' OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL
participaion in ongoing chiro x-ray fraud (once MANDAED by Congress!) MAY
be the reason the California Boar of Chiropractic Examiners is silent about
obstetricians senselessly closin birth canals up to 30%.

How very, very odd that a Board of Chiropratic is silent about
MD-obstetricians gruesomely manipulating most babies' spies....

Again - delete now or forever hold your peace - this post s even long by MY
standards....

SJ Doc wrote:

>> In an earlier post he informed that he had surrendered his license
>> voluntarily - not tht I have any particular respect for any state
>> licensing board.

PF Riey, MD replied:

>
> I believe he surrendered it "voluntarily"

That's righ - voluntarily - no need for quotes.

> because he knew i was going
> to be suspended or revoked involuntarily. It's kind of like shoting

> "I quit!" right before your boss says "You're fired!"

False.

Unde California law, any licensed D.C. may vountarily forfeit his/her
license, and may, at any time, reactivate said icense by providing the
Board of Examiners with "twice the annual amountof the renewal fee...[Heor
she]...shall not be requied to submit to an examination for the reissance
of the certificte." [Section 12, Act Regulating the Practice of
Chiropractic......Act Includes Amendments Through October1993]

After I voluntarily forfeited my license o as not to keep paying the yearly
relicensure fee, the California Boardof Chiropractic Examiners greatly
increased the amount of continuing education required for eissuance of the
certificate - which makes imminent good sense - but I susect it may have
been done specifically to harm me as I was being sued by fomer attorney for
the chiropractic board, Mike Schroeder. More on thisbelow.

MY MISTAKE...

Perhaps I shouldn't have forfeited my license - perhaps I mistakenly
beleved the man calling himself Mike Schroeder, attorney for the Caliornia
Board of Chiropractic Examiners who in effec told me it was outside my
scope of practice to inform pregnant women hat obstetricians are cosing
birth canals upto 30%...

Two years ago, I finally thought to ask THE BOARD about it...

The alifornia Board of Chiropractic Examiners still hasn' answered my
SIMPLE QUESTION:

Is it outside the scope of chiropractic practie for California licensed DCs
to inform pregnant women that obstetricians are closingbirth canals up to
30%?

See Birth Danger: Cal Chiro Bd - SIMPLE QUESTION

htp://health.groups.yaoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3526

FOUR years ago, I wrote the following o the California State Board of
Chiropractic Examiners...

I never receivd an answer...

The Board has been TOTALLY SILENT...

I guess it doesn' really matter but...

Sharon Ufberg, DC discussed below is the wife o my friend and classmate at
chiropractic college, Elliot Sclamberg, DC

Ufberg, Calif. Chiro Bd perpetuate DC radiation fraud
« Start of topic « Oder Messages 1 - 1 of1 Newer » End of topic »

Fixed font - Proportionl font

1. Todd Gastaldo Jun 15 2001, 7:48 am show options
Newgroups: misc.health.alternative, misc.kids.pregnancy, sci.med
From: "Tod Gastaldo" <gasta...@gte.net> - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 15 un 2001 14:21:30 GMT
Local: Fri, Jun 15 2001 7:21 am
Subject: Ufberg, Calf. Chiro Bd perpetuate DC radiation fraud
Reply to Author| Forward| Print Individual Message| Show original| Report
Abuse

PREGNANT WOMEN: Learn the chiropractic way to open your birth canal up to
30%! It's EASY- and it's FREE! See the URL at the very end of this post.

OPEN LETER (posted to the following usenet newsgroups:
misc.health.alternative; isc.kids.pregnancy; sci.med; copied to FCLB and
NBCE)

Kim Smith
Execuive Director
California Board of Chiropractic Examiners
2525 Natmas Park Drive, Suite 260
Sacramento, CA 95833-2931
Phone: (916)263-5355
Fax (916)263-5369
webmas...@chiro.ca.gov

Kim,

You suggested that I request in my e-mailthat you forward this to the
members of the California Bard of Chiropractic Examiners.

Please do. As we noted, the Calif. Boad is right now a SKELETON Board -
only four remaining members: Drs. Uberg and Steinhardt and Attys. Deronde
and Missakian.

Note to Gov. Davis: Both "lay" members of your police agency for
chiropractic -attorneys Derode and Missakian - are on the lat legs of
their one-year grace periods which means, come November, thre will be FIVE
vacancies - not just three - nd your police agency for chiropractic will
not even have its statutorily-equired minimum. Surely you have a list of
"lay" persons an DCs who wish to appointed. Please make those appointmens
immediately.)
http://www.chiro.ca.gov/board/

Kim, the mtters discussed herein are QUITE serious - i.e., they are matters
pertainingto chiropractic/public health and safety and merit OPEN
discussion - not contnued censorship. California Board Cairwoman Sharon
Ufberg, DC may be trying to accomplish my further censorshp by abusing the
regulatory process. More on this below.

Kim, as indicted above, I am taking the liberty of posing this to the
usenet as an Open Letter. Plus, I'm taking the iberty of copying the
Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards/FCLBand the National Board of
Chiropractic Examiners/NBCE (f...@fclb.org and n..@nbce.org).

I'm hoping that NBCE's FCLB-appointed Directors - FLB President Dr. Wolfson
wayne_wolf...@hotmail.com and FCLB Vice-President D. Cole
Dr.C...@ColeCliics.com - will cause both NBCE and FCB to finally stop the
obvious ongoing DC radiation fraud and work to nd the MD chiro fraud
(discussed below).

I'm also cc'ing David E. Brwn, D.C., FCLB Immediate Past President
dbro...@cstone.net; and PatriciaG. Conners-Allen, D.C.
FCLB Executive Board Chair p...@klukwan.com; and Jams K. Sommers, D.C.
FCLB District II Director-Elect jksomm...@aol.com; andDaniel Saint-Germain,
D.C.
FCLB District III Dirctor dstg...@hotmail.com; nd Oliver R. "Bud" Smith
Jr., D.C.
FCLB District IV Director DROR...aol.com; and Linda Steele Denham, D.C.
FCLB District V Director Drg...@bellsuth.net.

All these people - like you Kim - are involved in public healh and safety
efforts from the perspective of chiropractic.

Onward...

Kim,thank you for returning my call. It was a pleasure speaking with you.

Yes, am the author of the definition of chiropractic in Dorland's
Illustrated Meical Dictionary (published in the 1988, 1994 and 200
editions).

And yes, the Founder of Chiropractic really regarded eduation
as chiropracticadjusting - no touching the spine necessary. (Yu expressed
skepticism at the notion of education being chiropractic adjustng. Dr. DD
Palmer was fairly explicit. He actually named chiropracti, in part, "the
mental act of accumulating knowledge"; and he said "Chiropractic cme as an
educator.")

As I explained to you on the telephone, I don't ned a license to practie
chiropractic - in California or anywhere else - because I limit my practice
o non-spinal (educational) adjusting. EVERYONE -licensed, degreed or
not - engages in non-spinal (educaional) adjusting. I fcus particularly
on PREVENTION of
subluxations - a huge nelected part of chiropractic.

pecifically, I focus on non-spinal chiropractic adjusting to stop Ds from
routinely closing birth canals up to 30.

Believe it or not, MDs are gruesomely manipulating *most* babies spins by
grasping their heads as they stick out vaginas.

MDs say they only pull "gentl" in most births; but obviously - one should
NEVER pull on a ftal head with the fetal shoulders stuck n a pelvic outlet
senselessly closed up to 30% - yet MDs do it all the ime.

In 10 to 15% of births, MDs reah INSIDE vaginas with forceps and vacuum
extractors - and drag bbies though pelvic outlets senselessly closed up to
30% - sometime pulling/manipulating s hard that they rip sinal nerves out
of tiny spinal cords!

Incredibly, when the shoulders et REALLY stuck, MDs use a method called
McRoberts maneuer which KEEPS the birth canal closed up to 30%!

Clearly, this is mass D chiro fraud.

Kim, you may not remember, but not so long ago the American Ciropractic
Association wroe to all 50 state medical boards to protest MDs manipulating
ADULT spine with very little trining. For some reason ACA is FAILING to
write to all 50 state medical bards about this obvious MD chiro fraud. One
of the main reasons for ths Open Letter is that I'm hoping FCLB and the
individual state boards ill write to their medical counterparts to stop the
obvious MD chiro fraud..

For a fully referenced post on the obvious MD chiro fraud...

See onehead Shoulder Dystocia Attorney James L.
O'Leary, II...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1154

With some babies dyng because MDs are negligently closing birth canals
routinely, an obviouscrime is occurring. But MDs aren't just committing
crime againt babies - they are rutinely committing obvious crime against
women. Indeed, the grislymass MD crime of assault - routinely closing the
birth canal up to 30% - s perhaps rendered most obvious to women by noting
the RELATED grisly mass MDcrime of assault: As MDs routinely slash vagins
claiming to be doing everything to OPEN the birth canal - they are actualy
CLOSING the birth canal - up to 30%!

Routine vagina slashing is n small, insignificant matter. Relative to
letting the vagina tear (if it's going to tear; sometmes it doesn't) -
INTENIONALLY slicing the vagina - episotomy - is associated with 20 times
more vginal rips clear to the anal sphincter - and an estmated 50% of anal
sphincter rips result in som form of anal incontinence. [Jander C, Lyrenas
S. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 201 Mar;80(3):229-34].

In other words, some women are wearing diapers for te rest of their lives
because MDs caused senseless rip of their vaginas clear to their anal
sphincters...

See Episioomy is 'nice' violence against women performed by 'nic' MDs (I'm
speaking of ROUTINE episiotomy, of coure.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ciro-list/message/1150

And see Obstetric Crime Photos
http://groups.yhoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1174

Why *are* FCLB (the public health and afety people) silent about all this -
ffectively censoring discussion of the fact that - via obvious mass MD
chirofraud - MDs are senselessly KILLING some babies and senselessly
PARALYZING oters.

If vertebral subluxations exist (Ibelieve they do) - FCLB ilence is
allowing MDs to senselessly GRUESOELY manipulate most babies'spines -
senselessly causing verteral subluxations in most babies. (At the ver
least, by gruesomely maniulating most babies' spines, MDs ae making
vertebral subluxations far more sevre than they have to be.)

As I spoke out publicly gainst these mass grisly travesties up here in
Oregon, I received a lette from Dave McTeague, executive secreary of the
Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

M. McTeague pejoratively addressed his letter to "Mr." Gastaldo and said hehad tape
recordings of me identifying myself as a chiropractor in publicmeetings.

Mr. McTeague's letter inferred that, since do not hold an Oregon license,
I may not call myself "Dr." or "DC" or "docor of chiropractic" or
"chiropractor."

Upon receiving the Oregon Board's/Mr McTeague's letter, I read the
pertinent Oregon evised Statutes and decided that only the term
"chiropractor" i unlawful for me to use in Oregon. (I actually prefer and
try always t use the phrase "doctor of chiropractic" instead.)

In spite of the Oregon Board'/Mr. McTeague's letter, I went on using the
Doctor of Chiropractic/DC degre I earned - as well asthe "Dr." title it
bestows. (DCs eading might be interested to know that, in addition to
defining chiropractic or Dorland's, I persuaded the editor of Dorlnd's to
add graduates of chiropractic college to the Drland's definition of
"doctor"; nd the editor of Dorland's took the opportunity to addgraduates
of dental, veterinary, podiatry and optometry colleges as well.)
Mr. McTeague sent me a COPY of his letter not so long ago inferring yet
ANTHER warning - so I began copying him on all posts wherein I referred to
myself as a "DC" (hich is nearly all my posts). Indeed Mr. McTeague will
receive a copy of this pot at his Oregon Board address,
oregon.o...@state.or.us.

So far, Mr. McTegue has not objected further to my use of my DC degree and
the tite "Dr." - but he did write to Dynamic Chiropractic to tell everyone
that Gastaldo" is not licensed in Oregon.

Of course, 'm not licensed anywhere - by choice.

Whih brings me to what I believe to be Dirty Chiropractic olitics in
California - California Board silence aboutobvious DC radiation fraud - and
regulations which could impede me n my efforts to stopthe obvious DC
radiation fraud and the MD chiro fraud.

Up until recently,I could EASILY get my California license back just by
paying for and taking 12 hours of contining education (or was it 24?) and
paying a fee. This arrangement had een in place for years; and as I noted
on the telehone Kim, I learned of it from one of your executive director
predecessrs, Vivian Davis.

Back in the early 90s, when a man claiming to be Micael Schroeder, Esq.,
attorney for the California Board, told me that it was ot in my California
scope of practice to warn women that MDs are closin birth canals - I simply
decided not to pay fr a California license ay longer. NOTE: I discuss this
matter in further detail in:

ICAN WARNING Semisitting and dorsal delivery close the birth canal up to
30%...
http://roups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1219

Recently, though (and this was one of the things called to verify) -
licesed DC board members Ufberg et al. and two unlicensed (non-DC) boad
members chiropractically adjusted me by passing a regulation forcing me to
do wha I do anyway - educate myself about chiropractic. The only down sie
is that, now, if I wish to get my license back, I must PAY THROUGH THE
NSE - not just for 12 hours of continuing education - but for 12 hours for
ach year I've been unlicensed - and it all must be taken within 1 months!

Now don't get me wrong Kim - as I expained on the telephone - I LOVE
continuing educatin (chiropractic) - indeed, I sometimes spend 12 hours per
DAY on continung education (chiropractic).

It's just that the added expense for what I o anyway was proposed as a
regulation soon ater I asked Board Chairwoman Sharon Ufberg, DC to take
action to stop theDC radiation fraud.

See Don't insult children...
http://groups.yahoo.com/grup/chiro-list/message/228

Kim, here is the DC radiation fraud that Dr. Ufbrg et al. are
perpetuating...

As I noted in my recent pos "Judge Harris: PTs are subluxated..."

DCs have NEVER been tested/quaified to make x-ray diagnosis of
subluxation - at least not in Caifornia and many other states.

In personal telephone calls, Shaon Ufberg, DC and Stephen Foreman DC - both
members of the California Board ofChiropractic Examiners - indicated that
DCs have not been and aren't being ested in the x-ray diagnosis of
subluxation.

Mark Christianson, Ph of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners -
NBCE's
Part IV substitutes for the sate board exam in many states - confirmed that
DCs aren't being tested in the x-ray dagnosis of subluxation.

In spite of the fact that DCs are not eing tested/qualified to make x-ray
diagnosis of subluxation, the American Ciropractic Association is publicly
exhorting state chiropractic boards to pas ACA's "Hot Topic" resolution
which infers otherwise!

And some state chropractic boards are goig along with the gag!

TIMELINE

Oct. 7, 1999: AL, AZ, NC pass faudulent inference resolution
http://www.amerchiro.org/lawsuit_info/states.tml

Oct. 20, 1999: CA, ID pass fraudulent inferene resolution
http://www.amerchiro.org/lawsuit_info/102099.htl

Nov. 15, 1999: FL, NE, OH, WI pass fraudulent nference resolution
http://www.amerchiro.org/lawsuit_info/111599.html
Nov. 19, 1999: Gastaldo asks FCLB to notify all tate boards that the
resolution in support of the ACA lawsuit is a fraudlent inference that
state boards of chiropractic have been testing appliants for proficiency in
diagnosing subluxation on x-ray. Gastaldo notes thatMark Christianson, PhD
of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE' Part IV substitutes
for the state board exam in many states) confirmed thatDCs aren't being
tested in the x-ray diagnosis of subluxation. Gastaldo ever heard back
from FCLB...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/mesage/228

Dec. 15, 1999: LA, NM, PA pass fraudulent inference resoution
http://www.amerchiro.org/lawsuit_info/121599.html

Jan. 11,2000: MO, VT, WV pass fraudulent inference resoluion
http://www.amerchiro.org/lawsuit_info/011000.html

That was i - 15 states got on board - 15 states passed the faudulent
inference resolution. (ACA said it would keep us posted as morestates
passed it - but there have been no further states passing the reolution -
or rather no more ACA posts.)

>>>>>END excerpt of Judge Harris: Ts are subluxated...<<<<<<<

Mybe FCLB forwarded "Don't insult children" to all 50 state chiropractic
bards?

Obviously, I would like to think so (see the timeline above); but two years
BEFOREthe 15 state boards passed ACA's "Hot Topic" resolution, the
Federation o Chiropractic Licensing Boards (FCLB) **ignored** my plea to
encourage sate boards to protest the mandatory radiation. This was back
when, amidmysterious ACA silence, Congress bizarrely*extended* the
obviously illegal managed care by radiation scheme - to th year 2000. To
see my consumer complaint, ignored b FCLB, go to http://groups.google.com
and search "Gastaldo's consumercomplaint to FCLB"...

BOTTOMLINE FACT: Board Chairwoman Ufberg et al. FAILEDto help mothers and
babies and FAILED to finally act to stop the DC radiaton fraud after I
telephoned hr in November 2000. Instead, Dr. Ufberg et al. spent valuable
Board time passing the continuig education regulation noted aboe - as she
and the Calif. Board aped Mr. McTeague and the Oregon Board by pasing a
regulation that strongly INFERS that without an active Clifornia license
one may not promote oneself (and one's upcoming California letures) by
calling oneself "Dr." or "DC."

Kim, you said that my name never cme up in board discussion of the
whomay-use-his-DC-degree regulation. I don't think it would have: People
who ause the regulatory process often do not state their true objecties.

I would not be suspicious of Dr. Ufberg's behavior - but she is indeed
ignoring the obvious DC radiatio fraud and your counterpart in Oregon - Mr.
McTeague - trie to use Oregon laws/regulations to stop me from callin
myself a DC in Oregon...

Also noteworthy: An attorney for a former Calif. Ciropractic Board
attorney - Rule 302 recors custodian Michael Schroeder, Esq. - questioned
me specifically about my propsed California lectures to discuss matters of
chiropractic scope of pracice. Also, various politically powerful
California DCs (Jerilyn Kaibel, DC srings to mind) have attmpted to
publicly pejorize me - stating in effect - "why believe him - he's not
licensed."

A British MD has cast similar aspersions publicly...

Malcolm Griffiths, MD (who ignored my criticism that he had his pelvic

biomechanics exactly backwards) wrote:

"I am incredibly suspicious of someone with a paramedical qualification (as
a chirporacter) who voluntarily removes him/herself from the professional
register in order to avoid criticism from their professional body..."
http://forums.obgyn.net/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9802/1034.html

I would LOVE criticism from "professional bodies" - from professional
boards - chiropractic, medical or otherwise!!!

Attention all "professional bodies" - PLEASE - find fault with my facts - or
help me stop the mass MD chiro fraud! MD chiro fraud is KILLING and
PARALYZING tiny people - and - if vertebral subluxations exist and are
caused by birth trauma - MDs are causing more vertebral subluxations than
DCs will ever be able to adjust by hand!

For further info on Dr. Griffiths of Great Britain...

See British obstetric squatting fraud
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1184

Kim, can you see why I was *extremely* relieved to hear you say that - if
the proposed regulation passes muster with the Office of Administrative
Law - even though I do not hold an active license - as long as I am not
"actually treating anyone" or promoting myself as "being in practice" - I
still may use my DC degree and the title "Dr." that goes with it?

Assuming I understood you correctly (please correct me if I am wrong), I
*will* be able to call myself "Dr." and use my DC degree in promoting myself
and my lectures should I come to California.

If I did understand you correctly, Kim, I would appreciate a letter from you
stating that the Board members are in agreement with your understanding of
their proposed regulation, i.e., it would be nice to have something IN
WRITING to present to anyone who might attempt to impede my progress should
I come to California. (Kim, ask yourself: WHY would a "chiropractic"
attorney - Rule 302 Custodian Schroeder - sue me and NOT sue Prescott - who
said his Rule 302 should be attacked as "unlawful"? Why would
"chiropractic" attorney Schroeder fail to go after the MD-obstetricians who
are GRUESOMELY manipulating most babies' spines?! For that matter, why
would a public-health-and-safety-conscious Calif. Chiropractic Board fail to
openly protest MD-obstetricians gruesomely manipulating most babies'
spines?!)

Back to the California Board perpetuating obvious DC radiation fraud...

Instead of finally *confronting* long-standing obvious x-ray/subluxation
Medicare radiation fraud - Board Chairwoman Sharon Ufberg, DC et al. passed
ACA's "Hot Topic" resolution.

Idaho Chiropractic Board Chairman Henry West, DC fraudulently inferred that
DCs are tested for proficiency in demonstrating subluxations on x-ray....

See again: Oct. 20, 1999: CA, ID pass fraudulent inference resolution
http://www.amerchiro.org/lawsuit_info/102099.html

(Kim, you said you thought that the Calif. Board had NOT passed the ACA Hot
Topic resolution - that Board counsel advised against it. The ACA is
inferring quite heavily that whatever it was that the California
Chiropractic Board passed - it was supportive of the American Chiropractic
Association/ACA as it STANDS on the obvious x-ray/subluxation Medicare
radiation fraud in Judge Stanley S. Harris's federal district courtroom.
The Calif. Bd/ACA false inferences are these: Subluxations may be
demonstrated to exist on x-ray and the California Board tested DCs for
proficiency in diagnosing subluxations on x-rays. (The obvious
x-ray/subluxation fraud is now optional - but optional fraud is still
fraud.)

Kim, as I indicated on the telephone, every state chiropractic board in the
nation should have attacked the federal government back in 1972 when
Congress mandated that grandmothers be radiated prior to their chiropractic
care. Medicare mandatory radiation was intended as "sabotage" of the
chiropractic profession and was a clear violation of the US Constitution
*PLUS* it was a clear violation of every state board's right/obligation to
ensure public safety by licensing DCs who have the clinical right to
determine whether an x-ray is really necessary. (ACA pretends that in 1972
Medicare law revoked the DC's right to decide whether to radiate patients,
as in, "Your right to decide whether an X-ray is necessary under Medicare
became effective January 1, 2000, thanks to legislation proposed by the ACA.
(P.L.105-33) http://www.amerchiro.org/hot_topics/what_done.html. ACA
"forgot" to mention that ACA silence allowed Congress to extend the
MANDATORY radiation to Jan. 1, 2000.)

Fortunately, back in 1972, the professional consensus was that x-rays were
ALWAYS necessary prior to introducing high-velocity low-amplitude thrusts
into the spine. But the Medicare x-ray/subluxation radiation fraud went
deeper - see the next paragraph.

Every state chiropractic board in the nation should have attacked the
mandatory radiation when, in 1986, the federal government (DHHS Office of
Inspector General) demonstrated that DCs had been fraudulently claiming to
have demonstrated subluxations to exist on x-ray. (The American Physical
Therapy Association/APTA helpfully provided a link to this information in a
document recently filed in Judge Stanley S. Harris' federal district court.
See Judge Harris: PTs are subluxated, reproduced below.)

And every state chiropractic board in the nation should have attacked the
mandatory radiation in 1997, when Congress - aided by
American Chiropractic Association silence - EXTENDED the radiation for two
years - fraudulently continuing to use radiation as a tool of managed care.
This was when FCLB ignored my consumer complaint. See above. (Congress
estimated that the government would continue to save $400,000
dollars per DAY by continuing to require seniors to pay for x-rays obviously
illegally STILL mandated prior to chiropractic care.)

Finally, every state board in the nation should have sued the American
Chiropractic Association for going into Judge Stanley S. Harris' federal
district courtroom and STANDING on the ONGOING obvious x-ray/subluxation
Medicare radiation fraud.

Instead, 15 state boards passed ACA's "Hot Topic" resolution.

Again, Kim, it was a pleasure speaking with you on the telephone.

Please forward this e-mail to the members of the board.

Please urge them to stop the obvious DC radiation fraud. Optional fraud is
still fraud.

The Board's top priority, of course, should be a strongly worded letter from
the Chiropractic Board to the Medical Board - protesting MDs closing birth
canals up to 30%, routinely GRUESOMELY manipulating most babies spines -
sometimes manipulating so hard that spinal nerves are ripped out of tiny
spinal cords.

The California Chiropractic Board could be the first state board in the
nation to take official action to save tiny lives and tiny limbs and PREVENT
more vertebral subluxations than DCs will ever be able to adjust by hand.

Thanks,

Todd

PS For your convenience, Kim, here is my post: Judge Harris: PTs are
subluxated...

Please make sure all California Board members receive a copy.

>>>><<<<BEGIN Judge Harris: PTs are subluxated...<<<<

...Idaho ACA Delegate Henry West, DC (via AmerCh...@aol.com): See my note
to
you at the very end of this post.

June 15 update: Dr. West is chairman of the Idaho Chiropractic Board. He
still hasn't gotten back to me regarding his unfair poke at PTs -
fraudulently suggesting that Idaho DCs are tested for proficiency in
diagnosing x-rays on subluxation - so I'm copying this to him via his
executive director. csimp...@ibol.state.id.us

ATTENTION Judge Stanley S. Harris, US District Court for the District of
Columbia...

Please consider the DHHS OIG report that APTA called to your attention.

And please consider the following Open Letters...including my discussion of
my telephone conversations with the two(?) "APTA attorneys" - for this
latter see the Postscript to my Open Letter to Kathi Kemper, MD below...

OPEN LETTER (posted to the following usenet newsgroups:
misc.health.alternative; misc.kids.pregnancy; sci.med)

Time Magazine
Letters to the Editor
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1393
lett...@time.com

To the Editor:

Obviously, you will have to severely edit (chiropractically adjust) this
long letter if it is to be published. If you do publish any of what
follows, please make sure and include the fact that this letter may be found
in its entirety at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1218 and
may also be found by searching at http://groups.google.com.

I just now read further moaning from two DCs (Drs. Hill and Pfautz)
regarding your recent article about Stephen "Now I AM the media" Barrett,
MD.

Peter Hill, DC wrote in his letter to you (which he copied to the
Dziuba/Cronshaw censored version of chiro-list):

"While Barrett is knocking the Subluxation...the American Physical Therapy
Association [APTA] has endorsed it and is trying to quickly educate its
members on the benefits of adjusting subluxations."

I LIKED Dr. Hill's capitalization of the word Subluxation!

As originally envision by the Founder of Chiropractic, Subluxations are
EASILY demonstrated - and easily adjusted without touching the spine! See
below.

Dr. Hill's letter was about VERTEBRAL subluxation - and it was gross
understatement.

The American Physical Therapy Association/APTA not only "endorses" manual
manipulation of vertebral subluxations - APTA recently stated in federal
court that PTs have been REGULARLY performing manual manipulation of
vertebral subluxations and getting reimbursed by Medicare!

The problem is that PTs - like DCs - are standing on *obvious*
x-ray/subluxation Medicare health fraud - and MDs over at DHHS are remaining
silent. (MDs still dominate DHHS which is the governmental body the DCs are
frivolously suing, thereby wasting tax dollars.)

Let me explain...

Time magazine (and most MDs, PTs and DCs) may not be aware that one document
APTA filed in Judge Harris' federal district court contains a URL to a
*VERY* interesting page on "Quackbuster" Barrett's web site.

On this page, "Quackbuster" Barrett quotes an embarrassing 1986 report from
the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human
Services in which MD-dominated DHHS noted that DCs had acknowledged the
Medicare x-ray/radiation health fraud.

If "Quackbuster" Barrett's quoting of the document is accurate - in 1986,
MDs at DHHS began rather OVERTLY perpetuating obvious DC healthfraud - by
failing to prosecute it.

So here's what we have... We have MDs, PTs, and DCs right now doing a
fraudulent dance in Judge Stanley S. Harris's federal district courtroom.

The PTs and DCs are STANDING on the obvious radiation fraud (albeit
indirectly; see my postscript below) - and the MDs (who still dominate DHHS)
are **remaining silent** - so DHHS (MDs) won't be prosecuted for STILL
perpetuating the obvious radiation fraud that PTs and DCs are standing on...

Of course, this all seems strange until one realizes that, according to
"Quackbuster" Barrett himself, MDs (or SOMEONE) inserted the obvious
radiation fraud into Medicare law to "sabotage" chiropractic way back in
1972.

Now THAT was a "[S]abotage" Subluxation with a capital "[SS]"!

Fortunately, there was a consensus back in 1972 that x-rays prior to all
chiropractic spinal adjustments were necessary; but even so - one does NOT
mandate that American grandmothers be radiated prior to their chiropractic
care - regardless of whether one sincerely believes that one is justified in
"sabotaging" a profession. Yet this is - in effect - exactly what Congress
was lobbied to do. But WHO did it? No one knows! Even worse, in 1997,
this obviously illegal Medicare managed care by radiation scam was
*perpetuated* by Congress - to the year 2000! ACA and ACA mucky-mucks Mike
Pedigo, DC and James Edwards, DC helped! See Radiation is NOT a tool of
managed care, URL below.

I am the author of the current definition of chiropractic in Dorland's
Illustrated Medical Dictionary.

In accord with the definition of chiropractic in Dorland's, I think it's
time that ALL professionals offering "the chiropractic service" - regardless
of professional stripes - should eschew BJ-"straight" jacketing of the
entire chiropractic field. (DCs know what I mean.)

And yes, let's do call it "the chiropractic service" and "the chiropractic
field" regardless of who performs spinal manipulation....

As PTs and DOs (doctors of osteopathy) grew strong by sucking up to MDs (PTs
and DOs are STILL sucking up to MDs!) - DCs weathered - were subjected to -
and are STILL being subjected to - an MD-orchestrated anti-spinal
manipulation campaign.

What do I mean?

Well, there's AMA's ONGOING nationwide illegal conspiracy to destroy - or at
least financially hobble - the largest profession of spinal manipulators in
the world as was documented in Wilk v. AMA.

DCs please note: AMA won the Wilk war...hands down.

See Get thee to your chiropractor!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1217

(If Yahoo.com is busy, my articles are also archived at
http://groups.google.com.)

The anti-spinal manipulation conspiracy is indeed ongoing. KEY information
about spinal manipulation is being omitted from authoritative texts by MDs
who should know better...

Four years after a federally-sponsored panel of MDs, DCs and PTs determined
that there is evidence that spinal manipulation is effective in relieving
pain when adults are suffering acute low back problems...

Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics [1998] did not even mention spinal
manipulation in its section titled "Conservative Treatment" (p. 3054)

Yet on p. 3076 of this 1998 text, one reads:

"One of the greatest problems in orthopaedic surgery and neurosurgery is the
treatment of failed spine surgery..."

YES!

As MD-orthopedists called DCs "quacks" for years for manipulating the spine
to relieve low back pain - MD-orthopedists were busy in their hospitals
doing mostly useless spine surgeries - sometimes KILLING patients - often
doing repeat "failed back surgeries"!

According to orthopedic surgeon Alf Nachemson, M.D., disc herniations do not
always cause back pain:

"We now know that more than 70% of 45-year-old subjects have a silent disc
hernia indistinguishable in size but perhaps not in location from those
patients who undergo surgery for severe radicular syndromes...

"...[W]e should not use sharp instruments to attack the lumbar spine of our
patients with low back pain. Instead, we should sharpen our indications and
operate only where effectiveness and efficacy have been demonstrated..."
[Nachemson AH. Lumbar disc disease with discogenic pain. Spine
1996;21(15):1835-

Nachemson noted in 1992:

"Even though lumbar spinal fusion is a common procedure for patients with
poorly defined diagnostic labels, it wasn't until 1991 that we saw the first
prospective, randomized trial in the history of fusion for any back
condition." [Nachemson AL. Newest knowledge of low back pain. Clin
Orth Rel Res. (Jun)1992; 8-20]

MD-orthopedists are likely STILL doing many unnecessary spine surgeries. In
any event, the authors of Campbell's Orthopedics should be prosecuted every
time a patient with low back pain does not hear about the spinal
manipulation alternative!

And every hospitalization or death of a low back patient due to
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/NSAIDS should be investigated to see
if patients were informed of the spinal manipulation alternative. NSAIDS
are effective in relieving pain - but they are also effective in
hospitalizing and killing people - thousands per year. People aren't being
explicitly INFORMED of this downside to NSAIDS - as MDs *also* fail to
inform low back patients regarding the spinal manipulation alternative...

Back in 1977, J.W. Fisk, M.D., admitted,

"We are taught very little about sore backs and necks at medical school.
The art of manipulation has survived in spite of, rather than because of,
the medical profession..." [Fisk JW. The painful neck and back. Springfield,
IL: Charles C. Thomas 1977]

For the longest time, PTs went along with the MD sliming of spinal
manipulation and chiropractic. Only recently have PTs grokked that MDs and
DCs are in cahoots in federal district court (see above)...

Canadian PTs are apparently still aping MDs in failing to inform low back
patients of the evidence that spinal manipulation is effective in relieving
pain...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1196

One Canadian PT - Jim Doree - actually censored me as I repeatedly requested
to know the scientific basis for "Quackbuster" Barrett's inference that PTs
and MDs offer safer spinal manipulation...

Here's a post that someone kindly posted for me to Doree's pther-list after
I was censored...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pther/message/20566

One "scientific" PT simultaneously hammers "alternative" hypothesis as he
himself forwards a rather interesting "alternative" hypothesis!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pther/message/3641

Yes, let's do honor the chiropractic profession and call spinal manipulation
(and spinal adjusting) "the chiropractic service."

Let's FURTHER honor the chiropractic profession by noting that the
chiropractic field is MUCH bigger than spinal manipulation...

All those now focusing on VERTEBRAL subluxations in federal district court
should embrace the Founder's long-concealed BROADSCOPE notion of subluxation
which includes NON-SPINAL subluxations.

Dr. DD Palmer, Founder of Chiropractic, identified erroneous thinking as
impinged thinking - subluxated thinking - susceptible to chiropractic
adjusting without touching the spine...

MDs are telling big lies and senselessly inflicting massive amounts of pain
and suffering - and sometimes senseless death. (What a great letter Michael
J. Pfautz, DC wrote to Time magazine (!) - MUCH better than ACA's letter
which ACA posted to chiro-list in response to Dr. Pfautz. ACA failed to
mention subluxation - and left out the fact that MDs are GRUESOMELY
manipulating the spines of most babies! See the IMPORTANT NOTE below. Why
does ACA miss these opportunities to save tiny lives and tiny limbs and
PREVENT more vertebral subluxations than DCs will ever be able to adjust by
hand?)

BTW, the Founder's broadscope notion of subluxation and adjustment - which
includes NON-SPINAL subluxation and adjustment - may easily be derived from
the definition of chiropractic in Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary -
which ACA recently tried to censor from Dorland's.

The definition of chiropractic which ACA tried to censor appears in the
27th, 28th, 29th editions of Dorland's, dated 1988, 1994, 2000,
respectively. (The editor of Dorland's was going to publish ACA's/Maurer's
"neuromusculoskeletal box" definition - but decided not to when I pointed
out that ACA had not asked the profession for input as I had done in
submitting the present definition way back in 1986. BTW, the present
definition of chiropractic in Dorland's accords with Dr. DD Palmer's ideas
as expressed in ACA's Highest Obligation *and* with ACA's present Master
Plan - yet ACA tried to censor it. Go figure.)

For details regarding Dr. DD Palmer's BROADSCOPE notion of subluxation (and
adjustment),

See my Open Letter to Kathi Kemper, MD (in Cohen/NY chiros to ask MDs to
adjust each other?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1216)

See also the following excerpt from the usenet post in which I quoted the
key excerpt from DHHS's 1986 OIG report (as excerpted by "Quackbuster"
Barrett)...

From: Todd Gastaldo (gasta...@gte.net)
Subject: Chiropractic is subluxated. Badly.
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative, sci.med
View complete thread (4 articles)
Date: 2000/10/19

SUBLUXATIONS...

"The large majority of the practice of chiropractic is adjustment of the
spine to treat ABNORMALITIES IN THE POSITION OF THE SPINE, referred to as
subluxations, which cause pain and other symptoms..."
ACA Complaint, Aug. 16, 2000 (emphasis added)
ACA et al. v. Trigon et al.
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia
http://www.amerchiro.org/pdf/trigon_complaint.pdf

Subluxation is abnormality in position of the spine? Or abnormality in
position of individual BONES of the spine...

WHAT is a subluxation anyway? The Founder found them OUTSIDE the spine - no
bones necessary - and he often adjusted without touching the spine... See
below.

WHY are the chiro trade unions ignoring MD lies and routine GRISLY MD
manipulation of tiny spines?

Why are the chiro trade unions ignoring MDs sometimes ripping spinal nerves
out of tiny spinal cords with their grisly routine spinal manipulation?

See the very end of this post for details...

More prefatory notes:

While still in spinal adjusting practice, I saw patients make some
remarkable recoveries following my spinal adjustments...but I have no
evidence that my spinal adjustments did the job...Association is not
causation...

While I *believe* the SECONDARY chiropractic hypothesis (vertebral
subluxations exist and cause disease and stop causing disease when
adjusted)...

I just don't know of any scientific evidence to support it...

While a small minority of DCs MAY be demonstrating vertebral subluxations on
x-ray (NUCCA and Blair practitioners, for example)...

To my knowledge, this small minority has NO scientific evidence that these
vertebral subluxations (which they MAY be demonstrating on x-ray) are
causing disease.

Furthermore, if I am right (and I think I am), it follows that there can be
no scientific evidence that adjusting vertebral subluxations is correcting
vertebral subluxations and stopping them from causing disease...

That said regarding a small minority of DCs...

I now remark upon the MAJORITY of DCs...

I would wager that the majority of DCs has been regularly LYING to
Medicare...

But I hasten to add: DC lies to Medicare constitute highly ethical behavior
relative to TRULY massive MD health fraud...

Onward to the false statements of Roland Hicks, DC...

Dr. Hicks wrote:

"Chiropractors do not claim to find subluxations on xray..."
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=648589911

This is false. There is the small minority of DCs discussed above. Also,
every time DCs use x-ray to demonstrate a subluxation to exist (for Medicare
billing purposes; some DCs still do this) - they are quite literally making
a claim to Medicare that that they have found a subluxation on x-ray.

Dr. Hicks continued...

"[Chiropractors] simply use xray as a diagnostic tool to rule out other
pathologies and complicating factors."

This too is false. Again, every time DCs use x-ray to demonstrate a
subluxation to exist (and some still do) - they are telling Medicare that
that they have found a subluxation on x-ray. The fact that x-ray may also
be used to diagnose gross osseous pathology is beside the point. Medicare
law indicates that the x-ray is being taken to demonstrate subluxation to
exist...

Dr. Hicks continued...

"The mandatory subluxation on xray rule was imposed by medicare..."

False. The mandatory subluxation on xray "rule" is an obviously
unconstitutional LAW - imposed by Congress.

I discussed this matter in,

Attorney Christ: Chiropractic WAS sabotaged!
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=613731505
http://www.egroups.com/message/chiro-list/652?&start=588

Dr. Hicks continued...

"...to force chiropractors to perform xrays on all medicare patients as part
of medicare guides."

False again. The law was designed to force chiropractors to demonstrate
subluxations to exist on x-ray - with "the idea's originator" hoping to
"sabotage" chiropractic coverage under Medicare because chiropractors had
admitted that they could not find subluxations on x-ray...

As I noted at the Attorney Christ URL just cited:

AMA member Stephen Barrett reported in 1995 that AMA attorney Doyl Taylor
told him that when it appeared that chiropractic reimbursement under
Medicare was inevitable, "subluxation demonstrated to exist on x-ray"
language was inserted to "sabotage" chiropractic. [Magner, Barrett (ghost).
Chiropractic: The
Victim's Perspective. Amherst, NY: Prometheus 1995:3_] See also
http://www.chirobase.org/02Research/oig.html)

Dr. Hicks continued...

"This rule has been removed as of 2000..."

Not exactly. The obviously bogus x-ray aspect is still an OPTION - and many
DCs may still be exercising this obviously bogus option (though, again, a
small minority of DCs (see above) MAY be demonstrating subluxations on
x-ray)...

Dr. Hicks continued...

"The ACA and its member chiropractors fought to stop this rule because it
leads to unnecessary radiation of patients with chronic conditions...

This part is true. But ACA failed to tell Congress that the MAJORITY of
chiropractors do NOT demonstrate subluxations to exist on x-ray... This
radiation option is just as bogus as it was when it was mandatory. The ONLY
saving grace is that x-ray helps to rule out gross osseous pathology prior
to introducing force into the spine...

Dr. Hicks concluded...

"...plus it has been the position of the ACA that subluxations could not be
demonstrated on xray."
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=648589911

If Dr. Hicks is stating that ACA does NOT believe subluxations can be
demonstrated on x-ray...this statement too is false...

ACA obviously *does* believe subluxations can be demonstrated on x-ray -
otherwise ACA would have protested when Congress recently left x-ray as a
stand-alone option for demonstrating subluxation under Medicare.

ACA is right now in U.S. District Court *STANDING* on the notion that DCs
have been demonstrating subluxations on x-ray and as a consequence DCs
should be the only persons reimbursed by Medicare for adjusting vertebral
subluxations demonstrated on x-ray (and, now, demonstrated in other ways)...

The U.S. Justice Department has been apprised of this fraud - and is
(apparently) still looking the other way...

Again, see Attorney Christ: Chiropractic WAS sabotaged!
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=613731505
http://www.egroups.com/message/chiro-list/652?&start=588

Why aren't top "quackbusters" joining me in publicly protesting this obvious
ACA fraud?

I suspect TRULY massive MD VACCINATION fraud is the *reason* the U.S.
Justice Department and "quackbusters" are looking the other way... See my
Attorney Christ post, just cited...

INTERESTING HISTORY...

Back around 1974, ACA apparently decided that most subluxations could NOT be
demonstrated on x-ray...but ACA later withdrew this decision - this
according to "Quackbuster" Stephen Barrett, MD who quotes the Office of
Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services...

"The 1974 ACA guidelines for Medicare claims review (later withdrawn)
stated...Subluxations . . . demonstrable by x-ray represent only a
relatively small portion of spinal subluxations treated by Chiropractic
Physicians. Clinical subluxations not necessarily demonstrable by x-ray,
constitute the majority of spinal subluxations successfully treated by
Chiropractic Physicians."
http://www.chirobase.org/02Research/oig.html

"Quackbuster" Barrett also reports that ACA's 1973 Basic Chiropractic
Procedural Manual cautioned, in italics, "The subluxations must be perfectly
obvious and indisputable"...
[Barrett citing Schafer RC, editor. Basic Chiropractic Procedural Manual,
First Edition. Arlington, VA: American Chiropractic Association, 1973.]
http://www.chirobase.org/02Research/oig.html

But then (reports Barrett) "these strategic comments were omitted from
revised versions of the manual published in 1977, 1980, and 1984."

As indicated above, the *current* ACA vertebral subluxation flip-flop has
ACA in U.S. District Court *STANDING* on the notion that DCs *have* been
demonstrating subluxations on x-ray and as a consequence DCs should be the
only persons reimbursed by Medicare for adjusting vertebral subluxations
demonstrated on x-ray (and, now, demonstrated in other ways)...

ACA recently wrote (regarding subluxation)...

Hot Topics
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
Patrick Bernat or Felicity Feather
(800) 986-4636

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 18, 2000

ACA Leadership Adopts Policies on Subluxation, Chiropractic Medicine, Unity

37th Annual ACA Meeting Kicks off New Millennium for Chiropractic

.............

The ACA leadership also reaffirmed the core principles of subluxation, which
already exist in ACA's official definitions, and stated the need for
standardization of the term within the chiropractic profession in order to
combat efforts by chiropractic detractors to undermine the profession. The
resolution regarding subluxation states, "That ACA will strive to reiterate
this principle [of subluxation as previously adopted] and further state that
the core treatment of chiropractic is manual manipulation/adjustment of the
articulations, both spinal and extra-spinal, to reduce subluxation, when
called upon in relation to federal legislative efforts, in addition to full
scope of practice as allowed by state law. References to subluxation and
chiropractic adjustments/manipulation should be made in ACA releases,
whenever possible."
http://www.amerchiro.org/hot_topics/091800.html

I am not sure where to find ACA's "official definition" of subluxation; but
here is the term as it is discussed in three places under "ACA Policies on
Public Health and Related Matter [sic]"...

Subluxation
The chiropractic use of the term "subluxation," in reporting, is usually
valid as an objective descriptor, but is not acceptable as a diagnostic
term, unless demonstrable as a scientifically acceptable and classified
entity. The ACA recognizes and supports the consensus statement regarding
subluxation approved and adopted by the profession at the House Conference
of 1972. (Board approved, July 1975.)
http://www.amerchiro.org/shared/pub-poli.htm#SEC107

Medicare
A joint statement of the American Chiropractic Association and the
International Chiropractors Association submitted to the Subcommittee on
Health, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives on Medicare,
concluded that if the ACA/ICA recommendations are adopted, the following
legislative changes would result...the authorization of doctors of
chiropractic to demonstrate the existence of spinal subluxations by "other
chiropractic procedures," as well as by x-ray..."
http://www.amerchiro.org/shared/pub-poli.htm#SEC54

Medicare, Recommended Change in Statutory Wording
Resolved, that efforts be made by the ACA, when and as appropriate, to amend
the involved clause in the Medicare law to strike "to correct a subluxation"
and insert "for treatment of subluxations and symptoms referable to same".
(Ratified by the House of Delegates, June 1983.)
http://www.amerchiro.org/shared/pub-poli.htm#SEC57

This 1983 ACA idea makes sense! If DCs ever do prove that they can see
subluxations on x-ray, people are going to ask them to prove that they are
CORRECTING them as the statute indicates...

In this regard, I'm *hoping* that DCs start looking seriously at Donald D.
Harrison, DC, PhD and Chiropractic BioPhysics...

The notion that perhaps unseen SMALL misalignments must add up to observable
(and correctable) changes in curves is quite appealing. I myself witnessed
some truly amazing spinal curve changes in some of my patients - and these
changes were associated with my patients getting better - but this is NOT
proof that changing spinal curves causes patients to get better. I
*believe* this is what happened - but I always told my patients that there
was no evidence.

Atlas, if you are reading, do you know if the CBP guys have generated
scientific evidence that changing curves changes/relieves disease?

Do you know whether Dr. Harrison's norms factor in norms from SQUATTING
cultures, i.e., most humans on the planet?

Regardless, how very odd that DCs and PTs are ignoring a culture-wide loss
of a fundamental human range of motion - especially since the U.S. Public
Health Service has suggested that loss of flexibility might cause back pain!

See US Navy to install squatting-type toilets?/Kunz's P-System a Pee and
Poop system?
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=676247359

As indicated above, ACA is now referring in court to subluxations being
"abnormalities in the position of the spine," as in,

"The large majority of the practice of chiropractic is adjustment of the
spine to treat abnormalities in the position of the spine, referred to as
subluxations, which cause pain and other symptoms..."
ACA Complaint, Aug. 16, 2000
ACA et al. v. Trigon et al.
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia
http://www.amerchiro.org/pdf/trigon_complaint.pdf

"Abnormalities in the position of the spine" - sounds like CBP!

Interesting, one of the plaintiffs in the above mentioned Trigon lawsuit is
Virgina chiropractor Dr. Douglas Cox, who I discussed in regard to vertebral
subluxation fraud...

See *YES* Virginia, MDs are lying and babies are dying (please help mothers
and babies)
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=646083971

In spite of Dr. Hicks' false statements noted above, I was quite pleased to
see him state outright...

"I never claimed to be able to show subluxations on xray..."
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=648606821

"You cannot see a subluxation on an xray..."
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=648605563

I say again...

I would wager that the MAJORITY of DCs has been regularly LYING to
Medicare...and some still are lying...

But the bottom line is...

DC lies to Medicare came in response to SABOTAGE of the profession...

DC lies about demonstrating vertebral subluxation on x-ray constitute highly
ethical behavior relative to obvious grisly MD lies and TRULY massive MD
health fraud...

END excerpt...

To whomever might still be reading...

I think it is a stroke of *good* luck that PTs are now - in effect - lying
about having REGULARLY demonstrated vertebral subluxation on x-ray...

It's time for ALL concerned to make a clean breast of the obvious
x-ray/subluxation Medicare health fraud that MDs (or SOMEONE) used in an
attempt to sabotage chiropractic.

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.
8948 SW Barbur Blvd
Box 6
Portland, OR 97219
TEL (503) 640-0456
gasta...@gte.net
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list

IMPORTANT NOTE

NY Chiro Board Exec. Sec. Norman Cohen, I say AGAIN: If you are TRULY
interested in "enhancing diversity in the
profession and its consumers, strengthening the practitioners' sense of
professional responsibility, and supporting legislation in the public
interest"...
http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/19/13/11.html

Why not KEEP MDs on the NY chiropractic board - and work to get DCs
legislated
onto the New York State Medical Board?

I hear the State of Kansas does just fine with a mixed MD/DC/DO licensing
board.

Oddly, James Edwards, DC, who may still be on Kansas's MD/DC/DO mixed board,
failed to act when I asked him to get his board to help babies...

At the time, Dr. Edwards was busy pretending that American Chiropractic
Association silence did not cause Congress to perpetuate the Medicare
x-ray/subluxation fraud and cost American DCs a Congressionally-estimated
$400,000 dollars per DAY - for two years.

See Radiation is NOT a tool of managed care!

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=edwards+pedigo+gastaldo&hl=en&lr=&s...

Copied (via Mr. Cohen) to the following "NY state leaders"...

According to Dynamic Chiropractic, the following persons attended NY State
Chiropractic Board Exec. Sec. Cohen's meeting...

Chiropractic Federation of New York

A. Alessandro Pireno,DC, president
Robert Matrisciano,DC, director
(for Richard McAlister,DC)
New York Chiropractic Council

Ellen Coyne,DC, chairperson
Robert Reiss,DC, regent
New York State Chiropractic Association

E. Daniel Quatro,DC, president elect
Mariangela Penna,DC, secretary
New York Chiropractic College

Frank Nicchi,DC, president
Thomas Ventimiglia,DC, downstate admissions coordinator

Guest observers at the meeting called by Mr. Cohen:

Gennetta Greer Mitchell,DC, nominee to the board (licensee)
Rhonda Fenderson, Dr. Greer Mitchell's office manager
Todd Olson,PhD, nominee to the board (consumer)
Gertrude Smith,DC, nominee to the board (licensee)
William Suh,DC, nominee to the board (licensee)
Marilyn Thibodeau, nominee to the board (consumer)
Frank Zolli,DC, president, University of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic

POSTSCRIPT #2

Dear New York State Leaders (listed above), CHIROPRACTIC EMERGENCY.

Obvious mass CHILD ABUSE - which sometimes escalates to homicide - is being
caused by GRUESOME spinal manipulation by MDs...

If you are in doubt as to whether this is child abuse, please immediately
send this e-mail - including my Open Letter to Dr. Kemper - to all DCs in
New York State... Send it via snail mail if necessary.

I make this request because,

"Each applicant for licensure as a chiropractor must complete coursework or
training in the identification and reporting of child abuse according to
Section 6507 (3)(a) of the Education Law."
http://www.op.nysed.gov/chiro.htm

And before you start helping Mr. Cohen in his work to boot the MDs off the
NY State chiro board, please ask MD board members to ADJUST - to help stop
their fellow MDs from routinely (senselessly) closing birth canals up to
30%, GRUESOMELY manipulating most babies' spines at birth... Please copy me
when you do this... Thank you.

POSTSCRIPT #3

Here, now, is my Open Letter to Kathi Kemper, MD.

(So far, I haven't heard back from her...)

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Gastaldo" <gasta...@gte.net>

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.pregnancy,sci.med
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 9:05 PM
Subject: Subluxated thinking of Kathi Kemper, MD

PREGNANT WOMEN: The Gastaldo maneuver is EASY - it opens the birth canal up
to 30%. See the very end of this post...

"Biomechanical therapies include massage and chiropractic as well as
surgery."
--Kathi Kemper, MD [West J Med 174(4):272-276, 2001]

OPEN LETTER (posted to the following usenet newsgroups: sci.med,
misc.kids.pregnancy, misc.health.alternative)

Kathi J Kemper, MD
Center for Holistic Pediatric Education and Research
Childrens Hospital
300 Longwood Ave
Boston, MA 02115
Correspondence to: Kathi J Kemper, w...@ewjm.com

Hi Kathi,

Your thoughts on chiropractic are BADLY subluxated [West J Med
174(4):272-276, 2001]; hence this e-mailed chiropractic adjustment. (Note:
If you perceive that *my* thoughts are subluxated - please speedily adjust -
publicly or privately.)

Chiropractic is a science of applied neurophysiologic diagnosis. [Dorland's
Illustrated Medical Dictionary 27th, 28th, 29th editions, published in 1988,
1994, 2000]

The fundamental chiropractic hypothesis is that all diseases (as well as
hypothetical disease perpetuators called impinged thoughts and vertebral
subluxations) are caused by EXTERNAL environmental irritation of the nervous
system.

Diagnosis is the identification of noxious irritants (mech/chem/psychic) in
both the external and internal environment; and treatment is the removal of
noxious irritants (mech/chem/psychic) by the most conservative means
possible.

Chiropractic includes mechanical therapy - not the other way around.

Chiropractic includes chemical therapy - adding and subtracting things
ingested.

Chiropractic includes psychic therapy - adjusting via education.

Kathi, you write:

"[C]hiropractors have formed a strong professional community that has
effectively persuaded the public to pay for their services."
[Kemper K. West J Med 174(4):272-276, 2001]

Earth to Kathi!

ALL professional communities persuade the public to pay for their services!

The medical community has been MOST successful in this regard!

Organized medicine has persuaded the public to pay for rather obvious
criminal activity!

The obvious MD criminal activity has been going on for decades...

By 1957, there was good clinical and radiographic evidence that MDs were
routinely closing birth canals up to 30%...

For details, see Bonehead Shoulder Dystocia Attorney James L.
O'Leary, II...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1154

MDs at Johns Hopkins wrote tepidly in 1957:

"[I]t may occasionally be helpful to know - for forceps, let us say - that
the extreme lithotomy position gives the maximum anteroposterior diameter to
the outlet."
--Nicholson J. Eastman, MD
Professor of Obstetrics
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
--Howard W. Jones, Jr., MD
Associate Professor of Gynecology
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
--Georgeanna Seegar Jones
Associate Professor of Gynecology
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
(Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 1957;12:648)

WHAT!?

It may OCCASIONALLY be helpful to know how to offer babies up to 30% of
"extra" room at the pelvic outlet?!

I'd say it's ALWAYS helpful to know how to do this!

Beginning in the 50s, Williams Obstetrics started LYING - saying that the
pelvic outlet cannot widen!

After I called attention to the lie in 1992, the authors of Williams
Obstetrics added the correct biomechanics - but kept the lie - in the same
paragraph!

For details, see Bonehead Shoulder Dystocia Attorney James L.
O'Leary, II...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1154

MD-obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% ROUTINELY - routinely
pulling on fetal skulls sticking out vaginas - sometimes pulling so hard
that they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords!

MD-obstetricians ADMIT they are routinely closing birth canals!

It is an easily verifiable FACT that the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists'/ACOG's Shoulder Dystocia Drill video states that the
pelvic outlet must be fully opened in the minority of births when the
shoulders get REALLY stuck...

Obviously, MDs advising themselves (on videotape!) to fully OPEN
the pelvic outlet in a *small minority* of births means that MDs are CLOSING
the pelvic outlet in MOST births.

KEY POINT: It is best to use Extreme Lithotomy (rolling the supine woman
off her sacrum) instead of the McRoberts maneuver illustrated in the ACOG
video... I say this because a close viewing of the ACOG video (ruled a
"learned treatise" in Costantino v.
Herzog [2000], a recent federal case) reveals that the MD method of
"opening" the birth canal - McRoberts maneuver - actually keeps it closed.

Even worse, MDs are reaching INSIDE vaginas in 10 to 15% of
births - using forceps and vacuum extractors to drag babies by their skulls
through birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%!

ATTENTION any MDs reading: DO NOT PULL ON BABIES WITH THE BIRTH
CANAL SENSELESSLY CLOSED!! If you must pull - first get mothers off their
backs/butts - or better - use the Gastaldo maneuver - i.e., keep women off
their butts and backs in the first place.

See TWO Gastaldo maneuvers! (one for birth; one for life)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1122

The biomechanics are SIMPLE: When the mother is on her sacrum - on her butt
or back - her sacral tip can't swing back and let the baby through!

In 1989, MD experts ADMITTED this grisly biomechanical fact -
then "scientifically" let midwives put women on their butts thereby closing
their birth canals up to 30%!

It happened in Gardosi's first 1989 study which was followed by Gardosi's
second 1989 study - a "randomised controlled trial of squatting" where
nobody squatted!

See Grisly Gardosi squatting skullduggery...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1201

For details of MDs keeping birth canals closed with McRoberts maneuver, see
again Bonehead Shoulder Dystocia Attorney James L. O'Leary, II...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1154

Related obvious MD criminal activity...

In most births in America, MDs slash the vagina (euphemism
"routine episiotomy"), fraudulently claiming they are doing everything to
open the birth canal -
even as they close it up to 30%!

See Episiotomy is 'nice' violence against women performed by 'nice' MDs (I'm
speaking of ROUTINE episiotomy, of course.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1150

And see Obstetric Crime Photos
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1174

Kathi, you conclude your article by oh-so-smoothly FALSELY inferring that
most of conventional medicine is scientific:

"[I]t is essential that pediatricians...be aware of the complex interplay
among scientific evidence and market forces governing availability of and
payment for CAM therapies."

In addition to the obvious mass PHYSICAL child abuse being committed by MDs,
there is the matter of MDs committing obvious mass IMMUNOLOGIC child
abuse...

MDs are lying by omission thereby denying massive numbers of babies massive

numbers of free daily immunizations.

For details, please see: Adjusting CindyRN's breastfeeding site/Jack
Newman's DYNAMITE
corrected...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1178

A few last notes, Kathi...

You write oh-so-smugly:

"[T]here is a remarkable absence of randomized controlled clinical trials
suggesting that [chiropractic] is a significantly helpful or cost-effective
therapy for any major pediatric disease..."
--Kathi Kemper, MD [West J Med 174(4):272-276, 2001]

FACT: Chiropractic adjusting without touching the spine (see above) - can
save tiny lives and tiny limbs - and PREVENT massive amounts of pediatric
disease!

Also: DELICATE spinal adjustments by chiropractors seem to repair some of
the damage caused by MD-obstetricians...

See Kiwi nurses/Adjusting babies...
http://www.sherman.edu/news/1999/nr03_3.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1004

See also Rick Wren, DC: Society of Chiropractic Masters - or Chiropractic
Masturbators?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1138

And see: Dr. Flesia's birth tragedy/Will Renaissance Seminars help mothers
and babies?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/985

Always remember Kathi: MD-obstetricians are the most prolific spinal
manipulators in the world: They not only have no randomized controlled
trials to support their bizarre practice of GRUESOMELY manipulating the
spines of most babies - they LIE to perpetuate the massive grisly travesty.

Many MDs lie in silence - mothers and babies be damned.

Kathi, if you don't join me in speaking out to end these grisly massive MD
travesties -well, it won't be the first time an MD-pediatrician has failed
those for whom she chose to advocate....

"What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have
chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse.
AJDC, 1986;140:329-330]

Please speak out publicly.

Sincerely,

Todd

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.
8948 SW Barbur Blvd
Box 6
Portland, OR 97219
TEL (503) 640-0456
gasta...@gte.net
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list

POSTSCRIPT

America's largest DC and PT trade
unions are right now in Judge Stanley S. Harris' federal district court
SAYING they were
correcting demonstrated vertebral subluxations for Medicare beneficiaries
(seniors) - when in fact they weren't - it was Medicare healthfraud - and
the Department of Health and Human Services knowingly went along with it -
thereby committing the health fraud of knowingly failing to prosecute
Medicare
fraud.

Why not join me in demanding that Judge Stanley S. Harris toss both the DCs
and PTs (ACA and APTA) - *and* the Department of Health and Human
Services - out of his federal district courtroom?

The judicial system is not supposed to be used to perpetuate obvious
Medicare health fraud.

Remember, though...

All parties concerned (DCs and PTs and DHHS alike) are in effect covering-up
TRULY massive health fraud being committed by MDs...

For details, see PTs to adjust DCs in federal court? (Will Judge Stanley S.
Harris read
the OIG report?)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1196

UPDATE: After I published "PTs to adjust DCs in federal court" (URL just
cited), I received a
mysterious telephone call from a woman claiming to be APTA attorney Kristen
Donoghue. This woman claimed that she never told me that it hadn't been
decided yet whether PTs adjust vertebral subluxations. This means, of
course, that either I am lying - or APTA attorney Kristen Donoghue is
lying - or the APTA attorney Kristen Donoghue who I mentioned in "PTs to
adjust DCs" is not the same person as the APTA attorney Kristen Donoghue who
telephoned to protest.

In the course of our conversation, this second woman
claiming to be APTA attorney Donoghue asked me point blank: Do you have a
tape recording of the call? I thought she was making the point that I
couldn't be sure what she said without a recording - so I replied, "Do YOU
have a recording?" She said no. Tape recording telephone conversations
without consent is illegal - or so I've heard - but the funny thing is -
such recordings are sometimes used to prove that someone has lied.

The second APTA Attorney Donoghue (just mentioned) pointed out that the
x-ray mandate disappeared in 2000. I replied that if PTs have been
REGULARLY reimbursed by Medicare for manual manipulation - it means that
before 2000, they were either fraudulently failing to take the mandated
x-rays - or fraudulently claiming to have demonstrated vertebral
subluxations on x-rays - just like DCs were doing and are STILL doing. See
the OIG report.

Bottomline, PTs have - now - in effect - joined DCs in their Medicare
x-ray/subluxation fraud - mothers and babies be damned.

Spinal manipulating PTs and DCs ought to be ashamed of themselves for
failing to stop MDs from GRUESOMELY manipulating the tiniest spines.

PTs and DCs ought to focus less on money and more on saving tiny lives and
limbs - and PREVENTING more vertebral subluxations than PTs and DCs will
ever be able to adjust by hand.

Mothers and babies suffer en masse and sometimes DIE - because of a
goddamned spinal manipulation turf squabble!

ATTENTION PTs and DCs - especially PT and DC trade union leaders - don't
look now but MDs are the most prolific spinal manipulators.

WHY won't you help stop them? Is money that important?

IMPORTANT NOTE: I'm not licensed anywhere - by choice...

Back around 1990 when I *was* licensed (and had been for 10 years) - a man
claiming to be Michael Schroeder, Esq. (attorney for the California Board of
Chiropractic Examiners in a lawsuit
brought by 10 MD-obstetricians and others) - told me it was not within my
scope of practice as a California licensed DC to inform women regarding
grisly
MD-obstetrician birth practices.

Coincidentally, a Michael Schroeder, Esq. - former chairman of
the California Republican Party - sued me for one million dollars for
defamation - for claiming that he improperly used hundreds of thousands in
DC licensing fees to defend Rule 302, a regulatory definition of
chiropractic that he had written - and which had been publicly pilloried as
being "unlawful" by a
former assistant DA/public defender.

Incredibly, in taking *me* to task for indicating publicly that Mr.
Schroeder's Rule 302 was unlawful, Acupuncture Today editor Donald M.
Petersen, Jr. "forgot" to mention that he had printed Attorney Prescott
doing the same thing - and Mr. Schroeder STILL hasn't written to complain!
(For details, go to http://groups.google.com and search "Congressman Ron
Paul, MD/eMedicine.com: Child Abuse EMERGENCY!")

Attorney Prescott wrote:

"[Schroeder et al.] did not attack the validity of the chiropractic
'board's' scope of practice rule (rule 302). In my opinion, the rule itself
should have been directly attacked as unlawfully limiting our scope of
practice to straight chiropractic...My disagreement with Mr. Schroeder over
the scope of practice issue is not new. I wrote an article which appeared in
the March, 1986 issue of this paper making many of the same points I...make
in this article.
David Prescott, DC, MA, JD, FIACA
Chiropractor Prosecuted for Recommending Vitamins -- Why? What to Do?
DYNAMIC CHIROPRACTIC
http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/16/11/08.html

FACT: 10-MD-obstetricians were in part the cause of Mr. Schroeder earning
hundreds of thousands of dollars if DC licensing fees in the Rule 302
matter...

QUESTION: WHY isn't "chiropractic" attorney Schroeder helping me stop
routine gruesome spinal manipulation by MDs who are obviously lying and
closing birth canals?

See also my mention of "chiropractic" attorney Schroeder in SLAPP?/Robert S.
Baratz, DDS, PhD, MD to help mothers and babies?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1148

Posted to the usenet
(misc.health.alternative,sci.environment,talk.environment,
misc.kids.pregnancy, sci.med)

Before we teach more MDs how to manipulate the spines of adults"
http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/18/26/21.html

...maybe we should stop MDs from GRUESOMELY manipulating the spines of
babies?
(Go to http://groups.google.com and search "Pardons in advance for MDs" )

Copied to Acupuncture Today editor Donald M. Petersen, Jr at
D...@DCMedia.com
and D...@MPAmedia.com

Copied to Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners/OBCE Exec. Dir. Dave
McTeague via oregon.o...@state.or.us

For details on OBCE Exec. Dir. McTeague's foot-dragging, go to
http://groups.google.com - search "OBCE/Whether to x-ray Medicare
patients/Atlas Shrugs"

TWIN MEDICAL HOAXES

MDs and CNMwives are perpetuating TWIN MEDICAL HOAXES: the McRoberts
maneuver hoax and the "inlet" shoulder dystocia hoax...

Modern medicine's grisly "inlet" shoulder dystocia hoax (see Hibbard's
rendition below) was promoted right along with the McRoberts maneuver hoax -
probably intentionally...

Early articles on McRoberts maneuver failed to mention that the pelvic
outlet diameter can
change MASSIVELY at delivery. These same articles called attention away
from the pelvic
outlet by citing the grisly "inlet" dystocia hoax....

Here is Hibbard's rendition of the "inlet" shoulder dystocia hoax...

"With typical shoulder dystocia...the posterior shoulder is lodged [at the
inlet,] at the level of the sacral promontory...The soft tissues of
the...vulva are fitted closely around the infant's neck."
--Lester T. Hibbard, MD, University of Southern California Medical School,
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Shoulder dystocia. Obst Gynecol
1969(34):424. Reproduced and reviewed in Obstet Gynecol Survey
1970;25(11):1057-60.

FACT: Hibbard [1969] describes a physical impossibility! With the
posterior fetal shoulder trapped way up the Curve of Carus at the sacral
promontory/pelvic inlet, there is no force to push the head out the vagina -
even if the fetal neck could stretch that far!

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/ACOG perpetuates
this grisly inlet dystocia hoax by selling a video titled, "Shoulder
Dystocia Drill"...

The ACOG video also promotes the pelvic-outlet-closing McRoberts maneuver.

Do NOT use McRoberts!

Instead, use Extreme Lithotomy.

Or better - use the Gastaldo maneuver...

For details, search http://groups.google.com for:

1) "Wayne State Emergency/Gastaldo maneuver"

2) "AARF/The Gastaldo maneuver makes birth MUCH easier for mother and baby"

3) "OBs: STOP promoting McRoberts! NOW. It keeps the birth canal closed!"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1103

See also TWO Gastaldo maneuvers! (one for birth; one for life)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1122

EXTREME LITHOTOMY GOOD: GASTALDO MANEUVER BETTER

**DON'T** USE McROBERTS MANEUVER!

NOTE: Extreme lithotomy is simply rolling a woman off her sacrum at
delivery - getting her OFF her butt - and MDs wrote that it may OCCASIONALLY
be helpful to know about this, as in,

It may OCCASIONALLY be helpful to know how to offer babies up to 30% of
"extra" room at the pelvic outlet?!

I'd say it's ALWAYS helpful to know how to do this!

MD-obstetricians actually are closing birth canals up to 30% routinely -
pulling on fetal skulls sticking out vaginas - sometimes pulling so hard
that they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords!

In an estimated 10 to 15% of vaginal births, MDs reach INSIDE vaginas and
drag babies through pelvic outlets senselessly closed up to 30%. This, too,
can rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords!

For details, see Bonehead Shoulder Dystocia Attorney James L.
O'Leary, II...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1154

Also noteworthy...

In most births in America, MDs slash the vagina (euphemism
"routine episiotomy"), fraudulently claiming they are doing everything to
open the birth canal -
even as they close it up to 30%!

See Episiotomy is 'nice' violence against women performed by 'nice' MDs (I'm
speaking of ROUTINE episiotomy, of course.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1150

And see Obstetric Crime Photos
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1174

See also the VIDEO: Birth Trauma - A Modern Epidemic with Dr. Jeanne Ohm

"Using footage of current births, along with supporting research, this 10
minute video is
designed to make an impact for change to modern day birthing procedures."
10 minutes - $149.00 (US) + 5.00 S/H
http://www.planetc1.com/shop/order_OHM.html

Dr. Ohm supports both the chiropractic adjustment of mothers and babies
AFTER the birth (I heartily support this, too) - and she supports
chiropractic adjustment (education) of mothers BEFORE birth - to PREVENT
death and paralysis - and vertebral subluxation.

For chiropractic prevention, see also...

TWO Gastaldo maneuvers! (one for birth; one for life)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1122

Copied to:

Dr. Peter G. Hill
Boston Copley Square Chiropractic
304 Columbus Avenue
Boston, MA 02116
617-536-9119
CHIROH...@aol.com

Michael J. Pfautz, DC
Mjch...@aol.com

Will both of you be so good as to post this to the Dziuba/Cronshaw censored
version of chiro-list where you posted your letters to Time magazine?

Hey! You could just post the title and the URL!

Judge Harris: PTs are subluxated - just like DCs. MD fraud caused the
subluxations...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1218

Maybe if the two of you post it, more DCs will read it and join me working
to finally end the sabotage of chiropractic - and the routine GRUESOME
spinal manipulation of most babies by MDs...

That's my hope anyway.

Hello to Henry West, DC. Why the silence? You don't think the routine
GRUESOME spinal manipulation by MDs is a chiropractic emergency - something
to act upon NOW?

You don't think saving just ONE fetal brain - or one tiny arm - is sufficent
grounds to speak openly?

Dr. West, as I noted in my recent e-mail following our telephone
conversation...

I quoted you back in 1999 when ACA quoted you - after Idaho (and
California) passed the resolution in support of the ACA lawsuit...

"Physical therapists are not qualified to make a diagnosis as defined by
Medicare...[C]hiropractors are the only licensed practitioners to provide
this service. We hope all 50 states will adopt this resolution."
--Henry West, DC, also ACA Delegate from Idaho
http://www.amerchiro.org/lawsuit_info/102099.html

Dr. West, the Medicare statute - as of Jan. 1, 2000 - no longer LIMITS
diagnosis in regard to manual manipulation of the spine to the ability to
demonstrate subluxations to exist on x-ray.

You inferred that Idaho tested applicants for chiropractic licensure on
diagnosis of subluxation on x-ray - and indirectly suggested that Idaho and
every other state board going along with the managed care by radiation was
somehow in the interest of "public health and safety." (!)

I wrote in my public post (after quoting you as ACA had quoted you):

DCs have NEVER been tested/qualified to make x-ray diagnosis of
subluxation - at least not in California and many other states.

In personal telephone calls, Sharon Ufberg, DC and Stephen Foreman DC - both
members of the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners - indicated that
DCs have not been and aren't being tested in the x-ray diagnosis of
subluxation.

Mark Christianson, PhD of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners -
NBCE's
Part IV substitutes for the state board exam in many states - confirmed that
DCs aren't being tested in the x-ray diagnosis of subluxation.

In spite of the fact that DCs are not being tested/qualified to make x-ray
diagnosis of subluxation, the American Chiropractic Association is publicly
exhorting state chiropractic boards to pass ACA's "Hot Topic" resolution
which infers otherwise!

And some state chiropractic boards are going along with the gag!

TIMELINE

Oct. 7, 1999: AL, AZ, NC pass fraudulent inference resolution
http://www.amerchiro.org/lawsuit_info/states.html

Oct. 20, 1999: CA, ID pass fraudulent inference resolution
http://www.amerchiro.org/lawsuit_info/102099.html

Nov. 15, 1999: FL, NE, OH, WI pass fraudulent inference resolution
http://www.amerchiro.org/lawsuit_info/111599.html

Nov. 19, 1999: Gastaldo asks FCLB to notify all state boards that the
resolution in support of the ACA lawsuit is a fraudulent inference that
state boards of chiropractic have been testing applicants for proficiency in
diagnosing subluxation on x-ray. Gastaldo notes that Mark Christianson, PhD
of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE's Part IV substitutes
for the state board exam in many states) confirmed that DCs aren't being
tested in the x-ray diagnosis of subluxation. Gastaldo never heard back
from FCLB...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/228

Dec. 15, 1999: LA, NM, PA pass fraudulent inference resolution
http://www.amerchiro.org/lawsuit_info/121599.html

Jan. 11, 2000: MO, VT, WV pass fraudulent inference resolution
http://www.amerchiro.org/lawsuit_info/011000.html

That was it - 15 states got on board - 15 states passed the fraudulent
inference resolution. (ACA said it would keep us posted as more states
passed it - but there have been no further states passing the resolution -
or rather no more ACA posts.)

END excerpt of my post to Dr. West following our telephone conversation
yesterday...

PERHAPS Dr. West just hasn't yet seen my posts. Perhaps he had a crush of
patients. I HOPE this is the case. Dr. West did seem interested in the
biomechanics of semisitting birth - and the fact that MDs are routinely
GRUESOMELY manipulating most babies spines - sometimes actually ripping
spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords...

I had hoped - given this obvious chiropractic emergency - that Dr. West
would have at least acknowledged my posts by now...

Dr. West, if you are reading, please forgive this public intrusion.

If I am right about the grisly biomechanics (and I am) - my public intrusion
here is NOTHING compared to the actual physical brain insults suffered by
thousands of babies today...

THINK ABOUT IT.

You expressed interest in hearing from me - but I haven't received so much
as an acknowledgement in reply.

Unless you indicate that I should do otherwise, I shall stop bcc'ing you my
posts so as not to risk being accused of "harrassing" anyone.

Again, please forgive the public intrusion - but I sincerely believe 100% of
babies would want me risking it hoping to stimulate the largest chiro trade
union to help mothers and babies...

Quite simply, Dr. West, it's chiropractic adjusting to take whatever action
one can to save tiny lives and tiny limbs and PREVENT vertebral
subluxations.

Or so I say...

PREGNANT WOMEN: To learn how to open your birth canal up to 30% "extra"...

See TWO Gastaldo maneuvers! (one for birth; one for life)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1122

My PRIORITY is publicizing the Gastaldo maneuver for BIRTH - i.e., stopping
MDs
from closing birth canals up to 30%.

My PASSION is the Gastaldo maneuver for LIFE - stopping Western culture from
robbing children of a fundamental human rest posture that (for women in
cultures where it isn't robbed) doubles as a delivery posture that OPENS the

birth canal up to 30%.

O'Hush

unread,

Sep 18, 2005, 9:57:31 PM9/18/05

"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:432DB2B8...@earthlink.net...

> >>This was of course in the hospital. She was induced because she was
> >>late, and the placenta was degenerating.
> >>About 5 hrs after the first epidural and after all that pain, our
> >>daughter was delivered by c-section anyway.
> >
> >
> > Mmmm. Now that I think of it, I don't think I've ever heard a happy
labor
> > story. They nearly all suck. They're always so sappy and gleeful on
TV,
> > but in real life it's a crisis from start to finish, and then you take
the
> > baby home and you don't get to sleep much for months. Why *do* people
have
> > babies? (Actually now he's 7 and so delightful. He's reasonable and
> > considerate and a pleasure to be with. I was so often *sure* I was a
rotten
> > mother. Anyway, when he was 2, strangers at the grocery store always
seemed
> > to think so.) How old is your little one?
> >
> > ~~Patti
>
> She's nine. This is more like the kind of neighborhood where childless
> are intimidated by the fertile.

Ah. That must be nice. My corner of NC is John Rosemond Central (as in
John Rosemond, Ph.D., king of reactionary parenting). I hate that man. He
says psychologists are all frauds (except him of course), and, for example,
if your child exhibits behaviors consistent with depression, you should
spank him until he stops. You should not play with your 3yo for more than
half an hour a day because you need the time to "work on your marriage."

http://www.rosemond.com/

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

unread,

Sep 19, 2005, 9:55:12 AM9/19/05

O'Hush wrote:
>
> Ah. That must be nice. My corner of NC is John Rosemond Central (as in
> John Rosemond, Ph.D., king of reactionary parenting). I hate that man. He
> says psychologists are all frauds (except him of course), and, for example,
> if your child exhibits behaviors consistent with depression, you should
> spank him until he stops. You should not play with your 3yo for more than
> half an hour a day because you need the time to "work on your marriage."
>
> http://www.rosemond.com/

Overall, I think you're right--the "enlightened" attitudes here in Blue
State America are better. But any attitude can be abused.
I was pretty annoyed that after childbirth classes with my wife (at St.
Vincent's Hospital here in NY) featuring videos of screaming mothers in
labor accompanied by tinkling piano music, that after going through all
that pain and surgery, my wife voiced an opinion at one point that she
felt a little like a failure for failing to be able to see labor through
normally and au naturale.
I wasn't a big hit at the childbirth classes when I told the instructor
(nicely, mind you) that I didn't think my dental patients got any
brownie points for not getting novocaine. Her point was that labor was
physiological pain, while I dealt with pathological pain. My answer to
that was "So?"
I granted that every medication had its risks, and that the epidural
certainly had its own. This was certainly one advantage of natural
labor. Once my wife was given an epidural, they needed to do direct
monitoring. After the second epidural, our daughter developed cardiac
distress; whether it was due to the epidural I don't know, but I cannot
rule it out.
In any case, everyone made out OK.

mcm...@cup.hp.com

unread,

Sep 19, 2005, 3:20:18 PM9/19/05

In misc.kids.pregnancy O'Hush <rumra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

: Mmmm. Now that I think of it, I don't think I've ever heard a happy labor

: story. They nearly all suck. They're always so sappy and gleeful on TV,
: but in real life it's a crisis from start to finish, and then you take the
: baby home and you don't get to sleep much for months.

Hmm. I see that you are posting to misc.health.alternative and sci.med as
well as misc.kids.pregnancy. You must be a regular poster on one of those
groups, and NOT a regular poster on misc.kids.pregnancy. And why do I say
that? Because there are fairly regular postings of "happy labor stories"
on misc.kids pregnancy. They are rarely sappy, they often talk about a
lot of hard work, but many of them are quite joyful.

I suspect that one of the reasons is that you have been exposed mainly to
hospital births, and that some of the most satisfying births reported tend
to be home, or sometime birthcenter, births. This was certainly the case
for my wife's two home births, which were posted, and which you could have
read on m.k.p.

Also, regarding the sleep question that can often be solved by breastfeeding,
co-sleeping, and learning to sleep through the night nursing sessions,
another thing which my wife learned to do.

Oh well, it takes all kinds, :-)
Larry

O'Hush

unread,

Sep 19, 2005, 9:06:51 PM9/19/05

<mcm...@cup.hp.com> wrote in message news:432f...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...

> In misc.kids.pregnancy O'Hush <rumra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Mmmm. Now that I think of it, I don't think I've ever heard a happy
labor
> : story. They nearly all suck. They're always so sappy and gleeful on
TV,
> : but in real life it's a crisis from start to finish, and then you take
the
> : baby home and you don't get to sleep much for months.
>
> Hmm. I see that you are posting to misc.health.alternative and sci.med as
> well as misc.kids.pregnancy. You must be a regular poster on one of those
> groups, and NOT a regular poster on misc.kids.pregnancy. And why do I say
> that? Because there are fairly regular postings of "happy labor stories"
> on misc.kids pregnancy. They are rarely sappy, they often talk about a
> lot of hard work, but many of them are quite joyful.
>
> I suspect that one of the reasons is that you have been exposed mainly to
> hospital births, and that some of the most satisfying births reported tend
> to be home, or sometime birthcenter, births. This was certainly the case
> for my wife's two home births, which were posted, and which you could have
> read on m.k.p.

Yeah, If I gave a damn, which I don't. I was responding to a crossposted
item in sci.med. I'll try to remember to trim headers next time.

> Also, regarding the sleep question that can often be solved by
breastfeeding,

Which I did for nearly four years.

> co-sleeping,

Which I did for 3.5 years.

> and learning to sleep through the night nursing sessions,

Which I did for over two years.

> another thing which my wife learned to do.
>
> Oh well, it takes all kinds, :-)

I was just thinking that.

O'Hush

unread,

Sep 19, 2005, 9:17:02 PM9/19/05

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message

news:4rzXe.6296$N35.3539@trndny09...

> Overall, I think you're right--the "enlightened" attitudes here in Blue
> State America are better. But any attitude can be abused.
> I was pretty annoyed that after childbirth classes with my wife (at St.
> Vincent's Hospital here in NY) featuring videos of screaming mothers in
> labor accompanied by tinkling piano music, that after going through all
> that pain and surgery, my wife voiced an opinion at one point that she
> felt a little like a failure for failing to be able to see labor through
> normally and au naturale.
> I wasn't a big hit at the childbirth classes when I told the instructor
> (nicely, mind you) that I didn't think my dental patients got any
> brownie points for not getting novocaine. Her point was that labor was
> physiological pain, while I dealt with pathological pain. My answer to
> that was "So?"
> I granted that every medication had its risks, and that the epidural
> certainly had its own. This was certainly one advantage of natural
> labor. Once my wife was given an epidural, they needed to do direct
> monitoring. After the second epidural, our daughter developed cardiac
> distress; whether it was due to the epidural I don't know, but I cannot
> rule it out.
> In any case, everyone made out OK.

Which is all that matters. And I think you're right: It's sort of a theme
song for me lately: Both ends of every ideological spectrum appear to be
populated with some mighty smug individuals.

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 22, 2005, 3:53:41 PM9/22/05

VIT C AND CANCER...

Some relevant blockbuster Vit C news from the NY Times (via Dr. Andrew Saul
- wwww.doctoryourself.com)...

See the very end of this post...

NOTE: Juxtaposing my CODEX/Rima E. Laibow, MD post and the Vit C news from
the NY Times was MY idea - not Dr. Saul's. Dr. Saul may even think it a bad
idea.

QUESTION...

Would pharmaceutical companies selling drugs to TREAT cancer conspire
(CODEX) to keep Vit C doses too low to PREVENT cancer?

Is that notion really any crazier obstetricians who make their livings
performing c-sections and treating birth problems conspiring to keep birth
canals closed up to 30% to create birth problems (in addition to committing
other obvious crimes)?

Are the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers) to keep obstetricians out of prison
- or to create more business for obstetricians - or both?

To read the Four OB Lies...

See Dents in babies' skulls (and SJ Doc)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3897

I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students, MDs are
TRAINED to perform felonies.

in article BF503A6B.B301%tgas...@earthlink.net, Todd Gastaldo at
tgas...@earthlink.net wrote on 9/16/05 8:59 AM:

> CODEX: LAST E-MAIL TO RIMA E. LAIBOW, MD WHO FAILS TO REPORT SUSPECTED
> CHILD ABUSE...
>
> Rima E. Laibow, MD publicly pretends that it is OK for her to fail to report
> obvious child abuse crimes routinely performed by her fellow MDs ("terrible
> acts" she called them)...
>
> Babies sometimes DIE because of the ongoing MD crimes/Rima's "terrible
> acts"...
>
> See The Four OB Lies in "Birth Danger: Cal Chiro Bd - SIMPLE QUESTION"
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3526
>
>
> OREGON ATTY GEN'L HARDY MYERS: Rima E. Laibow, MD suspects children will
> die under CODEX - she and I both suspect Codex is child abuse (see the very
> end of this post)...
>
> Meanwhile Rima E. Laibow, MD indicates that it is wrong for me to
> "aggressively" point out her suspected child abuse reporting obligation
> under the child protection statutes...
>
>>>
>>> I have no idea why you are so aggressive toward someone who is on your
>>> side...
>>>
>>> and why you are spending your time attacking me for not focusing on exactly
>>> the same issue that you do.
>>>
>>> [...}
>>>
>>> I hope you can calm down and stop acting so self righteously when there are
>>> allies all around you.
>>>
>>> Don't alienate them just because you are so involved with you battle that
>>> you can't tell the friend from the foe.
>
> Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD chimed in to echo Rima's
> falsehood that MDs who fail to report suspected child abuse are on my
> side...
>
>>
>> Well put, Dr. Laibow. This has been a prevailing theme to Gastaldo's
>> interactions on the Usenet for, what, 15 years now? Gastaldo will
>> never, ever, win or acknowledge any useful allies to make any
>> substantial changes in obstetrical practice that he wants. Never. And
>> this is only because of his tactics -- it has nothing to do with the
>> veracity of his arguments. He is and always will be doomed to utter
>> failure. Mark my words.
>>
>
> Sadly, PF Riley, MD literally CHEERLEADS massive MD baby asphyxiation crime
> ("Go obstetricians!") - as he pretends with Rima E. Laibow, MD that when one
> suspects child abuse it is OK to fail to report it.
>
> See Pediatrician cheerleads child abuse
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3888
>
> THE PROBLEM: LAW ENFORCEMENT IS LOOKING THE OTHER WAY...
>
> 1. Law enforcement ignores (for example) The Four OB Lies and generally
> pretends that only MDs can testify regarding the obviously illegal medical
> practices I protest.
>
> 2. MDs refuse to testify - with Rima E. Laibow, MD falsely claiming she is
> on my side as she fails to even even do the minimum required by law: She
> refuses to file mandatory suspected child abuse reports as she describes the
> mass child abuse as "terrible acts."
>
> Lack of law enforcement is the problem...
>
> Steve B. Harris, MD arrogantly boasts - babies be damned:
>
> "Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
> These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
>
> See Steve B. Harris, MD is a coward - babies be damned
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3846
>
> As long as law enforcement fails to protect children....
>
> I have to agree, in part, with PF Riley, MD's statement that,
>
> "Gastaldo will never, ever, win...it has nothing to do with the veracity of
> his arguments."
>
> With law enforcement dragging its feet, I will never win BIG - but I WILL
> have "small" individual victories as for example when women mention me in
> their birth stories and say that they birthed on their side or kneeling in
> order to offer their babies the "extra" up to 30%....
>
> I was particularly pleased when British general practitioner Dr. Sarah
> Vaughn birthed kneeling and mentioned me in her birth story and alluded to
> The Four OB Lies....
>
> I will take these "small" wins - they are gold - en route to the big win...
>
> Law enforcement cannot look the other way forever.
>
> MDs know this.
>
> I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students, MDs are
> TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.
>
> Thanks for reading.

>
> Sincerely,
>
> Todd
>
> Dr. Gastaldo
> Hillsboro, Oregon
> USA
> to...@chiromotion.com
>

> PS Rima E. Laibow, MD in effect pretended that it is OK to fail to report
> suspected child abuse because OTHER child abuse she suspects (Codex) is not
> being reported...
>
> I went ahead and publicly reported the other suspected child abuse - to
> Oregon Atty Gen'l Hardy Myers - saying I agreed with Dr. Laibow...
>
> See Dr. Laibow's train of logic takes dirt road...
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3886
>
> Rima E. Laibow, MD replied to Atty Gen'l Hardy Myers and chiro-list...
>
> (Note her titular etiquette slap.)
>
> "To Whom It May Concern:
> I have no association whatsoever with Mr. Todd Gastaldo. He does not have
> my permission to associate me with him in any way whatsoever.
> Sincerely,
> Rima E. Laibow, MD"
>
> Rima wrote me privately, threatening me with a libel suit...
>
> My responses to Rima are interspersed #####
>
> Todd,
> How dare you associate my name with your disproportionate and irrational
> beliefs in a public manner of this sort?
>
> ##### Rima, I AGREED with you about the other massive child abuse - and
> reported it to Oregon Atty Gen'l Hardy Myers. Doing the MINIMUM required by
> law to stop mass child abuse is hardly "disproportionate and irrational."
>
> Cease and desist immediately or I will be forced to pursue legal measures
> against this unauthorized use of my name and professional status.
>
> ##### Rima, I do not need your authorization. You obviously suspect mass
> child abuse above and beyond that which I am pointing out. I only AGREED
> with you - and reported it in accord with the law - and publicly noted for
> the Oregon Atty Gen'l that you are failing to report suspected mass child
> abuse - which is a crime in itself.
>
> Do not communicate further with me...
>
> ##### As noted on the subject line, this is my last email to you.
>
> and do not use my name to bolster your beliefs. I would also advise you not
> to engage in liable or slander unless you are eager for litigation.
> Rima E. Laibow, MD
>
> ##### Rima, it is neither libel nor slander for me to point out that you are
> committing the crime of failing to report suspected child abuse.
>
> ##### Sue me for libel if you must but truth is not libel. I will come to
> court and prove what I am saying - using your emails to me.
>
> ##### Please just report, Rima - babies need MDs who are TRULY on their
> side. What a concept - using the child protection statutes to protect
> children. Babies do NOT need MDs who suspect abuse but fail to report.
>
>>>>>> END Dr. Gastaldo's response to Dr. Laibow.
>
> As I indirectly indicated to Oregon Atty Gen'l Hardy
>
> I SUSPECT CODEX IS CHILD ABUSE...assuming Rima is right about Codex...
>
> Rima E. Laibow, MD writes:
>
> "What happens to us and our children and our other loved ones when our food
> is contaminated with compounds so deadly that every single country in the UN
> has decided they are too dangerous to use?...[L]et me introduce you to a new
> word: Nutraceutraceuticid[e], (new truh sue tih side)...The death of
> individuals and populations through intentional restriction of vital
> nutrients to sub-clinical doses in the presence of a massively adulterated
> food supply...Nutriceuticide is rapidly being put in place by Codex
> Alimentarius (Latin for łFood Rules˛) which classifies nutrients as toxins
> from which we need protection (!) inappropriately using Risk Assessment (a
> branch of toxicology) to determine permitted nutrient doses so low that, by
> design, they have no impact on any human being. ...Created in 1962 as a UN
> trade commission, Codex Alimentarius...regulations clearly serve the
> interests of multinational Bigs: Big Pharma, Big Agribiz, Big Chema, Big
> Biotechna and Big Medica....Codex permits pesticide and toxin residues which
> are incompatible with human health and longevity...
> What can we do?
> 1. Write Congress with a personalized letter telling them why you treasure
> your health freedom and how they need to support it.
> 2. Organize your friends and visit your Congressional delegates. Tell them
> to oppose the pro-illness legislation before them (and the many more to
> follow). Write them a follow up letter after you see them.
> 3. Help everyone you know to take steps 1 and 2 above. Use the internet! It
> works.
> 4. Listen to FREE US/FREE US!, the Voice of Health Freedom live every
> Wednesday 7 -8 PM (Eastern) on Internet radio If the time isnąt good, for
> you, listen on the archives when the time is ripe. But please do listen.
> And donąt forget to support the Natural Solutions Foundation. We depend on
> your donations to protect your health freedoms.
> We need you and your enthusiasm: your health depends upon it.
> Yours in health and freedom,
> Rima E. Laibow, MD
> http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/codexblog/page/4/
>
>>>>>> END excerpt from Rima's codexblog...
>
> Rima, you suspect children stand to DIE because of Codex.
>
> Before you collect another dime to fight Codex - you should make sure law
> enforcement (not just Congress) is hearing about Codex...
>
> At the very least, you should join me in reporting Codex as suspected child
> abuse.
>
> You should also report what you call "terrible acts" (mass baby
> asphyxiation, for example) as child abuse.
>
> EVERY MD SHOULD REPORT - LAW ENFORCEMENT LISTENS TO MDs...
>
> Failure to report suspected child abuse is a crime.

>
> Thanks for reading everyone.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Todd
>
> Dr. Gastaldo
> Hillsboro, Oregon
> USA
> to...@chiromotion.com
>

> Copied to: Oregon Atty Gen'l Hardy Myers via hardy...@state.or.us.
>
> This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
>
> Search http://groups.google.com for "CODEX: Last email to Rima E. Laibow, MD
> who fails to report suspected child abuse"
>

Via Dr. Saul's Doctor Yourself newsletter...

HIGH DOSES OF INTRAVENOUS VITAMIN C FIGHT CANCER

Kathleen Doheny, The New York Times, Tues, Sept.13, 2005

"High doses of vitamin C administered intravenously can fight cancer -- at
least in the laboratory, researchers report.

"(The study) examined the body's absorption of the nutrient and found that
while oral intake does reach a saturation point, when you give doses
intravenously they go through the roof in the blood and then they are
cleared, said lead researcher Dr. Mark Levine (chief of the molecular and
clinical nutrition section and senior staff physician, National Institute of
Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases). According to Levine, a 10 gram dose
(10,000 milligrams) of vitamin C given intravenously produces bloodstream
concentrations more than 25-fold higher than concentrations achieved from
the same oral dose.

"Some antibiotics are poorly absorbed when given orally but fight infections
effectively when given intravenously, and Levine and his team thought that
might be the case with vitamin C and cancer. Working with cell lines in the
laboratory, they used high doses of vitamin C that could only be achieved by
IV administration.

"" At the highest concentration of ascorbic acid, if given intravenously,
they don't touch normal cells and they kill lots of cancer cells. We don't
know why, Levine said."

([Dr. Andrew Saul's editorąs note:] Yes, this is certainly good news,
although it is not really "news" to most Doctor Yourself Newsletter readers.
It is rather an official confirmation, one that has, finally, gotten the
attention of the media. Even FOX news picked it up. As Gomer Pyle said,
"Goll-y!")

WHY THE DELAY?

Commentary by Bill Sardi

"With a growing body of evidence mounting, National Institutes of Health
(NIH) researchers recently conceded that intravenous vitamin C may be an
effective treatment for cancer. Last year the same researchers reported a
similar study but the news media failed to publish it.

"The latest study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, confirms the work of Nobel-Prize winner Linus Pauling who
conducted cancer research in the 1970s with vitamin C. Dr. Pauling's studies
were discredited at the time by poorly conducted research studies at the
Mayo Clinic.

"NIH researchers made no mention of their earlier study in 2004 which showed
that oral-dose vitamin C can achieve three times greater blood concentration
than previously thought possible, a fact which negates the current
Recommended Dietary Allowance for vitamin C. NIH researchers refuse to issue
a retraction of their earlier flawed research which mistakenly claimed
humans cannot benefit from high-dose oral vitamin C supplements."

More at http://www.knowledgeofhealth.com/

Also see:

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/09/13/cancer_intravenous_vitamin_c
_effective_treatment.htm

Full citation:

Qi Chen, Michael Graham Espey , Murali C. Krishna, James B. Mitchell,
Christopher P. Corpe, Garry R. Buettner, Emily Shacter, and Mark Levine.
Pharmacologic ascorbic acid concentrations selectively kill cancer cells:
Action as a pro-drug to deliver hydrogen peroxide to tissues. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073/pnas.0506390102

"Extracellular but not intracellular ascorbate mediated cell death, which
occurred by apoptosis and pyknosis/necrosis . . . (T)hese data indicate that
ascorbate at concentrations achieved only by i.v. administration may be a
pro-drug for formation of H2O2, and that blood can be a delivery system of
the pro-drug to tissues. These findings give plausibility to i.v. ascorbic
acid in cancer treatment..."

>>>>>>>END excerpt of Dr. Andrew Saul's Doctor Yourself newsletter.

Dr. Saul says:

For a free email subscription to the DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER, please send
an email with "Subscribe" as the subject to
dy-update...@doctoryourself.com

I SAY AGAIN: Juxtaposing my CODEX/Rima E. Laibow, MD post and the Vit C
news from the NY Times was MY idea - not Dr. Saul's. Dr. Saul may even
think it a bad idea.

Thanks for reading.

0 new messages