Chiropractor perpetuates LIES about "MDs"

Todd Gastaldo, D.C., said:

"It is extremely COMMON... for MDs to fraudulently promote their
vaccines as being 100% effective."

Yet he is unable to produce anything to support this claim. He LIES by
omission by claiming this is promoted only by school policies
excluding unvaccinated children in the event of a disease outbreak,
when it is in fact extremely COMMON for "MDs" otherwise to
specifically and clearly state that vaccines are NOT 100% effective.
He LIES by omission when he cites only these exclusion policies and by
obfuscation when he pretends not to understand their rationale,
namely, that since unvaccinated children vs. vaccinated children as a
group can be up to 35 times MORE LIKELY to contract a
vaccine-preventable disease (and thus pass it along to other
susceptible individuals), and, given the choice of the following
EMPIRIC exclusion policies (recognizing that serologic testing acutely
to determine immunity in the setting of an outbreak is highly
impractical and would be untimely): (1) no exclusions at all, (2)
exclusion of an easily identifiable group of children (the
unvaccinated) which, on the whole, are more likely to contract the
disease and thus perpetuate the outbreak, or (3) shut down the whole
school, Todd believes that (3) is the "correct" choice when he has
failed to produce any evidence that the overall cost vs. benefit of
(3) is favorable compared to (2), and nonetheless concludes that the
only reason "MDs" choose (2) is not because this more conservative
approach has indeed been shown in real outbreaks to be helpful but
instead because "MDs" are trying to fool people through a "subtle
though powerful statement" that this choice means they believe
vaccines are 100% effective even though ANY OTHER TIME the overall
effectiveness of vaccines is EVER addressed, such "MDs" explicitly
state that they are not.

When called on this, he simply accuses me of "pretending" the above is
true when he can't explain why it isn't, and falls back on his usual
complaining about breastfeeding, circumcisions, and obstetrics. He
believes that parents only see the exclusion policy, somehow missing
everything else written about the effectiveness of vaccine, and are
fooled. (How stupid does he think parents are?) He continues to cite
sentences which themselves imply quite plainly that vaccines are NOT
100% effective yet, through intentional, deceptive, and careful use of
ellipses, tries to make them appear otherwise.

Gastaldo is a FRAUD and a LIAR.

PF

And of course, there's his ridiculous assertion that "MD's are closing birth
canals by up to 30%.."

HMc


"PF Riley" wrote in message
...
Todd Gastaldo, D.C., said:

"It is extremely COMMON... for MDs to fraudulently promote their
vaccines as being 100% effective."

Yet he is unable to produce anything to support this claim. He LIES by
omission by claiming this is promoted only by school policies
excluding unvaccinated children in the event of a disease outbreak,
when it is in fact extremely COMMON for "MDs" otherwise to
specifically and clearly state that vaccines are NOT 100% effective.
He LIES by omission when he cites only these exclusion policies and by
obfuscation when he pretends not to understand their rationale,
namely, that since unvaccinated children vs. vaccinated children as a
group can be up to 35 times MORE LIKELY to contract a
vaccine-preventable disease (and thus pass it along to other
susceptible individuals), and, given the choice of the following
EMPIRIC exclusion policies (recognizing that serologic testing acutely
to determine immunity in the setting of an outbreak is highly
impractical and would be untimely): (1) no exclusions at all, (2)
exclusion of an easily identifiable group of children (the
unvaccinated) which, on the whole, are more likely to contract the
disease and thus perpetuate the outbreak, or (3) shut down the whole
school, Todd believes that (3) is the "correct" choice when he has
failed to produce any evidence that the overall cost vs. benefit of
(3) is favorable compared to (2), and nonetheless concludes that the
only reason "MDs" choose (2) is not because this more conservative
approach has indeed been shown in real outbreaks to be helpful but
instead because "MDs" are trying to fool people through a "subtle
though powerful statement" that this choice means they believe
vaccines are 100% effective even though ANY OTHER TIME the overall
effectiveness of vaccines is EVER addressed, such "MDs" explicitly
state that they are not.

When called on this, he simply accuses me of "pretending" the above is
true when he can't explain why it isn't, and falls back on his usual
complaining about breastfeeding, circumcisions, and obstetrics. He
believes that parents only see the exclusion policy, somehow missing
everything else written about the effectiveness of vaccine, and are
fooled. (How stupid does he think parents are?) He continues to cite
sentences which themselves imply quite plainly that vaccines are NOT
100% effective yet, through intentional, deceptive, and careful use of
ellipses, tries to make them appear otherwise.

Gastaldo is a FRAUD and a LIAR.

PF

SLAPP: HOW MDs GET AWAY WITH GRISLY FELONIES...

ATTENTION CBS 60 Minutes/Dan Rather via ...

CENSOR BOB DUBIN, DC AND THE SCHROEDER-SLAPP-CENSORED CHIROLIST...

MIKE MADIGAN ): Attorney Mike Schroeder managed the
election campaign of Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.
Attorney Schroeder is now a PUBLIC FIGURE again, having been deputized. He
is now DEPUTY SHERIFF SCHROEDER - sworn to protect mothers and babies of
Orange County from the very MD felonies I am still protesting after he
successfully SLAPPed me...

MIKE MADIGAN ): Deputy Sheriff Schroeder's badge is
VERY twisted - as babies in his jurisdiction scream and writhe and bleed at
the hands of MDs who still haven't admitted they were using phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology. I am concerned that Deputy Sheriff Schroeder
may be influencing DA Rackauckas not to help protect babies from the MD
felonies...

My thanks to the California Anti-SLAPP Project; see their discussion of
relevant anti-SLAPP case law (BARRETT ET AL. v. ROSENTHAL)


First this...

THE VACCINATION CONSENT CHARADE...

When I wrote:

"It is extremely COMMON... for MDs to fraudulently promote their vaccines as
being 100% effective."


Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician "PF Riley" MD remarked:

"Yet he is unable to produce anything to support this claim.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...7a1p%404ax.com

I have supported my claim quite well. Since the MD vaccination fraud is
ongoing - I repeat my claims.

I do not dispute the pseudonymous usenet pediatrician's claim that MD
literature states that vaccines are not 100% effective.

Rather, I point out (again) the FACT that MDs are powerfully promoting their
vaccines as being 100% effective as they lie by omission and deny massive
numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations.

This latter MD crime is obvious mass felony immunologic child abuse/child
neglect (see below)...

Currently, MDs can commit felonies LEGALLY because they are powerful
cultural authorities - which just makes it that much more important to
regularly point out that MDs are indeed committing felonies.

From routinely slicing adult abdomens and vaginas to routinely slicing
infant penises...

AMERICAN MEDICINE'S MOST FREQUENT SURGICAL BEHAVIORS ARE OBVIOUS FELONIES...

See Pediatrician 'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2908

Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD is part of the same American
medical profession that for years used phony neurology to claim babies can't
feel pain.

When I pointed out in 1987 American medicine's phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology, American MD-pediatricians could not admit the fraud because
that would have been admitting a massive crime - so they lied - they said
their "no medical indication" most frequent surgical behavior toward males
suddenly prevented transmission of HIV/AIDS.

When I called for a Jewish exemption from the child abuse laws, the
pediatricians came out against all religious exemptions and for anonymity
for PERPETRATORS of child abuse! (I am not making this up!)

Incidentally, when MDs suddenly declared that partial penis amputation in
infants prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS - there were "no medical
indications" for the grisly surgery - they did so by voice vote ignoring
their own Scientific Board to declare the massive grisly crime "an effective
public health measure." Did I mention - they IGNORED THEIR OWN SCIENTIFIC
BOARD?

In 2000, when American MD-pediatricians finally admitted that babies CAN
feel pain, they said babies can't VERBALIZE their pain (!) - but said
nothing about using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology all those
years - as they *repeated* the phony neurology to "explain" why it is hard
to strap a baby down with his legs spread-eagled for the grisly partial
penile amputation.

American MDs are telling similar lies in a lame attempt to cover-up their
routine abdomen and vagina slicing felonies....

See again: Pediatrician 'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2908

(BTW, I am in favor of an exemption from the child abuse laws for the
ancient Jewish ritual that left most of the foreskin on the penis. In
"Pediatrician 'ethics', URL just cited, I discuss the fact that
pediatricians recently perpetuated the myth that the ancient Jewish ritual
is the same as American medicine's TOTAL infant foreskin amputation. It is
time to end the TOTAL foreskin amputation abomination that is American
medicine's $400 million dollar per year most frequent surgical behavior
toward males. Ending the surgery not only stops the senseless infant
screams - and instantly saves America $400 million - paradoxically - such
action PRESERVES the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for
themselves in adulthood. When Britain stopped paying for infant
circumcision - the rate plummeted to near-zero. The $400 million per year
instant savings would likely be permanent.)

The point I am making here is that it is not surprising to me that
pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD is publicly saying that I am
a "LIAR" and a "FRAUD" (PF's caps; see below)...

(BTW, what follows is a substantial excerpt, slightly edited, of my post:
Some key vaccination fraud history (and Schroeder's SLAPP)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2957)

VACCINATION INVOLVES MORE MD CHARADES...

....[O]ne could argue we should dispense with the consent charade..."
--Mark D. Fox, MD, PhD. Pediatric Annals. (Jul)2001;30:422-23

Fuller excerpt from Dr. Fox's comments...

"The thrust of the immunization spiel (as I learned it) is to elicit
*assent* from parents...[L]iterature provided does not disclose risks or
alternatives in sufficient depth to qualify as 'informed' consent.
Moreover, these machinations mimicking [obtaining informed] consent are
employed despite the fact that [vaccinations] are virtually mandatory.
Informed consent...requires not only sufficient information, but also the
presence of legitimate choice...[O]ne could argue we should dispense with
the consent charade..."
--Mark D. Fox, MD, PhD. Pediatric Annals. (Jul)2001;30:422-23

MDs don't NEED to dispense with the consent charade because...

Parents learn every school year (from MD threats to send only vaccine exempt
children home) that
vaccinations are 100% effective, as in,

"Parents should be advised of state laws...which may require that
[unvaccinated] children stay home from school during outbreaks."
--American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP^^^

^^^From Informing patients and parents. In: Pickering LK, ed. 2000 Red Book:
Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases, 25th ed. Elk Grove Villiage,
IL: American Academy of Pediatrics 2000:4. Quoted in Frederickson et al.
Pediatric Annals. (Jul)2001;30:401

Parents are asked to SIGN the obvious fraud:

"If my child does not receive the vaccine(s)...consequences may
include...the need for my child to stay out of daycare or school during
disease outbreaks."
--American Academy of Pediatrics 2002
http://www.cispimmunize.org/pro/pdf/...Vaccinate2.doc

There is NOTHING whatsoever on the AAP form about the need to send ALL
children home because
many vaccinated children are not immunized by their vaccinations - which
brings me to...

THE FOUNDATION OF THE FRAUD

Vaccinations are NOT immunizations. Even though MDs fraudulently call them
immunizations, vaccinations are only ATTEMPTED immunizations. Sometimes
vaccinations fail to immunize.

KEY POINT: FAR more children are not immunized by vaccinations than are not
immunized because they are exempted from vaccinations.

It is fraudulent - illegal actually - to protect (send home) vaccine exempt
children during disease outbreaks and endanger (not send home) the far
greater number of children not immunized by their vaccinations.

While medicine's fraudulent vaccination promotion does endanger vaccinated
children (above and beyond any danger caused by vaccine toxicity)...

THE TRUE POWER OF THE FRAUD is promotion of vaccination by causing "hardship
for the [vaccine exempt] child and parent," as in this quote from the
website of CDC's maximum vaccination cheerleader Deborah Wexler, MD:

"What if you don't [vaccinate] your child?...During disease outbreaks,
[unvaccinated] children may be excluded from school or child care until the
outbreak is over...for their own protection...This causes hardship for the
child and parent."
--Wexler's Immunization Action Coalition/IAC
http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4017.htm

When I called the registered nurse/RN bureaucrat here in Oregon, she assured
me that even if there is a small
outbreak, vaccine exempt children will be sent home.

The RN bureaucrat sort of orgasmed as she told me that if people don't have
their children
vaccinated - they will have to stay home from work and hire tutors - VERY
EXPENSIVE - she climaxed. : )

It was obviously fraudulent MD vaccination promotion - assisted by a
willing MD-handmaiden/RN...

Pseudonymous pediatrician PF Riley, MD pretends that his profession isn't
fraudulently promoting vaccinations as being 100% effective thereby
selectively applying a financial cattleprod to those seeking vaccine
exemptions - causing "hardship for the [vaccine exempt] child and parent."

Pseudonymous pediatrician PF Riley, MD understandably does not wish to
address the FACT that American medicine's most frequent surgeries constitute
obvious criminal negligence that sometimes escalates to criminally negligent
homicide...

See Pediatrician 'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2908

MASS IMUNOLOGIC CHILD ABUSE...

MDs are mostly ANTI-immunization.

The vaccination consent charade is just more fraudulent vaccination
promotion as MDs lie by omission and deny massive numbers of babies massive
numbers of free daily immunizations.

In their lie of omission...

MDs are failing to explicitly state that breastfeeding women scan for
pathogens and manufacture IMMUNIZATIONS which they "inject" with their
breasts daily.

MDs are failing to explicitly state that these breastimmunizations
reportedly make MD-needle-vaccinations work better.

Very few women explicitly informed of these facts would fail to at least
ATTEMPT to breastfeed/immunized their babies daily.

MDs are ignoring a way to make the immunization rate skyrocket.

MDs are mostly ANTI-immunization.

MDs are committing mass IMMUNOLOGIC child abuse as they commit mass PHYSICAL
child abuse.

See again: Pediatrician 'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2908

I must concede, though, that MDs can legally commit felonies...

Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD continues...

He LIES by
omission by claiming this is promoted only by school policies
excluding unvaccinated children in the event of a disease outbreak,
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...7a1p%404ax.com

FALSE.

The MD mass immunologic child abuse felony is promoted by state
"immunization" laws which fail to state that vaccinations are NOT
immunizations - which fail to state that most immunizations are derived from
mother-administered breastfeedings.

Talk about lies of omission!

Congress had to DEMAND that MDs make serious adverse vaccine reaction
reports - the FDA commissioner indicated MDs were failing to make up to 99%
of such reports years after Congress demanded them!

SOME KEY VACCINATION FRAUD HISTORY...

One of the saddest commentaries on organized medicine's attitude regarding
establishing vaccine safety is pediatrician Martin Smith's essay about the
passage of the "National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act,"
published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. [Pediatrics
1988;82(2):264-9]

In his essay, Smith [1988] wrote that "members should be informed of the
necessity that led to the inclusion of some of the provisions in the act as
they now exist."

Specifically, Smith [1988] noted that "many [vaccine] administrators have
not heretofore practiced" reporting adverse events; but that "these
requirements *had to be accepted* in the process of negotiations through the
years - because "Congress had *demanded* the inclusion of the reaction
reporting requirement as a condition to the legislation." (Emphasis added.)

In noting that Congress's adverse reaction reporting requirement will give
"a better epidemiologic store of information," Smith [1988] admitted a key
point: No one knows "the real facts" about vaccine reactions/vaccine
safety! [Smith M. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act.
Pediatrics 1988;82(2):264-9]

According to the subsequent National Academy of Sciences vaccine safety
report mandated by the Act, "many gaps and limitations of knowledge
bear...directly and indirectly on the safety of
vaccines...[including]...limited capacity of existing surveillance systems
of vaccine injury..." [Howson CP, Howe CJ, Fineberg HV. Adverse effects of
pertussis and rubella vaccines. National Academy Press 1991]

How bad are existing physician surveillance systems of vaccine injury?

Hopefully they are better than they were in 1993 when former FDA
commissioner David Kessler, M.D. reported evidence that physicians fail to
report up to 99% of serious adverse events.
[Kessler DA. Introducing MEDWatch: a new approach to reporting medication
and device adverse effects and product problems. JAMA
(Jun2)1993;269(21):2765-68]

A 2002 quote from Moore and Weiss appears to quote from former FDA
commissioner David Kessler, MD's 1993 article:

"It is almost certain that the overall total of death and serious injury
associated with drug adverse events is substantially higher than reported
here. According to a recent FDA report, 'About 90% of serious or fatal
adverse drug reactions are never reported. Some studies have found reporting
rates around 1%.''
--Moore TJ, Weiss SR, et al. Reported adverse drug events in infants and
children under 2 years of age. Pediatrics, November 2002:110(5), p. e53.
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/reprint/110/5/e53

Kessler [1993] said that in spite of the fact that reports from health
professionals are "essential" to ensure safety of medicines, physicians "do
not think to report adverse events."

Also according to Kessler [1993], physician reporting of serious adverse
events "is not in the culture of US medicine" because, as of 1985, only 14%
of US medical schools had required courses in "therapeutic decision making."

Unfortunately, I do not have the CDC Vaccine Information Sheet for Hep
B...but the CDC's Vaccine Information Sheet for Measles, Mumps and Rubella
(MMR) states, "As with any medicine, there are very small risks," which
implies that "any medicine" carries "very small risks"

Given FDA commissioner Kessler's statement that one study found that
physicians fail to report 99% of serious adverse events, "any medicine"
might actually be quite risky. And since the CDC Vaccine Information Sheet
compares vaccine risk with the risk of "any medicine," vaccines might be
just as risky as "any medicine." Thus the CDC Vaccine Information Sheet
"warning" (that vaccines carry "very small risks") is worthless.

Incidentally, although the courts claim that parents are "warned" about
vaccines, the word "warning" does not appear anywhere on the CDC MMR Vaccine
Information Sheet; nor, incidentally, does the MMR Vaccine Information Sheet
state that some states have "religious" and "philosophical" exemptions.

FDA Commissioner Kessler's 1993 report states, "If an adverse event occurs
in perhaps one in 5000 or even one in 1000 users, it could be missed in
clinical trials but pose a serious safety problem when released to the
market."

It bears repeating that, given that American physicians are refusing to
report serious adverse events (Congress had to DEMAND that MDs report!); and
given that risk can be calculated only if physicians report serious adverse
events, the CDC has no business claiming, as it does in its MMR Vaccine
Information Sheet, that, "The risks from the vaccine are *much smaller*
[original italics] than the risks from the diseases if people stopped using
vaccine."

In fact, we just don't know that vaccine risks are "much smaller" than the
risks of natural disease. More importantly, we will never know - as long as
M.D.s refuse to report as many as 99% of serious adverse events.

Most of the info above was derived from my previous article, "Oregon's
FRAUDULENT vaccination game"...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...729%24Nq.15673
5%40dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net


BACK TO PSEUDONYMOUS USENET PEDIATRICIAN PF RILEY, MD...

PF continued...

when it is in fact extremely COMMON for "MDs" otherwise to
specifically and clearly state that vaccines are NOT 100% effective.

As noted above..

I do not dispute that MD literature states that vaccines are not 100%
effective.

Rather, I point out the FACT that MDs are powerfully promoting their
vaccines as being 100% effective as they lie by omission and deny massive
numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations.

See above.

He LIES by omission when he cites only these exclusion policies and by
obfuscation when he pretends not to understand their rationale,


The MD "rationale" is an obvious FRAUD - as in the statement from CDC's
maximum vaccination cheerleader Deborah Wexler, MD's website:

"What if you don't [vaccinate] your child?...During disease outbreaks,
[unvaccinated] children may be excluded from school or child care until the
outbreak is over...for their own protection...This causes hardship for the
child and parent."
--Wexler's Immunization Action Coalition/IAC
http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4017.htm

It is a financial vaccination cattle prod FRAUD to promote vaccinations by
SELECTIVELY threatening "hardship" for exempted children and their
parents...

If it is safe for children not immunized by their vaccinations to stay at
school during disease outbreaks - MDs should either 1) stop threatening
exempted children and their parents with the "hardship" - or 2) apply it
evenly so that ALL children are protected/sent home.

namely, that since unvaccinated children vs. vaccinated children as a
group can be up to 35 times MORE LIKELY to contract a
vaccine-preventable disease (and thus pass it along to other
susceptible individuals),

Selectively threatening exempted children and their parents with "hardship"
is vaccination promotion FRAUD that is embellished by other vaccination
promotion fraud - i.e. the vaccination consent charade mentioned by Dr. Fox,
quoted above.

and, given the choice of the following
EMPIRIC exclusion policies (recognizing that serologic testing acutely
to determine immunity in the setting of an outbreak is highly
impractical and would be untimely): (1) no exclusions at all, (2)
exclusion of an easily identifiable group of children (the
unvaccinated) which, on the whole, are more likely to contract the
disease and thus perpetuate the outbreak, or (3) shut down the whole
school, Todd believes that (3) is the "correct" choice...

#3 *is* the correct choice when MDs are saying that unimmunized children are
endanger. It is a FRAUD to protect vaccine exempt children and not protect
the children not immunized by their vaccinations.


when he has
failed to produce any evidence that the overall cost vs. benefit of
(3) is favorable compared to (2), and nonetheless concludes that the
only reason "MDs" choose (2) is not because this more conservative
approach has indeed been shown in real outbreaks to be helpful but
instead because "MDs" are trying to fool people through a "subtle
though powerful statement" that this choice means they believe
vaccines are 100% effective even though ANY OTHER TIME the overall
effectiveness of vaccines is EVER addressed, such "MDs" explicitly
state that they are not.

MDs *are* fooling parents! MDs are trying to FORCE parents into VACCINATING
using a "hardship" fraud that endangers vaccinated children not immunized by
their vaccinations.


When called on this, he simply accuses me of "pretending" the above is
true when he can't explain why it isn't,


False. See above. The vaccine exemption "hardship" is just part of
organized medicine's informed consent CHARADE...

and falls back on his usual
complaining about breastfeeding, circumcisions, and obstetrics.

False. I note that MDs are committing OTHER obvious frauds - felonies
actually...

1. Mass (sometimes fatal) immunologic child abuse: lying by omission -
failing to state the CRUCIAL fact that breastfeeding is immunization that
reportedly makes MD-needle-vaccinations work better;

2. Mass (sometimes fatal) PHYSICAL child abuse: telling lies as they slice
infant penises and mothers vaginas and abdomens en masse...

See again: Pediatrician 'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2908

He
believes that parents only see the exclusion policy, somehow missing
everything else written about the effectiveness of vaccine, and are
fooled.

Yep. Right here in Oregon, parents are not explicitly informed that if they
don't want their kids vaccinated all they have to do is sign their names.

These parents - who don't want their children vaccinated - are threatened
with "hardship" (see Wexler, above)...

That is, MDs are SELECTIVELY threatening the "hardship" - FRAUDULENTLY
promoting vaccination - and endangering some vaccinated children in the
process.

(How stupid does he think parents are?)


When parents are INFORMED instead of being offered the MD consent CHARADE
(see Dr. Fox quoted above) - they are NOT stupid - not stupid at all!

He continues to cite
sentences which themselves imply quite plainly that vaccines are NOT
100% effective yet, through intentional, deceptive, and careful use of
ellipses, tries to make them appear otherwise.

Gastaldo is a FRAUD and a LIAR.



Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley belongs to a profession committing
OBVIOUS mass felonies against mothers and babies...

It is natural that a promoter of the mass criminal enterprise called
medicine would shout "FRAUD" "LIAR" when the obvious MD crimes are exposed.

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

I am in favor of a pardon in advance even for the pseudonymous crime
promoter PF Riley, MD...

MDs are just academic prime cuts forced through this culture's most powerful
mental meatgrinder - medical school.

As naive med students, MDs are TRAINED to perform felonies.

I know, I know - MDs can legally perform felonies - but that does not mean
that their felonies should not be identified as such.

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS CENSOR DUBIN AND THE SCHROEDER-SLAPP-CENSORED-CHIROLIST

"With increasing frequency, particularly in California, private citizens
have been sued for communication with government...[Strategic Lawsuits
Against Public Participation/SLAPPs]...Have [those being SLAPPed] really
libeled or defamed [?]...If [the person filing the SLAPP] is...a public
figure he must prove...'actual malice' and 'a reckless disregard for the
truth."
http://www.nj-landuselaw.com/slapp_suits.htm

There was NO "actual malice" - NO "reckless disregard for the truth.

I was (still am) petitioning under protection of the First Amendment for a
redress of grievances caused by PUBLIC FIGURE Attorney Mike Schroeder...

MY POSITION: "Chiropractic" attorney Mike Schroeder's performance as a
PUBLIC OFFICIAL and his subsequent SLAPP/Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation are part of the ongoing legal mechanism by which MDs were/are
able to legally commit obvious felonies...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2957

Chiro-list Censor Bob Dubin, DC told various lies in the run-up to
Schroeder's SLAPP/Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Censor Dubin's most recent lie is at the very end of this post...

Schroeder's SLAPP resulted my CENSORSHIP.

Censor Bob now pretends that he is not a censor as he simultaneously states
(in effect) that Schroeder did not SLAPP me - that I defamed Schroeder "and
many others."

Censor Bob is full of ****. Censor Bob is pretending that courts are not
the arbiters of who defamed. Censor Bob is pretending that because the
former chairman of the California Republican Party was able to cause people
to SLAPP-censor - that it means I was wrong.

I appreciate Censor Bob's offer to resubscribe me to chiro-list - but am not
reassured by Censor Bob's pretense - not to mention his failure to find out
if his buddy "chiropractic" attorney Mike Schroeder received the $25,000
dollars I sent him for his SLAPP win and how much more I owe Schroeder in
court costs and interest.

After I noted that Censor Bob is still a censor (his euphemism is "list
administrator")...

After I said that I will send all my posts to Censor Bob and he can post
them - or censor - his choice...

Censor Bob ignored - went on with his pretense...

Censor Bob wrote:

"Will you stop with the censor bull****?

"I offerred you an opportunity to participate in the real chirolist, and, to
date, you have not responded.

"I have not wish to censor you or anyone else, just to keep the bandwidth
down and the flames low.

"So, what is your answer?

"Bob

"Bob Dubin, DC
Placitas, NM
www.drdubin.net
505 715 4472"

Censor Bob, my answer (in the post to which you "responded") is that I will
send you all my posts - just like I would send them to "the real" chiro-list
were it uncensored.

My answer is: You may censor - or not - your choice.

You *are* a censor, Censor Bob - no bull****.

Your "choice" to censor has its origins in Schroeder's illegal SLAPP suit
against me.

Schroeder's SLAPP was Schroeder illegally censoring my attempts to petition
for a redress of grievances that Schroeder inflicted on the People of the
State of California when he served as a PUBLIC OFFICIAL - i.e. attorney for
the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

Censor Bob, perhaps you - too - were not aware that the First Amendment -
and laws against SLAPP suits - and the fact that they make it generally easy
to defeat SLAPP suits?

My ignorance cost me $25,000 and court costs and interest.

I *paid* Schroeder his $25,000 in SLAPP money - and heard NOTHING from him -
not even how much I still owe him in court costs and interest.

You say you used your influence with your "close friend" Schroeder to
persuade him not to sue the owner of the listserv, Frank Dziuba or the
previous list administrator, Paul ("unmoderated means uncensored - anything
goes") Cronshaw, DC.

Censor Bob, I now want to know: Will you call your "close friend" Schroeder
and ask him if he received the $25,000 I sent him - and ask him how much I
still owe him in court costs and interest?

Censor Bob, I would be MUCH more inclined to get back on your censored list
were you to OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE that you are still engaging in CENSORSHIP
based on Schroeder's SLAPP.

I would get back on your censored list IN AN INSTANT were you to persuade
your buddy Attorney Schroeder to either SEND BACK my $25,000 - OR USE IT -
finally - to STOP the MD-obstetrician felonies that he was covering up as a
PUBLIC OFFICIAL - as attorney for the California Board of Chiropractic
Examiners as he "earned" hundreds of thousands of dollars in DC licensing
fees helping 10 MD-obstetricians judicially rubberstamp his Rule 302.

FACT: Schroeder's Rule 302 - with its explicit prohibition of severing
umbilical cords - helps to divert chiropractic attention to one of the MOST
BIZARRE MD felonies: The umbilical cord severing that follows IMMEDIATE
cord clamping - the bizarre spectacle of MDs engaging in temporary
asphyxiation of babies to rob massive amounts of blood from them.

Censor Bob, here (again) is information about the immediate cord clamping
massive MD felony...

American MDs are abusing
their MOST frequent surgery - temporarily asphyxiating babies by IMMEDIATELY
clamping/cutting umbilical cords to rob massive amounts of blood from
babies. (My thanks to Donna Young for calling my attention to this latter OB
felony - and to Kelly Moscarello for calling my attention back to it when
her little Bella suffered cerebral palsy after an unthinking paramedic aped
his MD handlers and immediately clamped the cord of a baby who was not yet
breathing.)

Here is ACOG Practice Bulletin B138 (re-affirmed Feb 2002):

"...Immediately after delivery of the neonate, a segment of umbilical cord
should be doubly clamped, divided, and placed on the delivery table pending
assessment of the five minute Apgar score."
--1991 (re-affirmed Feb 2002) ACOG Committee opinion: Bulletin 138 - April
1994 (replaces #91, February 1991)
From quotes compiled mainly by Eileen Simon from the Harvard Medical School
Libraryhttp://www.cordclamping.com/History.htm

Here is commentary by 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

George Morley, the retired OB quoted above - as valiant as he is - does not
want to see child protection laws used to stop the mass baby asphyxiation he
is exposing.

George and I disagree on this point...

Why would we NOT use laws designed to protect children - to protect
children?

See Babies gasping: Michigan sheriffs to do "child abuse raid" on hospitals?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2618


Censor Bob - Schroeder's pro-MD-obstetrician censorship of chirolist started
with Schroeder's SLAPP.

I either want my $25,000 back - or I want "chiropractic" attorney Schroeder
to finally help stop the massive MD felonies.

THEN I will seriously consider returning to your Schroeder-SLAPP-censored
chirolist.

Now that your "close friend" Schroeder is a deputy sheriff in addition to
being an attorney/officer of the court - he has even more clout to help stop
the MD felonies.

I will cc Deputy Sheriff Schroeder's boss - Disneyland DA Tony Rackauckas -
whose election campaign was managed by Schroeder, a former chairman of the
California Republican Party.

I will also cc Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers...

Until cultural authorities like Mike Schroeder take RIGHT action, it will be
legal for MDs to commit the MD felonies I have exposed.

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


Assignment for Censor Bob...

Admit on your censored list your most recent cover-up lie...

"I have unsubscribed Todd Gastaldo from the Chirolist..."
--Bob Dubin, DC 2003

"I did not unsubscribe Gastaldo..."
--Bob Dubin, DC 2004

Censor Dubin, it is good that you were able to persuade your "close friend"
Attorney Schroeder not to also SLAPP former chirolistowner Frank Dziuba and
former chirolist adminstrator Paul Cronshaw, DC but...

But according to the California Anti-SLAPP Project, the Communications
Decency Act-- "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall
be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
another information content provider." (47 U.S.C. 230) -- preempts all
common law actions for defamation. If it does, as most courts in the U.S.
believe it does, then plaintiffs cannot prevail on their defamations
complaints and the suit must be dismissed as a SLAPP.

RELEVANT CASE LAW...

Discussed by the California Anti-SLAPP Project...

Barrett et al. v. Rosenthal

Court of Appeal, 1st District, 2004 (on appeal from Alameda Co. Superior
Court)
114 Cal.App.4th 1379, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 142

Rosenthal, an active proponent of "alternative medicine," posted another
person's e-mail to two Internet newsgroups in which she was a frequent
participant. The e-mail was critical of plaintiffs, physicians who actively
combat the promotion and use of "alternative" or "nonstandard" health care
practices and products. Plaintiffs sued Rosenthal for defamation. The trial
court granted Rosenthal's anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint (see
superior court decision) and the appellate court affirms. At issue is
whether a provision in the Communications Decency Act-- "No provider or user
of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or
speaker of any information provided by another information content
provider." (47 U.S.C. 230) -- preempts all common law actions for
defamation. If it does, as most courts in the U.S. believe it does, then
plaintiffs cannot prevail on their defamations complaints and the suit must
be dismissed as a SLAPP.

Note! Opinion superseded by California Supreme Court granting of petition
for review (April 14, 2004).
http://www.casp.net/calcases.html

My thanks to the California Anti-SLAPP Project.

I SAY AGAIN Censor Bob...

I would get back on your censored list IN AN INSTANT were you to persuade
your buddy Attorney Schroeder to either SEND BACK my $25,000 - OR USE IT -
finally - to STOP the MD-obstetrician felonies that he was covering up as a
PUBLIC OFFICIAL - as attorney for the California Board of Chiropractic
Examiners as he "earned" hundreds of thousands of dollars in DC licensing
fees helping 10 MD-obstetricians judicially rubberstamp his Rule 302.

I think PUBLIC OFFICIAL Schroeder's Rule 302 performance was intended to
help MD-obstetricians perpetuate their obvious
mass-temporary-asphyxiation-of-babies felony, discussed above...

Sincerely,

Your friend,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo