AMI OB/GYNs: Are they 'true CAM providers'?

AMI OB/GYNs: ARE THEY "TRUE CAM PROVIDERS"?

Readers: "CAM" is unproven medical treatment. See THE FEDERAL CAM
SCAM at the end of this post.

AMI Co-founder Richard Sarnat, MD says:

"AMI strives to identify that subset of MD's who are true CAM
providers."
http://amibestmed.com/HMO/HMOPhysicians.html

"AMI's...network contracted OB/Gyn's are available..."
http://amibestmed.com/HMO/HMOProgram.html

OPEN LETTER (archived for global access, see below)

Richard Sarnat, MD
Co-founder
President
Chief Medical Director
Alternative Medicine Integration/AMI
http://www.amibestmed.com/ (Click on "Contact Us")
Via

Richard,

You co-founded AMI to "promote the integration of complementary/
alternative medicine (CAM) into mainstream health care."
http://amibestmed.com/ (Click on "History")

Be advised: Complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) was already well-
integrated into mainstream health care when you co-founded AMI.
Indeed, as discussed below, most OB/GYNs are "true CAM providers"
albeit CRIMINAL CAM providers. (Criminal behavior of MDs may be the
reason for the badly subluxated NIH/NCCAM definition of CAM. See PS1
below.)

By using semisitting and dorsal delivery positions, most OB/GYNs are
senselessly closing birth canals up to 30% - and worse (see WORSE^^^
below).

(For the grisly birth-canal-closing biomechanics of semisitting and
dorsal delivery and for radiographic and clinical references from the
medical literature - see Gastaldo TD. Birth. 1992;19:230-1.)

^^^WORSE, when babies get stuck, OB/GYNs are KEEPING women semisitting
or dorsal - thereby keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30%
- as they pull with hands, forceps and/or vacuums - sometimes pulling
so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords.

Some babies die - some babies are paralyzed - most "only" have their
spines gruesomely manipulated.

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

MD-obstetrician experts have been LYING to cover-up their birth-canal-
closing/spinal manipulation criminal CAM behavior.

For the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers)...

See Dents in babies' skulls"
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/08abfc7ff242150e

Alternate URL:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3897

Women shouldn't have to ask for the "extra" up to 30%.

Most women don't KNOW to ask.

So as usual, I am copying LAW ENFORCEMENT (Oregon Atty Genl Hardy
Myers via .)

PROBLEM: Law enforcement is looking the other way.

MDs **know** that law enforcement is looking the other way...

Indeed, Steve Harris, MD arrogantly boasts:

"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....866f3384801ae9

ATTENTION OREGON ATTY GENL HARDY MYERS:

Birth-canal-closing (semisitting) is currently being promoted by
Oregon's only medical school - Oregon Health & Sciences University/
OHSU...

CAM experts at OHSU have not acknowledged my emails - or notified me
that they are stopping the bizarre promotion of semisitting/birth-
canal-closing.

See Criminal CAM obstetrics: 'CAM positive' vs. 'CAM negative'
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...faebc730de079b

Richard, legal "true CAM providers" don't senselessly close birth
canals the "extra" up to 30% - or lie to cover-up.

Please make sure that AMI's "network contracted" OB/GYNs are not
closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30% or committing the other
obvious crimes committed by OB/GYNs.

ANOTHER OBVIOUS OB/GYN CRIME: In medicine's most frequent surgical
behavior, as it is commonly performed, OB/GYNs are temporarily
asphyxiating babies, robbing them of up to 50% of their blood volume.
The medical euphemism is "immediate cord clamping." Retired
obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG indicates that this
crime is committed in every cesarean delivery and in most cord blood
banking births.

See Dr. Morley's website www.cordclamp.com.

And see again: Dents in babies' skulls," URL above.

I hope AMI "network contracted" OB/GYNs are not committing these
obvious crimes, but I suspect they are.

Please let me know what you find.

Regardless what AMI "network contracted" OB/GYNs are doing, please
help stop these OB/GYN crimes.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA


PS1 THE FEDERAL CAM SCAM: NIH/NCCAM's definition of CAM is badly
subluxated.

(NCCAM is NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative
Medicine.)

NCCAM's stated "legal mandate" includes identifying and investigating
"complementary and alternative" medical treatment (CAM)...
http://nccam.nih.gov/about/plans/2005/index.htm

BUT...by NCCAM definition, identifying and investigating
"complementary
and alternative" medical treatment (CAM) can't involve identifying
and
investigating CAM performed by MDs when CAM performed by MDs is "an
integral part of conventional medicine."

(Complementary and alternative medical treatment (CAM) is
defined in the NCCAM Strategic Plan (2005-2009) as "medical practices
that are 'unproven by science and not presently considered an
integral part of conventional medicine (also referred to as
biomedicine, or
mainstream or allopathic medicine)..."
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/p...AR-07-003.html)

As indicated above, attempted cover-up of ongoing criminal behavior of
MDs may be the reason for the badly subluxated NIH/NCCAM definition of
CAM.

AMI itself might have been subluxated for the same reason - with AMI-
affiiliated DCs remaining silent, hoping to gain political plums from
politically powerful organized medicine

AMI is promoting the fraudulent notion that CAM is mostly only part of
"alternative" medicine. AMI makes reference to "The Best Medicine of
Both Worlds," as in,

"We integrate the most current evidence-based protocols from both
conventional medicine and alternative medicine to achieve 'The Best
Medicine of Both Worlds' (sm)."
http://www.amibestmed.com/ (Click on "Home")

To be sure, there is a CAM world and there is a conventional medicine
world - but they are substantially the same worlds - inhabited/
dominated by MDs including criminal CAM practitioners called OB/GYNs.

PS2 MD-pediatricians are silent about the mass birth-canal-closing/
spinal
manipulation child abuse of MD-obstetricians - this after MD-
pediatricians
publicly stated that concern for patient safety "demands" a greater
collaboration "particularly" with doctors of chiropractic "such that
we can
investigate and report harms related to spinal manipulation together."
--Sunita Vohra, MD FRCPC MSc et al.^^^ Pediatrics. 2007 Jan;
119(1):e275-83.
Epub 2006 Dec 18. PubMed abstract

So far there have been NO responses to my recent Open Letter to
Pediatrician
Sunita Vohra MD FRCPC MSc.

See Birth trauma attorneys: Something OBs should never do...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/4578

I will cc (or bcc) the MD-pediatricians and doctors of chiropractic
and others who
received my Open Letter to Pediatrician Sunita Vohra, MD...

Specifically, I will cc JAMES WINTERSTEIN, DC, a member of the AMI
board.

DEAR DR. WINTERSTEIN:

John Weeks, who is sponsored by AMI, recently wrote an article titled:

"Chiropractor as (Potentially) Cost-Saving [Primary Care Provider/
PCP]: What Fate the Broad-Scope Practice?"
http://theintegratorblog.com/site/in...285&Item id=1

Chiropractors - PCP and non-PCP - can be TRULY cost-saving - just by
publicizing/ending the obvious OB/GYN birth-canal-closing/spinal
manipulation crime.

OB/GYNs should not be wrenching/manipulating tiny spines with birth
canals closed the "extra" up to 30%.

Chiropractors are missing a GOLDEN opportunity to save tiny lives and
tiny limbs and PREVENT more putative "vertebral subluxations" than
they will ever be able to adjust by hand.

Chiropractors - PCP and non-PCP - also have an unprecedented
opportunity to end other obvious MD crimes - and not just the birth-
canal-closing crime that the mass baby asphyxiation/mass baby blood
robbery mentioned above.

Remember that arrogant boast of Steve Harris, MD?

"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....866f3384801ae9

Dr. Harris issued forth with his arrogant boast after I pointed out
that most vaccination is an obvious crime - MDs are puncturing
children en masse (vaccination) based on a consent "charade," as in
Mark D. Fox, MD, PhD's statement:

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

FACT: Administering medicine/vaccines without first obtaining
informed consent is a crime/attack (a battery).

Even administering GOOD medicine/vaccines without informed consent is
a crime/attack (a battery).

See the California Supreme Court's 1993 THOR decision, quoted in,
TIME magazine on Chiropractors v. Vaccination
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....9a066386e4ef2f

MD-needle-vaccinations are only attempted immunizations - which often
don't work - which isn't mentioned when MDs exclude/protect
unvaccinated children from disease outbreaks at school. "Exclusion
Day" laws/policies need to be changed immediately: Parents seeking
vaccinations or vaccination exemptions should be informed that ALL
children - not just unvaccinated children - will be protected during
disease outbreaks - because we don't know which vaccinated children
were not immunized by their vaccinations.

BTW, like most DCs, I am PRO-immunization - pro-vaccination - as long
as true informed consent is obtained - as long as the option to REFUSE
vaccination is offered.

MDs claim to be pro-immunization when in fact they are mostly ANTI-
immunization. MDs are failing to inform the world that pregnant women
scan their environments for pathogens and make IMMUNIZATIONS which
they "inject" into babies with their breasts.

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

MDs are missing a GOLDEN opportunity to make both the immunization
(breastfeeding) and vaccination rates skyrocket.

For further details...

See again: TIME magazine on Chiropractors v. Vaccination
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....9a066386e4ef2f

PREVENTION

AMI says it is interested in prevention: "Prevention is the key to
stop the escalating costs that affect every aspect of the health care
industry."
http://www.amibestmed.com/ (Click on "Quality and Credentialing")

Also see: AMI's Principle #6 of Integrative Healthca "Prevention
is preferable to treatment..."
http://www.amibestmed.com/ (Click on "About AMI" then on "Mission")

If AMI is truly interested in prevention, AMI will work to publicize/
stop the massive MD crimes until law enforcement wakes up and does its
job.

As always, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical
students, MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA


PS AMI's definition of chiropractic (via ACA) is cumbersome but good -
esp. the part about focus on "environmental relationships."
http://www.amibestmed.com/ (Click on "Quality and Credentialing" then
on "DC")

AMI should look into the fact that Dorland's Illustrated Medical
Dictionary removed an obvious error of neurology from its definition
of chiropractic and published "my" BROADSCOPE definition of
chiropractic in 1988, 1994 and 2000.

"My" definition of chiropractic is Dr. DD Palmer's fundamental
hypothesis that noxious mech/chem/psychic irritation of the nervous
system is the cause of disease with treatment being removal of noxious
mech/chem/psychic irritants by the most conservative method.

ODDLY THOUGH...the obvious error of neurology was added back to
Dorland's in the 2003 edition - as ACA bizarrely went back to NARROW
SCOPE.

BEGIN excerpt of Dorland's: Preventing VS by educating OBs (also: New defn of chiro in
Dorland's)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2318

Alternate URL: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...f35e18f6706616

PS5 DORLAND'S CHIRO DEFINITION HISTORY


To my knowledge the 1988, 1994 and 2000 editions of Dorland's were the
first
with Dr. DD Palmer's fundamental chiropractic hypothesis that disease
is
caused by mechanical/chemical and psychic irritation of the
nervous system.


Some history...


Back around 1991 - after Dorland's published "my" definition for the
first
time - I learned that Dorland's would be publishing it's 1994
edition.


Concerned that the American Chiropractic Association/ACA had not
responded to my 1987 written request asking ACA to offer Dorland's
Chief
Lexicographer
Douglas Anderson chiropractic definition
input before publication of the 1988 edition, I asked Dorland's Chief
Lexicographer Douglas Anderson to write to
about 13 chiropractic organizations and request input for the 1994
edition.


Douglas did so and kindly mentioned in his letter to the 13
chiropractic
organizations that "my" definition was the current
Dorland's definition of chiropractic.


Yet again Mr. Anderson received NO INPUT from ACA... I
spoke to then-ACA Chairman Lou Sportelli about this personally at a
conference in Seattle. (I think the
Federation of Straight Chiropractic Organizations offered input - and
the
late Fred Barge, DC of the International Chiropractors Association/ICA
did
too.)


"My" definition was published again in the 1994 edition.


YEARS later - circa 1999 - ACA finally announced that Dorland's had
made
contact and had requested input.


ACA said that ACA had submitted a
"neuromusculoskeletal" definition composed by ACA Chairman Ed Maurer -
and
Dorland's was publishing it...
http://www.worldchiropracticalliance...001feuling.htm


ACA's summary announcement of the imminent publication of Maurer's
NARROWSCOPE definition made no mention of "my" BROADSCOPE definition -
which
(in accord with ACA's "Master Plan"...) contained Dr. DD Palmer's
fundamanetal
chiropractic hypothesis..


(It is noteworthy in discussing Maurer's proposed definition for
Dorland's that the World Chiropractic Alliance - URL above - also
failed to
mention "my" broadscope definition, already published in two editions
of
Dorland's.)


ACA *also* failed to mention that the Dorland's invitation was made
YEARS
before back when I had stimulated Dorland's to invite input from ACA
and
other chiropractic
associations and organizations in hopes of generating a CONSENSUS
definition...(Back around 1991, ACA had in effect nixed my idea of a
definition consensus conference - as had the other major chiropractic
organizations who received a definition input letter from Dorland's as
a
consequence of my efforts - including the abovementioned WCA and ICA.
My
thanks though to Ronald Plamondon, DC, then at ACA, who promoted the
idea in
a memo.)


Bottomline, in 1999, ACA was summarily eliminating Dr. DD Palmer's
fundamental chiropractic
hypothesis from the Dorland's definition and publishing ACA Chairman
Maurer's NARROWSCOPE "neuromusculoskeletal"
definition!


I telephoned the abovementioned Dorland's Chief Lexicographer Douglas
Anderson, who said he was indeed going to publish ACA's definition.


I protested, noting that ACA had not asked for input from the
profession and
had in effect silently rejected a definition consensus conference. I
added
that "my" definition still reflected ACA's published "Master Plan"
which (to
my knowledge) had never been changed...


I prevailed... Mr. Anderson backed down... "My" definition -
containing Dr. DD
Palmer's fundamental
chiropractic hypothesis (disease is caused by mech/chem/psychic
irritation
of the nervous system) - was published in a third edition of Dorland's
(the
2000 edition)...


In 2003, though, the Dorland's definition of chiropractic was changed
-
radically.


I was neither notified nor consulted - and more importantly *the
profession*
was neither notified nor consulted... There had been no definition
consensus
conference - indeed there had STILL been no MENTION of my proposed
definition
consensus conference...


Dorland's Chief Lexicographer Anderson fell down on the job...


He added other chiro-related definitions to the 2003 edition - with
obvious
flaws - most of which I informed Mr. Anderson about in my 80s
correspondence...


Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary Philadelphia: Saunders 2003
Chief Lexicographer: Douglas M. Anderson, MA
Senior Lexicographer: Patricia D. Novak, PhD
Lexicographer: Jefferson Keith, MA
Assistant Lexicographer: Michelle A. Elliott, BA
http://www.dorlands.com/aboutd.jsp#team


Here are the new chiro-related definitions...


"Chiropractic...a non-pharmaceutical, nonsurgical system of health
care
based
on the self-healing capacity of the body and the primary importance of
the
proper function of the nervous system in the maintenance of health;
therapy
is aimed at removing irritants to the nervous system and restoring
proper
function. The most common method of treatment is by spinal
manipulation and
is primarily done for musculoskeletal complaints; other methods
include
lifestyle modification, nutritional therapy, and physiotherapy."


GASTALDO REMARKS: It is simply wrong for Dorland's to state:
"Chiropractic...[is]...based on...the primary importance of the
proper
function of the nervous system in the maintenance of health; therapy
is
aimed at removing irritants to the nervous system and restoring
proper
function."


While chiropractic therapy (not just spinal adjusting) is indeed aimed
at
removing irritants to the nervous system, chiropractic therapy does
not
generally cause "proper nerve function" because "improper" nerve
function
does not generally happen in disease - at least this was the
conclusion of
Dr. DD Palmer, Founder of chiropractic. Because the American
Chiropractic
Association tried to censor Dr. DD Palmer's fundamental chiropractic
hypothesis from Dorland's (see above), I suspect ACA was behind this
flaw in
the 2003 Dorland's definition...


Even if one focuses primarily on musculoskeletal complaints, the vast
majority of these involve improper JOINT function with PROPER nerve
function
(nerves transmitting impulses when irritated) helping with the
diagnosis.
Sadly, Dorland's has returned to a version of the "abnormal nerve
function"
phraseology that originally impelled me to ask Dorland's to change
its
definition of chiropractic back in the 80s...


Speaking of diagnosis, the word diagnosis has now disappeared from
the
Dorland's definition of chiropractic. I placed it right up front, as
in,
"Chiropractic...a science of applied neurophysiologic diagnosis..."
-
because Dr. DD Palmer - the first "straight" chiropractor - was
rather
adamant that DCs use a knowledge of neurology to diagnose.


STRAIGHT CHIROPRACTIC... Dr. DD Palmer was the first "straight"
chiropractor
as indicated in Dorland's first-time-ever publication of a definition
of
"straight chiropractic," as in,


"Straight c...the practice of chiropractic in strict accordance with
the
principles of its founder, DD Palmer, without additions made by later
practitioners...."


So far so good. I practiced DD straight chiropractic - I *still*
practice
DD straight chiropractic even unlicensed! One does not NEED a license
to
practice that vast expanse of DD straight chiropractic called
EDUCATIONAL
adjusting...


Here's an educational adjustment for Dorland's Chief Lexicographer
Douglas
Anderson: Most people who call themselves "straight" chiropractors
do NOT
practice in accordance with the principles of DD Palmer. My bet is
that
LICENSED chiropractors somehow failed to offer Mr. Anderson this
educational
chiropractic adjustment...


Dorland's 2003 "straight chiropractic" definition continues...


"The original definition of subluxation (q.v.) as a vertebral
displacement is adhered to, and..."


Dr. DD Palmer did NOT restrict the word "subluxation" to vertebral
displacement... He posited mechanical, chemical and psychic
(educational)
irritants - as well as mechanical, chemical and psychic
adjustments... The
key words - mechanical, chemical and psychic - indicating DD's
multifactorial hypothesis of disease causation - are GONE from the
2003
Dorland's definition of chiropractic - and they do not appear in
Dorland's
2003 "straight chiropractic" definition either...


Dorland's 2003 "straight chiropractic" definition concludes...


"...chiropractic is considered to be
non-therapeutic, its purpose being solely to contribute to health by
the
correction of vertebral subluxations."


This is NOT "the practice of chiropractic in strict accordance with
the
principles of its founder, DD Palmer." It is the CROOKED
"chiropractic" of
DD's son BJ - whose teachings - according to DD - were not worth the
paper
they were written on...


DD wrote of BJ pretending that vertebral subluxation must be present
in all
disease on p. 677:


"In his dissertation on sunstroke [BJ] loses sight of one of the
principles
of Chiropractic,
namely, that disease is but the result of functions performed in too
great
or too little degree. He says: 'A person could not have sunstroke
unless
there was a subluxation.' An exposure to the sun's rays may cause
either
extremes of activity..." [1910:677]


Dorland's 2003 definition of subluxation includes a false
chiropractic
definition - or rather - one not in accord with the principles of Dr.
DD
Palmer...


"Subluxation...1. an incomplete or partial dislocation. See
accompanying
illustration. 2. in chiropractic, any mechanical impediment to nerve
function; originally, a vertebral displacement believed to impair
nerve
function.
See also *vertebral subluxation complex*, under *complex* [*italics*
in
original]"


Again, Dr. DD Palmer did NOT restrict the word "subluxation" to
vertebral
displacement! He posited mechanical, chemical and psychic
(educational)
irritants - multifactorial disease causation - as well as mechanical,
chemical and psychic (educational) adjustments...


Regarding psychic (educational) subluxations and adjustments - DDs
1910 book
was psychic/educational adjustment of subluxations in his son BJ's
writings
in "The Chiropractor" - hence DD's subtitle - "The Chiropractor's
Adjuster."


DD did not believe that vertebral subluxations generally impaired
nerve
function. DD believed that UNimpaired PROPER nerve function was
generally
the case and helped with diagnosis. See discussion of Dorland's 2003
crooked "straight" definition above.


Here's the first-ever Dorland's definition of "vertebral subluxation
complex"...


"Vertebral subluxation c[omplex]...in chiropractic, malfunction of
organs or
tissues
caused by impairment of nerve function that results from restriction
of
normal motion or from abnormal position of spinal seguments."


I learned "vertebral subluxation complex" in chiropractic college.
This is
the first time I've seen it defined as "malfunction of organs or
tissues"!!
I know that they mean - I've just never seen VSC defined this way.
Were he
alive today, DD would agree with the part about "restriction of
normal
motion or...abnormal position of spinal segments" - but he would NOT
(I say
again) agree with the notion that vertebral subluxations generally
cause
"impairment of nerve function." DD believed that vertebral
subluxations
generally caused NORMAL increases in impulse transmission (vertebral
subluxations were secondary MECHANICAL noxious irritants; see "my"
definition of chiropractic in Dorland's 27th, 28th, 29th eds.)...
These
vertebral subluxation-caused NORMAL increases in impulse transmission
caused
NORMAL functions in organs and tissues - normal functions out of time
with
need - "malfunction" to be sure - but it was NOT (according to DD)
generally
caused by vertebral subluxations causing "impairment of nerve
function."
(The "impairment of nerve function" baloney came from DDs son BJ who
once
threw out the sympathetic nervous system to force all nerve impulses
through
spinal nerves which could be "impaired" at the intervertebral
foramina! DDs
adjustment of this "luxation" of BJs is one of the funniest parts of
his
1910 text.)


IS CHIROPRACTIC COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE/CAM?


Dorland's Chief Lexicographer Douglas Anderson perhaps believes that
chiropractic is part of Complementary and Alternative Medicine/CAM...


CAM is nothing more than organized medicine's pretense that
"traditional
biomedicine" is proven - and everything else is unproven quackery -
not part
of Complementary and Alternative Medicine/CAM - or rather - organized
medicine fails to point out that most of "traditional biomedicine" is
CAM...


For discussion of organized medicine's ongoing "they're quacks - we're
not"
CAM hoax, see Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School
of
Medicine
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2256


Anderson indicates in the Preface to his 2003 edition that he has
defined
chiropractic "in terms of [its] own theory"!


"[T]he 30th edition of Dorland's features the inclusion of over 600
terms
from the field of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Where the
theory
behind the terms lies outside traditional biomedicine, we have aimed
at
defining them in terms of their own theories; while some are
admittedly
controversial, interest in this field is widespread and growing, and
such
terms are more and more likely to be encountered." [Preface: vii]


Chief Lexicographer Anderson has NOT defined chiropractic "in terms of
[its]
own theory"!


Chief Lexicographer Anderson IGNORED three editions of his own
dictionary.
As a consequence of my input back in the 80s, Dorland's already HAD
Dr. DD
Palmer's fundamental chiropractic hypothesis/theory. (THANKFULLY, Mr.
Anderson left a reference to nerve irritation - but he eliminated the
mechanical, chemical, psychic phraseology that is key to Dr. DD
Palmer's
multifactorial hypothesis of disease (and vertebral subluxation)
causation.)


Chief Lexicographer Anderson not only ignored three editions of his
own
dictionary to muck up the definition of chiropractic - he ignored my
warning
that America's largest chiropractic trade union - the American
Chiropractic
Association - was obviously dishonestly trying to CENSOR Dr. DD
Palmer's
fundamental chiropractic hypothesis and replace it with a NARROWSCOPE
"neuromusculoskeletal" definition that organized medicine likes
better...


Arrrggghhhh! The American Chiropractic Association never spoke to
the
profession about the consensus conference on definition which I
proposed!
Why not!??


By promoting the notion of Complementary and Alternative Medicine/CAM,
Chief
Lexicographer Anderson perpetuates the latest version of organized
medicine's ongoing "they're quacks - we're not" fraud.


NOTE: Dorland's 2003 has no entry for Complementary and Alternative
Medicine


"CAM" though is defined in the 2003 Dorland's as "cell adhesion
molecules;
complementary and alternative medicine."


"Complementary" is defined as "...supplying a defect, or helping to do
so;
making complete;
accessory."


"Alternative...[no definition]"


Dorland's Chief Lexicographer Anderson has supplied a chiropractic
defect or
is helping to do so!


WHY IS THIS MATTER SO IMPORTANT TO ME?


So-called "subluxation-based" chiros (and "neuromusculoskeletal" ACA
leaders) are ignoring the NON-spinal subluxations (MD lies) that have
MDs
closing birth canals and
gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines!


Chiropractic adjustment of non-spinal subluxations (the education
aspect of
chiropractic) is crucial to the tiniest chiropractic patients -
babies!

END excerpt of Dorland's: Preventing VS by educating OBs (also: New defn of chiro in
Dorland's)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2318

Alternate URL: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...f35e18f6706616

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA


This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet
archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "AMI OB/GYNs: Are they
'true CAM providers'?"