A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Pregnancy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rule 302, Birth and Trigon/Anthem (Glasscock) - and ACOG's Willett LeHew, MD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 18th 03, 06:19 PM
Todd Gastaldo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule 302, Birth and Trigon/Anthem (Glasscock) - and ACOG's Willett LeHew, MD

RULE 302 IS FINALLY BEING CHALLENGED IN COURT See below.

First things first...

"It is established obstetric teaching that a narrow pelvic outlet
predisposes to a difficult vaginal delivery..."
--Frudinger et al. Br J Obstet Gynaecol
2002;109(11):1207-12

PREGNANT WOMEN: MDs are senselessly closing birth canals up to 30% by
placing women semisitting and dorsal (on their backs/butts). It's EASY to
allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%: Just roll onto your
side as you push your baby out - but see the two WARNINGS below...

Attention: Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Program
(staff and board members listed below): MDs are causing mechanical birth
trauma! Please stop them!


ANTHEM, INC.

Attention: LARRY GLASSCOCK^^^, PRESIDENT & CEO ANTHEM, INC. (Anthem now owns
TRIGON^^^)...

Larry,

MDs are KNOWINGLY senselessly closing birth canals up to 30%. See the
simple PROOF in my Open Letter to Willett LeHew, MD below.

Please simply STOP PAYING MDs who senselessly close birth canals up to 30%!

Please start promoting homebirth and homebirth midwives. MDs libeled
homebirth as child abuse. See the Rule 302 discussion below.

^^^Sent to Larry Glasscock via TOM SNEAD ),
PRESIDENT, VIRGINIA ANTHEM (formerly Trigon BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
VIRGINIA)

^^^Sent to Larry also via Anthem health fraud investigator MARY LOU SULLIVAN
- BTW, GREAT QUOTE Mary Lou - see below...

(Carol Darden: Nice talking with you. Please do print this out for Tom.)


Larry, I complained about the obvious MD birth crime in an Open Letter to
the Virginia Department of Health Professions
), writing:

"I wish to file a complaint against MD-obstetricians. I don't want them
punished - I just want them to stop closing birth canals..."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2078

WILLIAM L. HARP, MD, Executive Director, Virginia Board of Medicine
"responded" - ignored my
complaint and said I needed to name an individual MD - so I did...

See MD birth crime: Gastaldo names individual MD...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2082

Nothing happened. I'll cc Dr. Harp again - via



Attention: Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Program
(staff and board members listed below)...

The Virginia Board of Medicine has done NOTHING.

Even the "chiropractic" board member ignored me...

See Jerry Ray Willis, DC (Virginia Medical Board member)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2099

Since the Virginia Birth Injury Program helps babies who have suffered
mechanical birth trauma...

Please stop MD-obstetricians from *causing* mechanical birth trauma.

NOTE: Virginia Birth Injury Advisor Willett L. LeHew, MD has likely been
closing birth canals himself and may not act...


Nonetheless...


OPEN LETTER (instantly archived at:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2252)

Willett L. LeHew, MD
Member
Board of Directors
Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Program
9100 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 365
Richmond, Virginia 23236
(via Sharon Payne, Deputy Director, Virginia Birth-Related Neurological
Injury Compensation Program, 804-330-2471 X 302
)

WILLETT,

MD-obstetricians are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30%.

SIMPLE PROOF...

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist's/ACOG's Shoulder
Dystocia video purports to tell MDs how to OPEN the birth
canal when baby's shoulders get stuck - which obviously means that
MD-obstetricians know they are closing birth canals.

IT GETS WORSE WILLETT: The ACOG method for opening the birth canal when
baby's shoulders get stuck (PROPER McRoberts) - actually keeps the birth
canal closed!

See IMPROPER McRoberts can save tiny lives and tiny limbs...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1308

MD-obstetricians are knowingly causing mechanical birth trauma.

Please take action to stop your fellow MD-obstetricians from closing birth
canals up to 30%.

Thanks,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo



PS1 GRUESOME SPINAL MANIPULATION BY MDs...

In addition to senselessly closing birth canals, MDs are gruesomely
manipulating the tiniest spines - pushing and pulling - with birth canals
senselessly closed up to 30%.

Some babies are dying... OBs are killing an estimated six babies per DAY
with vacuum-assisted spinal
manipulation alone - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%...

See USUAL MECHANISM (PS5) in my article, "Pregnant chiro patients: BIZARRE
chiro legislation - babies be damned..."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2135

MD-obstetricians CAUSE cephalopelvic disproportion (and failure to
progress) - then perform c-sections BEcause of cephalopelvic disproportion
(and failure to progress)!


BEFORE MDs PERFORM C-SECTIONS...

They chemically whip the uterus to
contract VIOLENTLY - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%

For details of this violent PUSHING spinal manipulation by MDs...

See OXYTOCIN SCREAMING...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2242



"Off label" CYTOTEC SCREAMING...

Cytotec also makes the uterus contract violently...

Cytotec is being used "off label" - never having been tested for use during
labor...

Not long ago, Cytotec manufacturer Searle wrote a letter to OBs
"repudiating" the use of Cytotec.

FDA *banned* Cytotec use in birth...

OBs complained and "pressured" FDA to rescind the ban because
Cytotec (Misoprostol) "was in such common use."

The words in quotes are from Henci Goer's EXCELLENT article, "'Spin
Doctoring'
the Research." [Birth. (Jun)2003;30(2):124-29]

See OBs causing 'short violent labors'/Semisitting birth is NOT
physiological! (Attn: ICEA/Nurse Coleman)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2008




MEDICAL BIRTH BAD FOR VAGINAS...

MD-obstetricians are SLASHING VAGINAS en masse ("routine
episiotomy") -
surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring they are doing everything possible to OPEN
the birth canal - even as they CLOSE the birth canal!

Michael C. Klein, MD writes: "[E]pisiotomy is a deliberate second degree
tear." [Birth. Letter.
2002;29(1):74]

Some MDs are still claiming (fraudulently) that their episiotomies are
*preventing*
severe tears clear to the anus when in fact MDs are CAUSING severe tears
clear to the anus!

In 1990 the National Institutes of Health researched the issue and found
that deliberate tears by
MDs (episiotomies) cause fifty times MORE severe tears (tears clear to the
anus) relative to leaving the vagina alone.[Shiono et al. Obstet Gynecol
1990;75(5):765-70. In Klein et al. Online J Curr Clin Trials
(Jul1)1992, Doc. No. 10]

MDs are not only hospitalizing birth - they are using birth to hospitalize
women AFTER birth!

"The most common diagnosis for hospitalization among all women is trauma to
perineum due to childbirth."
http://www.ahcpr.gov/data/hcup/factbk3/factbk3.htm

MDs are deliberately/senselessly traumatizing perinea - and
calling it "childbirth." (!)

This is not childbirth! This is MEDICAL birth - the largest insurance
fraud!



MALPRACTICE LIABILITY INSURERS...

THE ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE...

"1974...The St. Paul introduces the 'claims-made' policy for medical
liability insurance."
http://www.stpaul.com/wwwcorporate/c...us/history.asp

MALPRACTICE LIABILITY INSURANCE FRAUD?

Back in 1996, I noted that Attorney/physician Harvey Wachsman [Lethal
Medicine
NY: Henry Holt 1993] reported that obstetricians were creating a phony
malpractice liability insurance crisis that was "believed at the highest
level
of government."

In his 1993 book, Wachsman offered some staggering figures to show that
malpractice liability
insurers are making an obscene killing writing insurance for
obstetricians.

Obstetricians appear to be getting something quite valuable in return -
the ability to tell homebirth midwives that their malpractice liability
insurance companies simply won't let them support homebirth....

In effect then, the malpractice liability insurers thus insure that all
maternity care business is routed to obstetricians.

Obstetricians then have PLENTY of money for their malpractice liability
insurance premiums AND a seemingly legitimate gripe at-the-ready for
when they are asked why they are refusing to back-up homebirth midwives.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&outpu t=gpl\
ain

See Vaginas and media silence: Insuring that malpractice occurs - babies
be damned
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1853

See also: Birth postures of submission (also: Hysterectomy alternative:
fibroid embolisation)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2154

ANTHEM "TOOK SERIOUSLY THE MALPRACTICE CONCERNS RAISED BY PHYSICIANS"

Friday, July 11, 2003
Anthem, Ob/Gyns agree on reimbursement terms through '05
For consumers, the contracts help resolve growing fears that obstetricians
in Cincinnati would stop delivering babies over their concerns about
malpractice insurance...Anthem officials took action because they took
seriously the malpractice
concerns raised by physicians.
By Tim Bonfield
The Cincinnati Enquirer
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...hemdocs11.html

Copied to Tim Bonfield

Apparently, the US General Accounting Office/GAO agrees with Dr. Wachsman
that the malpractice liability insurance crisis is way overblown...

ACOG birth-canal-closers are whining about GAO's report...

"In essence, the recent GAO report tells the physicians who care for women
and newborns that any liability insurance crisis is either imagined or, at
best, is selectively affecting doctors but miraculously sparing their
patients."
http://www.acog.org/from_home/public...nr09-25-03.cfm

ACOG seems to have a legitimate beef with GAO...

"In measuring obstetrical care, the report focuses on newborn deliveries,
and yet assesses access by evaluating Medicare utilization data, a
completely inappropriate measurement of obstetric services since Medicare
covers only 6,000 of the 4 million US deliveries a year."
http://www.acog.org/from_home/public...nr09-25-03.cfm

I didn't know MEDICARE is paying for 6,000 deliveries per year!

A NOTE ABOUT MEDICA I notified HCFA Analyst Dorothy Honemann in 1997
about the MD birth crime. She did nothing.

More recently, Diana Motsiopoulos, the designated Federal Official for Pres.
George W. Bush's Medicare/Medicaid/CMS Practicing Physician Advisory
Committee (PPAC) asked that I stop emailing her about the crime...

See Feds (Motsiopoulos/CMS/PPAC/Pres Bush) to help babies?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2178

I'll copy this to Motsiopoulos and PPAC/Medicare - via Keri Boston


Medicare Practicing Physician Advisory Committee - please advise Medicare to
demand that MDs stop closing birth canals in those 6,000 deliveries per
year. Advise Medicaid to do the same - even if you have no Medicaid
advisory authority.



Back to ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE...

"1974...The St. Paul introduces the 'claims-made' policy for medical
liability insurance."
http://www.stpaul.com/wwwcorporate/c...us/history.asp

ST. PAUL! MDs are senselessly closing birth canals thereby CREATING
malpractice liability (not to mention paralyzed arms, etc.)

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE SHOULD TAKE ACTION!

ST. PAUL EMPLOYEES MIGHT EVEN **VOLUNTEER** TO STOP THE MD CRIME!

"The St. Paul has a long tradition of corporate
citizenship...[C]ountless volunteer hours [are] contributed by employees..."
http://www.stpaul.com/wwwcorporate/c...es/welcome.asp

I'll cc St. Paul employee (Chairman/CEO Jay S. Fishman) via:
; ;
;
; ;
;

A special thanks BTW must go to St. Paul fraud employee Steve Bodge,
CIFI,SCLA,CFE
for contacting me.

Steve Bodge is an insurance fraud investigator - a Special Investigation
Unit SPECIALIST...

Steve Bodge
St. Paul Fire and Marine
1409 Greenbrier Street, Suite 201
Charleston, WV 25311
( O) 304-340-4322 (Mobile) 304-482-6842 (Fax) 304-340-4314

NOTE: Steve contacted me to tell me, in effect, that he will NOT be
investigating. If anyone knows Steve, please
thank him for me. Steve's "response" stimulated me to read about St.
Paul introducing the "claims-made" policy for malpractice liability
insurance. Steve refocused my attention on the **malpractice liability**
aspect of the massive MD birth fraud...



THE INSURANCE BUREAU OF CANADA/IBC...

FORTUNATELY, the Insurance Bureau of Canada/IBC (220 Canadian
general/property and casualty insurers) -
is interested in PREVENTION of insurance fraud - "REGARDLESS OF WHO IS
PROVIDING PAYMENT," as in,

"Launch a permanent national effort on injury prevention (p. 3)...Improv[e]
the flow of information to the public about health
system performance and costs...There is...sound evidence of the need for the
major funders of health care to work together to develop specific mechanisms
to strengthen individual accountability for the proper use of health system
resources, regardless of who is providing payment. (p. 9)"
--RESTORING CONFIDENCE (The Insurance Bureau of Canada/IBC)^^^

IBC says "major funders of health care" need to work together...

IBC *is* a "major funder of healthcare" - IBC could take the lead!

^^^The article just quoted - RESTORING CONFIDENCE - is the Insurance
Bureau of Canada's Sept.
2001 submission to the The Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada
and The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology
http://www.ibc.ca/pdffiles/publicati...e-sept2001.pdf

IBC should at least TALK to OTHER "major funders of health care" - for examp
le the guys at Anthem...

IBC should demand that Anthem's Tom and Larry stop paying MDs who close
birth canals - on both sides of the border...

IBC says:

"Thirty million Canadians are the true owners of our health care system. As
individual users, they need to have the information and the knowledge to
make informed choices about their health care." (p. 22)
--RESTORING CONFIDENCE (The Insurance Bureau of Canada/IBC)

IBC's sentiments are my sentiments - EXACTLY!

Similarly, Americans are the true owners of *their* health care system -
with for-profit CEO's SUPPOSEDLY interested in quality of health care (see
ACA/McAndrews quote below)...

I'll cc IBC's Robert Cooke, Chairman and Stan Griffin President and C.E.O.,
via

NOTE: "IBC represents more than 220 member insurance
companies. We work to improve the environment in which our members operate
to the ultimate benefit of insurance consumers."
http://www.fraudcoalition.org/newsmedia_president.asp


THE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ANTI-FRAUD ASSOCIATION

WILL NHCAA HELP?

WILL AHFI's HELP?

On August 9, 2002, Bill Mahon, National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association
(NHCAA)
Executive Director, formally announced the membership role for the inaugural
group of Accredited Health Care Fraud Investigators (AHFI's).

A PHYSICIAN, A HOSPITAL - "the most common type of health fraud"...

ANTHEM'S MARY LOU SULLIVAN, AHFI SAYS...

"Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kentucky also provides a hotline
number
for members, according to Mary Lou Sullivan, the company's senior manager of
special investigations...Sullivan said the most common type of health care
fraud is billing for
services not rendered...'That could be a physician, a pharmacy, a hospital -
any type of health-care
provider,' she said."
--by Thomas Pack, a free-lance writer for Business First. Send comments on
this
article to .
http://www.bizjournals.com/louisvill...ml?t=printable

Mary Lou - MDs are LYING - then closing birth canals - sometimes KILLING -
but always BILLING - fraudulently.

Copied to Mary Lou Sullivan, AHFI

Copied to AHFI Director of Investigation Support Mike Costello
)





INSURERS - General *and* Health insurers: Please help benefit the TINIEST
insurance consumers!

Tell mothers before birth...

PREGNANT WOMEN: You can allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to
30% - just roll onto your side - or use kneeling or hands-and-knees or stand
or squat - ANYTHING but semisitting or dorsal.

WARN mothers:

1. Most MD-obstetricians close the birth canal up to 30%^^^ even as they
acknowledge that closing the birth canal FAR LESS can kill.
2. Some MD-obstetricians will let you "try" "alternative" delivery positions
BUT they will move you back to dorsal or semisitting (close your birth canal
up to 30%!) for the actual delivery!

^^^NOTE: If the pubic arch is narrow, semisitting and dorsal likely close
the birth canal MORE than 30% in some women.

According to Williams
Obstetrics [2001]:

"...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)..."

PROOF that MDs know they are closing birth canals:

At my request, the authors of Williams Obstetrics *published*
"my" biomechanics - but they left in their text the "dorsal widens" bald lie
that first called my attention to their text.

Here are the biomechanics that were added at my request to Williams
Obstetrics:

"It should be noted...that the increase in the diameter of the
pelvic outlet occurs *only* if the sacrum is allowed to rotate
posteriorly..."
[1993:285, *italics* in original]

In a case of OBVIOUS NEGLIGENCE, the authors of Williams Obstetrics left in
their text
(in the same paragraph!) the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my
attention to their text.

For a discussion of OTHER obvious obstetric
negligence - and how the 30% figure was radiographically derived - see
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html. My thanks to Prof. Dr. Moyses
Paciornik, MD, Curitiba, Brazil, for calling my attention to this
chiropractic emergency. See the Paciornik and Gastaldo letters in Birth
[1992;19:230]

FURTHER proof that MDs know they are closing birth canals (already noted)...

ACOG's shoulder dystocia video purports to show
MDs how to OPEN the birth canal maximally when the shoulders get stuck -
which of course is an indirect admission that MDs are indeed routinely
CLOSING birth canals...

Unfortunately, the ACOG method for opening the birth canal (PROPER
McRoberts) actually keeps it closed...

See IMPROPER McRoberts can save tiny lives and tiny limbs...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1308

(ACOG = Amercian College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - the obstetric
trade union to which most MD-obstetricians belong.)


IT'S NOT JUST ACOG...

CANADA'S obstetricians are also closing birth canals...

I warned the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC)
that semisitting closes the birth canal -
but SOGC still apparently approves the following grisly bald lie:

"The traditional lithotomy position commonly used
in obstetric units can certainly be modified to obtain a
semi-sitting posture and hence achieve the benefit
derived from the upright position..."
SOGC CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES
POLICY STATEMENT No. 71, December 1998:53
http://www.sogc.org/SOGCnet/sogc_doc...lthybegeng.pdf

SOGC *also* still says (same document - p. 54): "[T]he traditional lithotomy
position...should...be reserved for cases of operative delivery
[vacuum/forceps]."

Traditional lithotomy - like semi-sitting/semi-recumbency -
CLOSES THE BIRTH CANAL!

One does NOT pull on a baby's skull with the birth canal senselessly closed!


PARDONS FOR MDs...

As always, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. MDs are just
academic prime cuts forced through this culture's most powerful mental
meatgrinder - medical school.


PS2 BACK TO ACOG OF VIRGINIA'S WILLETT L. LEHEW, MD...

Willett,

The American Chiropractic Association/ACA lawsuit (against Trigon cum
Glasscock's Anthem, currently on appeal) alleges that...

As part of Trigon cum Anthem's Managed Care Advisory Panel/MCAP you and
other Trigon cum Anthem MD advisors "collusively assembled and distributed
scientifically distorted 'back pain guidelines' to more than 90% of the
medical physicians in Virginia."
http://www.chiroweb.com/trigon/trigon.pdf

The American Chiropractic Association/ACA ALSO alleges that (as part of
Trigon cum Anthem's Managed Care Advisory Panel/MCAP) you distorted AHCPR's
spinal manipulation guidelines to stop MDs from referring to DCs for the
type of spinal manipulation specifically called for in the AHCPR guidelines.

Willitt, you are an obstetrician. You should be ashamed. Of all the Panel
members,the OBSTETRIC member should have spoken out against the Panel's
distortion of the AHCPR guidelines: Pregnant women - who often suffer low
back pain - are *not supposed to take* the Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory
Drugs/NSAIDS recommended by AHCPR - unless absolutely necessary!

Pregnant women are advised to AVOID medication for fear of causing harm to
their fetuses.

Fortunately, a Danish study of over 50,000 women concluded that NSAID usage
had no impact on the odds for birth defects, low birth weight babies, or
preterm births...

UNFORTUNATELY the same study found that taking NSAIDs increased the risk of
having a miscarriage.
http://www.pedsforparents.com/Articles/articles16.html (citing British
Medical Journal, 2000/12Volume 19, Number 9)

Willett, ACA Attorney George McAndrews was surprised about something that
also surprises me...

McAndrews writes:

"Surprisingly, Trigon's Chief Medical Doctor [William Bracciodieta, M.D.]
testified that the quality of
health care given was of no concern to Trigon:...Q. Does Trigon in any way
try to evaluate the effects of its insurance coverages or lack of coverages
on the healthcare provided to those that are insured by Trigon
policies?...A. No. Again, that's not the business that we're in..."
--Attorney George P. McAndrews
http://www.amerchiro.org/pdf/trigon_...ants_brief.pdf

QUESTION: Which is it Willett? Trigon-cum-Anthem CEOs? - or MDs? - or BOTH
(!) - who think an insurance company should not "in any way try to evaluate
the effects of its insurance coverages..." (?)


Back to Trigon-cum-Anthem CEOs...

LARRY GLASSCOCK, PRESIDENT & CEO ANTHEM, INC. (now owns Trigon)...

via TOM SNEAD, PRESIDENT OF ANTHEM (formerly Trigon) BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD
OF VIRGINIA


Larry (and Tom),

EMERGENCY!

You are paying MD-obstetricians to senselessly close birth canals and
GRUESOMELY manipulate most babies' spines!

(ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal senselessly
closed.)

Please STOP PAYING MD-obstetrician who senselessly close birth canals!

STOP PAYING for gruesome MD spinal manipulation of BABIES...

JUST THINK... By explicitly excluding this MD spinal manipulation "benefit,"
Anthem will save PLENTY of money which can then be used to compensate
Virginia chiropractors for Trigon cum Anthem's "acts of extortion,
discrimination, and fraud." (McAndrews, p. 61)

Anthem will also have plenty of money to restore the 40% cut Trigon made in
chiropractic reimbursement for spinal manipulation...

AND Anthem will have plenty of money to inform Anthem insureds across the
country that pregnant women are not supposed to take NSAIDS - that spinal
manipulation is available to them.

Of course, ALL Anthem insureds - pregnant or not - should be made aware that
the chiropractic spinal manipulation benefit is available!

On a personal note, when I was in spinal adjusting practice, I found that
pregnant women were SO easy to adjust - and so grateful - many hugs!

The British Gray's Anatomy may still reference the British MD who
manipulated spines following birth with dramatic relief of the severest back
pain in some cases.

WILK v. AMA - and PREGNANCY...

There was some interesting chiropractic/birth testimony in Wilk v. AMA (the
trial that first outlined the conspiracy and preceded ACA's current lawsuit
against Trigon-cum-Anthem)...

According to Chester A Wilk [1995]...

Orthopedic surgeon and AMA Trustee Irvin
Hendryson, MD informed AMA General Counsel Robert B. Throckmorton that, at
the University of Colorado, he (Hendryson) had observed that chiropractic
adjustments were very helpful to women in the third trimester of pregnancy.

According to Wilk [1995], Dr. Hendryson's 1966 letter indicated that
pregnant women were able to carry and deliver their children with less
discomfort if they received chiropractic adjustments.
[AMA Trustee Hendryson's 1966 letter to AMA General Counsel Throckmorton was
Plaintiff's Exhibit 241 in Wilk v. AMA. Cited in Wilk CA. Medicine,
Monopolies and Malice. Garden City Park, NY: Avery. 1995:159]

AMA ignored Hendryson's 1966 letter...

Wilk [1995] notes something interesting happened at trial:

"As this evidence was revealed, one of the attorneys for the defense [AMA]
fairly sneered at the idea that a woman who had received chiropractic
adjustments might have an easier time during childbirth. At this, Judge
Getzendanner looked up and pointed at him, her index finger wagging slowly
from side to side...and cut him short. Dryly, she reminded him that *he*
had never had to give birth...The defense counsel...promptly sat down."
[Wilk
1995:159]

NOTE: American Chiropractic Association/ACA General Counsel George
McAndrews (and
Ryan) apparently refer to the
same scene:

"Juries may understand, as did Judge Getzendanner, that expectant mothers
cannot wait four or five days [after delivery and discharge] before
consulting skilled chiropractors..." [McAndrews, Ryan. "Hospital
Monopolization May Be Next Legal Target." ACA
Journal Sept. 1988]

Juries might be *especially* understanding once they are informed that MDs
are routinely closing birth canals up to 30% (!) - and lying about it. (!)

MDs are also lying about epidurals...

According to former WHO consultant Marsden Wagner, MD:

"There is...an epidemic of epidural use in this country now. Women are
being lied to and told that this is safe. The data contradicts this.
Epidural causes somewhere between 4 and 10 times as much forceps or vacuum
births and causes between 2 and 4 times as many cesareans. Since forceps,
vacuum births, and cesareans all carry significant risks for both the woman
and the baby, these are not benign procedures..."

GASTALDO NOTES: MDs are pulling on tiny spines with birth canals
senselessly closed up to 30%!!

Some babies are dying... OBs are killing an estimated six babies per DAY
with vacuum-assisted spinal
manipulation alone - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%...

See USUAL MECHANISM (PS5) in my article, "Pregnant chiro patients: BIZARRE
chiro legislation - babies be damned..."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2135

MD-obstetricians CAUSE cephalopelvic disproportion (and failure to
progress) - then perform c-sections BEcause of cephalopelvic disproportion
(and failure to progress)!

BEFORE MDs PERFORM C-SECTIONS...

They chemically whip the uterus to
contract VIOLENTLY - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%

For details of this violent PUSHING spinal manipulation by MDs...

See OXYTOCIN SCREAMING...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2242


Marsden Wagner, MD writes further...

"...Every year women die just
from the epidural procedure itself. The epidural is a very tricky procedure
and one that can be life-threatening if the tiniest slip is made.

"The American public does not know that women die from epidural anesthesia.
One of the biggest problems in the United States is that the medical
profession has stonewalled the information on pregnancy and birth. It is
very difficult for the public to get true information...

"...Will American obstetricians willingly change? I'll answer this by
asking another question. Why should they? They have all the money and
power...'The American College
of Obstetrics and Gynecology, for the most part, has been passive in the
face of the epidemic of cesarean births. The conservative and self-serving
stance of this organization is illustrated by an extraordinary statement
made recently by the former president of this College: "Home birth is child
abuse in its earliest form." [Wagner M quoted in Gaskin IM. Interview with
Marsden Wagner author of Pursuing the Birth Machine [ACE Graphics 1994].
Birth Gazette 1995;11(4):6-12. Birth Gazette is no longer avaible at the
OHSU medical
library.]


WHAT?!

"HOMEBIRTH IS CHILD ABUSE IN ITS EARLIEST FORM..." (?!)
--Former ACOG president quoted by Marsden Wagner, MD, see above

WHY is the insurance industry ignoring this yet unpunished libel?

Larry and Tom - I hope you're both still reading...

You may be able to DRASTICALLY cut health insurance costs - just by finally
compensating for this unpunished MD libel - by promoting homebirth and
INDEPENDENT homebirth midwives...


SOME HISTORY...

In California in 1949, independent homebirth midwifery LICENSURE was ended
quietly - by the same 1949 legislation that ended the Medical Practice Act
drugless practitioner licensing mechanism for DCs...

To be sure, both DCs already licensed as DPs by the Medical Board - and
independent midwives already licensed by the Medical Board - were allowed to
keep practicing - but there was no longer any mechanism to LICENSE new
ones...

KEY POINT: In Oregon, the licensed midwifery statute explicitly states that
a midwifery license is NOT REQUIRED.

Similarly, a midwifery certificate was NOT REQUIRED in California. More on
this key point below.

Whereas DCs had their own licensing board by the time the DP mechanism for
licensure was ended - independent midwives had no licensing board...

BUT THEY DIDN'T NEED ONE!

As in Oregon today, a midwifery license was NOT REQUIRED in California -
though MDs and MD-funded law enforcement - and the judiciary - VERY
creatively danced around this point - arresting/harassing independent
midwives for years - the ultimate harrassment perhaps being the California
Supreme Court's 1974 Bowland decision in which the then-brand new Roe v.
Wade decision was used to in effect equate birth with abortion to deny
Californians access to independent midwives. The Bowland court even cited a
law passed AFTER the midwives were arrested - to justify its bizarre
conclusion. See my Open Letter to the Medical Board of California,
reproduced below.

Bottomline, in 1949, licensure of new independent HOMEBIRTH practitioners
(both DCs and midwives) was gone from the Medical Practice Act!

CHIROPRACTIC OBSTETRICIANS PRACTICED MIDWIFERY - **NOT** MEDICAL/SURGICAL
OBSTETRICS...

THE 1922 CHIROPRACTIC INTEGRATION...

Fortunately, the 1922 CHIROPRACTIC Practice Act was an INTEGRATION of the
various types of DC practitioners - including drugless practitioners/DPs...

In 1998, then-immediate-past California Republican Party Chairman Michael
Schroeder, Esq. wrote of this "integration"...

"In 1948, by initiative, Section 5 of the Chiropractic Act was amended to
increase [from 2,400 hours to 4,000 hours] the number of hours of training
required to obtain a certificate to practice chiropractic....

"[In 1949], the Legislature was satisfied that the integration of the
straight/chiropractors and the mixer/drugless practitioners/naturopaths had
been properly completed, so it abolished the separate classification of
'drugless practitioner'..."

Quote is from Schroeder M. March 17, 1998 "Vitamin" letter to the
California Chiropractic Board.

Attorney Schroeder failed to mention that the same 1949 legislation
abolished independent midwifery licensure...

I say again though: A midwifery license was NOT REQUIRED in California -
though MDs and MD-funded law enforcement - and the judiciary - VERY
creatively danced around this point - arresting/harassing independent
midwives for years - the ultimate harrassment perhaps being the California
Supreme Court's 1974 Bowland decision in which the then-brand new Roe v.
Wade decision was used to in effect equate birth with abortion to deny
Californians access to independent midwives.

Sorry to repeat this point but - the fact that California midwives did not
need a license to practice - just like Oregon midwives do not today need a
license - is crucial.

Also noteworthy is the fact that - just as pregnancy and childbirth are not
medical conditions in Oregon today - so too with California - until - stare
decisis - the 1974 Bowland decision transmogrified pregnancy and childbirth
into medical conditions.




Atty Schroeder is the former Chiropractic
Board attorney and former attorney for the California Chiropractic
Association who authored RULE 302...

RULE 302 IS BEING CHALLENGED - FINALLY...

Former law professor and dean David Prescott - now also a DC - has filed a
lawsuit challenging Schroeder's Rule 302...

Here are the particulars...

David Prescott Bar # 44092
VERITAS JUSTICE and BIOETHICS INSTITUTE
22365 El Toro Road, Suite 109
Lake Forrest, California 92630
(714) 649-0661

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

NO: CGC-03-419378

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, and WRIT OF MANDATE

GC 11350, CCP 1060, 1085, 1086, CCP 526

LAURENCE TAIN, D.C.; DONALD NIELSEN, D.C.; ROBERT BITTERS, D.C.; STEPHANIE
WATTENBERG, D.C.; and LORI PRESCOTT, D.C.
Plaintiffs/Petitioners

v.

STATE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS; CALIFORNIA ACUPUNCTURE BOARD; THE
COUNCIL ON CHIROPRACTIC EDUCATION, INC.; and DOES 1 to 20
Defendants/Respondents


Attorney Prescott writes on behalf of TAIN et al.:
"Plaintiffs concede that chiropractors were not entitled to perform
obstetrics, or childbirthing, pursuant to the provisions of the Chiropractic
Act as first enacted in 1922." (p. 9)
http://www.promedlaw.com/2nd%20am.%2...-final-pdf.pdf

I believe Attorney Prescott is wrong. In 1922, obstetrics (as practiced by
DCs) was NOT childbirthing (midwifery)!! Obstetrics was MEDICINE - and
childbirthing (midwifery) was NOT medicine - by law - right there in the
Medical Practice Act - until 1993!

Furthermore, childbirthing/midwifery licenses/certificates were NOT
REQUIRED - although California's MD-funded law enforcement officers - and
the California judiciary - have strained mightily to conceal this fact.

JUST like in Oregon today - childbirthing was NOT the practice of medicine!

Dr. DD Palmer, Founder of chiropractic, defined obstetrics as MIDWIFERY -
and indicated that DCs should attend births - to be able to PREVENT disease
[1910:789]...

Furthermore, as indicated above, Schroeder himself notes that the 1922
Chiropractic Initiative Act was an INTEGRATION...

This 1922 chiropractic integration included drugless practitioner DCs who in
effect practiced MIDWIFERY - in accord with the teachings of the Founder of
chiropractic...

Attorney Prescott quotes the drugless practitioner section of the Medical
Practice Act in his second amended complaint in TAIN v. STATE BOARD...

(Note the text pertaining to the EXCEPTION for severing the umbilical
cord)...

"From 1913 to 1922 all persons seeking to lawfully practice as a
chiropractor, naturopath, osteopath or other nonallopathic
practitioner had to become licensed as a drugless practitioner...The scope
of practice for drugless practitioners under the 1913 MPA was defined as
follows: § 8. . . . ; second, a certificate authorizing the holder thereof
to treat diseases,
injuries, deformities, or other physical or mental conditions without the
use
of drugs or what are known as medicinal preparations and without in
any manner severing or penetrating any of the tissues of human beings
EXCEPT SEVERING OF THE UMBILICAL CORD, which certificate shall
be designated drugless practitioner's certificate..." (emphasis added)
http://www.promedlaw.com/2nd%20am.%2...-final-pdf.pdf


In 1986, Attorney Prescott noted that the 1948 ballot argument is not being
used as an aid to interpreting
California's Chiropractic Initiative Act of 1922...

And the case that Mr. Schroeder called the "seminal" chiro case
[Fowler 1938] turned on a ballot argument!

Fowler - clearly stated that ballot arguments may be
used to interpret statutes - "we must assume they are read" - or words to
that effect...

Yet Mr. Schroeder, custodian of Rule 302
materials, didn't even *mention* the 1948 ballot argument in his 1998
"vitamin" letter to the Board, Bob...

Attorney Prescott writes in the TAIN complaint:

The 1948 amendment increased the prescribed curriculum for a chiropractic

license from 2400 hours to 4000 hours and allowed for up to 17% of the 4000
hours to be
electives. (Exhibit C1, p. 14) The argument against the 1948 ballot measure
provided, in part:

"Any part of the 17 per cent of four thousand hours or 680 elective
hours could be used to teach medicine, surgery and/or obstetrics. There
is no provision to prevent the 5000 chiropractors, now licensed,
(without training in such subjects) from practicing in these fields."
(Emphasis in original; see Exhibit C1, p. 15)

The proponent'xs ballot argument did not disagree that the electives could
be used to increase
the practice rights of chiropractors. (see, e.g., Legislature of the State
of Cal.v. Eu (1991) 54
Cal.3d 492, 504-506)

NON-SPINAL ADJUSTMENTS CAN PREVENT MD BIRTH CRIME...

"Chiropractic Education...include[s]...OBSTETRICS..."
--American Chiropractic Association/ACA Chairman James Edwards, DC and
Cynthia Vaughn, DC
http://www.jamesedwards.com/educate.htm (emphasis added)

"Obstetrics is the art of midwifery...If the accoucheur is a Chiropractor,
he can adjust...thereby preventing disease."
--Dr. DD Palmer, Founder of Chiropractic [1910:789]

NOTE: DD often adjusted without touching the spine - EDUCATIONAL
ADJUSTMENTS.

This email is an educational adjustment...

Chiropractic physicians: You don't need to attend
births again - you don't need to
practice
obstetrics or midwifery - to ADJUST to prevent
disease!

Furthermore, it is UNETHICAL for DCs to fail to take simple action to
PREVENT that which they charge to treat...

The American Chiropractic Association/ACA says that: 1) "[t]he chiropractic
profession recognizes that...birth trauma, may
be [a] common primary cause...of illness in children" and 2) that birth
trauma-caused illness "can have a
direct and significant impact on not only spinal biomechanics, but on other
bodily functions.....Ratified by the House of Delegates, July 1994."
http://www.amerchiro.org/about/policies.shtml

One of the stated Objectives of ACA's Council on Chiropractic
Orthopedics is:

"Shar[ing] knowledge with all doctors of chiropractic for the benefit of the
public and the
profession..."
http://www.ccodc.org/council.htm


Hopefully, the following ACA Council on Chiropractic Orthopedics officers
will urge ACA to immediately forward broadcast this email to ALL DCs for
whom ACA has email addresses.

ATTENTION: ACA Council on Chiropractic Orthopedics President GARY L.
CARVER, D.C. 4409 Sterling Ave. Kansas City, MO 64133-1854
816-358-5100 Fax 816-358-6565

ATTENTION Vice-President LEO J. BRONSTON, D.C. 1122 Saint Andrew St. La
Crosse, WI
54603-2934 608-782-2225 608-781-2495


ATTENTION Secretary Harold Tondera, DC9119 South Gessner, #201Houston, TX
77074713-988-3223fax - 713-988-5643


ATTENTION Treasurer Dale Hungtington, DC700 W SunsetSpringdale, AR
72764-5434 -
479-751-8154fax - 479-751-5362


ATTENTION Immediate Past President ROGER A. RUSSELL, D.C. 715 Mall Ring
Circle Suite
205 Henderson, NV 89014-6657 702-990-2225 Fax 702-990-7711


ATTENTION A.C.A. Liaison Officer LINDA L. ZANGE, D, C., 3633 West Lake Ave.
Glenview,
IL 60025 847-724-2340 Fax 847-724-2356


Again, one of the stated Objectives of ACA's Council on Chiropractic
Orthopedics is:

"Shar[ing] knowledge with all doctors of chiropractic for the benefit of the
public and the
profession..."
http://www.ccodc.org/council.htm

Harold Tondera, DC: Do you think ACA is so mired in politis that ACA can't
be moved to help protect the tiniest chiropractic patients from gruesome MD
spinal manipulators?

How about you, Floyd?

Copied to:


Floyd Larcher, DC, DABCO
President
American Board of Chiropractic Orthopedists/ABCO
Avila Beach, CA

(via ABCO Exec. Dir. Paul G. Smith, DC, MA, DABCO
and , fax
702-222-9095 1680 E. Flamingo, Ste. A, Las Vegas, NV 89119)



My understanding from previous conversations with Attorney Prescott is that
he believes that legislative and judicial activity subsequent to 1922 makes
it possible for the California State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to
create further TRAINING opportunities which WILL (in the future) allow DCs
to engage in "childbirthing" and "obstetrics."

I still disagree with Attorney Prescott - if for no other reason than -
obviously, DCs can compete quite well in NORMAL childbirth - quite SAFELY -
with MDs who are knowingly closing birth canals. Stated "legally" - it
makes NO sense that DCs should NOT be able to break the law if MDs are to be
allowed to break the law!

I say AGAIN: A midwifery license was NOT REQUIRED in California. MDs and
MD-funded law enforcement - and the judiciary - VERY creatively danced
around this point - arresting/harassing independent midwives for years. The
ultimate harrassment perhaps was the California Supreme Court's Bowland
decision which in effect equated birth with abortion and cited a law passed
AFTER the midwives were arrested - to justify its bizarre conclusion.

Again, sorry to repeat this point but - the fact that California midwives
did not need a license to practice - just like Oregon midwives do not today
need a license to practice - is crucial.

Also noteworthy is the fact that just as in Oregon today pregnancy and
childbirth are not medical conditions - so too with California - that is
until - stare decisis - the 1974 Bowland decision changed that - using Roe
v. Wade!

If Attorney Prescott is TRULY interested in the safety of California mothers
and babies during "obstetrics" - in addition to his present legal exertion -
he will immediately use his legal expertise to petition California courts to
stop MDs from senselessly closing birth canals and slashing vaginas.

Attorney Prescott is also a DC. He knows biomechanics. MDs are slashing
vaginas en masse - surgically/fraudulently *pretending* to be doing
everything possible to open birth canals - even as they close birth canals.
DO something! Today!

If a court is to finally acknowledge that the Calif. Bd of Chiro. Examiners
has the power to create childbirthing TRAINING opportunities...

I do hope Attorney Prescott will not forget to ask the court to explicitly
mention HOMEBIRTH and experienced independent homebirth MIDWIVES as the
appropriate place for the Calif. Chiro. Bd to look for TRAINERS.

It is a FACT that forcing midwives to train in hospitals in the current
medico-legal climate is NOT the best way to learn MIDWIFERY and HOMEBIRTH
skills.

It's probably because...

As Marsden Wagner, MD^^^ once said:

"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.

How ever things play out in the ongoing Rule 302 drama...

It is going to take a LONG time for DCs to regain the drugless practitioner
cultural authority (and potential) they sold out the back door via CREES and
ultimately by hiring Mike Schroeder to write Rule 302.

KEY FACT #1: Schroeder's Rule 302 - the regulation being challenged in
TAIN - was in effect "judicially rubberstamped" by 10 MD-obstetricians...

KEY FACT #2: Schroeder's Rule 302 explicitly prohibited California DCs from
the DRUGLESS PRACTITIONER UMBILICAL CORD EXCEPTION!

THINK ABOUT IT: Under Schroeder's Rule 302, MDs can close birth canals,
gruesomely manipulate spines - and sever spinal nerves^^^ - and DCs can't
even sever umbilical cords!

^^^That's right! With birth canals senselessly closed, MDs sometimes pull
so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords!

Worse, SUPPOSEDLY (according to a man calling himself Schroeder), California
DCs cannot tell pregnant women that MDs are closing birth canals!

SOMETHING ain't right!

COINCIDENCE... Back around 1991, a man calling himself Mike Schroeder,
attorney for the Calif. Chiro. Board told me it was not within the Calif.
scope of chiropractic practice to tell pregnant women that MDs are closing
birth canals. (This is a big part of the reason I am now unlicensed by
choice: After talking with this man calling himself Schroeder, I realized
my chiropractic license was denying me freedom of speech. Why should I pay
a chiro board to deny myself freedom of speech as MDs close birth canals and
gruesomely manipulate most babies' spines? I believe Schroeder's lawsuit
was a "SLAPP" suit designed to chill my freedom of speech about former
California Republican Party Chairman Schroeder.)

FURTHER COINCIDENCE... After I discussed Schroeder's Rule 302 on the
Dziuba/Cronshaw "unmoderated" chiro-list, I was SUED by Schroeder for one
million dollars.

NOTE: At about the time Schroeder sued me, I was CENSORED from chiro-list by
Frank Dziuba - and this happened right after chirolist administrator Paul
Cronshaw, DC told me "unmoderated means uncensored - anything goes." THAT
was bizarre - logically speaking!

Recently, at about the time Schroeder's Rule 302 was challenged in court by
TAIN et al., Cronshaw retired from chiropractic and his censored chiro-list
was moved from Dziuba's server - by two new censors - Dubin and Zaleski...

Cronshaw wrote to me: "Please do not bring my name up again on the
Internet. I am no longer the
administrator of Chirolist. I have retired from chiropractic and Chirolist
is now administrated by Drs. Dubin and Zaleski."

On the same day, Dubin censored me: "I have unsubscribed Todd Gastaldo from
the Chirolist...Thank you all for the private emails I have received
regarding this individual...Seems like it is pretty unanimous, and no one
wants to read Todd's rants over and over and over and over ad nauseum...Call
it censorship if you wish, I prefer to preserve the bandwidth for issues
that we can do something about."

(NOTE: The first time I was censored - by Dziuba - see above - Dubin
*protested* my censorship!)

See also: 'Closed vagina' never discussed/Louis XIV viewed vagina at
birth...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2240

Dubin says he is censoring because: "I prefer to preserve the bandwidth for
issues that we can do something about."

Will someone please ask Bob about preserving width in birth canals and
stopping MDs from gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines at birth!?


There is NOTHING (except maybe a Schroeder-mediated,
judicially-rubberstamped MD/DC political deal called Rule 302) stopping Bob
Dubin, DC (fmr two-time CCA President) from calling for chiro trade unions
and DCs to protest MDs closing birth canals/gruesomely manipulating most
babies' spines...

Canada's JIM DOREE, PT recently lied just like former chiro-list
administrator Cronshaw is lying:

"...PTHER[list]...is unmoderated...[T]here are no moderators. There never
have been
any moderators..."
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group.../message/27700

PT "leaders" are ignoring the massive MD birth crime - just like DC
"leaders."

I think PTs joined with MD-obstetricians to - in effect - judicially
rubberstamp Schroeder's Rule 302. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.



Dr. DD Palmer, Founder of chiropractic indicated that chiropractic was, in
part, obstetrics - which he defined as MIDWIFERY [1910:789]...

KEY POINT: California's supply of LICENSED independent midwives was cut off
by the same 1949 legislation that strangled the supply of California's
LICENSED drugless practitioner/chiro obstetricians...

As noted above, independent midwives - most of them unlicensed because there
was no way for them to become licensed - repeatedly introduced licensure
legislation but were repeatedly defeated in committee by lobbiests for
MDs...

Independent midwives only THOUGHT they needed licenses - but they didn't!
It was all a hoax!

In 1992, a two-year British government study exposed the fact that there was
never any evidence for organized medicine's blanket homebirth is child abuse
libel...it had all been a hoax...

In 1993, a homebirth midwifery licensure bill was HIJACKED and rewritten to
finally get rid of the part of the 1917 midwifery section of the Medical
Practice Act that remained after the 1949 MD-legislative strangulation
mentioned above...

In the hijacked 1993 law, MDs demanded "physician supervisors" knowing that
no "physician supervisers" would be found...

I wrote about this anti-competitive MD behavior in a June 26, 1999 email to
the Medical Board of California...

Midwife Alison Osborn - one of California's most experienced INDEPENDENT
midwives - got licensed under the new law - couldn't find a physician
supervisor - and thereby ran afoul of the law. Ultimately, an
administrative law judge found in Alison's favor - but to my knowledge the
Medical Board did not accept the judge's findings - so the findings only
apply to Alison. Most all of California's homebirth midwives STILL practice
in legal limbo. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

June 26, 1999

Medical Board of California
1426 Howe Avenue, Suite 54
Sacramento, CA 95825-3236

Attn: Jennifer Walz. (Ms. Walz, please forward this to whomever has the
e-mail addresses of the Board Members.)


Midwifery licentiate Alison Osborn - a victim of MBC violating its own
Mission

Dear Board Members:

The Medical Board is failing "to protect consumers through proper
licensing" - violating its own Mission Statement...

At a 1994 Midwifery Committee meeting, I noted that California physicians
had lobbied for "physican supervision" of midwives - "instead of a more
collegial relationship" - "so as not to issue an invitation to homebirths."
[Vivian Dickerson, MD representing 1500 California obstetricians. Quoted in
Ob.Gyn.News Sept. 15, 1993]
http://www.goodnewsnet.org/legal_leg...1/mbcjun1b.htm

At that 1994 meeting, I noted there was NO science to back up the California
physicians' anti-homebirth subversion. There was never any evidence
for organized medicine's mass libel of homebirth as "child abuse" (Homebirth
"child abuse" was the headline of the Oct. 1, 1977 Ob.Gyn.News; obstetrician
Vivian Dickerson's 1993 libel of homebirth - see above - was "nicer" libel -
but libel just the same.)

I demanded that the Board not spend the $70,000 loan from the taxpayers (for
implementation of the 1993 midwifery bill) until the Board found the
homebirth "physician supervisors" that California physicians had insisted
upon. (OBVIOUSLY, California physicians wouldn't have lobbied for homebirth
"physician supervisors" unless there were plenty of homebirth "physician
supervisors" to be found, right?)

At that same meeting, a lobbiest for Doctors' Company, retired appellate
judge Gordon Cologne, told the Midwifery Committee that there are few if any
homebirth "physician supervisors" to be found because malpractice liability
insurers won't cover planned homebirths.

A couple of years later, when I found out that most licensed homebirth
midwives were unable to find physician supervisors, I notified Ob.Gyn.News -
which then did a story on the subject. [Ob.Gyn.News Sept. 15, 1996]

I say AGAIN: In 1993, California physicians lobbied "physican supervision"
into the law - "instead
of a more collegial relationship" - "so as not to issue an invitation to
homebirths." [Vivian Dickerson, MD representing 1500 California
obstetricians. Quoted in Ob.Gyn.News Sept. 15, 1993]

Obviously, the Medical Board knowingly wasted the $70,000 taxpayer loan -
failing "to protect consumers through proper licensing" - thus violating its
own Mission Statement...

Who was at the helm of the Medical Board Midwifery Committee?

None other than California Medical Association member Thomas "Overdose"
Joas, MD was at the helm.

"Overdose" Joas is a nice, self-deprecating sort (he's the one who told us
they call him "Overdose")...

But he is a treacherous sort when it comes to properly licensing the
homebirth midwives that his trade union (CMA) has been stomping all these
years...

Some key points in California midwifery history...

Immediate-past California Republican Party Chairman Michael Schroeder, Esq.
has (perhaps unknowingly) written an account of an important
midwifery-related event...

In 1949, [writes Schroeder], the California legislature "abolished the
separate
classification
of 'drugless practitioner'...[and thereby]...completed the integration...[of
the straight/chiropractors and the mixer/drugless
practitioners/naturopaths]...begun in 1922 with the passage of the
Chiropractic Act..."

[Schroeder M. March 17, 1998 "Vitamin" letter to the
California Chiropractic Board. Atty Schroeder is the former Chiropractic
Board attorney and former attorney for the California Chiropractic
Association who, wittingly or unwittingly, ignored the only relevant
California statute and thereby helped 10 MD-obstetricians regulatorily
prohibit DCs from doing something which explicitly by statute is NOT the
practice of medicine.]

Mr. Schroeder failed to mention in his 1998 "Vitamin" letter that the
California legislature's ostensibly benevolent
chiropractic/naturopathic/drugless practitioner "integration" involved
getting rid of "drugless practitioner" licensure applications *and*
"midwifery" licensure applications in California. Existing DPs and midwives
could continue to practice - but no more could be licensed...

Whereas Drugless Practitioners (NDs and DCs licensed under the Medical
Practice Act) could get licensed under the Chiropractic Act; midwifery was
strangled
and slowly died because of these ostensibly benevolent "integration
completion" efforts of the California Legislature in 1949 - coupled with
simultaneous efforts by MDs to establish the specialty called obstetrics...

Then, in the late 60s, there was a resurgence of public interest in
homebirth and homebirth midwives - even midwives in hospitals...

In 1971, Levy published an article which indicated in effect that the
California Medical Association (CMA) had killed an experimental
nurse-midwifery
program knowing that the nurse-midwives were saving lives. [Levy et al.
Reducing neonatal mortality with nurse-midwives. Am J Obstet Gynecol
1971;109(1):50-8]

Then, in 1972, the California Medical Board's attorney (the Attorney
General) told the bald lie alluded to above, saying that the experimental
nurse-midwifery
program would not be possible because it was a crime to practice midwifery
without a certificate...

The Medical Board attorney's bald lie is set off by these symbols
**********:

"Since the board of medical examiners cannot issue certificates to practice
midwifery, and, since ****this section [2052 B&P Code] makes it a
misdemeanor to practice midwifery without a certificate****, the board may
not authorize the practice of midwifery in any experimental program." 55
Ops.Atty.Gen. 353,9-22-72. In West's Annotated Business and Professions
Code, Section 2052,Notes of Decisions.

In fact, the only relevant statute - Article 24 of the Medical Practice
Act - explicitly noted that attending normal births and severing umbilical
cords was NOT the practice of medicine. Also, as was later recognized (but
not acted upon) by the the California Supreme Court (see below), midwifery
certificates were not required by Article 24...

Which brings me back to the Bowland case...

In 1974, the Attorney General arrested "lay" midwife Alice Elizabeth Bowland
(and others) for doing "MORE than purport to practice midwifery" (Bowland at
634, emphasis added) ...

Bowland et al. initially lost - but on appeal an appellate court ruled
(correctly) that the practice midwifery was not the practice of medicine...

In 1976, the appellate ruling in Bowland was appealed to the California
Supreme Court...

The Court ruled (obviously erroneously; see below) that midwives ARE
practicing medicine.

Here is how it worked...

The Court observed (but ultimately ignored) the FACT noted above that the
midwifery statute clearly indicated that attending normal births and
severing umbilical cords was NOT the practice of medicine - i.e., according
to California statute, midwives are "not authorized to practice medicine and
surgery."

The appellate court (mentioned above) - the one that preceded the California
Supreme Court in the Bowland matter (Court of Appeal, First District,
Molinari, P.J.), initially held that pregnancy was NOT a "physical
condition" treatable only by MDs... ("[the]
phrase 'or other mental or physical condition'...refer[s] to such conditions
only as they arise from or are related to statutory criteria of any ailment,
blemish, deformity, disease, disfigurement, disorder or
injury." [126 Cal.Rptr. 858; 54 Cal.App.3d 753])

Then, on revisiting the issue, Judge Molinari hedged: "a pregnant woman is
not sick or afflicted...[p]regnancy is, however a physical condition"
[Molinari PJ. 129
Cal.Rptr. at 702]

Subsequent to Judge Molinari's appellate hedging, the California Supreme
Court [in Bowland] EXPLICITLY decided that conditions treated by medical
doctors do NOT
have to arise from or be related to statutory criteria of any ailment,
blemish, deformity, disease, disfigurement, disorder or injury, in order to
be considered a "physical condition" treatable only by M.D.'s.

Here are the exact words of the Bowland decision [134 Cal.Rptr. 630]:

1) "the term 'physical condition'...seems readily to encompass pregnancy and
childbirth" [at 634];

2) "the prohibition against unlicensed persons treating a 'physical
condition'
was intended to encompass the practice of midwifery" [at 636]; and

3) "it is clear that the practice of midwifery without a certificate [of
medical
training - TDG] is prohibited [at 638]."

WHAT?!!!

It was "clear" to the Bowland Court that the practice of midwifery without a
certificate was prohibited?

Clear as mud...

Here is a summary to this point...

Based on a 1972 bald lie told by a California Attorney General who in 1974
arrested a FEW midwives allegedly "doing more than purport to practice
midwifery," the California Supreme Court STRAAIINED into existence its 1976
decision that ALL "lay" midwives in California (even those NOT purporting to
do more than practice midwifery) were practicing medicine without a license.

The Bowland Court in effect ruled that uncertificated persons wishing to
attend
cases of normal childbirth now had to earn both a nursing license and a
"physician supervised" nurse-midwifery certificate.

The Bowland Court also in effect ruled that California women desiring
homebirths either had to accept medically trained, physician supervised
nurse-midwives - or labor alone -
even given the fact (acknowledged by the Court) that "assistance by an
unlicensed person may be safer than self-delivery." [Bowland at 638] (!)

Furthermore said the Bowland Court, an unskilled "husband, friend or
relative"
may offer "verbal reassurance, soothing massage, or assistance"; but may NOT

"recognize the development of certain problems that may occur...[or]...cut
the umbilical cord." [Bowland at 636, emphasis added]

Before I get to the Bowland Court's STRANGEST sentence, it is important to
repeat/reemphasize/embellish upon the following key point...

At 634, the Bowland Court held that case law suggests that the statute
defining the practice of medicine "may be fairly read either to include or
to exclude normal pregnancy and childbirth."

The Bowland Court noted also at 634 that the 1917 midwifery statute
explicitly
authorized midwives to attend normal deliveries, and noted further that the
1917 statute defined midwifery as NOT the practice of medicine or surgery -
AND (also at 634) the Court suggested that the wording of statutes
prohibiting the uncertificated
practice of medicine should be construed to mean that midwifery is NOT
prohibited by these statutes.

Which brings me (finally) to the [Bowland] Court's (very next) STRANGEST
sentence:

"The People allege, however, that in the matter before us plaintiffs did
MORE than purport to practice midwifery." (at 634, emphasis added)

So how did the Bowland Court ultimately jump its own logic track and
determine: 1) that "the term 'physical condition'...seems readily to
encompass pregnancy and childbirth" [at 634]; 2) that "the prohibition
against unlicensed persons treating a 'physical condition' was intended to
encompass the practice of midwifery" [at 636]; and 3) that "it is clear that
the practice of midwifery without a certificate is prohibited [at 638]?"

The Bowland Court falsely claimed to employ "harmony," writing:

"It is well established that a specific provision should be construed with
reference to the entire statutory system of which it is a part, in such a
way that the various elements of the overall scheme are harmonized. (Merrill
v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 71 Cal.2d 907, 918, 80 Cal.Rptr. 89,
458 P.2d 33)"

Everyone wants courts to construe statutes so that they are "harmonized,"
but this is NOT what the California Supreme Court did in Bowland. In fact,
the Bowland Court quite UNharmoniously "forgot" a key 1913/1917 sequence of
events which ultimately relates to the "pregnancy is a physical condition"
"reason" the Bowland Court gave for prohibiting California women from being
attended
by unlicensed midwives...

The Bowland Court wrote:

"As we have concluded that normal childbirth, while not a sickness or
affliction, is a 'physical condition' within the meaning of the second part
of the Business and Professions Code section 2141 [now 2052 - TDG]...it is
clear that the practice of midwifery without a certificate is prohibited..."

**Was** it clear that the practice of midwifery without a certificate is
prohibited??

Again, clear as mud.

In 1917, the state (via the medical profession's lobby) was [not
AUTHORIZING] midwifery. Instead, the state (via the medical profession's
lobby) was
RESTRICTING midwives to attending normal births - and AUTHORIZING
certificates - NOT requiring them. The state (via the medical profession's
lobby) was using the powers of the state to keep midwives from using "boys
toys," i.e., drugs and surgery. ("Boys toys" phraseology is Midwife Faith
Gibson's.)

Consider this: If in 1917 "normal childbirth" had been a 1976 California
Supreme Court Bowland-style "physical condition," the 1917 midwifery statute
would have simultaneously authorized and prohibited the practice of
midwifery!

It is KEY to remember that, in 1917 - even after passage of the midwifery
certification statute - uncertificated persons could still attend normal
births and could sever umbilical cords - NO CERTIFICATE NECESSARY.

This is why the most the "abortion equals birth" Bowland Court could say was
that the Medical Practice Act "appears" to be specifically intended to
prohibit uncertificated persons from engaging in the practice of
midwifery...

It bears repeating (yet again) that the Bowland Court improperly
breezed passed critical points by stating that the Attorney General was
alleging that "plaintiffs did MORE than purport to practice midwifery." [at
634, emphasis added]

Bowland was about women who allegedly did MORE than practice midwifery!!

The Bowland Court used this shaky case to straaaiiin into existence a rather
muddy but, stare decisis, a rather effective way to force California women
to labor unattended - or hire only physicians or medically supervised birth
attendants.

One of the Court's preposterous "justifications" for this action (not as
preposterous as
"abortion equals birth") was that, two years AFTER Bowland et al. were
arrested, the Legislature passed a law authorizing licensure of medically
supervised midwives!

NOTE: Most of these medically supervised midwives - CNMwives - ended up
hissing at their homebirth sisters - and hissing at homebirth - from comfy
hospital perches....
http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/acnmhome.html

The Bowland Court - totally oblivious to the existence of the homebirth
midwives' non-MD model of maternity care - petulantly complained that this
new CNMwifery law - passed AFTER Bowland et al. were arrested (!) - would
be without effect "unless the practice of midwifery without a certificate be
considered a violation [of the statute
prohibiting the unlicensed practice of medicine]." [Bowland at 635]

The California Supreme Court - with the help of the MD-owned malpractice
liability insurance industry - thus robbed California women of access to
independent, non-medical, homebirth midwives...

It is the California Supreme Court that is "thumbing its nose at the law" -
not Alison Osborn...

Ms. Osborn states on p. 12 of the Fall 1996 issue of Midwifery Today,

"[S]itting on the sacrum reduces the pelvic diameter...sometimes
dramatically."

BRAVO Alison!

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.

END Gastaldo's June 26, 1999 letter to the Medical Board of

California

As noted above...

CNMwives got the California legislature to declare episiotomies part of
normal birth! It's written right there in the law!

CNMwife episiotomy is part of normal birth? WRONG!!!

CNMwives - many of whom close birth canals just like MDs - are helping to
send women BACK to hospitals *after* birth - by slashing vaginas *during*
birth.

Those who make their money in hospitals must LOVE episiotomies!

"The most common diagnosis for hospitalization among all women is trauma to
perineum due to childbirth."
http://www.ahcpr.gov/data/hcup/factbk3/factbk3.htm

Closing birth canals then slashing vaginas pretending to be doing everything
possible to open birth canals is very wrong...

Sorry to repeat myself but...

MEDICAL (CNMwife) BIRTH BAD FOR VAGINAS...

MD-obstetricians are SLASHING VAGINAS en masse ("routine
episiotomy") -
surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring they are doing everything possible to OPEN
the birth canal - even as they CLOSE the birth canal!

Michael C. Klein, MD writes: "[E]pisiotomy is a deliberate second degree
tear." [Birth. Letter.
2002;29(1):74]

Some MDs are still claiming (fraudulently) that their episiotomies are
*preventing*
severe tears clear to the anus when in fact MDs are CAUSING severe tears
clear to the anus!

In 1990 the National Institutes of Health researched the issue and found
that deliberate tears by
MDs (episiotomies) cause fifty times MORE severe tears (tears clear to the
anus) relative to leaving the vagina alone.[Shiono et al. Obstet Gynecol
1990;75(5):765-70. In Klein et al. Online J Curr Clin Trials
(Jul1)1992, Doc. No. 10]

MDs are not only hospitalizing birth - they are using birth to hospitalize
women AFTER birth!

"The most common diagnosis for hospitalization among all women is trauma to
perineum due to childbirth."
http://www.ahcpr.gov/data/hcup/factbk3/factbk3.htm

MDs are deliberately/senselessly traumatizing perinea - and
calling it "childbirth." (!)

This is not childbirth! This is MEDICAL birth - the largest insurance
fraud!

ANTHEM is *paying* those who commit the crime that gets women admitted to
hospitals the most!

REMEMBER LARRY, Anthem takes a "holistic" role in the community to "improve
the health of the people we serve," as in,

"Communities...want companies to take a leadership role in the
community...Company leadership should take a holistic approach to how they
support the community. Support should include quality of life issues...[O]ur
mission [is] to improve the health of the people we serve. "
--Larry Glasscock, President & CEO, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
http://www.ihc4u.org/glasscock.htm

ANTHEM AND THE PUBLIC...

Barbara Solow says that when Anthem "holistically" purchased Trigon for $4.2
billion...

The public lost $4.1 billion in assets, as in,

"...Indiana-based
Anthem Inc.--a company that's been gobbling up Blue Cross organizations
across the country--purchased Trigon for $4.2 billion. The loss of public
assets in the deal? A whopping $4.1 billion..."
--Barbara Solow The Independent Online
http://indyweek.com/durham/2002-10-09/cover.html

Larry, the public lost control of a LOT of money when your company bought
Trigon.

Babies are suffering and sometimes dying...

Please "holistically" direct Trigon cum Anthem President Tom Snead to put a
boot in Willett's ass REGARDLESS whether Willett still advises Trigon cum
Anthem in spinal manipulation matters...

MDs are criminally negligently closing birth canals - which may explain
why...

"According to a recent Joint
Legislative Audit and Review Commission report, children in the Birth-Injury
Program fare better than children receiving a tort remedy.*"

Willett's Virginia Chapter of ACOG and the Virginia Birth Injury Program
should take the lead in exposing the massive MD-obstetrician crime in
Virginia...

I'm copying Willett via the Virginia Birth Injury Program (see above and see
below)...


Also copied to Willett via:

SEABOARD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF VIRGINIA & NORTH CAROLINA
Exec. Dir. Diane Williams via
302 Versailles Dr.
Cary, NC 27511
phone: 919-463-0615
fax: 919-463-0588




In 1985, Willett L. LeHew, MD was president of the Seaboard Medical
Association of Virginia and North Carolina
http://www.seaboardmedical.org/past_pres.html

Willett apparently has privileges at two hospitals...
http://www.midatlanticwomenscare.com...Hospitals.html

And Willett works at...

Group For Women
880 Kempsville Rd
Suite 2200
Norfolk, Virginia 23502
757-466-6350
757-466-9262 (FAX)



THE VIRGINIA BIRTH-RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM

As indicated above...

Willett is on the Board of Directors of the Virginia Birth-Related
Neurological Injury
Compensation Program http://www.vabirthinjury.com/

Here's the full board - hopefully each member will receive a copy of this
email...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Melina Dee Perdue, R.N., M.B.A., C.N.A., Board Chair
Hospital Representative
Vice-President, Carilion Health System
Roanoke, Virginia

Cynthia E. Berry, Esq., Board Vice-Chair
Citizen Representative
Great Falls, Virginia

Richard A. Cathey
Insurance Industry Representative
Nationwide Insurance
Midlothian, Virginia

James D. Ritchie
Citizen Representative
Roanoke, Virginia

Willett L. LeHew, MD
Participating Physician Representative
Norfolk, Virginia

Ralph W. Shelman
Citizen Representative
Hampton, Virginia

McLain T. O'Ferrall, Jr.
Citizen Representative
Richmond, Virginia



Meetings: The Board just had a special meeting. With MDs senselessly
closing birth canals sometimes killing babies - the Board should immediately
schedule another special meeting and not wait until the Dec. 9, 2003
meetting...
http://www.vabirthinjury.com/boardmembermtngs.htm

ALSO copied to Willett via Virginia Birth Injury Staff (not just Sharon as
noted above)

George Deebo
Executive Director
804-330-2471 X 307


Sharon Payne (mentioned above)
Deputy Director
For information about legal cases, housing issues and general Program
questions or issues.
804-330-2471 X 302


Lynn Cuozzo
Insurance Administrator
For questions concerning durable medical equipment orders, benefit
approvals, insurance related questions.
804-330-2471 X 303


Ty Banks
Accounts Payable Specialist
For questions concerning reimbursement checks, invoice/bill payments,
nursing checks.
804-330-2471 X 309


Terri Starr R.N.
Case Manager
For medical questions regarding new participants, medical needs and for
medical questions specific to your childís case with the Program.
804-330-2471 X 310


Pamela Darnell
Provider Relations Coordinator
For questions regarding hospital and physician participation.
804-330-2471 X 304


Administrative Assistant
804-330-2471 X 306
http://www.vabirthinjury.com/WhoWeAre.htm


Attn: VIRGINIA BIRTH INJURY PERSONNEL...

BIRTH EMERGENCY!

I suspect that Willett and his fellow MDs are not going to take the lead in
stopping the massive MD spinal manipulation crime discussed above.

I'm afraid *NON*-MDs must take the lead on this one...

(NOTE: CEOs Tom and Larry are likely mesmerized by MDs - and you cannot
necessarily count on law enforcement officers either. State attorney
generals are substantially MD-funded and remain silent - in California and
Oregon at least.)

ACTION STEP: MDs who close birth canals should be kicked out of the Birth
Injury program - NOW - if they will not promise to stop closing birth
canals.

Please tell MDs this on the www.vabirthinjury.com page where you tell MDs
they should participate.

Here is your current text...

5 Important Reasons to become a [www.vabirthinjury.com] participating
provider...

As an obstetrician, family practice physician who delivers, or nurse
midwife, you want to provide the best possible coverage for your patients.
Additionally, you want the best possible coverage for yourself as well.
Participating in the Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation
Program provides both in the event of a qualifying birth.

GASTALDO SAYS: MD-OBSTETRICIANS ARE *SENSELESSLY* SENDING SOME KIDS FOR A
LIFETIME "WORKERS' COMPENSATION STYLE BENEFIT"!

1. Best Possible Care For Child - Obviously no one desires a birth-injury to
occur. Unfortunately, they do. In the case of a qualifying birth, the child
will receive a lifetime of medical care and many other benefits including
housing and transportation assistance, and even a worker's compensation
style benefit between the ages of 18 and 65. According to a recent Joint
Legislative Audit and Review Commission report, children in the Birth-Injury
Program fare better than children receiving a tort remedy.*

GASTALDO SAYS: BIRTH TRAUMA ATTORNEYS ARE MYSTERIOUSLY FAILING TO TELL
JURIES THAT MDs ARE CLOSING BIRTH CANALS BEFORE PULLING ON TINY SPINES...

GASTALDO SAYS FURTHER: Many birth cases are "expensive and possibly
difficult" as a consequence of attorneys failing to tell juries what MDs are
doing...

2. No Expensive & Time Consuming Court Case - Through this unique program,
should a qualifying birth-injury occur, you would not face an expensive and
possibly difficult court case. You also do not have to spend hours or days
out of the office. Qualifying births are handled administratively through
the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission.

3. A Malpractice Insurance Credit - When you participate, you are entitled
by law to a malpractice coverage credit from your insurance company. This
credit varies by each insurance carrier, however, in many cases it covers
most or all of the cost of participating in the Birth-Injury Program.

4. A No Fault Approach - The purpose of the Birth-Injury Program is to
assure continued access to obstetrical care and take care of qualifying
children. As a no-fault program, qualifying events are not reported to the
National Practitioner Database.

5. Begin Anytime - You can become a participating provider at any point
during the year and the fee will be prorated. (However, by law there is a
30-day waiting period before coverage becomes effective.)

To become a participating provider just complete this simple contract.

* Virginia General Assembly's Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission
Review of the Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation
Program, 2002, page 25. Frequently Asked Questions About Participating In
The Va. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Program.



BTW, my thanks to Terry White in Anthem Virginia Corporate Communications
for jotting down the gist of my remarks and for patching me through to Pres.
Tom Snead's Executive Assistant, Carol Darden who suggested that I should
e-mail my concerns to . Carol said she would print
out my email for Tom... I hope she does.



IF I'VE EMBARRASSED ANYONE...

Sorry if I've embarrassed any MDs or DCs or insurance executives, but crime
is crime - and crime against babies is perhaps the worst crime.

SILENCE about crime is often due to...

Fear of embarrassment - fear of loss of cultural authority - fear of
IMPRISONMENT...

These fears are powerful EMOTIONAL SUBLUXATIONS that perpetuate SILENCE and
thereby perpetuate the bizarre MD birth practice discussed above.

These emotional subluxations cost babies their very lives due to GRUESOME
mass spinal manipulation by MDs - which likely causes more vertebral
subluxations than DCs will ever be able to adjust by hand.

WHO-affiliated Christopher Kent, DC
suggested that
emotional subluxations cause VERTEBRAL subluxations:

"[A]ddressing vertebral subluxations, and the physical, biochemical, and
emotional [subluxations] that cause [vertebral subluxations]...is a lifelong
process -- a way of
life --...an integral component of a global strategy for human empowerment."
http://mercola.com/2003/nov/12/beyond_bad_backs.htm

Emotional subluxations are causing MDs to WRENCH baby spines - it is quite
likely that if vertebral subluxations exist and cause disease - they are
being caused by MD-obstetricians.

Hopefully the WHO-affiliated Dr. Kent will ask Terry Rondberg's World
Chiropractic Alliance/WCA to stop failing to mention PREVENTION of vertebral
subluxations via non-spinal (educational) chiropractic adjusting.

In addition to senselessly closing birth canals, MDs are gruesomely
manipulating the tiniest spines - pushing and pulling - with birth canals
senselessly closed up to 30%.

Some babies are dying... OBs are killing an estimated six babies per DAY
with vacuum-assisted spinal
manipulation alone - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%...

See USUAL MECHANISM (PS5) in my article, "Pregnant chiro patients: BIZARRE
chiro legislation - babies be damned..."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2135

WCA's Terry Rondberg never responded to the just cited post...

(NOTE: WCA's Dr. Kent, quoted above, referred to physical, biomechanical and
emotional "distress." I substituted the term "subluxations" in accord with
chiropractic Founder Dr. DD Palmer's focus on adjusting non-spinal
(educational) subluxations.)


ONE LAST MATTER...

CAN ANYONE HELP...

I filed a medical device adverse event report with FDA.

I noted for FDA that MDs are using obstetric tables to close birth canals...

FDA^^^ RECENTLY REPLIED...

"We have forwarded a copy of your adverse event report to the
manufacturer...You may review edited copies of your adverse event report and
other reports on the internet...[Go
to:]...http//:www.fda.gov/cdrh/maude.html...Your access number
[is]...[handwritten:] 1029734 Obstetric table..."
--FDA form letter - stamped Oct. 6, 2003, postmarked Nov. 6,
2003

^^^FDA Information Analysis Branch, Division of Surveillance Systems, Office
of
Surveillance and Biometrics, Center for Devices and Radiological Health


QUESTION: Can anybody find the FDA-EDITED version of my "1029734 Obstetric
table" adverse event report at the FDA site?

I cannot find it.

I did not name any obstetric table manufacturers and I'm hoping to find out
which obstetric table manufacturer FDA sent a copy of my report.

Thanks for reading, everyone,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


***As noted above, this email will be instantly archived at:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2252.

In 24 hours it will be in the Google archive. Search
http://groups.google.com for "Rule 302, Birth and Trigon/Anthem
(Glasscock) - and ACOG's Willett LeHew, MD"


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.