ICA/ACA merger? (also: OBs causing strokes in babies? Attn: FCER and ABQAURP)

CHIROS: Did you read about Jim Edwards golfing with CJ Mertz? See below.

PREGNANT WOMEN: OBs may be causing STROKES in babies...

OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30% (see PROOF below) and
gruesomely pulling and pushing on babies' spines...

With birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%, OBs are pushing with
oxytocin, Cytotec and PGE2 and pulling with hands, vacuums and forceps...

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

Some babies die. Some are paralyzed. Most "only" have their necks
gruesomely wrenched.

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

OBs may be causing STROKES in babies...

"Stroke in infants and children is an important cause of morbidity and
mortality..."
--Karin B. Nelson, MD, NINDS [Lynch et al. Pediatrics 2002
Jan;109(1):116-23]

LADIES: It's EASY for you to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up
to 30%. See the very end of this post...

OPEN LETTER

Susan Carr
Editor
Journal of Quality Health Care
(Journal of the American Board of Quality Assurance and Utilization Review
Physicians/ABQAURP)
349 Lexington Ave.
Concord, MA 01742
Email .
Voice (978) 287-0483

Susan,

The journal you edit recently mentioned spinal manipulation and strokes
under age 45.

It does not appear that the author took into account spinal manipulation at
birth and strokes suffered by babies.

According to Nelson and Lynch [2004]:

"The few days before and after birth are a time of special risk...[A]bout
one in 4000 full-term infants...may present with neurological and systemic
signs in the newborn. Neonatal seizures are most commonly the clinical
finding that triggers assessment...Perinatal stroke underlies an important
share of congenital hemiplegic cerebral palsy, and probably some spastic
quadriplegic cerebral palsy and seizure disorders."
--Karin B. Nelson, MD, NINDS [and Lynch. Lancet Neurol. 2004 Mar;3(3):150-8]

MD-obstetricians are the most prolific manipulators of people under the age
of 45...

MD-obstetrician spinal manipulation is GRUESOME...yet the Journal of Quality
Health Care reportedly states that CHIROPRACTIC manipulation is the number
one reason for people sufferinig stroke under the age of 45!

"'The public should be informed that chiropractic manipulation is the number
one reason for people suffering stroke under the age of 45..."
--Preston H. Long, DC. Stroke and spinal manipulation. Journal of Quality
Health Care 2004;3(1):8-10. Quoted by Anthony Rosner, PhD in Dynamic
Chiropractic online accessed April 29, 2004
http://www.chiroweb.com/columnist/rosner/index.html

With MD-obstetrician spinal manipulators senselessly closing birth canals
and gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines...

With MD-obstetrician spinal manipulators sometimes pulling so hard they rip
spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords....

I join Anthony Rosner, PhD in strongly suspecting that chiropractic
manipulation is NOT the number one reason for people suffering stroke under
the age of 45.

Rosner writes:

"[T]he notoriously anti-chiropractic CANOE C-Health Web site...declared:
'People under 45 who suffer a stroke are five times more likely to have seen
a chiropractor in the previous week than a control group.'"
http://www.chiroweb.com/columnist/rosner/index.html

Susan, the vast majority of babies who suffer stroke within a week of birth
likely saw an MD-obstetrician spinal manipulator in the previous week - yet
this was not even mentioned by Rosner! (Perhaps he has not seen my emails on
this subject?)

Since Rosner did not mention this MEDICAL manipulation of most babies - or
strokes in babies - perhaps the Journal of Quality Health Care article did
not mention these matters either?

A journal dedicated to QUALITY ASSURANCE should assure that its readers know
that MD-obstetrician spinal manipulators are delivering POOR quality health
care by senselessly closing birth canals up to 30%.

Until the most prolific spinal manipulators (MD-obstetricians) STOP
senselessly closing birth canals and gruesomely manipulating most babies'
spines...

The Journal of Quality Health Care should publish something about the
massive spinal manipulation crime in every issue.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo



Copied to:

Preston Long, DC
2421 E. Southern, Suite 5
Tempe AZ 85282
Telephone: (480) 820-0991

http://www.chirobase.org/13RD/directory.html

Copied to: Paul Benedetti ) Executive Producer of CANOE's
C-Health area.

Copied to: Wayne MacPhail ) veteran freelance magazine
and newspaper reporter, editor, and Internet multimedia developer who has
produced online content for AOL Canada, MSN, Bell Emergis, @Home Canada and
CANOE.
http://www.canoe.ca/ChiroYork/howtoread.html#Authors

Copied to: Nelson KB and Lynch JK, Neuroepidemiology Branch, National
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of
Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-1447, USA.

Copied to: Arthur I. Broder, M.D.
Chairman
American Board of Quality Assurance and Utilization Review
Physicians/ABQAURP
via Marvin Diamond
Copied to: Anthony Rosner, PhD
Brookline, Massachusetts

http://www.chiroweb.com/columnist/rosner/index.html
PS1 Anthony, as indicated above, I'm assuming that my previous emails about
medical manipulation and strokes in babies did not reach you.

Please urge FCER and the chiropractic profession to take this GOLDEN
opportunity to help perform NON-SPINAL (educational) chiropractic adjusting
to save tiny lives and tiny limbs and PREVENT more putative vertebral
subluxations than DCs will ever be able to adjust by hand.

The risk that stopping gruesome spinal manipulation by MDs will besmirch
chiropractic spinal manipulation is real - but well worth taking IMO.

PS2 Also Anthony, I note that you recently (April 22) remarked to Newsweek
regarding "chiropractic care of back pain patients."

Dan Cherkin had suggested (in the April 26 issue of Newsweek) that "there's
not a lot of data on how effective it is in the long term."

In your brief argument (limited to a paragraph by Newsweek), you indicated
that evidence "supports the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for back
pain patients."

You wrote:

"In truth, a summary of no less than 73 clinical trials involving spinal
manipulation recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine attests
to the effectiveness of this treatment in managing back pain with none of
the trials having produced negative results."

Anthony, you were not explicit.

IS there (as you infer) or is there NOT (as Cherkin reportedly suggested to
Newsweek) a lot of data indicating spinal manipulation is effective in the
long term?

(Anthony, I could not find the article that you said was "recently published
in the Annals of Internal Medicine." Admittedly though, my search was quick
and limited. I searched PubMed for "ann intern med spinal manipulation" - no
luck - or maybe it was there and I missed it.)

I did though find that, in 1992, researchers (two of them DCs) reported in
the Annals of Internal Medicine that "data are insufficient concerning the
efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic low-back pain" but,

"Spinal manipulation is of SHORT-TERM benefit in some patients, particularly
those with uncomplicated, acute low-back pain. Data are insufficient
concerning the efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic low-back pain."
--Shekelle PG, Adams AH, Chassin MR, Hurwitz EL, Brook RH. Spinal
manipulation for low-back pain. Ann Intern Med. 1992 Oct 1;117(7):590-8.
Emphasis added.

In 1997, a third DC - Robert D. Mootz stated the 1992 qualified SHORT-TERM
benefit conclusion of Shekelle et al. - and mentioned that there is
"insufficient evidence" concerning the efficacy of spinal manipulation for
chronic low-back pain...
--Cherkin and Mootz. AHCPR Publication No. 98-N002
December 1997, emphasis added.
http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/ahcpr/foreword.htm

In 2003, two DCs (Hestbaek and Leboeuf-Yde) and an MD (Manniche) remarked,

"It is often claimed that up to 90% of low back pain (LBP) episodes resolve
spontaneously within 1 month. However, the literature in this area is
confusing due to considerable variations regarding the exact definitions of
LBP as well as recovery."
[Hestbaek L, Leboeuf-Yde C, Manniche C. Eur Spine J 2003
(Apr);12(2):149-165, abstract]
http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/ABSTRACTS...ain_What.shtml

Hestbaek, Leboeuf-Yde and Manniche concluded: "the overall picture is that
LBP does not resolve itself when ignored."

Anthony, if there WERE (paraphrasing your inference) a LOT of data on how
effective spinal manipulation is in the long term care of low back pain -
wouldn't Hestbaek, Leboeuf-Yde and Manniche have mentioned it?

Anthony, in regard to chiropractic, I seem to remember that you helped
Kaptchuk and Eisenberg reach their conclusion that:

"While the core chiropractic belief that the correction of spinal
abnormality is a critical health care intervention is open to debate,
chiropractic's most important contribution may have to do with the
patient-physician relationship."
Arch Intern Med. 1998 Nov 9;158(20):2215-24 PubMed abstract.

I think chiropractic's most important contributions will be NON-SPINAL
(educational)...

I stopping The Great Birth Robbery discussed above will yield this culture
enormous benefit - as will stopping The Great Squat Robbery that some MDs
blame for their Great Birth Robbery...

See Sarah Key's huge balls (also: Kids can SQUAT motionless for hours)...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2084

WHY are the chiropractic trade unions silent about culture-wide loss of a
fundamental human range of motion?

Why did "science" (and the media) recently bury (way at the bottom) the fact
that - after a life-time of squatting - Chinese men were LESS likely to
suffer knee osteoarthritis?

All children - OUR children - naturally squat - until we rob them!

This incredible LESS osteoarthritis after a lifetime of squatting finding
should have been shouted in the headlines!

Instead it was buried in text...

See The Great Birth Robbery (also: Harvard magnet osteoarthritis treatment
study)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2511

There is also the matter of obviously fraudulent MD school vaccination
promotion...

See Get flu, get spine adjusted? (also: college vaccination fraud)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2463

And there is the related fact that MDs are lying by omission thereby denying
massive numbers of PRE-schoolers massive numbers of free daily
immunizations.

See Chiro vision! Breastimmunizations to childbirth!
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/1496


MDs are mostly ANTI-immunization - failing to
tell breastfeeding women that they are free daily immunizers of their
babies...and that their breastfeedings reportedly make MD-needle
vaccinations work better.

What woman is going to fail to at least ATTEMPT to breastfeed after being
informed that she can IMMUNIZE her baby daily - with BREAST immunizations
that reportedly make MD-needle vaccinations work better.

It's mass immunologic child abuse!

MDs are concealing a way to make the immunization AND vaccination rates
skyrocket!

WHY!?

Why are chiropractic trade unions going along with all the medical silence?

I'll bcc James Edwards, DC, former Chairman of the ACA Board of Governors.
Jim recently went golfing with ICA Pres. CJ
Mertz, DC - said something about calling in political ****s er chits...
http://www.chiroweb.com/columnist/edwards/index.html (Golfing With CJ.
Dynamic Chiropractic Online, accessed April 30, 2004)

Remember Anthony: Chiropractic is FAR more than spinal manipulation.

Check out recent Dorland's definitions of chiropractic...

Jim and ACA tried to CENSOR "my" definition (which I got from ACA!) -
failed - but ultimately succeeded...

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

Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary now has
a definition of "vertebral subluxation." (!)

It's quite flawed in my view - but still!

Hey, maybe an ACA/ICA merger can finally happen! Maybe ACA and ICA could
join together and stop OBs from closing birth canals and thereby PREVENT
more putative vertebral subluxations than DCs will ever be able to adjust by
hand.

Maybe ICA Pres. CJ could get me a straight answer (pun intended) from CBP's
Don Harrison as to whether spinal curves from squatting cultures were
factored into his norms published in Spine. (ACA actually shifted to CBP's
notion of subluxation in one document! I myself *like* CBP's notion of
subluxation - as long as we don't forget NON-SPINAL subluxations
(mech/chem/psychic)...

WCA's WHO-affiliated Christopher Kent, DC suggests 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

BRAVO!

If vertebral subluxations exist and cause disease (I believe they do) - they
are
being caused by MD-obstetricians.

Some babies are DYING from MD spinal manipulation! Where are the chiro
trade unions?!

See Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of
Medicine
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2256


Copied to: Robin R. Merrifield
Editor
The Week in Chiropractic
(a weekly e-mail newsletter published by the Foundation for Chiropractic
Education and Research/FCER)
1304 Perry Ave
Bremerton, WA 98310
E-mail:

PS3 PROOF that OBs and CNMwives are routinely closing birth canals up to
30%...

According to the Merck Manual:

"When shoulder dystocia occurs...the mother's thighs are hyperflexed to
increase the diameter of the pelvic outlet..."
http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanu...er253/253g.jsp

WHY are OBs and CNMwives (nurse midwives) waiting until the
head is
out and shoulders get stuck before giving the baby maximum pelvic outlet
diameter?

WHY are we letting OBs and CNMwives force babies' heads through birth canals
senselessly closed up to 30%?

OBs and CNMwives are SLICING vaginas (euphemism "routine episiotomy") -
surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring everything possible is being done to OPEN
birth canals - even as they CLOSE birth canals - up to 30%!

See Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of
Medicine
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2256

PREGNANT WOMEN: It is EASY for you to allow your birth canal to OPEN the
"extra" up
to 30%.
Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out - or deliver on
hands-and-knees, kneeling, standing, squatting, etc.

BUT BEWA "Midwives...encourage...semisitting." (!)
--Yale CNMwifery Prof. Helen Varney. Varney's Midwifery. Sudbury, MA: Jones
and Bartlett. 4th ed. 2004:839]

Some MDs and MBs will let you "try" "alternative"
delivery positions but will move you back to dorsal or semisitting (close
your birth canal!) as you push your baby out!

Talk to your MD or MB about this TODAY. (For further details see the
"Criminal medical CAM" URL above.)

MDs/MBs: If you must push or pull - and sometimes you must - first get the
woman off her sacrum - off her back/butt.

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo