Chiros ignoring BPI crime and the Schroeder/Rule 302 matter - was Re: The Cost of Voicing Opinions o

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Todd Gastaldo, Mar 11, 2004.

  1. I recently wrote to ATTORNEY ANTHONY MANCINI:

    I don't think OB/GYNs *want* to ignore the medical
    literature (and simple biomechanics) and close birth canals
    up to 30%.

    I think OB/GYNs HAVE to close birth canals because it's such
    obvious criminal negligence that stopping it will be
    tantamount to admitting it.

    What you need, Anthony, is a BRAVE OB/GYN - a man willing to
    speak up and render his whole profession susceptible to
    criminal prosecution and massive civil liability.

    See Attorney looking for 'credible' OB/GYNs...

    I think OB/GYNs have HIRED people to help hide their massive
    crime against babies.

    I think this is at the crux of the Schroeder/Rule 302

    Brenda Copeland-Moore just threw the Schroeder/Rule 302
    matter in my face...

    Brenda wrote:

    "Just found this, interesting?"


    That Schroeder/Rule 302 matter *is* interesting!

    REPUBLICAN Attorney Michaeal Schroeder and the Calif. State
    Board of Chiro. Examiners are remaining silent as Brachial
    Plexus Injured/BPI children suffer PERMANENT PARALYSIS
    because they had their spines GRUESOMELY manipulated by MDs
    senselessly closing birth canals up to 30%.

    MDs are violently PUSHING on tiny spines (with oxytocin,
    Cytotec, PGE2) and gruesomely PULLING (with hands, forceps,
    vacuums) - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%.

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

    Why do you suppose "chiropractic" Attorney Schroeder and the
    Calif. Board of Chiro Examiners are remaining silent about
    MDs closing birth canals up to 30% and gruesomely
    manipulating most babies' spines?

    (I ask because you found the article about the
    Schroeder/Rule 302 matter interesting.)

    Why do you suppose the Schroeder-influenced "chiropractic"
    newspaper from which you copied (see below) is remaining
    silent about the massive MD spinal manipulation crime?

    Could it be that REPUBLICAN politico attorney Schroeder (and
    politico/chiro confederates including the editor of the
    newspaper) are PLAYING SILENT POLITICS for profit - "for

    What if the late RC Shafer, DC, PhD was right in his
    suggestion that political chiropractic is being run from
    behind the scenes by political medicine?

    What POLITICAL PLUMS might be won from organized medicine
    were REPUBLICAN chiros (or Democratic chiros for that
    matter!) to keep the chiro trade unions silent about the
    obvious massive MD spinal manipulation crime? I personally
    think organized medicine has been attacking chiropractors
    for causing strokes and for adjusting kids because organized
    medicine fears exposure of the gruesome mass spinal
    manipulation by MDs at birth.

    NOTE: There is NO scientific evidence that DCs should be
    adjusting kids (someone correct me if I am wrong) -
    but neither is there evidence that MDs should be
    closing birth canals and GRUESOMELY manipulating most
    babies' spines!

    Chiro/politicos are having some successes! Florida
    REPUBLICANS reportedly just got MILLIONS for a brand new
    chiropractic college to be built at Florida State University
    in a time when chiropractic enrollments nationwide have
    reportedly shrunk drastically!

    (Don't get me wrong! I am PLEASED that the State of Florida
    is investing in chiropractic! I just think the State of
    Florida should FIRST stop MDs from closing birth canals and
    gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines! This would
    probably save BILLIONS by the way - not to mention saving
    tiny lives and tiny limbs and PREVENTING more vertebral
    subluxations than DCs will ever be able to adjust by hand.)

    Brenda, you did not like me saying that RAHUL K. NATH, MD
    who directly PROFITS from brachial plexus injury is
    remaining silent about OBs senselessly closing birth

    I SAY AGAIN: Rahul indicates on his website that LARGE SIZE
    babies contribute to brachial plexus injury but makes NO
    MENTION of the fact obstetricians are knowingly closing
    birth canals up to 30%!

    See Silent Dr. Nath: BPI malpractice suits as prevention

    See also BRENDA'S "response" to "Silent Dr. Nath - with
    Gastaldo's reply to Brenda...

    Brenda - besides publicly pretending that RAHUL K. NATH, MD
    isn't being silent about the obstetric crime that brings him
    business - what ELSE are you doing to help BPI children?

    (NOTE: I am NOT saying that Rahul isn't a fine surgeon!
    Indeed, I've acknowledged that he's probably the best! WHY
    though is he silent about MDs closing birth canals?! Why is
    he ignoring his ethical obligation to do simple things that
    - given his own LARGE SIZE baby verbiage - would PREVENT
    that which he charges to treat?)

    Powerful people are known to bring libel lawsuits to stifle
    freedom of speech. Indeed, there is a "SLAPP" law in
    California that recognizes this fact. (I think SLAPP stands
    for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.)

    I would *love* to have had the money to go down and argue
    that Schroeder/Rule 302 matter in California.

    Incidentally, early on, I asked Schroeder what it would take
    to make his libel lawsuit go away. Schroeder wanted me to
    give him $1000 dollars and sign a statement that contained
    obvious lies. I refused. I still have his faxes and surface
    mail. (It's legal to force someone to sign lies to make a
    lawsuit go away - or rather - "negotiations" to make a
    lawsuit go away are not admissible if the legal proceedings
    go forward - or so I was informed by an attorney.)

    Schroeder's Rule 302 is now being challenged in court in
    Tain et al. v. Calif. State Board of Chiropractic
    Examiners et al.

    I believe Schroeder in effect helped 10 MD-obstetricians
    judicially rubberstamp an illegal regulation - Rule 302 - to
    keep DCs from thinking about birth - to cover-up GRUESOME
    spinal manipulation by MDs.

    I have no proof - but regardless though whether I am
    right (I believe I am of course), WHY is "chiropractic"
    Attorney Schroeder ignoring the obvious MD spinal
    manipulation crime?!

    Schroeder's Rule 302 explicitly prohibits Calif. DCs - who
    used to attend homebirths - from so much as severing the
    umbilical cord!

    IMAGINE THAT! MDs can close birth canals gruesomely
    manipulate most babies' spines - and sometimes sever spinal
    NERVES - and DCs can't even sever *umbilical cords*!?

    And Atty Schroeder remains silent!


    I can see why Brenda finds the Schroeder/Rule 302 matter

    BTW Brenda, I mentioned Tain et al.'s challenge to
    Schroeder's Rule 302 in a recent post to [email protected] as

    >>>>BEGIN excerpt of What is Erb's?/Dr. Hein on Erb's &
    >>>>Gherman/Erb's class


    Some may remember me from the now-defunct Erbs Coollist,
    [email protected]

    I am a retired^^^ doctor of chiropractic/DC.

    I am interested in PREVENTING Erb's/brachial plexus injury -
    or - in any event - halting the bizarre routine
    obstetrician/CNMwife practice of closing birth canals up to
    30% at delivery.

    ^^^What do I mean by "retired"?

    Since my "retirement," I have been working nearly non-stop
    making NON-SPINAL (educational) chiropractic adjustments
    that ANYONE can make - licensed, degreed or not.

    Dr. DD Palmer, Founder of chiropractic, defined chiropractic
    in part as "the mental act of accumulating knowledge."
    [1910:19] DD's definition of chiropractic is not so
    crazy as it sounds since medicine is RESTRICTING "the
    mental act of accumulating knowledge" - especially in
    regard to birth.


    Back in the early 90s, after a man claiming to be Michael
    Schroeder attorney for the California Board of Chiropractic
    Examiners told me it was not within my scope of practice to
    tell pregnant women that obstetricians were/are closing
    birth canals...

    So I became unlicensed by choice: I saw NO reason to pay a
    chiropractic board to tell me I can't work to save tiny
    live and tiny limbs and PREVENT more vertebral subluxations
    than licensed DCs will ever be able to adjust by hand. (I
    would LOVE to hear though that the Calif. Board of
    Chiropractic Examiners finds my non-spinal practice of
    chiropractic legal...)

    I now devote near full-time to helping pregnant women engage
    in "the mental act of accumulating knowledge" - esp.
    regarding obstetricians/CNMwives gruesomely manipulating
    most babies' spines.

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


    Incidentally, an Attorney Michael Schroeder, attorney for
    the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners helped 10 MD-
    obstetricians judicially rubberstamp his (Schroeder's) Rule
    302 which explicitly made it illegal for Calif. DCs to so
    much as sever umbilical cords!

    This same Attorney Michael Schroeder - who subsequently
    became Chairman of the Calif. Republican Party - later sued
    me for one million dollars for publicly suggesting that his
    Rule 302 illegally narrowed the California scope of
    chiropractic practice. I spent about $2500 dollars trying to
    move the trial to Oregon - but Atty Schroeder won that
    jurisdiction battle and - in his jurisdiction was awarded a
    default judgement of $25,000 dollars - the merits of the
    case never having been argued.

    "Chiropractic" Attorney Schroeder is STILL not helping me
    stop OBs from closing birth canals and gruesomely
    manipulating most babies' spines at birth...

    Attention Calif. DCs: JUST THINK Calif. OBs can gruesomely
    manipulate babies' spines and sometimes sever spinal nerves
    - but under Schroeder's Rule 302 - Calif. DCs - who used to
    attend homebirths - explicitly can't sever umbilical cords!
    (Schroeder's Rule 302 is now being challenged in court in
    Tain et al. v State Board of Chiro Examiners. See Dorland's,
    URL below.)

    Key quotes...

    "Chiropractic Education...include...OBSTETRICS..." --
    American Chiropractic Association/ACA Chairman James
    Edwards, DC and Cynthia Vaughn, DC (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]

    I personally think autonomous homebirth midwifery licensure
    is the way to go...

    Chiropractors don't need to attend births to prevent disease
    - to stop OBs from closing birth canals!

    MY DEFINITION OF CHIROPRACTIC ("a science of applied
    neurophysiologic diagnosis") appears in three editions
    of Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary [1988,
    1994, 2000]...

    See Dorland's: Preventing VS by educating OBs (also: New
    defn of chiro in Dorland's)

    >>>>END excerpt of What is Erb's?/Dr. Hein on Erb's &
    >>>>Gherman/Erb's class


    Brenda's Original Message is below...

    Brenda forgot to mention the name of the source - Dynamic
    Chiropractic. Schroeder has done legal work for Dynamic
    Chiropractic publisher Donald Petersen....

    Please note that Schroeder's Rule 302 isn't mentioned
    anywhere in the article - but Schroeder's Rule 302 and my
    complaints about it were the subject of the libel lawsuit!

    Dynamic Chiropractic/Petersen also isn't covering the Tain
    et al. challenge to Schroeder's Rule 302 - at least I
    haven't seen any coverage yet....

    I think I was sued by Schroeder to shut me up about the
    obvious obstetric crime and the fact that Schroeder's Rule
    302 - if enforced - stops DCs from thinking about birth...

    Again, Schroeder's Rule 302 explicitly prohibits Calif. DCs
    - who used to attend homebirths - from so much as severing
    the umbilical cord!

    Bottomline, MDs can close birth canals gruesomely manipulate
    most babies' spines - and sometimes sever spinal NERVES -
    and DCs can't even sever *umbilical cords*!?

    As noted above, a man calling himself Michael Schroeder,
    attorney for the Calif. Chiro Board of Examiners, told me it
    was outside my scope of practice to tell pregnant women that
    MDs are closing birth canals.

    Obviously, I think the two Schroeders are the same man - but
    I have no proof.

    Similar to Schroeder, I think Brenda is trying to cover up
    the fact that Dr. Nath is remaining silent about obvious
    obstetric crime...

    Again, I have no proof regarding Brenda either - but she
    never answered my reply to her "response" at:

    All Brenda has done is post the article below and say, "Just
    found this, interesting?"

    I find THAT interesting.

    Thanks for reading,



    Ds. Gastaldo [email protected]

    ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike and Brenda Moore
    To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:13 AM
    Subject: The Cost of Voicing Opinions on the Internet

    Just found this, interesting?

    The Cost of Voicing "Opinions" on the Internet


    Court Orders DC to Pay $25,000 in Damages
    The internet is a marvel. It allows people everywhere to enter chat rooms,
    bulletin boards and list servers and "speak one's mind." While there is a
    certain feeling of anonymity and an "anything goes" atmosphere in the cyber
    realm, it is an environment where one comment on a single email can, for
    instance, be replicated and re-emailed to a few people or even millions of
    people around the world in seconds.
    This revolutionary technology is taking free speech to a new level. Yes,
    you can say anything you want on the internet, but just as in any other
    context of communicating with our fellow terrestrials, you may pay the
    consequences for what you say.

    What some people apparently are failing to comprehend is that presenting
    your opinions in a chat room, on a bulletin board or an email list is not
    like shooting the breeze with friends or new acquaintances at a party.
    Everything displayed on any aspect of the Web is documented, recorded and
    reproducible. It is the electronic equivalent of publishing, not talking.
    All of the liabilities of slander and defamation are in full force.

    Todd Gastaldo,DC, just learned that lesson the hard way. Dr. Gastaldo made
    comments about Michael Schroeder, an attorney who worked for the California
    Chiropractic Association. Apparently assuming he was safe to say anything on
    the Web, Dr. Gastaldo made this comment on Chiro-List, a chiropractic email
    discussion list:

    "...Mr. Schroeder bilked $800,000 in DC licensing fees when he jumped from
    CCA to the Chiro. Licensing Board..."

    Legally, slander of someone's trade or business carries with it damages
    that are assumed by the court. As an attorney, Mr. Schroeder knew Dr.
    Gastaldo's false comments were actionable. He demanded a retraction and
    public apology. When Dr. Gastaldo did not meet that demand, Mr. Schroeder
    filed a lawsuit in California, initially seeking $500,000 in compensatory
    damages, and later requesting an additional $500,000 in punitive damages.

    Dr. Gastaldo, a resident of Oregon, asked the court to move the venue to
    Oregon "to make for the fairest trial possible." The venue question was
    interesting because of the global aspect of the internet. The judge reasoned
    that because the comments were made on a chiropractic discussion list, and
    at least twice as many chiropractors live in California than in any other
    state in the country, that California was the appropriate venue for the

    Not successful in getting the trial moved to Oregon, Dr. Gastaldo simply
    failed to respond to the lawsuit. This gave Mr. Schroeder a victory by
    default, although Mr. Schroeder still had to demonstrate to the court that
    he had suffered damages.

    Perhaps the only good news for Dr. Gastaldo is the challenge the court
    faced in determining who and how many people read the comment, whether on
    the post or via email. On January 5, 2000, Mr. Schroeder was awarded $25,000
    in damages (that's almost $1,400 per word of Dr. Gastaldo's defamatory
    comment), plus court costs of $192.

    Now begins the process of filing the judgment in Oregon in order to have
    the right to recover his damages. Once Mr. Schroeder does that, he can seek
    damages from Dr. Gastaldo's bank accounts, put liens on any real property
    (such as his home), and garnish his wages until the $25,192 judgment is paid
    in full.

    We don't image that this case is the first lawsuit against a DC spawned by
    comments made on the Web, but it should help remind doctors who post
    messages and sent emails that the liabilities are quite real. There are at
    least two ways to protect yourself. Discuss issues, not people. And if you
    want to talk about people, purchase a minimum of $5 million of liability
    insurance specifically for the internet

    I'll copy this to Dynamic Chiropractic publisher Don Petersen, Jr via
    [email protected]

    This post - Chiros ignoring BPI crime - will be instantly archived for
    global access at: