DORLAND'S PEOPLE (listed below): Chief Lexicographer Douglas Anderson et al. (via [email protected]) mucked up Dorland's chiropractic-related definitions by ignoring Dorland's itself. See below. Your definitions of obstetric positions are also deficient. See "dorsosacral" below. PREGNANT WOMEN: Please print this out and give it to your chiropractor and to your OB. CHIROPRACTORS: Please tell your pregnant patients that they can PREVENT Vertebral Subluxations (VS) - and protect their VAGINAS and their babies' brains - by not letting their OBs close their birth canals up to 30%. (OBs are the most prolific spinal manipulators. OBs are gruesomely manipulating MOST babies' spines - with oxytocin, Cytotec, hands, forceps, or vacuums - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%! LADIES: Semisitting and delivery positions close the birth canal up to 30%. It's EASY to offer your baby the "extra" up to 30%. Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out. Or kneel or hands-and- knees or stand or squat - ANYTHING but semisitting or dorsal. Talk to your OB about this today. For an "alternative" delivery position WARNING - see ACOG birth crime video evidence, URL below. DORLAND'S/DORSOSACRAL Note: Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (29th ed.) says of the lithotomy position, "also called dorso-sacral." Women are STUPIDLY being placed on their sacra to birth. MDs KNOW this closes the birth canal up to 30%; indeed, the authors of Williams Obstetrics published "my" biomechanics on the subject - but left in their text - in the same paragraph - the "dorsal widens" lie that first called my attention to their text! Semisitting (Fowler's position) just puts more weight on the sacrum! In defining these most common medical delivery positions, Dorland's should explicitly state that radiographic evidence indicates that they close the birth canal up to 30%. Dorland was an OB! "William Alexander Newman Dorland, MD...received his MD in 1886 from the Medical School at the University of Pennsylvania, where he held his first academic position, Instructor of Obstetrics. In 1910, he moved to Chicago, where he was Professor of Obstetrics at Loyola University and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Post-Graduate Medical College of Chicago." http://www.dorlands.com/aboutd.jsp#team VERTEBRAL SUBLUXATION Vertebral Subluxation (VS) is the putative lesion adjusted by doctors of chiropractic. See PS1 below. "[W]e need to consider osteoporosis as a preventable problem..." --Deborah Pate, DC, DACBR http://www.chiroweb.com/columnist/pate/index.html Open Letter (archived for global access at: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro- list/message/2318) Deborah Pate, DC, DACBR Distinguished Columnist Dynamic Chiropractic San Diego, California [email protected] Deborah, We need to consider VERTEBRAL SUBLUXATION as a preventable problem! The most prolific spinal manipulators are MD-obstetricians... MD-obstetricians are senselessly closing birth canals up to 30% then violently pushing (oxytocin/Cytotec) and gruesomely pulling on tiny spines (hands, vacuums, forceps)... ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal senselessly closed up to 30%. MD-obstetricians indirectly admit - ON VIDEO - that they are: 1) routinely closing birth canals; and 2) KEEPING birth canals closed when babies' shoulders get stuck! See ACOG birth crime video evidence http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2300 Doctors of chiropractic (DCs) should be visiting maternity hospitals. Doctors of chiropractic should be telling MD-obstetricians that if they must push or pull - and sometimes they must - they must first get women off their backs/butts - off their sacra. Doctors of chiropractic could save tiny lives and tiny limbs and PREVENT more vertebral subluxations than they will ever be able to adjust by hand. Todd Dr. Gastaldo [email protected] PS1 To my knowledge there is no scientific evidence that vertebral subluxations (VS's) exist, cause disease and stop causing disease when adjusted. There are however interesting anecdotes - doctors of chiropractic using gentle spinal adjustments to "fix" babies after birth trauma. It's not just DCs. One German MD also adjusts babies after birth trauma and reports excellent results. Are these doctors adjusting the entity called vertebral subluxation? Or are their results "just" placebo effect? No one knows. Bottomline - since MDs are obviously senselessly closing birth canals (and gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines at birth) - and since doctors of chiropractic and their trade unions suggest that spinal manipulation is helpful after birth trauma - it especially unethical for DCs to remain silent about MDs senselessly causing spinal manipulation birth trauma. PS2 Awhile back, I telephoned the abovementioned Dynamic Chiropractic Distiguished Columnist Deborah Pate, DC, DACBR. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/1865 I thought Deborah would devote a column to the obvious spinal manipulation crime of obstetricians. I thought for sure Deborah's professional interest in imaging would result in an article about the recent MRI evidence that MDs are closing birth canals! Can it be that Dynamic Chiropractic's Distinguished Columnists have TRIED to publish on this subject and Dynamic Chiropractic Editor/Publisher Don Petersen, Jr. has censored them? I myself have emailed Don Petersen numerous times on the subject of MDs senselessly closing birth canals and gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines. Why hasn't Don at least done an EDITORIAL on the subject? Why is Don failing the tiniest chiropractic patients? OTHER DON PETERSEN FAILURES.... Don failed to do an article on Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary publishing "my" definition of chiropractic and defining graduates of chiropractic colleges as doctors starting in 1988. Don also failed to do an article about the American Chiropractic Association attempting (unsuccessfully) to censor "my" definition from the 2000 edition of Dorland's. Now that ACA has finally censored "my" definition from the 2003 edition of Dorland's - maybe NOW Don will do an article? There's plenty to write about what with shades of the old "abnormal nerve function" baloney creeping back into Dorland's main definition of chiropractic. See below. Dorland's 2003 also has a definition of "straight" chiropractic which is an obvious fraud. And there's the fact that vertebral subluxation made it into Dorland's 2003 too! Yay! (But the old "abnormal nerve function" baloney concerns me.) See DORLAND'S CHIRO DEFINITION HISTORY in PS5 below. PS3 THE RULE 302 MATTER Don *did* run an article about me getting sued by former Calif. Repub. Party Chmn Mike Schroeder, one of the attorneys he uses. (I could not afford to defend myself in California and spent $2000 plus dollars as part of an attempt to move the trial to Oregon. I lost on jurisdiction. Shroeder had sued for $1 million. He got a $25,000 dollar default judgement; the merits of the case were never argued.) In the Rule 302 matter, Schroeder in effect helped 10 MD-obstetricians judicially rubberstamp the Schroeder-written Rule 302, the California regulation (now being challenged by Tain et al. and Attorney David Prescott) which prohibits California DCs - who used to attend homebirths - from so much as severing umbilical cords. Meanwhile, MDs close birth canals, gruesomely manipulate most babies' spines and sometimes sever SPINAL NERVES - as Don stays silent - babies be damned. For a little discussion of Tain et al. Rule 302 lawsuit... See Rule 302, Birth and Trigon/Anthem (Glasscock) - and ACOG's Willett LeHew, MD http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro- list/message/2252 I don't think Don is covering the Tain et al. Rule 302 lawsuit very well if at all... I just searched www.chiroweb.com for "Tain" and did not see any reporting on the lawsuit. Deborah, if you're reading, will you please ask Don about these matters? Thanks in advance. PS4 About my phrase "closing birth canals"... To a breech (butt-first) baby with a trapped after- coming head and to a head-first baby suffering severe shoulder dystocia - the birth canal is indeed closed! In cases of shoulder dystocia, MDs are KEEPING birth canals closed and pulling! Sometimes MD-obstetricians pull so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%! Sometimes MDs paralyze babies. Usually, they "only" wrench babies' spines. CHIROPRACTIC EMERGENCY. PS5 DORLAND'S CHIRO DEFINITION HISTORY To my knowledge the 1988, 1994 and 2000 editions of Dorland's were the first with Dr. DD Palmer's fundamental chiropractic hypothesis that disease is caused by mechanical/chemical and psychic irritation of the nervous system. Some history... Back around 1991 - after Dorland's published "my" definition for the first time - I learned that Dorland's would be publishing it's 1994 edition. Concerned that the American Chiropractic Association/ACA had not responded to my 1987 written request asking ACA to offer Dorland's Chief Lexicographer Douglas Anderson chiropractic definition input before publication of the 1988 edition, I asked Dorland's Chief Lexicographer Douglas Anderson to write to about 13 chiropractic organizations and request input for the 1994 edition. Douglas did so and kindly mentioned in his letter to the 13 chiropractic organizations that "my" definition was the current Dorland's definition of chiropractic. IT HAPPENED AGAIN! YET AGAIN, Mr. Anderson received NO INPUT from ACA! I spoke to then-ACA Chairman Lou Sportelli about this personally at a conference in Seattle. (I think the Federation of Straight Chiropractic Organizations offered input - and the late Fred Barge, DC of the International Chiropractors Association/ICA did too.) "My" definition was published again in the 1994 edition. YEARS later - circa 1999 - ACA finally announced that Dorland's had made contact and had requested input. ACA said that ACA had submitted a "neuromusculoskeletal" definition composed by ACA Chairman Ed Maurer - and Dorland's was publishing it! http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/2001/aug/aug2001feuling.htm ACA's summary announcement of the imminent publication of Maurer's NARROWSCOPE definition made no mention of "my" BROADSCOPE definition - which (in accord with ACA's "Master Plan"!) contained Dr. DD Palmer's fundamanetal chiropractic hypothesis! (It is noteworthy in discussing Maurer's proposed definition for Dorland's that the World Chiropractic Alliance - URL above - also failed to mention "my" broadscope definition, already published in two editions of Dorland's.) ACA *also* failed to mention that the Dorland's invitation was made YEARS before back when I had stimulated Dorland's to invite input from ACA and other chiropractic associations and organizations in hopes of generating a CONSENSUS definition! (Back around 1991, ACA had in effect nixed my idea of a definition consensus conference - as had the other major chiropractic organizations who received a definition input letter from Dorland's as a consequence of my efforts - including the abovementioned WCA and ICA. My thanks though to Ronald Plamondon, DC, then at ACA, who promoted the idea in a memo.) Bottomline, in 1999, ACA was summarily eliminating Dr. DD Palmer's fundamental chiropractic hypothesis from the Dorland's definition and publishing ACA Chairman Maurer's NARROWSCOPE "neuromusculoskeletal" definition! I telephoned the abovementioned Dorland's Chief Lexicographer Douglas Anderson, who said he was indeed going to publish ACA's definition. I protested, noting that ACA had not asked for input from the profession and had in effect silently rejected a definition consensus conference. I added that "my" definition still reflected ACA's published "Master Plan" which (to my knowledge) had never been changed! I prevailed! Mr. Anderson backed down! "My" definition - containing Dr. DD Palmer's fundamental chiropractic hypothesis (disease is caused by mech/chem/psychic irritation of the nervous system) - was published in a third edition of Dorland's (the 2000 edition)... In 2003, though, the Dorland's definition of chiropractic was changed - radically. I was neither notified nor consulted - and more importantly *the profession* was neither notified nor consulted! There had been no definition consensus conference - indeed there had STILL been no MENTION of my proposed definition consensus conference! Dorland's Chief Lexicographer Anderson fell down on the job! He added other chiro-related definitions to the 2003 edition - with obvious flaws - most of which I informed Mr. Anderson about in my 80s correspondence... Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary Philadelphia: Saunders 2003 Chief Lexicographer: Douglas M. Anderson, MA Senior Lexicographer: Patricia D. Novak, PhD Lexicographer: Jefferson Keith, MA Assistant Lexicographer: Michelle A. Elliott, BA http://www.dorlands.com/aboutd.jsp#team Here are the new chiro-related definitions... "Chiropractic...a non-pharmaceutical, nonsurgical system of health care based on the self-healing capacity of the body and the primary importance of the proper function of the nervous system in the maintenance of health; therapy is aimed at removing irritants to the nervous system and restoring proper function. The most common method of treatment is by spinal manipulation and is primarily done for musculoskeletal complaints; other methods include lifestyle modification, nutritional therapy, and physiotherapy." GASTALDO REMARKS: It is simply wrong for Dorland's to state: "Chiropractic...[is]...based on...the primary importance of the proper function of the nervous system in the maintenance of health; therapy is aimed at removing irritants to the nervous system and restoring proper function." While chiropractic therapy (not just spinal adjusting) is indeed aimed at removing irritants to the nervous system, chiropractic therapy does not generally cause "proper nerve function" because "improper" nerve function does not generally happen in disease - at least this was the conclusion of Ds. DD Palmer, Founder of chiropractic. Because the American Chiropractic Association tried to censor Dr. DD Palmer's fundamental chiropractic hypothesis from Dorland's (see above), I suspect ACA was behind this flaw in the 2003 Dorland's definition... Even if one focuses primarily on musculoskeletal complaints, the vast majority of these involve improper JOINT function with PROPER nerve function (nerves transmitting impulses when irritated) helping with the diagnosis. Sadly, Dorland's has returned to a version of the "abnormal nerve function" phraseology that originally impelled me to ask Dorland's to change its definition of chiropractic back in the 80s... Speaking of diagnosis, the word diagnosis has now disappeared from the Dorland's definition of chiropractic. I placed it right up front, as in, "Chiropractic...a science of applied neurophysiologic diagnosis..." - because Dr. DD Palmer - the first "straight" chiropractor - was rather adamant that DCs use a knowledge of neurology to diagnose. STRAIGHT CHIROPRACTIC... Dr. DD Palmer was the first "straight" chiropractor as indicated in Dorland's first-time-ever publication of a definition of "straight chiropractic," as in, "Straight c...the practice of chiropractic in strict accordance with the principles of its founder, DD Palmer, without additions made by later practitioners...." So far so good. I practiced DD straight chiropractic - I *still* practice DD straight chiropractic even unlicensed! One does not NEED a license to practice that vast expanse of DD straight chiropractic called EDUCATIONAL adjusting! Here's an educational adjustment for Dorland's Chief Lexicographer Douglas Anderson: Most people who call themselves "straight" chiropractors do NOT practice in accordance with the principles of DD Palmer. My bet is that LICENSED chiropractors somehow failed to offer Mr. Anderson this educational chiropractic adjustment... Dorland's 2003 "straight chiropractic" definition continues... "The original definition of subluxation (q.v.) as a vertebral displacement is adhered to, and..." Dt. DD Palmer did NOT restrict the word "subluxation" to vertebral displacement! He posited mechanical, chemical and psychic (educational) irritants - as well as mechanical, chemical and psychic adjustments! The key words - mechanical, chemical and psychic - indicating DD's multifactorial hypothesis of disease causation - are GONE from the 2003 Dorland's definition of chiropractic - and they do not appear in Dorland's 2003 "straight chiropractic" definition either... Dorland's 2003 "straight chiropractic" definition concludes... "...chiropractic is considered to be non-therapeutic, its purpose being solely to contribute to health by the correction of vertebral subluxations." This is NOT "the practice of chiropractic in strict accordance with the principles of its founder, DD Palmer." It is the CROOKED "chiropractic" of DD's son BJ - whose teachings - according to DD - were not worth the paper they were written on... DD wrote of BJ pretending that vertebral subluxation must be present in all disease on p. 677: "In his dissertation on sunstroke [BJ] loses sight of one of the principles of Chiropractic, namely, that disease is but the result of functions performed in too great or too little degree. He says: 'A person could not have sunstroke unless there was a subluxation.' An exposure to the sun's rays may cause either extremes of activity..." [1910:677] Dorland's 2003 definition of subluxation includes a false chiropractic definition - or rather - one not in accord with the principles of Dr. DD Palmer... "Subluxation...1. an incomplete or partial dislocation. See accompanying illustration. 2. in chiropractic, any mechanical impediment to nerve function; originally, a vertebral displacement believed to impair nerve function. See also *vertebral subluxation complex*, under *complex* [*italics* in original]" Again, Dr. DD Palmer did NOT restrict the word "subluxation" to vertebral displacement! He posited mechanical, chemical and psychic (educational) irritants - multifactorial disease causation - as well as mechanical, chemical and psychic (educational) adjustments! Regarding psychic (educational) subluxations and adjustments - DDs 1910 book was psychic/educational adjustment of subluxations in his son BJ's writings in "The Chiropractor" - hence DD's subtitle - "The Chiropractor's Adjuster." DD did not believe that vertebral subluxations generally impaired nerve function. DD believed that UNimpaired PROPER nerve function was generally the case and helped with diagnosis. See discussion of Dorland's 2003 crooked "straight" definition above. Here's the first-ever Dorland's definition of "vertebral subluxation complex"... "Vertebral subluxation c[omplex]...in chiropractic, malfunction of organs or tissues caused by impairment of nerve function that results from restriction of normal motion or from abnormal position of spinal seguments." I learned "vertebral subluxation complex" in chiropractic college. This is the first time I've seen it defined as "malfunction of organs or tissues"!! I know that they mean - I've just never seen VSC defined this way. Were he alive today, DD would agree with the part about "restriction of normal motion or...abnormal position of spinal segments" - but he would NOT (I say again) agree with the notion that vertebral subluxations generally cause "impairment of nerve function." DD believed that vertebral subluxations generally caused NORMAL increases in impulse transmission (vertebral subluxations were secondary MECHANICAL noxious irritants; see "my" definition of chiropractic in Dorland's 27th, 28th, 29th eds.)... These vertebral subluxation-caused NORMAL increases in impulse transmission caused NORMAL functions in organs and tissues - normal functions out of time with need - "malfunction" to be sure - but it was NOT (according to DD) generally caused by vertebral subluxations causing "impairment of nerve function." (The "impairment of nerve function" baloney came from DDs son BJ who once threw out the sympathetic nervous system to force all nerve impulses through spinal nerves which could be "impaired" at the intervertebral foramina! DDs adjustment of this "luxation" of BJs is one of the funniest parts of his 1910 text.) IS CHIROPRACTIC COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE/CAM? Dorland's Chief Lexicographer Douglas Anderson perhaps believes that chiropractic is part of Complementary and Alternative Medicine/CAM... CAM is nothing more than organized medicine's pretense that "traditional biomedicine" is proven - and everything else is unproven quackery - not part of Complementary and Alternative Medicine/CAM - or rather - organized medicine fails to point out that most of "traditional biomedicine" is CAM... For discussion of organized medicine's ongoing "they're quacks - we're not" CAM hoax, see Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro- list/message/2256 Anderson indicates in the Preface to his 2003 edition that he has defined chiropractic "in terms of [its] own theory"! "[T]he 30th edition of Dorland's features the inclusion of over 600 terms from the field of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Where the theory behind the terms lies outside traditional biomedicine, we have aimed at defining them in terms of their own theories; while some are admittedly controversial, interest in this field is widespread and growing, and such terms are more and more likely to be encountered." [Preface: vii] Chief Lexicographer Anderson has NOT defined chiropractic "in terms of [its] own theory"! Chief Lexicographer Anderson IGNORED three editions of his own dictionary. As a consequence of my input back in the 80s, Dorland's already HAD Dr. DD Palmer's fundamental chiropractic hypothesis/theory. (THANKFULLY, Mr. Anderson left a reference to nerve irritation - but he eliminated the mechanical, chemical, psychic phraseology that is key to Dr. DD Palmer's multifactorial hypothesis of disease (and vertebral subluxation) causation.) Chief Lexicographer Anderson not only ignored three editions of his own dictionary to muck up the definition of chiropractic - he ignored my warning that America's largest chiropractic trade union - the American Chiropractic Association - was obviously dishonestly trying to CENSOR Dr. DD Palmer's fundamental chiropractic hypothesis and replace it with a NARROWSCOPE "neuromusculoskeletal" definition that organized medicine likes better... Arrrggghhhh! The American Chiropractic Association never spoke to the profession about the consensus conference on definition which I proposed! Why not!?? By promoting the notion of Complementary and Alternative Medicine/CAM, Chief Lexicographer Anderson perpetuates the latest version of organized medicine's ongoing "they're quacks - we're not" fraud. NOTE: Dorland's 2003 has no entry for Complementary and Alternative Medicine "CAM" though is defined in the 2003 Dorland's as "cell adhesion molecules; complementary and alternative medicine." "Complementary" is defined as "...supplying a defect, or helping to do so; making complete; accessory." "Alternative...[no definition]" Dorland's Chief Lexicographer Anderson has supplied a chiropractic defect or is helping to do so! WHY IS THIS MATTER SO IMPORTANT TO ME? So-called "subluxation-based" chiros (and "neuromusculoskeletal" ACA leaders) are ignoring the NON- spinal subluxations (MD lies) that have MDs closing birth canals and gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines! Chiropractic adjustment of non-spinal subluxations (the education aspect of chiropractic) is crucial to the tiniest chiropractic patients - babies! Again, my Open Letter to Deborah Pate, DC... Deborah, We need to consider VERTEBRAL SUBLUXATION as a preventable problem! The most prolific spinal manipulators are MD-obstetricians... MD-obstetricians are senselessly closing birth canals up to 30% then violently pushing (oxytocin/Cytotec) and gruesomely pulling on tiny spines (hands, vacuums, forceps)... ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal senselessly closed up to 30%. MD-obstetricians indirectly admit - ON VIDEO - that they are: 1) routinely closing birth canals; and 2) KEEPING birth canals closed when babies' shoulders get stuck! See ACOG birth crime video evidence http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2300 Doctors of chiropractic (DCs) should be visiting maternity hospitals. Doctors of chiropractic should be telling MD-obstetricians that if they must push or pull - and sometimes they must - they must first get women off their backs/butts - off their sacra. Doctors of chiropractic could save tiny lives and tiny limbs and PREVENT more vertebral subluxations than they will ever be able to adjust by hand. Todd Du. Gastaldo [email protected] The 2003 Dorland's says: "other [chiropractic] methods include lifestyle modification..." The largest chiropractic trade unions are SILENT about MDs closing birth canals up to 30%! They are also silent about Western culture robbing children of a fundamental human rest posture that serves most human females as a fundamental human DELIVERY posture - one that allows birth canals to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%... WHY are the chiro trade unions silent about these obvious lifestyle modifications which are FREE and which would PREVENT more vertebral subluxations than DCs will ever be able to adjust by hand? Again: About my phrase "closing birth canals"... To a breech (butt-first) baby with a trapped after- coming head and to a head-first baby suffering severe shoulder dystocia - the birth canal is indeed closed! In cases of shoulder dystocia, MDs are KEEPING birth canals closed and pulling! Sometimes MD-obstetricians pull so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%! Sometimes MDs paralyze babies. Usually, they "only" wrench babies' spines. CHIROPRACTIC EMERGENCY. Where are the chiro trade unions? Where are the chiro "distinguished columnists"? Deborah? You there? As indicated above, this Open Letter will be archived for global access at: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro- list/message/2318 Within 24 hours, this Open Letter will appear in the Google groups archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "Preventing VS by educating OBs. (also: New defn of chiro in Dorland's)"