Part 2 FTC Complaint
Part 2 of FTC Complaint
By Todd Gastaldo, D.C.
Click here to see Part 1.
Attention FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: This is Part 2 of my complaint alleging
that foreign and American obstetricians are lying/censoring to
perpetuate/cover-up grisly, fetal skull squashing criminal negligence -
with American obstetricians indirectly admitting that they are killing some
fetuses. (See URLs below.)
Attention Marc JNC Keirse, MD: This is the info I promised in Part 1...
Please note that I was mistaken on one point: it was Lilford and Gupta who
first used the word "massive" in their lame attempt to refute Russell's
radiographic evidence that massive amounts (20 to 30%) of pelvic outlet area
are being denied fetuses. Gudgeon and Jarrett only rubberstamped Lilford
and Gupta... See below...
In 1969, the British radiologist JGB Russell reported a "sitting...leaning
forward" transverse outlet diameter increase and hypothesized it to be due
to a sacroiliac "rocking" motion different from the rotatory sacral motion
studied by Borell and Fernström. [Russell JGB. Moulding of the pelvic
outlet. J Obstet Gynaec Brit Cwlth 1969;76:817-20. Dr. JGB Russell,
consultant radiologist, 23 Anson Road, Victoria Park, Manchester M14 5BZ
Russell  mathematically combined Borell and Fernström's 1-2 cm average
recumbent "hanging by her knees" sagittal diameter increase (linear), with
his own 7 mm average "sitting...leaning forward" transverse diameter
increase (linear), and mathematically calculated that allowing the sacrum
and pelvis to move affords a 20-30% potential increase in pelvic outlet
"[T]he outlet increases with moulding by approximately 20-30 per cent."
In 1973, Ohlsén studied Borell and Fernström’s original "hanging by her
knees" 1957 x-rays for changes in transverse outlet diameter and, using
Borell and Fernström’s original AP measurements, verified Russell’s 20%
figure. [Ohlsén H. Moulding of the pelvis during labour. Acta Radiol Diag
(This was the 1973 paper in which Ohlsén noted that Williams Obstetrics was
still claiming that there were no changes in the pelvic diameters at
In 1982, Russell suggested that the minor transverse sacroiliac "rocking"
motion he had demonstrated (7mm) was more important than Borell and
Fernström’s rotational motion (1-2 cm) - a highly questionable suggestion
which augmented Russell’s equally questionable 1969 inference that women
sitting on their tailbones could offer "all the diameters" (the "extra" 30%
of pelvic outlet area) just by pulling back on their legs. ("The mother who
pulls hard her knees cranially...and the midwife who pushes on the mother's
feet are increasing all the diameters of the outlet." [Russell 1969])
If Russell meant to state that women should pull on their knees cranially
sufficiently to roll themselves off their sacra, he should have said so
specifically. His lack of clarity on this point - and his failure to cite
Borell and Fernström in his oft-cited 1982 paper - are perhaps the most
important reasons semi-sitting has been thought (erroneously) to fully open
the birth canal.
For example, British obstetricians Liu (Univ. Nottingham) and Fairweather
(Univ. College, London) suggest that sitting on the sacrum is like squatting
and allows maximal sagittal outlet diameter. They write: "The squatting
posture is well suited to delivery. A patient adopting the lithotomy
position propped up with pillows and legs drawn back essentially achieves
this posture..." [Liu DTY and Fairweather DVI. Labour Ward Manual. 2nd ed.,
1991, Butterworth Heinemann Ltd., Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford 0X2
8DP, p. 27]
Strangely, Borell and Fernström suggested in 1967 that, with the woman on
her sacrum and with the weight of her thighs cranking the pelvis closed, the
*abdominal musculature* pulls up on the pubes, lifting the weight of the
thighs multiplied by the length of the crank, the acetabulo-sacroiliac lever
arm. ("[U]pward displacement at the time of [fetal] passage through the
pelvic outlet...is probably provoked by contraction of the muscles of the
abdominal wall..." [Borell U, Fernström I. Rad Clin N Amer 1967;5:73-85]
Borell and Fernström’s claim that it was the innominate bone being displaced
upwards, was probably an artifact of their method of x-ray analysis. They
always lined up anterior sacral borders to measure the distance to the
innominate bone. This made it appear that the innominate was moving when in
fact it had to have been the sacrum moving because the women were hanging by
their knees. [See Gastaldo TD. Letter. Birth 1992;19:230]
The only reason Borell and Fernström ever published for raising the buttocks
off the table during labor was for purposes of radiographic quality: "[T]he
lateral view taken with a horizontal beam, with the patient supine, gives a
film of inferior quality...caused by the [thick soft tissues of the]
patient's buttocks resting on the table..." [Borell U, Fernström I.
Radiologic pelvimetry. Acta Rad (Stockh.) 1960;Supp 191]
Physicians continue to "inform" themselves using Borell and Fernström’s 1957
study. They continue to use Borell and Fernström to claim that the pelvic
outlet is widened in the dorsal lithotomy and semi-sitting delivery
positions. (For dorsal lithotomy misinformation see Norman F. Gant, M.D.
writing in Williams Obstetrics [Appleton-Lange 1993]); and for semi-sitting
misinformation see Kenneth L. Noller, M.D. and Randy Werthheimer, M.D.
writing in Rakel’s Textbook of Family Practice [W.B. Saunders 1995].)
As noted above, the source of this confusion could be Borell and Fernström
themselves (who recommended the lithotomy position - see below - and who
never explicitly advised that weight should be taken off the sacrum) - and
JGB Russell himself, who in his 1969 paper inferred that women sitting on
their tailbones could offer the extra 30% of pelvic outlet area just by
pulling back on their legs. (Again, Russell wrote: "The mother who pulls
hard her knees cranially...and the midwife who pushes on the mother's feet
are increasing all the diameters of the outlet.")
Also noted above, in a 1982 paper, Russell mysteriously suggested that the
sacroiliac "rocking" motion (that he demonstrated in 1969) was more
important than the much greater "rotational" sacroiliac motion that Borell
and Fernstrom demonstrated in 1957.
Could Russell have intentionally ignored biomechanics in 1982 as he offered
supine women a bogus way to fully open their birth canals while supine?
American, British and Australian complicity?
According to the 1993 Williams Obstetrics, some people believe that
lithotomy closes the birth canal 1.5-2 cm, i.e., "One reported advantage
from avoiding the traditional lithotomy position is an increase in the
dimensions of the pelvic outlet" (p. 527).
Williams Obstetrics attempts to refute this statement - not by citing Borell
and Fernström  (Williams Obstetrics’ bizarre "main justification" for
USING the "dorsal" lithotomy position (p. 285)) - but by citing a 1991 study
by Gupta and Lilford et al.; which study, according to the authors of
Williams Obstetrics, compared the "usual" Western delivery position -
"recumbent with the head and shoulders up 30 degrees" - with the squatting
The authors of the 1993 Williams Obstetrics (Cunningham, MacDonald, Leveno,
Gant and Gilstrap) INCORRECTLY quoted the 1991 Gupta, Lilford et al.
study...[Gupta JK, Glanville JN, Johnson N, Lilford RJ, Dunham RJC, Watters
JK. The effect of squatting on pelvic dimensions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol
Reprod Biol 1991;42:19-22.]
In fact, Gupta and Lilford et al.  did NOT compare radiographs taken
in the squatting position with radiographs taken with women "recumbent with
the head and shoulders up 30 degrees." Rather, Gupta and Lilford et al.
 compared radiographs taken in the squatting position with radiographs
taken with the woman seated, feet on the floor, with the trunk 30 degrees
from the vertical. (Trunk 30 degrees from the vertical does not guarantee
demonstration of sacro-iliac motion; and this can be verified by placing one
’s fingers under one’s sacrum and leaning back 30 degrees. The sacrum does
not come into contact with the sitting surface - especially if one "sits up
straight" (extends the lumbar spine) as one leans back.)
In an even more flawed 1989 study, Lilford and Gupta concluded that British
radiologist JGB Russell must have been a victim of "subconscious observer
bias" when he calculated that a "massive" (Lilford and Gupta’s word) 20-30%
of pelvic outlet area is denied when sacroiliac motion is denied. [Lilford
RJ, Glanville JN, Gupta JK, Shrestha R, Johnson N. The action of squatting
in the early postnatal period marginally increases pelvic dimensions. Br J
Obstet Gynaecol 1989;96:964-66.]
In 1991, Australian physicians Gudgeon and Jarrett subsequently
rubberstamped Lilford and Gupta’s 1989 verdict, claiming that they had
verified that Lilford and Gupta et al. (1989) had "refuted" Russell's
"massive" 20-30% figure. [Gudgeon CW, Jarrett J. Pelvimetry: a squatter's
view. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;31(3):221-2. C/O Editor/Professor
Norman Beischer, Dept. OB/GYN, Mercy Hospital for Women, Clarendon St., East
Melbourne, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3002]
But there were major problems with Gudgeon and Jarrett’s rubberstamping of
Lilford and Gupta’s work.
After the manner of Gardosi and B-Lynch (1989) - Gudgeon and Jarrett (1991)
took "a squatter's view" of pelvimetry - without letting anybody squat.
Furthermore, Gudgeon and Jarrett  claimed they had "reproduced" the
transverse pelvic outlet diameter study of Russell , "using the
radiographic methods described in [Russell's] report"; but except for using
Russell's seated positioning, Gudgeon and Jarrett somehow FAILED to use most
of the radiographic methods described in Russell's report.
For example, Gudgeon and Jarrett utterly failed to make reference to how
British radiologist JGB Russell mathematically combined Borell and
Fernström's 1-2 cm average recumbent "hanging by her knees" sagittal
diameter increase (a linear measurement), with his own 7 mm average
"sitting...leaning forward" transverse diameter increase (another linear
measurement); and mathematically calculated that allowing the sacrum and
pelvis to move affords a 20-30% potential increase in pelvic outlet AREA:
"[T]he outlet increases with moulding by approximately 20-30 per cent."
[Russell JGB. Moulding of the pelvic outlet. J Obstet Gynaec Brit Cwlth
1969;76:817-20. Dr. JGB Russell, consultant radiologist, 23 Anson Road,
Victoria Park, Manchester M14 5BZ ENGLAND, 061-224-0006.]
Given that Gudgeon and Jarrett blindly accepted Gupta and Lilford's 1989
fraudulent AP outlet increase figures ("Russell's suggested degree of
increase in outlet area was...refuted by Lilford et al."), it is no surprise
that Gudgeon and Jarrett concluded that their findings were consistent with
those of Lilford et al.: "Increases of 1-2% only have been found in this
and other series quoted in this study, our findings being consistent with
those of Lilford et al. in their larger series."
Garbage in; garbage out.
Gudgeon and Jarrett somehow failed to mention that, in 1973, Ohlsén (this
was noted above) studied Borell and Fernström’s original "hanging by her
knees" (1957) x-rays for evidence of Russell’s "rocking" motion; that is,
Ohlsén looked for changes in transverse outlet diameter on Borell and
Fernström’s original intrapartum x-rays. Using Borell and Fernström’s
original AP measurements - and his own transverse diameter increase
measurements - Ohlsén verified Russell’s 20% figure. [Ohlsén H. Moulding of
the pelvis during labour. Acta Radiol Diag 1973;14:417-434]
More garbage: Gudgeon and Jarrett did not quote the "other series" that they
claimed to have quoted; and oddly, Gudgeon and Jarrett graciously excused
Russell for having used "the posterior sagittal diameter
measurement...[which was]...the standard teaching at that time...and has
been replaced by the pubosacral measurement...used by Lilford et al."
In fact, Russell did not mention, in any papers cited by Gudgeon and
Jarrett, a "posterior sagittal diameter measurement." Russell did, however,
openly cite Borell and Fernström who used a pubosacral measurement.
"The question remains," wrote Gudgeon and Jarrett, "from where could the
suggested increases of 20-30% come?"
The more appropriate question is, from where could Lilford and Gupta’s
botched radiographic "squatting" studies have come?
After Gardosi and I corresponded in 1990 regarding sacroiliac motion,
Lilford and Gupta (1991) radiologically revisited the subject of squatting -
without mentioning the fact that they had absurdly compared, in 1989, two
positions known to widen the birth canal. (This was the above discussed 1989
study blindly accepted by the Australians, Gudgeon and Jarrett.)
In their 1991 study, Gupta and Lilford et al. somehow forgot that Russell
had used Borell and Fernström’s numbers. They wrote: "[A]lthough Russell
was the sole author of his paper, it is difficult to believe that a massive
20-30% increase in pelvic dimensions can be due to [Russell's] observer bias
alone." [Gupta JK, Glanville JN, Johnson N, Lilford RJ, Dunham RJC, Watters
JK. The effect of squatting on pelvic dimensions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol
Reprod Biol 1991;42:19-22]
Gupta and Lilford not only forgot to mention Borell and Fernström; they also
forgot to mention Ohlsén. Perhaps too many observers spoils one’s "observer
It is interesting to note that Gupta and Lilford's flawed radiographic
studies (1991,1989b) followed their peculiar "Experiment of squatting birth"
(Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1989a;30:217-20), in which Gupta and
Lilford asked women "to recline into a semi-dorsal position at the moment of
crowning" - after informing them of the "putative benefits of squatting."
Gupta and Lilford in effect asked women to squash their fetuses' skulls!!
Caregivers apparently still turn women to a dorsal position at the moment of
delivery. For example, South African physician Cheryl Nikodem (1995)
mentions in one of her electronic reviews of the medical literature that,
"Some women will start bearing down instinctively while in the lateral
position but are then asked to turn into the dorsal position for the
delivery." [Nikodem C. Lateral tilt vs. dorsal position for second stage The
Cochrane Pregnancy & Childbirth Database (1995, Issue 2, Pre-Cochrane
According to Sheila Kitzinger, "[T]here comes a time when the widest part of
the baby's head is just at the birth opening and does not go back in between
contractions." [Kitzinger S. The Complete Book of Pregnancy and Childbirth.
New York by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1993:246]
Obviously, the "moment of crowning" (and minutes before) is when denial of
AP outlet diameter may kill the fetus. Indeed, according to the 1993
Williams Obstetrics, compressing the fetal skull can cause "tentorial tears,
laceration of fetal blood vessels, and fatal intracranial hemorrhage" (p.
524); and according to Australian obstetrician Norman F. Beischer, "10-15%
of stillborn infants die just before delivery without there having been any
evidence of distress..." [Beischer quoted in Chalmers I. The perinatal
research agenda: whose priorities? Birth 1991;18(3):137-41]
In summary, with the aid of Australians, American gross negligence (Williams
Obstetrics’ intentional distortion of an intentionally flawed 1991 Lilford
and Gupta et al. study) thus mixes nicely with British gross negligence (the
intentionally flawed 1991 Lilford and Gupta et al. study itself).
If the mistakes made were inadvertent, I shall apologize - immediately upon
learning that all concerned have begun an international effort to fully
inform women of what happens to fetal skulls when women are placed supine
and semi-recumbent to deliver.
Chalmers (1991), just cited, criticized Beischer for making authoritative
pronouncements without first doing scientific outcomes studies.
Interestingly, Chalmers stated in Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and
Childbirth (1992) that radiographic evidence indicates that squatting
increases pelvic outlet diameter; but after Chalmers and his co-author Enkin
were informed by Gastaldo that the radiographic evidence more clearly
indicates that standard delivery positions CLOSE the pelvic outlet, mention
of these radiographic studies was eliminated from the 1995 edition of Guide
to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Gastaldo thought this
particularly odd because Iain Chalmers, MD directs the Cochrane
Collaboration which conducts and publishes systematic reviews of the effects
of health care; and because the Cochrane Collaboration believes it important
to offer readers the reasons that changes are made:
"The process of continually updating and modifying [electronic] Cochrane
Reviews makes the feedback from peers potentially a more useful exercise
than the traditional mechanism of letters to the editor because the original
review can be modified in response to comments, with the extent and reason
for the modifications noted....After publication, whether in print or
electronically, there must be someone to ensure fair play - to hold critics
to some standard and to hold authors accountable by insisting that they
respond to the criticism...Other issues to be addressed include
experimenting with ways to catalog and display the criticisms received, for
example, by using hypertext links..." [Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane
Collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews
of the effects of health care. JAMA (Dec27)1995;274:1935-8; italics added.]
Another clarification is in order. Just as no one squatted in the 1989
Lancet "randomised controlled trial of squatting" by Gardosi, Hutson and
B-Lynch; no one squatted in the 1957 study by Borell and Fernström; yet
Sleep, Roberts and Chalmers referred to the work of Borell and Fernström as
a "radiological report...of an increased sagittal diameter of the pelvic
outlet in the squatting position..." (Sleep, Roberts, and Chalmers, 1989).
When Gastaldo noted for Enkin that no one squatted in the 1957 study by
Borell and Fernström - and that the 1957 study by Borell and Fernström
actually in effect demonstrated that standard medical delivery positions
jam the sacral tip up to 4 cm into the fetal skull - Enkin responded by
telling Gastaldo that "the Lilford group" - (as noted above, Gupta and
Lilford offered women "the pututive benefits of squatting" and then squashed
fetal skulls in a 1989 trial of squatting) - had refuted Borell and
Fernström’s "radiological reports...of an increased sagittal diameter."
Ultimately, as noted above, Enkin deleted mention of the radiological
reports from the 1995 edition of Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and
When Gastaldo called Chalmers to complain about Enkin’s behavior, Chalmers
told Gastaldo that until there is scientific evidence that it is beneficial
to inform women of the radiographic evidence that sacral tips are being
jammed up to 4 cm into fetal skulls, women should not be informed of this
evidence. Additionally, Chalmers pointed out that he was no longer an
editor of Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth.
In 1997, when I came onto OB-GYN-List to notify obstetricians of these
facts, I was censored by OB-GYN-Listowner Geffrey Klein, MD - but not before
two of my posts were automatically archived in the OB-GYN-List archive...
>>>>>>(See also the article by Brazilian obstetrician Moysés Paciornik,
>>>>>>Birth 1990;17:104-5; and see Gastaldo Birth 1992;19:230; and see
>>>>>>Mothering Jul/Aug/Sep1997:17, reproduced at the URLs above.)
Borell and Fernström’s work is decades old but is still cited in the 1995
British Gray's Anatomy as evidence that "radiological pelvimetry has become
a refined technique" (p. 671).
Oddly, the 1995 British Gray’s Anatomy says nothing of Borell and Fernström
’s remarkable intrapartum radiographic determination that 1.5 to 2.0 cm of
outlet diameter is routinely denied in woman-on-her-sacrum delivery
Instead, Gray’s cites a 1940 radiographic study by Young which concluded
that ligamentous relaxation during pregnancy (quoting Gray’s) "PERHAPS
allow[s] alterations in pelvic diameters at childbirth, although the effect
is PROBABLY SMALL (p. 678, emphases added)."
There is nothing "probably small" (to mothers and fetuses) about a
centimeter of denied pelvic outlet diameter. (Or two or three or four
centimeters of denied pelvic outlet diameter; see Williams  and Thoms
. Indeed, the authors of the 1993 and 1997 editions of Williams
Obstetrics claim that 0.5 cm of fetal skull distortion can KILL.)
Because the fetal skull cannot utilize the entire sagittal diameter at the
outlet (because of the subpubic angle), obstetricians and CNMs who advocate
semisitting (Yale CNMwifery professor Helen Burst ignored my protests and
insisted on promoting semisitting in her 1996 text Midwifery) are actually
advocating the squashing of fetal skulls, not merely directly in proportion
to the distance the sacrum is jammed into the fetal skull, but more nearly
by the square of that distance.
As Harvard obstetrician/anthropologist Emmons noted in 1913:
"[M]oving backward of the tip of the sacrum...enlarges the available space
not merely directly in proportion to the distance backward, but more nearly
by the square of that distance." [Emmons, AB. A study of the variations in
the female pelvis, based on observations made on 217 specimens of the
American Indian squaw. Biometrika 1913; 9:34-47.]
Incidentally, when Eastman, Jones and Jones (1957) reviewed Borell and
Fernström (1957), they repeated Borell and Fernström’s fiction that Thoms
(Am J Obstet 1915) "measured the sagittal outlet diameter on 500 pregnant
women...and found that in 80 per cent it increased by 1.0 cm or more with
change from the dorsal recumbent to the lithotomy position."
In fact, Thoms (1915) first measured women "in the ordinary obstetric
posture and immediately afterward in the modified Sims’ position." Of this
"modified Sims’ position," Thoms (1915) wrote, "It may also be referred to
as the lateral posture."
How interesting that Borell and Fernström (1957) conveniently attributed to
the "lithotomy" position increases in pelvic outlet diameter that should
have been attributed to the the lateral "modified Sims’" position.
In his series of 500 outlet measurements, Thoms (1915) found one woman in
whom the sagittal outlet diameter increased 3.5 cm; 10 women in whom the
diameter increased 3.0 cm; 29 in whom the diameter increased 2.5 cm, 89 in
whom the diameter increased 2.0 cm, and 121 in whom the sagittal diameter
increased 1.5 cm, etc.
Eastman, Jones and Jones (1957) concluded their review of Borell and
Fernstrom  with the following peculiar statement:
"From a practical viewpoint, since most women in the United States are
delivered in the lithotomy position, ********we are routinely giving our
patients most of the advantage in outlet diameter provided by this position;
but in cases of outlet and midpelvic contraction it may occasionally be
helpful to know - for forceps, let us say - that the extreme lithotomy
position gives the maximum anteroposterior diameter to the outlet."
Lithotomy gives "most of the advantage in outlet diameter"?
Lithotomy DENIES outlet diameter...
>As I wrote in my "CRYING EMERGENCY (again - still)" post - which Prof.
>>>According to Dr. James Smeltzer "[McRoberts] simultaneously reverses
>>>all of the factors tending to cause shoulder dystocia CREATED BY THE
>>>LITHOTOMY POSITION... (emphasis added) [Smeltzer. Clin Obstet Gynecol
>>>Dr. Smeltzer continues:
>>>"...the maneuver removes all weight-bearing forces from the sacrum, the
>>>pressure point of the pelvis in the lithotomy position..."
>>>GASTALDO comments: Dr. Smeltzer makes a key observation here. The
>>>apex is not only the "main pressure point of the pelvis" in dorsal
>>>delivery, it is also the "main pressure point of the pelvis" in
>>>deliveries - which is why OB-GYN-Lister Gardosi says SEMISITTING creates
>>>"many" cases of shoulder dystocia. [See URLs below] It is good that Dr.
>>>DORSAL LITHOTOMY creates shoulder dystocia - he just doesn't have the
>>>biomechanics down...perhaps intentionally... (Under "Treatment of
>>>Dystocia," Smeltzer writes, "Immediately recognize that the dystocia has
>>>occurred when the fetal face tends to disappear, from reverse traction
>>>the posterior shoulder at or ABOVE the inlet..." (!) This is [an "ABOVE]
>>>inlet" version of Western medicine's grisly "inlet" shoulder dystocia
>>>myth... I ask again: With the posterior shoulder stuck way up the
>>>Carus at [ABOVE?!] the sacral promontory, what force pushes the head out
As I indicated in Part 1 of my FTC complaint, instead of immediately moving
to end organized medicine's grisly mass squashing of fetal skulls, Prof.
Keirse feigned ignorance and made a joke about the Curve of Carus...
My sense is that FTC will do nothing.
My sense is that Prof. Keirse will do nothing.
10 to 15% of stillbirths fine right before delivery guesses Australian
obstetrician Norman Beischer, MD...
4.6% of "healthy" term neonates suffer unexplained brain bleeds. See URLs
Up to 10% of term neonates suffer unexplained neonatal encephalopathy. See
Up to 1% of us suffer epilepsy - also largely unexplained.
Many of us suffer cerebral palsy - also largely unexplained...
MDs have their birth biomechanics exactly backwards...
Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.
8948 SW Barbur Blvd. #6
Portland, OR 97219
IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not currently practicing chiropractic - except
insofar as the practice of chiropractic includes freedom of speech.
While in Oregon doing library research I have voluntarily forfeited my
California chiropractic license so as not to have to pay the annual
licensing fee. (Under California law, any licensed D.C. may voluntarily
forfeit his/her license, and may, at any time, reactivate said license
by providing the Board of Examiners with "twice the annual amount of
the renewal fee...[He or she]...shall not be required to submit to an
examination for the reissuance of the certificate." [Section 12, Act
Regulating the Practice of Chiropractic...Issued by the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners...Act Includes Amendments Through October 1993]
"Yes, I sold [Gastaldo] a modem. That was one of the biggest mistakes
of my entire life and I regret it more than any other error of my life."
Howard Leighty, D.C.
FTC (or anyone else), click here to send a reply to Gastaldo.