Post Info TOPIC: TR vs. PK: Part 2

TR vs. PK: Part 2

Heres Gentempos response.


Subject: FW: Response to defamatory article in The Chiropractic Journal

 Dear CLA Members and Friends,

Chiropractic Leadership Alliance (CLA) has come under unfounded attack from a few hostile individuals who would like to see CLA injured. They will not succeed. Chiropractic has been under such negative smear campaigns since its inception and still stands strong. It is the policy of CLA to promote its products and services in a positive fashion. We choose to emphasize the value of our products and we do not initiate attacks on others. Furthermore, we do not employ half-truths, straw men, and outright falsehoods to mislead potential clients. Some of our competitors have a different way of doing business. I am asking for your help and I urge our friends, colleagues, and clients to stand up for CLA and the truth and further, I ask that you take a stand and join us on the high road. CLAs commitment and ability to help the practicing chiropractor is needed now more than ever. Our Insight technology with its Neurospinal Function index (NSFi), coupled with our proven practice strategies for todays environment has translated into escalating success for CLA and more importantly, the DCs we serve.

The July 1, 2009 issue of The Chiropractic Journal has a front page article in which they attack CLA. The allegations made in this article are unfounded and we intend to set the record straight. Further, David Marcarian, who sells a product directly competitive with CLAs Insight, is given credit as the article's author. It is easy to see what type of game is being played here.

Some of the spurious allegations in this article to the uninformed reader are seemingly quite serious but in reality are preposterous. Our well earned reputation is our most precious asset, so I want to give you straight talk and evidence. It is particularly important to me that our CLA family members and colleagues know the real story. Further, a scare tactic in the article implies that owners of the Insight Subluxation Station may be at some risk for having one. This is a contemptible ploy by a competitor and is not true.

In viewing this matter, I urge you to start by considering the sources who made the allegations:

1. The author and "lead investigator", David Marcarian, owns a company which sells a product that directly competes with CLAs Insight product.

2. The Chiropractic Journal is a publication of the World Chiropractic Alliance, whose president, Richard Barwell, DC, sells another competitive product.

3. The publisher of The Chiropractic Journal is Terry Rondberg, DC. Dr. Kent and I have completely disassociated ourselves from Rondberg some time ago due to not wanting to be associated with Rondbergs behaviors and directions.

I know there is a likelihood that you dont read The Chiropractic Journal. At this point, I understand some of you will rightly stop reading this message and recognize that these competitors are unlikely to be an unbiased source of information and have self-serving reasons to promote misinformation. However, if these ridiculous accusations are something you have the time and inclination to get to the bottom of read on and you will observe the truth of the situation.

What follows is a point-by-point refutation of the key charges from this alleged investigation. Further, at the end of this message there is a link to supportive documentation including a comprehensive timeline of events which sets the record straight.

What our competitors claim in The Chiropractic Journal article:

The facts:

The article begins by stating that "two chiropractors were fined $25,000 for claiming the chiropractic diagnostic machine they used was a NASA designed device" I believe this was one ploy to promote fear for Insight clients.

The facts and the inference of this story are both untrue. First, the device in question was a treatment device, not a diagnostic instrument, as you can see for yourself by visiting this link to the reference cited by Marcarian in the article: Article

Second, this story is clearly intended to infer that Insight users may be at risk for disciplinary action, but there is no reason to believe that any doctor who has correctly represented the Insights Space Certification status or the fact that the Insight is an FDA Registered, Class II Medical Device has any such risk.

They suggest that CLA has made misrepresentations to NASA concerning the involvement of CLAs chief engineer, Lee Brody, in NASA related research.

Completely untrue. We have independent corroboration of Mr. Brodys involvement in this NASA related research. This include a newspaper article from an official publication of Boston University (click link to view article) , confirmation of other scientists who worked with Mr. Brody and laboratory records describing his involvement in the NASA related research. Mr. Brody had a falling out with the director of the lab, Dr. Carlo De Luca when he left BostonUniversity. Dr. De Luca has misrepresented Mr. Brodys true role while at the lab which is really the tipping point of this supposed controversy. As a recent update, NASAs counsel e-mailed CLA on June 22, 2009 that: "We appreciate the update regarding Mr. Brody's participation and are sorry to hear about his falling out with his former colleagues."

The article contains the following statement: "It is obvious from their decision that the product never had any connection with NASA and the statements about Brodys work with NASA were false."

Not only have we proven that Mr. Brody was involved with NASA research, there is no dispute that patented EMG technology and know-how used in the NASA sponsored research cited in the NASA Spinoff article was licensed to CLAs manufacturer (Brodys company). The question that NASA is reevaluating is whether or not the licensed EMG technologies meet the specific technical criteria for NASA Spinoff status. Before our competitor (Marcarian) sought to make trouble with NASA, NASA did indeed approve the Insight as a Spinoff technology. Please note, all this is independent of the Insights Space Certification designation which is what you see in our ads and on the label of our instrument.

Incredibly, the article states that Patrick Gentempo was found by a US Senate Investigation to be in violation of two federal statutes.

This is one of the boldest lies! There has been no US Senate Investigation, and certainly no determination that I have violated any federal laws, PERIOD! Such claims are utterly false and defamatory.

Marcarian claims that when he contacted the NASA Spinoff author and the magazines editors that NASA responded by ceasing its recognition of CLA as a Spinoff technology.

On March 24, 2008 the Spinoff editor responded to Marcarians inquiry via e-mail. Here is a quote from that e-mail from NASA: " we at NASA Spinoff have done our due diligence in researching this story. It has been fact checked and approved by several different offices within and outside of NASA."

Marcarian disparages the value of Space Certification at great length.

Could this be because Marcarian himself applied for Space Certification in August 2007, but did not receive it?

The article asserts that a US Senate investigation concluded that this was the "worse fraud in NASA Spinoff history".

There was no "US Senate investigation". Marcarian asked a senator to inquire on his behalf. This is not a "Senate investigation". And further, there is no assertion of fraud at all. The plain fact of the matter is that on June 26, 2009, Mary D. Kerwin, NASAs Acting Administrator for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, in a letter to Georgia Senator Isakson (who inquired on this matter on behalf of Dr. Gentempo and CLA), wrote, "NASA has made no statements regarding the nature or character of the CLA product itself, nor has NASA otherwise characterized CLA or its claim".

Marcarian says in the article that he was "asked by the US Senate to provide evidence proving that CLA did not"

Could anyone believe that the United States Senate one day decided to approach Marcarian because the Senate needed his assistance on this matter? I am sure you realize the kind of matters the Senate as a body does concern itself with.

In the ultimate display of the true intentions of this so-called investigation by our competitor, Marcarian states, "Some legal experts have argued that doctors may have the right to have the lease company transfer the full amount of the lease to a legitimate product" (This statement speaks volumes as to the motives of this article.)

No legitimate legal expert would make such a statement.


Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard