US SENATE NASA Investigation

[Nemo]

Click Here

US SENATE NASA Investigation
Written by David Marcarian
Monday, 06 July 2009 15:59
From: Mr. David Marcarian
To: Patrick Gentempo
RE: U.S. Senate & NASA Headquarters Concludes Insight's Claimed Connection to NASA is Unfounded.

There is nothing more powerful than solid, objective, indisputable evidence: For those not interested in the discussion, view unclassified documents, now a matter of public record below: This is not my opinion, but the report of multiple government and private agencies involved in this investigation including a former secret service agent (lead investigator) up to the US Senate. This is the first case of it's kind in NASA History, and NASA is now reviewing it's regulations to prevent future failures at the Space Program.

Supporting Documents: Since these documents are unclassified and a matter of public record, feel free to print these or forward the www.myovision.com web address to others in the Chiropractic community.

Click the "back" button, or "X" out of the PDF to return to the additional documents and article.

Letter from US Senator and NASA Headquarters finalizing investigation by admitting CLA has no connection to NASA. Click HERE
Space Foundation Press Release where DC's encouraged to make false NASA claims to boost credibility of chiropractic. Click HERE
Original "Spinoff" Article where claims were made regarding CLA's development as a NASA technology. Click HERE
Alteration to "Spinoff" Article after US Senate Investigation, removing CLA's claims from NASA Website after NASA determined that the implied endorsement for the CLA product was not justified, and illegal. Click HERE
Public Statement from Boston University's General Counsel's Office pointing out that claims in article above were false. Click HERE
Dear Patrick:

I read your recent "rant" email where you attack me and everyone under the sun regarding the recent Senate Investigation into your company’s claimed connection to NASA. You always speak of being "congruent". Well, finally NASA has proven that you may talk the talk...but walk the walk? NASA says otherwise after a year and a half investigation. But, Patrick it so predictable to see you deflect all responsibility and attempt to blame me for NASA's investigation. How is it possible that I could have any influence on any government agency. Please get real. The data speak for themselves, and they have spoken quite loudly. Do you really think it possible that I am so powerful that I can convince a U.S. Senator to investigate the "little people"? I appreciate your confidence in me, but it was those much bigger than us who dealt this final blow to you.

What is truly ironic is that this investigation was triggered by a Chiropractic College. A College you are associated with. Perhaps one that was not so happy with attendance at their seminars lately? They will never admit to this, so don't waste your time. I cannot believe that you did not know that it was your own people who "triggered" the NASA Investigation. Owning up and taking responsibility for your actions would be the honorable thing to do. Might keep you "congruent", but instead you attack.Why?

My first thought after reading your very detailed yet bizarre response, was a reference to Shakespeare’s "Hamlet":

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Why would anyone who is NOT guilty react so defensively? Your response reminds me of the reaction of guilty politicians attempting to hide wrongdoing through redirection. To simply respond with honesty and state the truth: that the conclusions of the dozen or so involved in this case including a former secret service agent are accurate… would create so much more respect for you. I guess once a politician, always a politician. Of course, the best part was your stating in the beginning of your latest "rant" that you are going to take the "high road" but then trash anyone interested in telling the truth: Shame on you Patrick. You are a disgrace to this profession for such "textbook political tactics". I have not attacked you Pat. Not for a second. I just did what your people asked of me is all. Do what I do best: Research. But I do not currently work for the Federal Government nor have access to the information they had to come to their conclusions. I did not make the conclusions but simply reported on them.

Yes, I did work at NASA-Ames Research Center specifically on Surface EMG, and yes, this is one of the reasons I was selected for this investigation but I did not come to the conclusions nor have any influence on them.

But I have spent the last 20 years convincing the chiropractic profession the importance of data in evaluating patients: The world now recognizes the value of chiropractic because of data, not opinion. The same applies in this situation:

Let’s be logical here for a moment: What carries more weight: The opinion of Patrick Gentempo, who has profit motive for attacking me and making claims about a NASA endorsement….

Rating on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being most credible: 1

OR,

The results of a 1 ½ year investigation which was carried out by a former secret service agent (lead investigator), the NASA Office of Inspector General, the Boston University General Counsel’s Office, a well-respected US Senator (The Honorable Maria Cantwell) AND finally NASA Headquarters…with the conclusions made public record (see MyoVision Website).

Rating on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being most credible: 10.
Patrick, is it your hope that the profession is lacking in intelligence and won’t actually look at the data?

Another issue I saw with your letter: Logic may not be your strong suit: Your expertise lies in drawing those lacking in confidence to you so you can help them develop confidence. You are quite good at this. But we need to return to 8th grade math for a moment:

This has to do with your implied claim that the US Senate Investigation had nothing to do with you:

If A=B, and B= C, then A=C. Simple enough, right?

If Patrick Gentempo (A) is the CEO and Co-Founder of Chiropractic Leadership Alliance (B), then (A)=(B). Chiropractic Leadership Alliance (CLA) (B) has been claiming that it’s Insight Subluxation Station is a NASA "Spinoff" (defined by NASA as: a product featuring successfully commercialized NASA technology).

The US Senate/ NASA Headquarters investigation concluded regarding (B) CLA’s product, that it: (C)"….does not meet NASA standards for designation as a NASA spinoff technology. NASA regrets the error", making CLA guilty of misrepresenting their product as a NASA Technology.

Logically then: If Patrick Gentempo (A) = CLA (B) and (B) is guilty of (C) misrepresenting their product as a NASA Spinoff, then (A) Patrick Gentempo is guilty of (C) making false claims regarding a connection to NASA which NASA concluded is in fact accurate. And you claim that somehow you were not associated with this investigation? Eigth grade Math my friend. Eigth grade.

Q.E.D.

The bottom line? Patrick presents his opinion, while I present objective, third-party conclusions made by a major investigation finalized by NASA Headquarters and triggered by the U.S. Senate.




Who are you going to trust? Patrick Gentempo with a profit motive, or a multi-agency investigation; involving those with absolutely nothing to gain or lose from the outcome?

Pat, take this up with NASA, the Senate, the Chiropractic College Which Started This, and Stay Congruent
And Truly Take The High Road, and Keep Me Out of It.




David Marcarian
President
Precision Biometrics Inc/ MyoVision

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.terryrondberg.com
www.rondberg.com
www.terryArondberg.com
http://terryrondberg.blogspot.com
http://profile.typepad.com/terryarondberg

[Nemo]

Frequently Asked Questions: (FAQ’s): For Supporting Documents Scroll To The Top



Q: Isn’t this just one competitor making claims about another competitor to gain advantage in the marketplace?

A: First of all, it is the opposite: My competition has made claims to gain advantage in the marketplace, but they turned out to be false. Given a choice, would you choose a NASA-designed product, or one which is not? What if you found out that your NASA designed product was truly a fake. Would you be upset? Like paying full price for a Rolex to find out that it is just a cheap imitation? I did work with Surface EMG at NASA so the claims I make are true.

It is not I or they who make claims here: It is the US Senate and NASA Headquarters. I was just was asked by the US Senate to provide the proof.

Q: Why did the US Senate and NASA’s Office of the Inspector General question me (one in person, the other via mail) with regards to this case?

A: First of all, let me make one thing clear: While most are happy with conjecture, I am not. Even though I knew that these claims were false for over a year, I felt it was important for NASA to finish its investigation. The point? This is NOT me making claims of impropriety, but NASA itself admitting that there is no relationship at all between CLA and NASA, as can be seen in the attached letter from NASA Headquarters. It is meaningless to make claims that cannot be supported. It is powerful to have an agency like NASA make a public statement denying any involvement with CLA and thus Patrick Gentempo.

Q: Why was I asked to investigate?

A: I was contacted by a Chiropractic College that felt that there was something awry regarding the claims made by CLA about their product and its roots in NASA technology. Since I worked at NASA Ames research center, and had access to NASA research databases, they felt I was the right person to investigate. Secondly, after the case in Florida where a chiropractor reached out to the entire profession to aid him in preventing DC’s in the State of Florida from losing the right to use Surface EMG equipment, all other’s ignored his pleas, but I personally took on the State of Florida and a consortium of 300 insurers…myself and one DC, and prevailed. I developed a reputation for never losing in court because of being good at investigating thoroughly, and never making claims that could not be supported.

At first, I read them over(the claims) and thought "who would make such claims if they were not true". They almost had me also, but I investigated further. They used Boston University’s name freely in the articles, making wild claims about their Chief Engineer and how he directed this research when the only published research he was associated with had to do with hamsters or some type of rodent. I figured Boston University must be aware of this, and it was probably fine, but I decided to investigate further. What I found was shocking, and involved a year and a half investigation where I was even interviewed by a former Secret Service agent (and bodyguard for Ronald Reagan) all the way up to the US Senate.

Q: What was the result?

A: It turned out, the NASA claims could not be corroborated, as this work was that of several famous researchers, and CLA was not involved at all. When the U.S. Senate got involved, NASA Headquarters did its own investigation and the conclusion was simply that CLA’s product had not been developed at NASA and the claims made were false.

Q: What did NASA do?

A: NASA removed all the claims made in its flagship magazine which showcases products developed at NASA and commercialized ("Spinoff" Magazine). When you go to the website, there is now a disclaimer showing, under the article title regarding CLA’s product "Neurospinal Screening Evaluates Nerve Function", that the device did not meet the requirements to be a NASA Spinoff.

Q: Who is the "Space Foundation" and what is their connection to NASA?

A: There is no connection between the Space Foundation and NASA even though they make it appear as though there is. In the case of CLA, the Space Foundation simply receives a fixed amount of money yearly for an "exclusive" endorsement. I have a letter from the Space Foundation clearing MyoVision for a Space Foundation endorsement, as the MyoVision is a true NASA Spinoff, but was told in writing that CLA had already paid for an exclusive endorsement. It is my opinion that The Space Foundation has become a "sell out". They at once, had a desire to endorse only NASA technologies: Now they endorse anything at all for what appears to be for financial reasons.

Q: How does this affect the Chiropractic Profession?

A: This would not be such a big deal if it were not promoted to thousands of chiropractors (see the "Press Release from the Space Foundation"). It effectively entices the public into chiropractic care using false claims. This is serious, because the courts have been clear: If a chiropractor makes false claims about a product, he or she cannot, in their defense claim ignorance, or that they were simply repeating the claims of the manufacturer: Each doctor by law is required to evaluate the claims themselves, and is legally responsible for committing fraud if the statements they use to encourage patients to utilize their services is false. We already saw two chiropractors jailed for this and two receive $25,000.00 fines in CA over another product with false NASA claims.

Q: What should we do?

A: First of all, it is time we drop the "fraternity" mindset about our profession, and simply police ourselves and show the world that we will always do the right thing, and not accept as members of our profession those who make false claims. It is up to you: Do you want to be associated with those that make up false claims, making our profession look as snake oil salesmen? If you don’t, then ban all products and services by these individuals to make certain you are not associated with them. You CAN make a difference.

Secondly, for those who are publicizing the false NASA claims or implied NASA claims through any press releases that claim that any product have NASA ties when it does not, remove all claims from your website or marketing materials. Doctors have already received warnings to stop using these materials in states that are "proactive" about such matters. The MyoVision NASA claims are not false, as I did in fact work at a NASA facility and performed work there utilizing Surface EMG.

Q: What are the long term affects of the results of this investigation?
A: There are none if we act quickly and police from within. In a down economy, the last thing we need is bad publicity. Therefore by showing the world that we can and will police from within, we bolster our reputations not destroy them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.terryrondberg.com
www.rondberg.com
www.terryArondberg.com
http://terryrondberg.blogspot.com
http://profile.typepad.com/terryarondberg