The World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC), widely criticized for its opposition to subluxation-based chiropractic, has officially endorsed the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) Position Paper on Chiropractic.

The ACC paper sets forth a clear definition of chiropractic and emphasizes the role of vertebral subluxation correction.

"We are gratified that the WFC has decided to join the greater chiropractic community in endorsing this important document," stated Terry A. Rondberg, D.C., president of the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA). "We will look forward to seeing them to alter their policies and activities to be congruent with the letter and spirit of the ACC paper. Once they do, I'm confident we will all be able to work together harmoniously."

Many observers see the WFC's action as a response to pressure put on it by the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA).

"Without the WCA's activities, WFC would never have accepted the ACC paradigm," stated Christopher Kent, D.C., who serves on the WCA Board of Directors.

Last year, the WCA began a campaign to raise awareness of the WFC's activities throughout the world, including its controversial "Tokyo Charter" and its often repeated recommendation that the word "subluxation" be removed from the chiropractic lexicon.

At two key chiropractic events last year, several WCA members confronted the WFC "Secretary General," attorney David Chapman-Smith on this issue.

Mr. Chapman-Smith has been known for his seeming disdain for the concept of the subluxation and has stated that chiropractors should refrain from using the term in order to gain acceptance by the medical profession and general public.

During one of the meetings -- "Chiropractic Town Hall" gatherings organized by Drs. Theresa and Stuart Warner -- Chapman-Smith stating that his vision of chiropractic was as "the dominant force for the provision of spinal manual therapies in the mainstream health care systems throughout the world."

He added: "To me, that's a very much bigger vision than simply using your own language talking about adjusting subluxations."

In response to Chapman-Smith's disavowal of the subluxation, Dr. Christopher Kent, representing the World Chiropractic Alliance on the Town Hall's panel, told the group, "The innocent victims of the chiropractic civil war are the majority of chiropractors who are not represented by an organization but whose passion is the analysis and correction of vertebral subluxation, so that individuals can express their life potential. This is not a matter of semantics. It's not a matter of preserving a culture, although these are important issues. It's a matter of life and death."

During one Town Hall Q&A session, WCA member Heather Whittle stood up and pointedly questioned Chapman-Smith as to why the word subluxation was never even mentioned in the WFC material he distributed at the meeting.

The tension in the room was palpable as all eyes turned to Chapman-Smith. "Her directness as she stared down Chapman-Smith with her question ignited the room," recalls Patrick Gentempo, D.C., a member of the WCA Board of Directors. "It was amazing. She left him momentarily speechless."

Dr. Gentempo also argued against Chapman-Smith's and the WFC's willingness to abandon the subluxation.

"It really boils down to a philosophical issue," he said during his presentation. "Do we try to modify ourselves to be embraced by what exists because this is the way to move forward based on acceptance rather than strict values -- or, do we say that a future can be created by a group of individuals who live consciously, who have a purpose in their life? ... Do we do what's right in our own minds or do we do what's popular based on how the public might perceive us?"

It appeared to come as a shock to some of the panelists -- including leaders of the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) and International Chiropractors Association (ICA) -- that the WFC had no official policy statement regarding subluxations.

"Later, I had a very heated exchange with Chapman-Smith on the issue of no policy regarding subluxation and when I pressed him about it he stated that they represent so many groups it is hard to have policies," Gentempo noted. "I couldn't help think -- and say -- then of what value is the WFC?"

The revelations about the WFC's lack of any policy statement involving subluxation prompted the initial attempts to have the group consider adopting the ACC document. But at least one participant of the meeting recalls hearing Chapman-Smith confide that he doubted the WFC would ever adopt it.

In the ensuing months, the World Chiropractic Alliance continued to publicize the WFC's actions and statements and pressure began to mount.

As pressure mounted, the WFC attempted to discredit the World Chiropractic Alliance. At one point, Chapman-Smith contacted the United Nations and lodged a protest that the WCA had been granted status as a "non-governmental organization." His action provoked criticism even within the WFC and he was forced to admit that he had acted without the knowledge or approval of the WFC board.

By the time the WFC held its biannual assembly meeting and Congress in Paris this May, the pressure was reaching critical stage. Nearly all of the major international organizations -- including the WCA, ACA, ICA and the Congress of Chiropractic State Associations -- had endorsed the ACC document. Only the WFC and FCLB were conspicuous by their absence.

Still, the WFC vote was divided on the issue and it passed by a scant 2-1 margin. According to a report released by Dr. Gerald Clum, the group's secretary-treasurer, "there were nations that did not support the adoption of the paradigm." Despite the dissension, he noted, "It is safe to say that the majority of national associations from around the world supported the adoption of the paradigm as a unifying statement for the profession around the globe."