November 2005

Chiropractic via e‑mail

From: Dr Terry A Rondberg

Date: September 24, 2005

Can you handle the truth?

The following quotes are anti‑chiropractic, some are from our enemies some are from chiropractic researchers who are not interested in proving the value of subluxation corrective care.

If you want to view or download the PowerPoint presentation, click the following links: View or Download

The one thing we all do agree on is the need for much more scientific evidence if our profession wants to survive and grow!

"Some may suggest that chiropractors should promote themselves as the experts in 'correcting vertebral subluxation.' However, the scientific literature has failed to demonstrate the very existence of the subluxation. Until and unless sound research published in credible journals demonstrates the existence and reliable identification of vertebral subluxation, and vertebral subluxation is found to be an important public health problem, society at large will not care about its correction. Thus, 'subluxation correction' alone is not a viable option for chiropractic's future." ‑‑co‑authored by Donald R. Murphy, DC, DACAN, Matthew Kowalski, DC, DABCO, et. al, "Bringing Chiropractic Into the Mainstream in the 21st Century ‑- Part II"  Dynamic Chiropractic, September 1, 2005, Volume 23, Issue 18

"More than a century later, subluxation theory remains an unproven article of faith ‑‑ a fact that has led hundreds of Florida State University faculty members to oppose creating a chiropractic college at FSU." ‑‑Miami Herald, January 14, 2005

"There is no scientific evidence to indicate that vertebral misalignment or any dysfunction in structures of the spinal column is a cause of disease." --Samuel Homola: "Is the Chiropractic Subluxation Theory a Threat to Public Health?" The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Winter 2001

"Their [Chiropractors] whole concept of science is just totally off" --Dr. Raymond Bellamy, Orthopedic Surgeon & Faculty Member of Florida State University Medical School, Miami Herald, January 14, 2005

"If the chiropractic profession fails to abandon the false premise upon which it is based, it will remain controversial and some aspects of chiropractic treatment will continue to be a threat to public health." --Samuel Homola: "Is the Chiropractic Subluxation Theory a Threat to Public Health?" The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Winter 2001

"Florida State University Provost Lawrence Abele said the chiropractic school would not teach subluxation theory, which is at the root of the profession's unscientific claims. That theory holds that correcting the spine's alignment is central to good health." --Miami Herald, January 14, 2005

"...there is no evidence that any chiropractic treatment works for infants and/or kids." ‑‑ Healthwatcher.net

"I am not aware of any chiropractic research that has led to any significant improvement in patient care." --Stephen Barrett, MD

"Some evidence suggests chiropractic treatment can help headaches and neck pain, although neck treatments may carry a slight risk of stroke. The best evidence is for short‑term back pain, which chiropractic appears to treat effectively." --Miami Herald, January 14, 2005

"The truth is that slight misalignment of a vertebra has no effect on spinal nerves." --Samuel Homola: "Is the Chiropractic Subluxation Theory a Threat to Public Health?" The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Winter 2001

"Most chiropractors now focus on treating pain through spinal manipulation. Yet surveys show nearly 20 percent of chiropractors ‑‑ more than 10,000 nationwide ‑‑ still believe in subluxation theory." --Dr. John Triano, Miami Herald, January 14, 2005

"It does seem risky to stake our profession's future on a yet‑to‑be thoroughly tested set of neurological hypotheses" --William Meeker, DC, MPH, FICC, Director of the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Dynamic Chiropractic, January 2005

"Dr. Villanueva‑Russell points out that chiropractic's original epistemology of vitalism is not amenable to the evidence‑based approach, and that attempts to make it that way have major implications." --William Meeker, DC, MPH, FICC, Director of the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Dynamic Chiropractic, January 2005

"The dearth of defensible information about chiropractic and chiropractors is still hampering our external ability to integrate successfully with the rest of the so‑called health industry... Let's face it. We have a massive fact deficit in chiropractic." --William Meeker, DC, MPH, FICC, The Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research

"Chiropractic is a 19th century philosophy wearing the white smock of science." --Wall Street Journal, March 18, 1993

"Chiropractors are just monkeys in lab coats." --Howard Stern (radio personality)

"It is the consensus of medical and scientific opinion that chiropractors should not be allowed to treat children." --Samuel Homola: "Is the Chiropractic Subluxation Theory a Threat to Public Health?" The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Winter 2001

"In the case of children, such treatment should be considered fraudulent or illegal." --Samuel Homola: "Is the Chiropractic Subluxation Theory a Threat to Public Health?" The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Winter 2001

There is no scientific evidence that adjustments to bones or vertebrae will correct specific conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, kidney disease or constipation. ‑‑ "What Chiropractors Can -‑ And Can't -‑ Do for You," Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter, February, 2003

"Wellness or maintenance treatment? This is a good way for a chiropractor to make extra money, and a common reason many medical doctors don't refer to chiropractors. There is no scientific evidence that when you feel good chiropractic treatment can prevent or maintain anything. If you feel good and you chiropractor still wants to see you, get a second opinion before continuing care." --G. Douglas Andersen, DC, DACBSP, CCN, Dynamic Chiropractic, Jan. 28th, 2002 Issue, p.19

Until chiropractors can provide evidence that they're fully capable of acting as primary care physicians, says Dr. Hawk, neither the public nor other health care professionals will view them as such. Without research on clinical and economic outcomes, chiropractic will not prosper. "If we could get evidence for what we do, we could definitely treat many more types of problems and many more types of patients in years to come," she says. ‑‑Dr. Cheryl Hawk, an associate professor at the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, at Palmer College of Chiropractic in "Chiropractors as primary care providers," Journal of the American Chiropractic Association

Even Scott Haldeman agrees you and every other chiropractor should be involved in research:

This requires that individual chiropractors become more involved by reading the scientific journals and attending meetings where the results of research are presented. Research, however, is dependent on financial support. The results of research will benefit chiropractors and their patients more than any other group. It is therefore essential that chiropractors financially support institutions that fund research. It is only through such funding that the theories and practice of chiropractic will continue to evolve and the practice will improve to the benefit of all chiropractic patients. --Scott Haldeman, DC, MD, PhD, "The Evolution of Chiropractic ‑‑ Science & Theory"

Harvard University will receive over $760 million from the NIH this year alone to conduct medical research. The chiropractic profession has received less than $20 million in 100 years. You can make a huge difference by joining RCS.

Another reason why RCS is important is explained by Dr. Ron Feise:

"Although the importance of chiropractic research in professional practice is widely accepted, and using research to guide chiropractic practice has been a long‑standing goal of the profession, the actual integration of research into practice is not yet widespread. This lack of research utilization is threatening the integrity of the profession." --Ronald J Feise, "Evidence Based Approach," The Journal of the American Chiropractic Association, Aug 2002 

No other company is committed to proving the efficacy of subluxation correction but RCS. If you don't support these efforts and you lose your right to correct vertebral subluxations who will you blame?

I suggest you look in the mirror and ask your self why you didn't care enough to join RCS and protect yourself, your profession and millions of unborn who will never experience a life free of vertebral subluxation.

Please don't let this happen. Join RCS today and help us bury our critics and provide the critical data and information that people are dying to hear. Help us help you today!

The training facility at UCI has limited seating, so you need to respond rapidly, either by e-mail to djackson@rcsprogram.com or by calling him at 800‑909‑1354. By the way, your associate and/or spouse (if applicable) are invited as my guests as well.

More research, more patients, more credibility, more chiropractic! All we need now is you.

=========

From: William Abbott, DC

Date: September 24, 2005

Guys, this is crazy! I don't even know what to say. And from what I can tell, it seems like chiropractors are the ones doing some of this! Have you guys even heard of the National Association of Chiropractic Medicine? (I actually hate even saying "chiropractic medicine")

Don't they even realize that most of the medical profession is unscientifically founded too? I agree that it wouldn't hurt to do more research, but this is ridiculous. Aren't these people proud to be chiropractors, or are they "medical doctor wannabees"?

Please help me, but, why would anyone want to be in bed with the "AMA," why would they want more acceptance from the medical community and why on earth would they want to be known as chiropractic physicians!?!

Aren't we taught as children that we shouldn't need acceptance from anyone for validation of ourselves. Aren't we also taught that if we have a good thing we shouldn't have to put down others so everyone knows it. So what are they afraid of?

If any of you guys know anything else about any of this stuff, I would appreciate it greatly if you shared. I hope that you are all doing well. The first thing that they need to realize is that "chiropractors" are in fact different from medical doctors because we want to be.

We have practices because of the failings of the "medical profession" -- and I use that term loosely). Most people come to us after they have tried everything else only to get little or no results (or they have gotten worse). Chiropractic doesn't need research anymore than gravity needs research! The proof is in the pudding! I think that it is safe to say that there has been minimal change in chiropractic since D.D Palmer. Why, I ask myself. That is simple, because good and true things don't need to change. The medical profession can't even come close to saying this! It was not long ago that "the medical profession" was practicing "blood‑letting" and drilling holes in people's heads because of a little deviant behavior or because they were homosexuals.

Please excuse any typos and excuse my rant. It just really gets under my skin, when I read stuff like this.

Bill Abbott BS, DC

=========

From: Dr. Matthew McCoy

Date: September 24, 2005

William, I'm very concerned about your statement: "Chiropractic doesn't need research anymore than gravity needs research! The proof is in the pudding!" I've attached an article that I believe outlines why the issue of research in chiropractic has reached a crisis state. I'd be interested in your feedback once you read it.

regards, Matthew

==========

From: William Abbott

Date: September 26, 2005

Dr. McCoy, I thank you for your timely response. I feel that my feelings may have been misinterpreted.

I agree that subluxation‑based chiropractic needs more research. I just don't want our meagre research dollars to be wasted (spent in the wrong direction). I feel that it is important to keep things in perspective. I mean exactly who are we doing the research for? Is it for the betterment of our profession or is for acceptance from "the enemy" as it is put by Dr. Rondberg?

I don't know if we will ever get the respect and or referrals from medical doctors (no matter how much research we do) We simply don't have as much money as they do and acceptance from them means that they are admitting their own short‑comings. Nor do we have the backing of Pfizer or Merck. It is a pretty common belief that chiropractic also needs a very global marketing program, similar to how the dentistry profession has the general population convinced about the benefits of a maintenance regime. I mean even the dairy industry has the majority of the general population convinced that we‑ humans need to drink the milk of another species just to stay healthy and strong. Chiropractic works and people know this. That is part of the reason that the medical profession is trying to quash us. That is why chiropractic is still going strong after over one hundred years.

That is why "medical doctors", hospitals and physical therapists are starting to embrace subluxation correction and touch therapy. I guess that that article that refutes the benefit of wellness care (without symptoms) and refutes the care of children really got under my skin. I do appreciate you sending me that article. The statistics are truly pathetic. I cannot speak for other states, but here in Michigan we have two state associations. And one thing is for certain. Chiropractic won't get anywhere until we can all bond together and agree amongst ourselves. Like your article said while we are fighting for crumbs in the corner someone else is stealing our pie.

I am unsure how I feel about your comparison to oncologists however. Yes, they spend a lot of money on research, but to what end. They are no closer to finding a cause or a "cure" despite wasting all of this money! Quite frankly I wonder if this money is being put to good use. I understand your point, I really do. And I fully understand the need for more research. I just wonder if maybe we should also be allocating some of our meagre funds and attention on a global marketing campaign.

Best Regards, Yours in Chiropractic,

Bill Abbott

=========

From: Dr. Matthew McCoy

Date: September 27, 2005

Dear William,

The reason to do research is because it is our ethical and moral responsibility as a profession. Unfortunately that does not drive research in our profession. Typically a chiropractor is only interested in research when he is fighting an insurance company, gets in trouble for making an unsubstantiated claim or is being sued for malpractice. It is only then that he realizes the dearth of research that exists.

Health care is in an age of accountability. While difficult to recognize, medicine is under the same scrutiny. It is not as obvious because medicine is so well entrenched in our society. The culture tells people this or that disease is bad and they need medical services.

You are correct that we do not have the same marketing machine as medicine. However, you cannot market information you do not have and this is why the research needs to be done. You cannot have one without the other.

Medicine admits their own shortcomings a great deal more than one would expect. The only reason we know about the million people a year they are killing is because they research it and publish it.

You say "chiropractic works and people know this" ‑ I have two responses to that: First -- only about 7% of people "know" this. After 110 years that's our market share and its been stuck at that level for at least two decades.

Second -- how do you know chiropractic works? Because you see patients in your office that you believe are responding to your care. The problem is that those miracles you are seeing remain anecdotes and old wives tales until they are systematically gathered and studied. While meaningful to you and to the individual patient they are meaningless to the 93% of the population not under care. Unless you systematically gather and study your own data it dies when you do and all those miracles you saw, all those lives you changed go with you.

The dental profession has the public convinced of the need for maintenance because they have research that shows the importance of this.

I challenge you to show me the research that demonstrates that maintenance chiropractic care provides any benefit to people. And that literature must include large numbers of patients (thousands) and have controls.

Just like you, I "believe" it to be true. But that is not good enough anymore.

You misunderstood my comparison to oncologists. It had nothing to do with "cure." It had to do with understanding the epidemiology of cancer, understanding its nature. We have not even begun to understand the nature of subluxation. If you were asked the simplest of epidemiological questions like what the prevalence of subluxation was -- what would you answer and what data would you base it on? It can't be answered because we don't know.

You say "chiropractic is still going strong." The numbers don't bear this out. We're still at 7% of the population, college enrollments are in serious decline and larger and larger numbers of chiropractors are in financial trouble. Read the Institute for Alternative Futures report for a very grim view of the future of the profession if massive change is not made immediately.

I agree we need the marketing -- but we need something to market other than neck pain, back pain and headaches and in order to have that we need the research.

I hope you will consider joining RCS and help solve this problem.

regards, Matthew