September 2009

Protecting chiropractic's sacred cows

by Dr. Terry A. Rondberg

There is an intense feeling of loyalty among subluxation-centered chiropractors. We've worked and fought together for so long that we've developed an attitude of "us against the world." We jump to the defense of any member of "our community" who is attacked, even if we don't know what's really involved. The fact that the person or company is perceived as subluxation-based is enough for us to rally our forces to protect them.

This is one of our greatest strengths but it can also be a blind spot that overwhelms our better judgment.

Recently, this has been evident in the turmoil surrounding the revelations about false advertising claims allegedly made by Chiropractic Leadership Alliance (CLA). Because CLA and its leaders, Drs. Patrick Gentempo and Christopher Kent, are so closely associated with the subluxation-based chiropractic community, they have become sacred chiropractic cows. For some people, they can do no wrong and should not be held to the same ethical and professional standards as the rest of us.

State board regulations are very stringent when it comes to advertising, and rightfully so. If a chiropractic office ran an ad implying it had an endorsement from the White House, the state board would investigate and censure the office if that claim was shown to be false. Should it make any difference whether the clinic was subluxation-centered or not?

Numerous doctors around the country who are using the CLA Subluxation Stations are claiming or implying in their ads that the machine has been endorsed by NASA. In addition, the CLA site contains statements that are contradicted by the evidence.

Making false or misleading advertising claims is in violation of licensing regulations (and the law). Should it make any difference that CLA is considered subluxation-based?

I bring this up since Dr. Gentempo chose to use Dynamic Chiropractic to attack The Chiropractic Journal and David Marcarian for reporting on the issue.

First of all, I find it ironic that Dr. Gentempo went to DC -- a publication known for years to be biased against subluxation-centered chiropractic -- even though he refused to accept our invitation to respond in the Journal when we published the original article. I suppose it's true what they say about adversity making strange bedfellows.

Secondly, unlike The Chiropractic Journal, DC did not, in the name of fairness, offer "equal time" to counter the attacks against us. Although David Marcarian has written a rebuttal and asked DC to print it, I am not optimistic about his chances of success. So, I'd like to briefly respond here to several of Dr. Gentempo's arguments.

Dr. Gentempo characterized the original report as an "attack" against him and CLA. This is simply not true. The article did NOT attack anyone or any company. It reviewed documented evidence and discussed ONLY the charges being made about certain Subluxation Station advertising claims.

He also claims that David Marcarian has ulterior motives for writing the article, since he is a "competitor." That's the same motive he ascribes to me and WCA President Dr. Richard Barwell (even though Dr. Barwell was not involved in the investigation nor in the report in the Journal.) In our free enterprise system, the world is full "competitors" but to perceive them all as enemies is unhealthy and unreasonable.

Dr. Gentempo also states that "Dr. Kent and I have completely disassociated ourselves from Rondberg some time ago due to not wanting to be associated with Rondberg’s behaviors and directions." That's news to me! During the many years that the WCA and the Journal supported and publicized CLA, Dr. Gentempo never had any problem with my "behaviors and directions." I supported him for many years and have NEVER written an article criticizing or denigrating him or any CLA product or service. A quick look at the Journal website shows more than 390 articles that mention Dr. Gentempo -- all of them positive! Now, when we dare to discuss openly the charges being leveled against the advertising claims for the Subluxation Station, he tries to suggest that my "behaviors and directions" are involved. As for Dr. Kent, when he resigned from the WCA he stated it was because he had "other commitments." Personally, I have no reason to think he lied.

Some doctors who have blindly accepted Dr. Gentempo's explanation have tried to characterized this issue as a personal matter between competitors, however I am not in competition with CLA in any way. I do not "sell equipment" and when I discovered how advanced the NeuroInfiniti was the WCA endorsed it over the outdated CLA technology. I believe more than ever this was the right decision to advance our abilities as a profession.

The last thing our profession needs is more infighting but no individual or company is above the law. It is my responsibility to protect the interests of the doctors in the field that is why the WCA was formed and why the doctors were warned about the potential for fraudulent advertising claims being promoted by CLA.

Let's get past all this name calling and innuendo and review the evidence: the letters from NASA headquarters and a US Senator, marketing material from the Space Foundation, letters from two officials from Boston University, published statements from Spinoff magazine, and much more. It's all online (follow the link from the WCA homepage, www.worldchiropracticalliance.org). Facts don't lie. If you don't believe me or David Marcarian, look only at the evidence and come to your own conclusions.