Rethinking Our Approach to Immunization
Dear Editor:
Regarding "The Case for Immunization" by Garth Aamodt, DC, in the Nov. 1, 2014 issue: brilliant, simply brilliant. It should be required reading for our entire profession. Dr. Aamodt succinctly characterizes why the chiropractic profession should rethink our approach to the issue of immunization.
If the chiropractic profession has the foresight to adopt a collective scientifically based stance on the topic of immunization (all we have to do is refer to the American Public Health Association for an assessment of the current scientific rationale for immunization), we will gain substantial credibility and trust with the public, even if our choice as a profession is to remain drugless and nonsurgical.
Opposing what 98 percent of the scientific world supports is professional suicide. As Dr. Aamodt suggests, it's time for the chiropractic profession to take our heads out of the sand and adopt a collective, scientifically informed public health perspective on this issue.
John M. Ventura, DC
Rochester, N.Y.
Coming Together for the Good of Our Patients
Dear Editor:
Regarding the Nov. 15, 2014 editorial, "Saying No to Medicine," which contained some sidebars from an article in Men's Journal, just for a moment let's go to a scenario in which an allopathically oriented publication runs an article called "Saying No to Chiropractic" and goes on to feature sidebars about "Screening for subluxations when no symptoms exist"– in which they discuss chiropractors setting up"screening stations" at shopping malls and garden shows, during which no spine goes undiagnosed and treatment plans are always suggested. I do not see how this is radically different from allopaths screening for BP and LDL, and then treating what they find.
What about "Manipulation – effective for a problem, but how long must treatment go on?" I have personally reviewed cases in which treatment for a specific problem went on for one, two or even three years with no re-evaluation, no change in treatment plan, no second-opinion referrals, and no change in patient objective or subjective findings. I would not be willing to tell the public that allopaths have a lock on unnecessary treatment.
Such an article might go on to cite the kinds of suggestions we read in our own professional media: "A sculpting machine for fat loss" (really, chiropractors, how about some nutritional counseling?); "Alkalize now to boost profits" (because every patient needs this?); "Add an MD to your practice to add high-demand services you can't provide as a chiropractor" (just what are these services, anyway – if they are not chiropractic, do we need them in our offices? How about expanding scope so highly trained doctors of chiropractic can provide these services – or if they are totally out of our scope, how about referrals?); "Learn functional medicine in a weekend" (and we complain about seminars that feature, "Learn spinal manipulation in a weekend"?).
I think before we start putting a copy of Men's Journal articles in the waiting room of our offices, we need to make sure we are not sitting in glass houses casting stones. If we want a collegial relationship with other providers, we have to stop the "us and them" mentality and start looking for common ground. We need to share information from our individual backgrounds and come together for what I hope we all strive toward – the good of our patients.
Cathlynn Groh, DC-APC
Santa Fe, N.M.