Dear Editor:
In 1988, after debating with Joseph Keating about the ludicrous NACM (National Association of Chiropractic Medicine), I resolved to dismiss the issue, figuring that this radical splinter organization would not last.
I can relate to the average chiropractor. I don't advocate wacky techniques. I abhor abstract, quasi-religious explanations about someone's spinal condition. I like the concept of "subluxation complex" and can describe it without using a "bone out of place" analogy. I believe that chiropractic should be delivered to people of all ages. And, I think that technique diversity is a good idea (if your only tool is a hammer ...).
As a former pharmacologist by trade, I understand what science is and is not. Dr. Slaughter's "manipulatable lesion," simply being loss of mobility or range of motion, is such a narrow parameter that its employment by chiropractors would be a terrible disservice to the public. It ignores all the research and case studies published that support chiropractic not only for a broader range of conditions, but also as a way of keeping the body working well. Isn't that why elite athletes seek us? Dr. Slaughter must differentiate science from clinical practice just as medicine does.
I know that we have difficulty with the term subluxation. Can we at least change the words instead of throw out the concept? Alterations in the tone of muscles, formation of myofascial lesions, changes in lymph and blood flow, and other phenomenon surround a spinal joint that is dysfunctioning. These all are components of a manipulatable lesion that we find clinically. So, instead of subluxation complex, how about: joint dysfunction complex?
But for heaven's sake, don't call me an orthopractor.
Scott F. Gillman, DC
Natick, Massachusetts
"Your the doctor of the future. Act like it."
Dear Editor:
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Renouncing the chiropractic philosophy? Doctor of chiropractic medicine?
I would say that if your checkbook is empty and you don't get any respect, it would be easy to give in to the drug and pain philosophy and drop the drug free, natural health care chiropractic has championed. It's not easy. Insurance companies down on you. Drug companies down on you. Consumer Reports spewing garbage about your weak-kneed profession. You are a stroke-causing, over-utilizing, pseudo-scientific excuse for an aspirin (sorry, I can't even go on!).
You are the doctor of the future. Act like it.
Tim Jorgensen, DC
Enderlin, North Dakota
Self-righteous?
Dear Editor:
In his column of June 3, 1994, Joe Keating erroneously quotes me as saying that those who participate in the science journal mission are self-righteous. What I really said was that some science journal participants are self-righteous. At the risk of sounding self-righteous myself, I have documented elsewhere1 that the position of these few is not only elitist, it is without any supportive scientific evidence.
Also, why does Dr. Keating recommend only JMPT as compulsory reading for students and not any of our other fine science journals such as Journal of Chiropractic Research and Clinical Investigation, Case Reports, and Journal of Chiropractic Research? Could it be because these latter ones are more traditional and non-elitist?
Reference
1. Hart JF. Sporadic cases of science journal elitism within a chiropractic community. Digest of Chiropractic Economics 1994; 36(4): 14-15, 17-18.
John F. Hart, DC
Colfax, Iowa
"... supplementation with the ca+ salt of orotic acid does have beneficial effects on osteoporotic bone."
Dear Editor:
This is in response to Dr. Bruce Born (letter in June 3rd issue) regarding a comment on calcium orotate supplementation in my column "Physiatry." The reason no studies were given to "back up" my comment is because the column does not deal with clinical nutrition and the statement was made because of an urge on my part to impart this information as a by-product of my own clinical experience. Other than the literature, which I have from my college work under Dr. Gier, I have radiographs, photon absorptionmetry, and quantitative computed tomography to satisfy me that supplementation with the ca+ salt of orotic acid does have beneficial effects on osteoporotic bone. My college professor and valued friend, Dr. Delta Gier is, in my opinion, one of the most competent nutritional biochemists in the scientific community, and my understanding of the clinical application of the salts of orotic acid are a product of his biochemical wisdom.
I apologize if my urge to include this comment in my column was distressing to you, and was unaware of the fact that it was "out of place" in that column when I included it. No one has all the answers. If you continue to desire literary references on this subject, I will forward this information upon request and I feel confident that Dr. Gier would be pleased to enlighten you if you communicated by phone or letter. He is both brilliant and very reasonable, and I have the highest regard for him as a scientist and person.
R. Vincent Davis, DC, BSPT, DNBPME
Independence, Missouri
"The practitioner will always make the technique, never the reverse."
Dear Editor:
I was in the second year at Palmer Davenport when my younger brother began to use Activator after two years of practice. I called and gave him heck. "Chiropractic is done by hand only, skin on skin, above down, inside out, get your foot off the hose, etc." He responded, "John, when you have been in practice for two years, we can discuss it. At this time we have no common ground on which to stand." I hated to admit it, but he was right as he sometimes is.
During my last year at Palmer my youngest brother began using Activator after he had been in practice for two years. Both these doctors were good with their hands. They just wanted to be better and were looking for ways to help more people.
I determined not to wait two years to see if the "thump gun" had anything to offer. I drove to Chicago during 10th quarter and took my first seminar. I thought, "If he (Dr. Fuhr) is telling the truth, maybe it does have its uses."
What I have learned is that a good practitioner will be good no matter what technique he uses and a bumbler will always be a bumbler. The practitioner will always make the technique, never the reverse.
There are relatively few Activator practitioners who have never learned a manual technique first, if there are any. Almost all who use this instrument have changed for one reason ... results. Many use it straight with good results. Some, like myself, use it with a liberal amount of manual adjusting where necessary. If I had to chose between straight manual and straight Activator, the profession would lose a good manual adjuster. But I don't have to make that choice.
Lastly, I wonder if there is any practitioner who has never lost a patient to a colleague who was more successful. Patients flow both ways with the same results.
Until a person has learned to use any technique he should not knock it.
John G. Watson, DC
Hendersonville, North Carolina
"... more than an issue of sematics."
Dear Editor:
Thank you for publishing our article, "Not A Cookie Cutter Problem." We are very grateful to have the opportunity to share some of our findings with the chiropractic community through Dynamic Chiropractic.
The Editor's Note at the end of the "DC" article states, "... ADHD is only one of the many conditions treated at the Center: [various conditions] are also treated."
We do not want to give the impression that we actually treat specific problems. We see the children who have the conditions. As we understand it, this is more than an issue of semantics. It entails the whole concept of Kentuckiana, which is all healing arts working together to treat the whole child, who may have one or more debilitating condition.
Tina Anderson
Kentuckian Children's Center
Louisville, Kentucky