Dear Editor:
You made a dreadful error by letting the AMA off scott free! Not only have they conspired against the chiropractors, podiatrists, etc., but they have continued to crush anyone who is not drug-surgery-chemo oriented.
Enclosed is a check and we would like at least five copies of the Guilty booklet. Is there any way to get copies of the court case into the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court and State Supreme Courts? I do believe some of the physicians who have been delicensed, etc., would be eager to see justice done and join in to break up this monopolistic conspiracy and murder team. I have enclosed a list of organizations which have been trying to stand against the AMA. Would it be possible for them to have copies of this Guilty booklet or to be contacted to form a united front -- not a fragmented group -- to fight this thing?
There has to be a way. The state medical boards are actually an arm of the monopoly -- not a protection -- to control anyone who dares provide effective alternative therapies.
We could perhaps supply you with as many of those who have been almost, if not literally, destroyed by the medical boards; not because of the patient complaints, but because doctors using orthodox drug treatments have lost patients who have been successfully treated with alternative methods: vitamins, minerals, glandular supplements, homeopathy, B17, enzymes, herbs, etc.
- ACAM: American College of Advancement in Medicine 23121 Verdugo Drive, Suite 204 Laguna Hills, California 92653 1-800-532-3688 (714) 583-7666
- CANAH: Coalition for Alternatives in Nutrition & Healthcare, Inc. P.O. Box B-12 Richlandtown, Pennsylvania 18955 Attn: Catherine Frompovitch
- Acadamy of Orthomolecular Psychiatry P.O. Box 372 Manhasset, New York 11030
- International Association of Cancer Victors & Friends 7740 Manchester Playa del Ray, California 90293
- Cancer Control Society 2043 North Berendo Street Los Angeles, California 90027
- PMS: People's Medical Society 14 Minor Street Emmaus, Pennsylvania 18049
- International Academy of Preventive Medicine P.O. Box 5832 Lincoln, Nebraska 68505
- Livingston-Wheeler Clinic (Cancer) 3232 Duke Street San Diego, California (619) 224-3515
- National Health Federation Attn: Maureen Solomon P.O. Box 688 Monrovia, California 91016
- Association of Concerned Citizens for Preventive Medicine 415-B McArthur Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1K 1G5
- Canadian Holistic Medical Association 120 Carlton Street, Suite 207 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5A 4K2 (416) 960-4781
- Association for Cardiovascular Therapies, Inc. P.O. Box 706 Bloomfield, Connecticut 06002
- The American Association of Nutritional Consultants 2375 E. Tropicana, Suite 270 Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
- The Alliance for Alternative Medicine P.O. Box 59 Liberty Lake, Wisconsin 99019
- Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer 111 Ellis Street San Francisco, California 94102
- American Biologics Attn: Robert & Carol Bradford 1180 Walnut Avenue Chula Vista, California 92011
- Dr. Bruce Halstead, M.D. 22807 Barton Road Grand Terrace, California 92324
- David Kauffman, M.D. P.O. Box 1837 Whitefish, Montana 59937
- Townsend Letter for Doctors Attn: Jonathan Collin, M.D. 911 Tyler Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368
- Swansons Health Products P.O. Box 2803 Fargo, North Dakota 58108
Author's name withheld by request.
Rodale Books and Prevention Magazine -- Pro-Drug/Anti-Chiropractic?
Dear Editor:
About four months ago Rodale books was soliciting subscribers over the phone to buy a nutrition and vitamin book they have published. How do I know this? Because they called me. I indicated to the saleswoman I would not buy this book because Prevention has become too drug oriented. She actually tried to convince me, for approximately one minute, how great this book is. I then again stated to her I would not buy it because Prevention had become too medically oriented. She did not like this.
Perhaps Prevention is under economic stress.
Imogene C. Protz, D.C.
Crossville, Alabama
Dear Editor:
I was amused at the outrage expressed in your article concerning Prevention, in the February 14, 1990 edition of Dynamic Chiropractic. What did you expect? Have you taken a good look at Prevention lately?
Years ago, the advertising in Prevention consisted of offers for mail order supplements and grain mills. Today, you will see beautiful full-color ads from (surprise!) the large pharmaceutical and processed food concerns.
Then check out the articles. Practically everyone has a suggestion for "check out this medication" or "consult a surgeon for this operation." Only rarely does Prevention mention chiropractic, usually in a slanted article like the one you cited.
Prevention cannot be trusted to advise consumers on natural health care. Rodale's editoral stance is obviously being affected by the advertisers. I banned the rag from my clinic years ago, and whenever I hear a patient mention Prevention, I warn them.
It looks to me like this country needs a good, authoritative, wide-circulation consumer magazine that is unabashedly anti-drug and pro-chiropractic. You are a publisher, Mr. Petersen, any suggestions?
Dwayne S. Borgstrand, D.C.
Red Lodge, Montana
Dear Mr. Bricklin!
In a book recently published by your company, How To Reverse The Aging Process, you discuss various health practitioners, more specifically "the chiropractor."
In some of the "conclusions" you state, it seems that there were several quotes that were taken out of context regarding the effectiveness of the chiropractor. These quotes came from the book, Back-Ache Relief, by Klein and Sobel.
The authors state, "In summary, chiropractors are neither miracle workers, nor quacks. They are legitimate, professional dispensers of back care. And, on the average, they treat back pain more successfully than most kinds of medical doctors."
They further state, "Few medical disciplines are as potentially useful to back sufferers as kinesiology -- the study of the principles and mechanics of movement. Applied kinesiology involves the use of a wide range of non-drug, nonsurgical procedures, ranging from manipulation, to massage, to exercise. The eight kinesiologists who were seen in this survey were chiropractors----they were able to help six of the eight participants, which were severely limited by low back pain, sciatica, or ruptured disc."
Chiropractors using applied kinesiology had the most effective record of all disciplines, medical and non-medical, including the physiatrist, medical doctors, also called doctor of physical medicine.
It seems, Mr. Bricklin, that you bend the truth and do not state the whole story. It also seems that for a publisher who proports to support natural care, that you are out to get the largest natural care practitioners in the world. Could it be that the AMA is getting to you?
I will no longer be able to or want to recommend your publications to my patients.
James V. Durlacher, B.A., D.C.
Emmaus, Pennsylvania
The following are letters that were written to Mr. Bricklin, the editor of Rodale Publications, (publisher's of Prevention magazine) a carbon copy of which were also sent to "DC" for publication:
Dear Mr. Bricklin,
This letter is in response to a recent publication of Rodale, Future Youth, How To Reverse The Aging Process, in which a few statements concerning the chiropractic profession have not been presented in the interest of informative and ethical fairplay.
First of all, the author states that chiropractic is good for "temporary relief from minor or moderate low back or neck pain, but for severe, chronic low back pain, don't expect miracles." Patient studies from the Workers' Compensation Board of Florida show a different story, namely, that the chiropractic profession was responsible for significantly reducing the overall sick time and insurance costs over the medical profession nearly 2:1. And, might I add, these were cases that were determined to have surgical disc conditions, therefore, spared the knife and further permanent damage.
Secondly, chiropractors were not recommended for "herniated discs or scoliosis" -- according to whose recommendation? The chiropractic profession has excelled for years in getting the results where there was no hope. I refer you once again to the above paragraph. The Cox flexion techniques were specifically designed to treat disc disorders and were developed long before spinal manipulation was a bandwagon for every massage therapist and pseudochiropractor to jump on. This was already pioneered long ago while the medical profession was out looking for one more scalpel to use on an unsuspecting victim. As for scoliosis -- the AMA's own journals speak volumes of how dismal a record they have had, not only in correcting but also in determining and finding scoliosis.
Thirdly, the author states that chiropractors need to see a patient "regularly (whatever that means) and at a costly basis to be most effective." This has to be the most ironic and hypocritical statement of all, coming from a magazine whose name implies Prevention!! Anyone who even takes the time to find out what chiropractic is all about, knows that we have always believed in preventing problems before they get worse. Your magazine is forever touting the efficacy of vitamins to prolong life and prevent conditions. May I add that chiropractors were dispensing vitamins and this advice long before there even was a Prevention magazine. Shame on you, Mr. Bricklan, for calling the kettle black. As for cost effectiveness, the Florida studies, Wilk trial against the AMA, and various other state studies have proven that chiropractic has actually decreased the overall cost of care. If you stop and think for a moment what the average lower back costs under medical care (MD visists, prescriptions, physical therapy, and when this doesn't usually work, surgery and post-surgical rehabilitation) there is just no way on God's green earth that chiropractic can come out looking bad. The only trouble is that due to publications like yours that constantly spout off half-truths and inuendoes, the average person on the street doesn't get to hear the other side. Fortunately, word of mouth has been our best advertiser. And word of mouth adds up to one thing -- satisfied customers. This kind of advertising speaks more volumes than any book ever published.
In closing, I feel your company has done a dis-service to every chiropractor, chiropractic patient, chiropractic supplier, and customer of Rodale Publishing. If you wish to remain in the forefront of responsible, ethical journalism, you should be more cautious and selective in your choice of printed matter. At the very least, if you're going to publish garbage, make it authentic garbage. If you want a Chrysler, you don't go to a Ford dealer. Likewise, if you want to know about chiropractic (obviously the author didn't,) go to a reputable chiropractic organization. It's high time that our profession starts to hold such authors responsible for this obvious slander. Starting today, I will call upon every chiropractor to stand up and call for whatever legal means are available to squelch this kind of one-sided, opinionated folly. Enough said!!!!
Paul R. Horst, D.C.
Maquoketa, Iowa
P.S. If you would like a copy of the Florida studies or other applicable documentation in order to present a more balanced view, I would be happy to provide them to you. Your reluctance to act will only reinforce your biased loyalties to the "other side."
Clear View Sanitarium, 1947
Dear Editor:
Dr. Quigley's reminiscences of Clear View Sanitarium and patient, Roy Owens, brought back some interesting memories.
Our psychiatry class made a field trip to Clear View on one occasion (in 1947), and Dr. Herbert Hender briefed us on Roy before inviting him to "lecture" to us on some technical aspects of electric trolley cars. With a twinkle in his eye, Dr. Hender warned us to be on the alert, because Roy's first few sentences might appear to be quite normal, though "technical" indeed.
We sat in respectful silence as Roy made an apparent lucid beginning, which soon evolved into a sort of gibberish made up of unrelated polysyllabic words and phrases.
It was an interesting excursion into the dark corridors of the schizophrenic mind.
Bert Clayton, D.C.
Harrison, Arizona
Going That "Extra Mile," Ethically
Dear Editor:
Occasionally patients put you "between a rock and a hard place." What do you do? The patients' insurance cover has "run out," they have just had a minor relapse and are asking you, to your face to falsify their receipts and put their spouses' name on it because that person still has full insurance cover. What do you do?
Another patient asks you to "lose" his old file and start anew, because his new insurance policy won't cover preexisting conditions. What do you do?
Hopefully,you will remember that you are a representative of the chiropractic profession. Perhaps you are the first or only chiropractor that a patient may ever see. On your actions and integrity the entire profession is judged. The above situations can and do occur, not often, but once is enough. You might like to point out that agreement to such a request is unethical, improper, illegal, and puts in jeopardy the insurance rebate for all your other patients. If the insurance coverage has "run out" and the patient requires further chiropractic care but cannot afford it, what do you do?
Option 1: Show the patient the door and suggest they come back when they have cash or coverage.
Option 2: Accept goods or produce for payment, such as eggs, vegetable, meat, chicken, green stamps, television, etc.
Option 3: No charge, free, the old something for nothing routine.
Option 4: Write to the claims assessment panel of the insurance carrier stating the facts of the case. Also mention the number of years the patient has been a financial supporter of the insurance company, the patient's current financial difficulties, and their requirement for continuing care. If possible, give an estimation of anticipated costs to be incurred for that financial year. If not possible, state clearly the reasons why.
All of the above options have their inherent problems ranging from minor to major. Option 2 keeps me in chocolate chip cookies, gets my car washed occasionally, and allows dignity for both parties (although more than one case of broccoli or tomatoes at a time can be rough). Preferably leave the television, stereo and jewelery alone -- they could be "hot." Option 4 only gets used in exceptional cases, those that you would go "tooth and nail" for. In the past, I have successfully had the patient's coverage extended and in two cases, had the coverage doubled.
For those of you who just saw $$$ signs, listen up. Some cases that I have negotiated extended coverage on were just prior to their moving to another town and another chiropractor. I "went to bat" with full knowledge of the pending transfer and it was done for the patients and the chiropractic profession. What do you do?
Karl W. Cameron, D.C.
New South Wales, Australia
Does "Straight" Chiropractic Overlook Important Aspects of Human Physiology?
Dear Editor:
I agree with Dr. Healey's definition of what philosophy is and is not. I must also present to you a reality in the understanding of how the "straight" chiropractor may be overlooking some aspects of human physiology, thus delivering care to the public that may be inadequate, incomplete, or foolish.
To believe that only the spine is the cause, or source, or emminence of nerve interference is very naive. For example, if you acknowledge the existance of a myofascial trigger point, then you surely must acknowledge that it is a primary source of nervous (sensory) irritation which will affect the spine. I have a problem finding compassion for the "straight" chiropractor who fails to work on the non-spinal lesion and resorts only to the spine while preaching that everything else will go away once the vertebral subluxations are reduced.
This dogma is intellectually insulting and poses a threat to the chiropractic profession. I have as much distaste for this "straight" philosophy as I do for the "limited pharmaceutical" philosophy. Come on! Snap out of it!
Scott F. Gillman, D.C.
Acton, Massachusetts
Homeopathy and Chiropractic Scope of Practice
Dear Editor:
Well, here we go again. Richard Tyler, famous medical look-alike, while using his back-page column to call other DCs names, is now in the front of the newest issue of "DC" advocating the practice of homeopathy, presumably, for chiropractors. We are not licensed to do that.
I believe from his past rantings that he practices in California. Our law and court decisions here are extensive and clear in saying that our scope is the spinal column, as it relates to the nerves, and our method is the chiropractic adjustment and various supporting modalities, and possibly and probably nutrition. When the law has gone to court, the courts in this state have consistently used a narrow definition of chiropractic.
We are primary health care providers, and as such, portals of entry into the health care system. Therefore, we have a responsibility to refer patients to other health care professionals for evaluation and care where necessary. I, personally, have referred patients to orthopedists, neurologists, internists, radiologists, emergency rooms, general medical practitioners, dentists, gynecologists, podiatrists, hypnotists, and other chiropractors. Let me point out that I was not referring them away from chiropractic, in most cases, but to others qualified to help.
We have a scope of practice which is of great value. It has been legally decided by the legislature and the courts. If crusader Tyler wants something else, I don't want to go along with him. I don't want him endangering our law, and I don't want him muddling the public's mind on what chiropractic is. I say, again, we are not licensed to practice homeopathy.
Another legal point: Somewhere about 1920 or 1921 the courts decided that naturopathy was duplication of medicine, and it was delicensed. This has occured in approximately 33 states, according to the ICA's publication, Chiropractic or Physical Medicine. Chiropractic scope, on the other hand, has been defensible. It is a limited scope and method. Several years ago, the CCA tried to put through a change in our scope in the form of Assembly Bill 868. This bill included the Dorland's definition of naturopathy as part of chiropractic. Many chiropractors and the ICAC and FSCO opposed this bill as both legally unsound and, frankly, not chiropractic.
A student of Los Angeles College of Chiropractic recently told me they are not allowed to make spinal analyses, except for pathology, from x-ray, and that they are not allowed to use the term chiropractic adjustment, but, must instead use manipulative therapy.
It is my understanding that LACC began as a college of naturopathy. I understand that when naturopathy was delicensed, they changed the name of the school and added chiropractic courses.