children's center in Canada." In the second part of this exclusive
interview, Dr.
Dr. Katz is the sole director/incorporator of the Orthopractic
Manipulation Society International (OMSI), Quebec, Canada. For
chiropractors, Dr. Katz is most remembered for his testimony
against chiropractic before the Royal Commission's inquiry of
chiropractic in New Zealand. The Royal Commission noted his "...
policy of lies and fraud, which was deliberate and calculated..."
(this referring to telling authorities at the Canadian Memorial
Chiropractic College and others, that he held the degree of doctor
of chiropractic and was a Palmer graduate, to gain their
confidences)
Part I (in the 7-29-94 issue) of the Murray Katz interview delved
into the roots of the OMSI, its agenda, and membership. Part II
describes the role of physical therapists in the Society; its
for-profit incorporation; involvement with the media; its editorial
board; the make-up of its constitution/bylaws committee, and
addresses the issue: Did Dr. Katz create orthopractic to destroy
the chiropractic profession?
"DC": Does your organization regard physical therapists and
chiropractors as equals?
Dr. Katz: No. They are equal if they join in terms of their
skills. In terms of manipulation therapy, we expect physical
therapists to have some additional training. There are two
institutions which are set up now for physical therapists to
achieve those skills, and we also expect somewhere down the road
that either a chiropractic school might become orthopractic or
there's a movement afoot now, because there's a committee of the
Orthopractic Society dealing with education, to create special
postgraduate courses either through the McKenzie Institute
International or through two or three other groups involved,
whereby a chiropractor or physical therapist would receive some
additional recognition. Right now we accept them as equal, but
after the founding convention of the Society, which will take place
at the end of September, there will be standards set for future
acceptance. But at the present time, I would say that the average
chiropractor has had more training in manual and manipulation
therapy than the average physical therapist.
"DC": In terms of referral, do you refer members of the public to
physical therapists and chiropractors equally?
Dr. Katz: Yes, absolutely. It is the policy of the OMSI to refer,
when someone asks for a referral to somebody, and since Consumer
Reports has come out we've received literally hundreds of requests
from individual people. It is our policy to refer all members that
we have on our list, be it medical doctor, orthopedic specialist,
osteopath, chiropractor, or physical therapist on an equal basis.
"DC": Do you require those physical therapists to have some kind
of formal postgraduate qualifications in manual therapy?
Dr. Katz: We ask that they have either what's called comp.
training in Canada or that they have some training from the
Institute of Physical Therapy in the States which deals with
manipulation care. We haven't been strict about that requirement
just yet, but it's becoming stricter, and in fact I would say that
99 percent of our members do have that type of extra training.
"DC": Since the training by your own admission is not comparable,
how can you conscientiously refer the patients to PTs who may have
learned manipulation at a weekend seminar with no real foundational
training?
Dr. Katz: When someone goes for a back treatment to a physical
therapist, we're not only referring them for manipulation therapy.
We are referring them to learn how to take care of themselves
rather than have someone else take care of them. We're referring
them to have exercises explained to them, such as the McKenzie
approach. We're referring them when necessary for manual therapy.
There are many problems with chiropractic teaching of manipulation
therapy as well, which tips the balance in the other direction.
The orthopractic guidelines say that you don't need to take x-rays
to see subluxations -- chiropractors are taught that. We don't
think that is scientifically valid. Chiropractors are taught to
treat children by manipulation therapy -- babies, infants, and so
on -- physical therapists are not taught that. Chiropractors are
given often an anti-immunization bias, which physical therapists
are not taught. Chiropractors are taught that they can influence
diseases such as asthma, heart disease, high blood pressure and so
one, which physical therapists are not taught. So if you look at
the total use of manipulation therapy, the physical therapist has
many scientific positives, which the average chiropractor does not
have. When you look at skill in terms of a technique,
chiropractors tend to be better than physical therapists. When you
put both things together, it is sometimes hard to choose between
the two as to which one is overall better.
"DC": We understand that you are the incorporator of the
Orthopractic Manipulation Society International. Is that true?
Dr. Katz: Yes.
"DC": It is also our understanding that Orthopractic Manipulation Society International is a for profit company with you not only as incorporator, (but) director, and sole stock holder.
Dr. Katz: No. Technically, in order to register the name, it had to be incorporated. But the OMSI is a non profit group. It's set up as a non profit group, technically, in order to register the name internationally, we had to go through a private incorporation, but all of the functions of the OMSI are subject to the approval of the editorial board and to the constitution which is being developed. I might add that I am not a formal member of the constitutional committee. The constitution of the OMSI will be developed by a group of about six individuals, including two chiropractors, of which I am not a member.
"DC": I have a copy of the incorporation documents from Canada, and they state that the organization has shares, which would make it a for-profit corporation and your signature is on it.
Dr. Katz: It has never issued shares. In order to be formed, the only reason it was incorporated was to register the trademark and to save it. That's why it was done that way, but it's never issued any shares.
"DC": But doesn't that make you the sole shareholder?
Dr. Katz: Technically, yes. But in order to do it, we had to ... it's really registering a trademark. At the same time that was done, the function of the Society was agreed to be a non-profit group with total responsibility to the decisions of the editorial board and the founding convention. So it's just a technical thing that in order to register a name and to safeguard that name, you have to incorporate the name. But if you did issue shares, if you did use those shares, it would be one thing, but in actual fact, no shares have ever been issued and there are no plans to issue shares.
"DC": But doesn't that keep you in a position of total control, being the incorporator, the sole director, and the sole stock holder?
Dr. Katz: It gives me more control than other people, but in actual fact, if nobody belongs to the Society or it doesn't do anything, then it really is no control. I've made it very clear from the start that I hope within three to six months to not be involved anymore and to turn this over to other people. The only reason to me continuing to be involved would be if I felt there were pressing issues around the issue of children, which I felt were not resolved. In terms of creating a profession which will be called orthopractic and which will limit itself to musculoskeletal care, I'm not in that profession and I really don't feel that I have the right to decide what to do with it.
"DC": This seems a bit of a conflict because in a letter that Dr. Stanley Paris wrote he referred to you as "the entrepreneur behind the Society." Isn't he a member of your editorial board?
Dr. Katz: Yes, he is.
"DC": Is this an accurate statement?
Dr. Katz: Well, entrepreneur can be also termed as sort of one of the bright lights or one of the initiators. In actual fact, the genesis for the Society began more with the physical therapists and the physiatrists and another chiropractor, then myself. We all got together and I was asked would I be willing to come back into this issue and try to work on it in order to develop practitioners with safe, scientific manual therapy. I had a lot of hesitation because my experience dealing with this issue has not been a pleasant one. I've been subject to slander and to lies. I was subject to that with the New Zealand commission, you yourself wrote a personal letter attacking me to Consumer Reports, and I don't like lies and personal attacks -- it's not part of my makeup and it's not part of my need to function. I hesitated and in fact I did nothing for 10 years on this whole issue. I received requests for information which I never answered. I did nothing. I got back into it because a child who I felt was poorly treated by a chiropractor and at the request of others. I also got back into it because I became convinced from the work of Paul Shekelle and others that manipulation therapy did have a valuable role to play, and I think its an important role to play. I was very pleased to work within my medical community, and convinced my medical colleagues as best I could that there were chiropractors who were sincere, who were honest, who had a valuable therapy to offer that we should welcome into the mainstream of scientific medicine.
"DC": If all that you say is the case, how is it that when you incorporated and it asked for a list of directors and gave you lots of room to list them, the only director (listed) is yourself?
Dr. Katz: Because, as I say, we were registering a trademark, which we wanted to protect as early as possible. A lot of people were reluctant, as we set up a corporate structure -- we are not a corporation even though we registered as a corporation -- we would have to have contract agreements, we would have to issue shares, we would have to do a whole bunch of things, and we consulted with our lawyers and they said that if you are forced to incorporate and forced to have a director in order to protect a trademark which is the case, then that is what you have to do. Keep it as simple as possible, don't issue any shares, and have the real power of the running of the organization dependent upon an editorial board, which will then be dependent on the establishment of the constitution. That is exactly what happened.
"DC": And that is the case, even though in this incorporation application that you filed it says, "The corporation is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares of one class."
Dr. Katz: That's right, but the corporation has never issued any shares, and it will not issue any shares. If you want to register a name and a trademark, you have to have a company. You have to have some type of registration, a person to do it, and that's just a legal requirement. It could have been done as an individual in one province in Quebec, but it could not be done on a national basis without a legal incorporation. To do so would have required individual registrations in each province, in each state in North America.
"DC": Are there any other directors of your corporation?
Dr. Katz: There is the editorial board.
"DC": Are they directors?
Dr. Katz: No one really is a director or not a director, including myself. As I say, this was really an issue of registering a name and that's the way legally it had to done. It's a non profit group and that's basically it.
"DC": I don't wish to argue with you, but you state that it's non profit and yet, this is a registration for a for profit corporation. There is a difference. And secondly, you say there are no directors, but legally, sitting on page three, is your name as the sole director.
Dr. Katz: As the sole person who registered it ...
"DC": No sir, that's an incorporator. This is down as a director.
Dr. Katz: But there are no shares. And there's no money too. It's really not a profitable enterprise, and I personally have spent thousands of dollars out of my own pocket as many other people have.
"DC": From your own numbers, you've listed 800 members, and assuming $75 membership fee and another $100 for the usual pamphlets, that comes up to $140,000 in your first year.
Dr. Katz: No, a lot of the registrations are in the U.S. Registrations in Canada have been from the U.S., but they've also been mostly from physical therapists who are paying $35 a membership. A lot of people have paid $35. The costs of just sending out basic information to people, just to the average consumer who writes to us, has been about $5 a package. In actual fact it is not at all a profit business. If you want to focus on that, then go ahead. But the issue is whether pinched nerves cause colic and bedwetting. That's the only issue. We can talk about AMA conspiracies, we can talk about vested interests if you like, we can talk about what Ron Slaughter said and I didn't say, and this is a very typical approach often. It is -- don't talk about what the issue is, talk to politicians, pay for massive publicity campaigns as the chiropractic pediatric group did in the USA Today. This will never resolve the issue. What will resolve the issue is both chiropractors reach out and limit themselves to safe, scientific care, will be seeing patients in the future, will be getting more benefits from referrals from other doctors, and will be accepted into the medical establishment. The only reason chiropractors have not been accepted before in the real sense, to move from that six percent to the 75 percent or so of people, is the fact that they have not stuck to the safe, scientific use of manipulation therapy.
"DC": Moving as you say to different PR moves and different attempts to influence the media, your organization has encouraged its members to utilize Consumer Reports articles for as much PR as possible. Dr. Slaughter, who I assume is a member of your organization, has suggested the same type of exposure for orthopractic would appear in the Consumers Digest article. Does the fact that Consumers Digest didn't even mention orthopractic take a little of momentum out of your marketing campaign?
Dr. Katz: I had no contact with Consumers Digest whatsoever personally. My impression was that the Consumers Digest article was mostly written before the orthopractic group came along. But Consumers Digest, having read the article, did in fact, make very clear -- that total yellow page they had on the side -- that they favored only those chiropractors who wanted to limit themselves to musculoskeletal care. Whether they called us by name or not, I think, was an issue. They were talking about orthopractic manipulation therapy, and they, in fact, warned the public very, very clearly against chiropractors who claim to treat anything other than musculoskeletal care. They didn't mention us by name, but they certainly described exactly what our guidelines are. Our momentum is not dependent upon publicity, our momentum is dependent on scientific evidence and people accepting that.
"DC": You are quoted as saying, "The Society is very well connected within the media. It's not an accident that the Wall Street Journal, '20/20,' and other publications coming out are interested in this issue." This seems in conflict with your statement that orthopractic is purely scientific. Would you comment?
Dr. Katz: The media has been asking, many, many media people have been asking us for articles and for information, and we haven't had time. They're asking us for our scientific opinion and we're offering our scientific opinion to them. If I wanted to respond to every request for TV and just when I was on the phone now, I had a request from a national TV show to do an interview. I think every four or five days we get another request from a prominent or an important group in the media. Overall, I think we've given very little time. I haven't answered many, many requests because I don't think this is primarily a publicity issue. It's a scientific issue. I've spent much more time responding and talking with chiropractors who want to limit themselves to be orthopractic. I think it's really not a limitation, it's an opening of the whole scope of musculoskeletal care to move from the six percent to the 75 or 100 percent of people who have back problems. So we are a scientific body, and the media is extremely interested in that issue because the media wants to make a clear delineation what we have found between chiropractic as a philosophy and orthopractic as a form of treatment, which chiropractors, of course, practice.
"DC": A communication to your members, that immediately followed the Consumer Reports article, tells them to "1) read over the seven Ps received before, and act on them; 2) contact your local newspaper, radio station, or TV; 3) ask for an interview; 4) give them a copy of the Medical Post article; and 5) run a local advertisement as below" and it gives a sample of that advertisement. Do you feel that this is in conflict with the idea that you're out being scientific and the media is chasing you?
Dr. Katz: But we're trying to promote a scientific viewpoint, so that's what we did. In actual fact now, we are not sending out that information anymore. Not that we disagreed with it at the time, it's become unnecessary. It's become unnecessary because the media is, in fact, chasing us now. Anybody who's applied through our organization now, doesn't receive that anymore. It's not worth our time and energy anymore, because we're focusing more -- and I must say, not me in particular but a lot of other people, because I am medical director of the largest children's center in Canada and I'm teaching pediatrics, my time is very, very limited and this is not my primary interest in life at all in any way whatsoever. I happen to be in the forefront because of the issue of children, and that is going to become even more of an issue because the general chiropractic community has to appreciate that when they began to get heavily involved with children, and seminars, and claiming to treat all types of things with children, they provoked a very raw nerve within the medical community, which united the medical/scientific community in a way that they've never been united before. I think that if chiropractors by promoting claims to treat colic and bedwetting and anti-immunization, that fraction of chiropractic profession, when it did that, made a very serious tactical mistake. Because had they never done that, I don't think the orthopractic society or this ground swell would have ever come about.
"DC": You've been quoted as saying that you've invested over $50,000 of your own money in the orthopractic movement. That hardly sounds like a person who's got other things going, and not very interested.
Dr. Katz: No, I would say that over the years, going back over 20 years or so, on a personal basis if I added up all of the phone calls and the faxes and the postage, I've probably spent about $20,000 of my own money.
"DC": So that would be an exaggeration, that wouldn't necessarily apply to orthopractic?
Dr. Katz: Yes.
"DC": Looking at the Orthopractic Manipulation Society's seven Ps: they are "professionalism, position, practical, publicity, political, public payments, and power". It further states that "if you don't have power, someone else will." Now this doesn't really sound like a purely scientific body, it sounds more like a publicly focused, politically motivated, private enterprise that is trying to capture a portion of the $18 billion back pain market. Is that what it looks like to you?
Dr. Katz: No, I think the issue is that chiropractors have used those seven Ps to position themselves in a political way and in a powerful way, and a publicity way, and basically orthopractic chiropractors are being made aware of how to do the same. But at this point in time, I think that a lot of that has become redundant. The only way to position yourself to take better care of backaches, whatever the size of that market might be, is to gain respectability and be part of the scientific/medical community. As long as mainstream chiropractic stays with the six percent dragged there by claiming to treat colic and bedwetting, that's really where they're stuck. If they can do what they do best, treat people for back problems, they will move out of that small, narrow corner and they will move into the scientific mainstream. I am very pleased to do my role to convince my own colleagues to do that.
You see, the only way a doctor knows if he sends a mother for a backache that the child isn't going to be treated for bedwetting is to know that that chiropractor is orthopractic. Now that there is a name which the chiropractor can attach to their professional designation, the doctor knows that, and once the doctor knows that, that's where the real shift in market and cooperation is going to happen. I think that things like talking about how to promote yourself have become largely unnecessary now. We are having so many requests for information, so many people in influential positions asking us what to do and how to do it and how can they identify only orthopractic chiropractors, that it's become really unnecessary to be over preoccupied with publicity. What there will be publicity about and continue to be about is the issue of chiropractors claiming to treat children for all types of diseases. Chiropractors tend to take total body x-rays of children, chiropractors who practice applied kinethesiology, chiropractors who try to pop kids necks, sacro-occipital techniques, selling tactics. I think the primary publicity focus as I see it in the future will continue to be basically what the Wall Street Journal and "20/20" and what Consumer Reports focused on and that is the question of chiropractic involvement with the children. I think that chiropractors ought to do one thing that will help their reputation more than anything else it would be to disassociate themselves completely from those chiropractors who are claiming to be chiropractic pediatricians and are claiming to treat by manipulation therapy everything from colic to bedwetting and ear infections. That will go more towards improving relationships with the medical/scientific community, and I think, in the end, the political community because there has been a real change. I'd say five years ago, any doctor who would criticize chiropractors would be accused of vested interest, would be accused of a plot, would be accused of wanting their own share of the market or being narrow-minded. I know that because when I would talk about this issue with the media or anybody, three or four years ago, there was no point. Today, though since the issue of children became so dramatically increased in the United States, especially with these pediatric associations growing up and teaching seminars and so on, it's very, very easy to talk to the media right now because the media, the politicians, everybody clearly understands that infants and babies don't need their necks popped. They all understand that they don't want to pay for that through public funds. The mainstream chiropractic profession, even the ones who may believe that manipulation should be used to treat constipation or asthma or something else, would be wise to move away from the children's issue, because if they associate themselves with that issue and continue to make those claims, it's very clear that they're going to risk losing their entire profession.
"DC": How did Stanley Paris, PT, and Robin McKenzie, PT, get to be on your editorial board?
Dr. Katz: I have known Robin for 20 years and he was one of the people consulted about the guidelines and Stanley Paris got involved late and was also consulted.
"DC": Is Stanley Paris, PT, a member?
Dr. Katz: He's a member of the editorial board.
"DC": Is he a dues-paying member of the Orthopractic Manipulation Society?
Dr. Katz: No, not yet.
"DC": How about Robin McKenzie, PT?
Dr. Katz: No.
"DC": How about Hamilton Hall, MD?
Dr. Katz: Yes.
"DC": Why is it that you can have people on your editorial board who aren't even members?
Dr. Katz: I think that there are people on the editorial board who are not members, there are quite a few of them, some of them are there giving advice on issues when they in fact, themselves, don't practice manual manipulation therapy. Some of them are not named on the editorial board, but they are involved in public health, and different aspects of medical decision-making and care. So they are consulted, like I for example, don't practice manual manipulative therapy, but I'm on the editorial board.
"DC": In a paper entitled "Orthopractic Editorial Board Members" on your letterhead, you talk about the contributions that each of these people have made in writing the guidelines. And yet, when I've talked to Stanley Paris, he suggests that he hasn't written a thing for you.
Dr. Katz: No, because he became involved very, very late.
"DC": But you still have him listed as one of the people who contributed.
Dr. Katz: Yes, but if you go further down it says that some of the people on the editorial board did not contribute. There's a qualification -- I don't know which letter you have of the editorial board -- but subsequently the information about the editorial board was revised around April ...
"DC": May 1st.
Dr. Katz: Does it say on the second page as you go down that some of the people that have contributed are not ...
"DC": No, it's on the one revised May 1st and that's because you added some people who were not on the original list.
Dr. Katz: So it says there that there are people on the editorial board who did not contribute.
"DC": But on the original piece that you did, it didn't state that.
Dr. Katz: It wasn't added in because, as I say, we've made mistakes that we've had to clarify, and as we went along we clarified them.
"DC": Do you think this would tend to mislead members of the physical therapy profession?
Dr. Katz: That's possible. We don't mean to. We haven't had any complaints, really. So if people complain, that new addition will answer that comment.
"DC": Considering that Stanley Paris, PT, and Robin McKenzie, PT, have chosen not to be members of your organization, do you think that will affect the desire of physical therapists to become members when they recognize these two prominent individuals have decided not to?
Dr. Katz: Not at all, because we have an official endorsement from Robin McKenzie in which he writes that he will encourage all of his members to join. He'll probably be involved in the Australian group, but not necessarily in our group here. But the McKenzie Institute International, he has passed through our board and has sent us official letters saying he will encourage all 20,000 members to join. He is enthusiastic and Stanley Paris is on the constitutional committee. So I think he's equally involved and enthusiastic.
"DC": How would you explain their lack of desire to become official members?
Dr. Katz: It wasn't really required to be on the editorial board to be a member.
"DC": What percentage of your editorial board is made up of nonmembers?
Dr. Katz: I would say probably half. It depends on their expertise and how they saw themselves, really. It's really not an issue. If you consult someone for their scientific opinion or if they are contributing to you because of their role in dealing with the public or dealing with government, then they can contribute, they don't have to join your group.
"DC": So, you don't see a problem with allowing Stanley Paris, PT, who's not a member, to chair the constitution and bylaws committee, which will be designing the rights of members?
Dr. Katz: I think that he will eventually decide one way or the other whether that is what he wants to do. No, we don't see a problem with that right now.
"DC": Why do you think he has chosen not to?
Dr. Katz: I don't think we've really discussed it that much. I think he wants to see how things go, and maybe he has other concerns. I think you should ask him that, really. It's not a problem for us, I mean we have people who are really not involved at all -- they're involved more in public health care policy decision, and yet they're contributing to the editorial board.
"DC": You're quoted as saying that you have 350 PTs in Stanley Paris' group that you are currently referring to. Are they dues-paying members unlike Stanley Paris, PT?
Dr. Katz: Some are, some are not. But we feel that if they are graduates of this school then we should refer to them.
"DC": So they get referral privileges without paying their $175?
Dr. Katz: It's not $175. No, but they do get referral privileges, yes.
"DC": You say its not $175, isn't it $175 to the Orthopractic Manipulation Society.
Dr. Katz: Some of them are starting to join, but most of them have never joined. I'd say, since we started referring to them, we've had about, I'd say 25 or 35 people joined so far. Now, it's hard for them to join, they don't know where we are. Until Consumer Reports came out we didn't have any general publicity. We've had people say, "I've tried for three months to try to find out for three months where you are, where to write to you."
"DC": Addressing that exact issue, you've been quoted by a member of your editorial board that you, "created orthopractic to destroy the chiropractic profession." Is that accurate?
Dr. Katz: Absolutely wrong.
"DC": Why would someone like that say that?
Dr. Katz: I think people don't know me, or they might have felt they knew me from 10 years ago. My thinking has evolved, I've been impressed with the work of Paul Shekelle, I'm very impressed with two letters I've received from an author who wrote a book on spinal manipulation who wrote me one letter saying, "I think orthopractic is not going to go anywhere and it's all negative" and four months later wrote me a letter saying, "I'm extremely impressed by the fact that you have promoted the use of safe manipulation therapy, perhaps more than anybody else, and the work that you doing now will lead to the creation of a true scientific interprofessional group in the future, and thank you for that. You've done more to promote manipulation therapy than anybody else."
"DC": This comment was made by a member of your editorial board less than a month ago.
Dr. Katz: No, this was made by a physiatrist.
"DC": No, the comment that you created orthopractic to destroy the chiropractic profession was made less than a month ago by a member of your board, not by somebody ...
Dr. Katz: If you want to tell me who made it, I'll be glad to ...
"DC": Hamilton Hall, MD.
Dr. Katz: I don't think that's correct. I think what he might be referring to, and certainly we've never discussed that, is whether I would like to see if there were no more chiropractic philosophy being practiced on infants and children. I certainly would like to see that. Whether I'm going to devote my time to that, I think it's largely a useless effort. I'm willing to devote some of my time to see that my tax dollars don't pay for it if people want to do it, and that the government doesn't sponsor it if people want to do it. But if people want to do it, that's their choice, but I'm not against the safe, scientific use of manipulation therapy. I think many chiropractors are heavily qualified in that practice. I have demonstrated by being a part of this group and associating myself with chiropractors that I am more than willing to work in a cooperative way with them.
"DC": But doesn't the orthopractic model, the whole concept of establishing a new title, establishing colleges, putting together a program that would involve training outside of typical chiropractic, doesn't that pretty much in and of itself demonstrate a desire to reduce if not eliminate the profession and replace it with orthopractic?
Dr. Katz: What is chiropractic? If chiropractic is the use of manipulation therapy to treat musculoskeletal conditions, I'm 100 percent in favor of that. If you define chiropractic as a philosophy which believes that adjustments take place, and pinched nerves cause diseases, then I'm not in favor of that. I think chiropractic philosophy will continue to exist, whether it should be publicly funded, whether people should be allowed to legally call themselves doctors and take x-rays, I think it's an issue of public concern. Chiropractors who wish to define themselves as treating only musculoskeletal conditions are free to continue using the name chiropractor, no one has ever objected to that.
You're asking me, are we out to destroy the chiropractic profession. We're not out to destroy the chiropractic profession, we're out to say that safe, scientific manipulation therapy is available from people who limit themselves to such a scope of practice -- and if you want to know who they are, here they are. Some of them are chiropractors, some of them are not. Most of them probably will be chiropractors and I have no objection to that.
Editor's note: Part III of the Katz interview, the final installment, will appear in the next issue (9-1-94). In Part III, Dr. Katz will talk about what the New Zealand Commission wrote about him, his pretending to be a chiropractor to get information, his comments about the Canadian Memorial College in his Medical Post article and his subsequent retraction, and questionable claims made in Orthopractic's internal communications.
Dynamic Chiropractic editorial staff members research, investigate and write articles for the publication on an ongoing basis. To contact the Editorial Department or submit an article of your own for consideration, email
.