...dedication to our advancement...
Dear Editor:
I would like to take the time to commend you for the continued excellence that is displayed in Dynamic Chiropractic. You are turning out to be one of the truly important figures in the development of the chiropractic profession and your dedication to our advancement has not gone unnoticed. The "DC" is the only reliable source of up-to-date information on the ongoing events that affect all of us as a profession, as well as being the only unbiased forum through which various views can be expressed.
My recent article questioning whether we, as a profession, are qualified to be the family doctors of the future was published in a timely manner, in spite of the fact that I expressed disagreement with your views on the topic. That shows real integrity as an editor.
Bravo, and keep up the good work.
Donald R. Murphy, DC
Westerly, Rhode Island
Dear Editor:
Many of the letters I read regularly in Dynamic Chiropractic disturb me with their attacks on organized medicine and their defense of chiropractic education and practice. Dr. Joe Keating's articles seem to have spawned a plethora of responses of this genre.
As a chiropractor and a second year medical student, I can only say that the educational disparity between representative chiropractic and medical schools is blaring. I could easily cultivate an elitist attitude in a medical doctor, but this has not been my experience. Almost one fourth of my medical class has been to or would like to go to a chiropractor. With one marginal exception, I have never heard a disparaging comment about chiropractic from any student or faculty member. I only wish the reverse were true.
I would hardly characterize medicine as the anti-chiropractic juggernaut that it is portrayed as in many of your letters. In fact, medicine is at the vanguard of health care reform at its own expense in many cases. The Association of American Medical Colleges and the Council on Graduate Medical Education are driving to get 50 percent of medical graduates into generalist fields. The Health Professions Education Extension Amendment is now disproportionately weighing student loans toward students professing an interest in primary care. The Physician Payment Review Commission is preferentially funding residencies in family practice, pediatrics, and obstetrics/gynecology.
One quarter of all primary care physicians make $60,000 a year or less for their average 60-hour work weeks, so why the trend? It better serves the public need and the public trust.
Is chiropractic doing this much to reform itself? Does it care that large numbers of its graduates are driven to bankruptcy with unjustifiable student loan debt? Is it striving for excellence in producing a better product or is it more interested in legislative defense of a tenuous stance?
Striving for equity in the medical community is one thing, but equality? On the basis of what? Please tell me on the basis of what?
William H. Culbert Jr., DC
Johnson City, Tennessee
Dear Editor:
I was relieved to see balance restored to Dynamic Chiropractic with the inclusion of your new column, "Chiropractic Critic." Prior to the July 2, 1993 issue, Dynamic Chiropractic published a preponderance of news that was anti-medicine. Unfortunately, many in the chiropractic community believe that deficiencies in medicine will somehow have a positive influence on the chiropractic profession.
Without the critical thinkers, the chiropractic profession will continue to exist in a state of static flux. We need to demonstrate to the scientific community that chiropractors are critical thinkers -- not medical cynics.
Robert Falco, DC
Weehawken, New Jersey
Dear Editor:
In your article, "Chiropractic in the Print Media," July 16, 1992 issue of Dynamic Chiropractic, you examined a recent issue of Health Magazine and reprinted several statements made by Dr. John Triano in that publication. Since you failed to call him to task for totally misrepresenting and publicly denigrating our profession, I feel compelled to do so.
In his desire to drape himself in the cloak of scientific superiority, Dr. Triano irreparably damaged the profession he is supposed to represent. Was he so double-blind he couldn't see how his pitiful attempts to position himself as the noble scientist -- and paint Sid Williams, DC as a religious zealot -- would hurt our cause? Didn't he care?
It is outrageous that, while the majority of the profession works hard to convince the medical community and the public that chiropractic is an effective health care system, Triano used his platform to announce to the world: "There is evidence that the main tenets of chiropractic are not true."
With that single statement, this so-called "chiropractic" researcher dismisses and condemns the principles upon which our profession was founded. He rejects 80 percent of what our colleges teach and most of what our field doctors do in their practices every day.
He ignores the scientific evidence he claims to revere: that the vertebral subluxation exists and affects function. Boldly embracing the medical paradigm he publicly disavows the vitalistic philosophy of chiropractic. He arrogantly disregards the tremendous research done at Life College and at chiropractic educational research institutions around the world. He rejects as irrelevant the practical experience of some 50,000 doctors and the findings listed on more than 40 million Medicare claims and millions of insurance filings.
Triano works at and is paid by a chiropractic college. He claims to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to measure the force of a chiropractic adjustment, yet declares that the tenets of chiropractic are false. The hypocrisy of his words and actions should be an embarrassment to his employer, National College. Instead, his comments entitle him to national coverage and a pedestal from which he can continue to lambaste the profession which supports him. And for his efforts, he's paid more than many field doctors make in practice.
From his insulated ivory tower of so-called research, Triano deliberately attempts to misrepresent Dr. Sid Williams' anti-medical bias and anti-science. He apparently shares the belief, held by some overly vocal PhDs in our profession, that "chiropractic doesn't work," and that real scientists don't mention the "c" word. No doubt he applauded the RAND Corporation's recent announcement that its landmark research project wasn't about chiropractic but about "manipulation."
Despite the tremendous progress chiropractic has made in the past decades, Triano refused to acknowledge that "science" and "medicine" are not synonymous, and that the research done by our own profession into the subluxation is no less valid merely because the medical establishment fails to recognize it.
Triano told the magazine that the difference between he and Dr. Sid Williams is his "willingness to accept that we don't know what is going on." That's one statement I can agree with wholeheartedly: When it comes to chiropractic, he doesn't know what's going on. How he can continue to represent the profession and hold a position of leadership in one of our colleges, is the true mystery.
As for Dr. Sid Williams, he has worked 40 years to promote and defend chiropractic. He has dedicated his own personal resources, as well as the resources of Life college, ensuring the progress of our great profession. When Triano told the magazine that, "People like Sid Williams believe they have the answer, ..." again he was right. People like Williams do have the answer. It's found in the art, science, and philosophy of chiropractic. Not only will I never be ashamed of that truth, I will proudly speak and live it always as Dr. Williams and many others have done.
Terry Rondberg, DC
Chandler, Arizona
Dear Editor:
Joe Keating should earn his money in research measuring the components of the vertebral subluxation instead of giving those of us who are enthusiastic about chiropractic hell. I give a great deal more credence to people who are in the forefront doing these scientific measurements. Harrison, Pettibon, Grostic, Aragona, Pierce, Stillwagon, Thompson, Gonstead, Barge, Faye, Fuhr, Goodheart, DeJarnette, Kale, Grice, Gittleman, Ward, Spano, Morter, and Logan have all contributed greatly to my understanding of what a subluxation is. Do I agree with every word these men have spoken and written? Heck no, but each has measured some aspect of the subluxation complex and shared that knowledge with us. Have they done egghead approved research? No, but each has written with enthusiasm about some phase of this complex and has enlarged my understanding of what a subluxation is. These men have been to busy explaining their concepts to criticize any of the others. I hope our profession is lucky enough to add to this list in the years to come whether they are published in a refereed journal or not.
William D. Shepherd, DC
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Dear Editor:
There is an interesting phenomenon that has plagued me since becoming a chiropractor. It is neither something I asked for or deserve. The problem is Chiropractic Public Identity #1. This identity is how we as chiropractors are perceived to be by the public. It is a label that some colleagues have helped to mold and one that I struggle daily to change. An image that I must apologize for to the banker, the mailman, to other professional friends (MDs, DOs, nurses, attorneys), in social gatherings, and most importantly to new (and prospective) patients.
When presenting a bank proposal, the banker casually mentions hearing of a chiropractor that was sent to prison last year for insurance fraud. The mailman hands me a letter emblazoned with the words "How to build a million-dollar practice" and asks, "Are chiropractors millionaires?" and "Do you really see 500 patients a day?"
An MD refers a patient to me and in a letter states "Frankly, I've been reluctant to refer to other chiropractic clinics because of the expense." To my attorney who asks me, "How can that DC offer free care?" To the nurse (patient) that says, "My boss would kill me if he knew I went to a chiropractor." For the ladies I met at a benefit, one of whom commented to everyone, "Oh yeah, I went to a chiropractor that wanted me to sign a contract to treat me for a year." This was one of those moments I wish I hadn't said I was a chiropractor (ever had one of those?). The prospective patient (bank teller) who said, "I was going to a chiropractor, but one day I received a call at work from the FBI, who was doing an investigation on him and I didn't go back." And my hairdresser, who reminded me that, "Dr X is adjusting people for a can of vegetables on Saturday." How do YOU respond to these comments?
Comments such as these inevitably occur in the presence of at least two or three other persons, who are now "baited" and waiting to divulge their experiences with chiropractors. If you are very lucky, one of those people will have had a positive encounter with chiropractic and will come to the aid of your defense.
Now some of you will become defensive because your good intentions have been misconstrued. Keep in mind that this is how people perceive us; by our words and actions and how they are interpreted. Instead of adjusting patients for a can, why not just give the proceeds of your adjustments, that day, to charity. (I know some of your will start tomorrow as it does sound more palatable.)
I will continue to tell friends, patients, and the public nothing is free, chiropractic works for many (but not all) people, and that I didn't go to school eight years to treat patients in exchange for a can of SPAM.
WE are the reason people come to us and WE are the reason people avoid us. Change "Chiropractic Public Identity #1" and we will invariably see more than just 10 percent of the health care population.
T.F. Kline, DC
Brunswick, Georgia
Dear Editor:
I am writing because I am alarmed by the self-destructive process the chiropractic profession is involved in, and how we may miss opportunities that are presented to us.
I am a "mixer" chiropractor (LACC 1988) who accepts the vertebral subluxation complex as a basis for my identity as a doctor, but who considers it only a part of my therapeutic abilities, because it solely addresses the passive aspect of the healing process. In order to view a holistic picture, active re-construction must be performed by the patient (with the help of nutrition). This has to be directed by a truly knowledgeable doctor (of chiropractic), and not haphazardly with the aid of an exercise sheet, for this reason I am following a CCSP and will attend CCRP courses.
Instead of bickering about our little world (straight/mixer), we should open our eyes to reality; the outside world does not care if we are one or the other type, it does care about what we can do for them to lead healthy lives if possible without recourse to the traditional allopathic procedures. We have been focusing on ourselves so much as to have developed tunnel vision.
We often hear that our worst enemy is ourselves, and I adhere to that precept, but I also see dangers from the outside. These foes are not the MDs or DOs but the PTs and OTs. I suggest that you read one of their rehab publications (such as Rehab Management), and see what is occurring in a field which we are led to believe we have qualifications: ergonomics, rehabilitation, work injuries ... I never received any specific instruction on these subjects in chiropractic college, not even as an elective course. I was taught about biomechanics and basically left to figure out on my own how this knowledge could apply to my work injury patients. These patients had subluxations indeed, but the injuries were sustained due to a specific sequence of physical forces exerted upon them.
The question, therefore, is how can chiropractic position itself to keep a place as a musculoskeletal expert if we persist on concentrating on one "facet" (pardon the pun) only an not expand our true knowledge of the entire picture. PTs are marketing themselves to industry directly or to medical doctors as the ones who can handle what I call "ergo-pathology," (and will even "manipulate" the spine if they like it -- not as crudely as most of you think). These people don't have our overall education level and therefore a more limited license, but they are gaining ground in a field where we could have a better understanding and a more effective approach. Just imagine if in the future, the PTs gain an expansion of their current M.S. level scope of practice, the possibilities are endless.
I think that our collective energy should be placed in education of both chiropractor and society instead of trying to convert the pseudo-medics or followers of the "church of subluxation." Specific courses should be taught in applied biomechanics dealing with real-life situations such as work injuries, physical rehabilitation should be taught in all colleges so that we can know what we are talking about instead of blowing hot air. Chiropractors should also be more aggressive in finding new ways to utilize our attitudes, because nobody is right if the status quo leads to the degeneration of our profession.
I believe that there are colleagues out there who share my point of view, but I don't see much debate about it in the open. I invite my colleagues to address any comments or criticisms: 2414 S. Fairview St., Ste. 107, Santa Ana, CA 92704.
Marc E. Poli, DC
Santa Ana, California
Continuing to impress the advertising and marketing world, The Foundation for Chiropractic Progress (F4CP) has again been recognized by industry organizations for its excellence in educating consumers on the benefits of chiropractic, this time through social media, newsletters, and demonstrating thought leadership by promoting holistic well-being.
Dr. Louis Sportelli received the Lee-Homewood Chiropractic Heritage Award during the annual conference of the Association for the History of Chiropractic (AHC). During his nearly 60-year career, Dr. Sportelli has embodied the spirit of the award, given to “living individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the chiropractic profession.”
Presently there is no consensus on the best treatment for Achilles tendon rupture; and its management is still controversial. The treatment options are conservative treatment and surgical repair. With either treatment, be it conservative or surgical, Achilles tendon tears necessitate prolonged recovery and rehabilitative management.
| Digital Exclusive