Foundation Ad Rejected by Medical Journals: No Surprise
Dear Editor:
The Dec. 16, 2011 issue of DC featured the front-page headline, "Foundation Ad Turned down by Med Journals." Was this really a surprise? Given the fact that the powers that be within the medical world are among the most bigoted and narrow-minded you'll ever find, this had to be an expected outcome.
The truth of the matter is that chiropractic simply does not fit into the business model that the pharmaceutical companies set forth in the early 20th century – a business model that was exploited by the medical profession, which at the turn of the 20th century was a failing paradigm (which it still is, only Big Pharma keeps them afloat).
All that which is alternative now was mainstream then. The medical profession was "alternative" health care at the time because of their narrow-minded approaches and their adherence to medieval practices of blood-letting and leaching. Not only were they backward in their approach to health care; they were steadfast in the belief that they were infallible and had no need to change, a combination of ignorance and arrogance.
This mindset has permeated the leadership of medicine since the mid-19th century when the AMA was formed with the intent of creating a monopoly. This does not mean that all medical doctors fall into this category; certainly not. Unfortunately, the advanced thinkers in medicine itself were among the most persecuted for daring to challenge the status quo, which in turn threatened the power structure of the AMA, which, as I mentioned earlier, was failing to protect their own interests by being bigoted, narrow-minded and stuck in the Dark Ages. In short, had it not been for the pharmaceutical industry coming to the rescue (for its own interests), it is safe to say that medicine as we know it today may have never survived past 1920.
Which brings us to the present day. For the past century, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession have dominated the whole of health care as a partnership in which both industry and profession thrived by suppressing competition through media manipulation and political gerrymandering. The pharmaceutical industry is a Titanic industry which, when coupled with the megalomania of the current paradigm of medicine (the AMA), is both impressive and dangerous. It is impressive due to the extreme wealth that this cooperative has been able to generate over the past century. It is dangerous in the fact that the death rate caused by their massive disregard for the well-being of humanity rivals the worst famines and plagues in recorded history.
Like the Titanic of infamy, this cooperative juggernaut we call medicine is heading for an iceberg of its own. Thanks to the Internet and the availability of information, this too-big-to-fail system of health care is beginning to crack up in the face of scrutiny that, before 10 years ago, would have been disregarded as a nuisance. Now, this scrutiny is poking holes in the construction of the vessel we call "medicine."
And so, the foundation's ad being turned down by medical publications isn't that much of a surprise, is it? The last act of a coward is to deny the truth even as it stares them in the face, so much so that when the final blow does come, they are forced to cover their eyes in final denial and hope that it's all a bad dream.
This denial is, in my view, a sign that "times are a changin,'" and those who have sought to advance health care and were suppressed will have their day in the sun soon. The best and brightest of medicine have seen this change coming and have been doing their best to make it happen. The best and brightest in the chiropractic world have been working hand in hand with "competent" medical professionals for decades to ensure this final and permanent paradigm shift comes to fruition. We are witnessing the sinking of a Titanic travesty that has dominated health care for far too long. See this denial as a good thing.
Robert Bend, DC
Monterey, Calif.
Why Am I Still Struggling?
Dear Editor:
During my 31 years of private practice, there were only brief periods when I wasn't consumed by the stress of professional survival. Being successful as a chiropractor was elusive. Each day for 31 years, I deluded myself into believing change was on the way and by some miracle (or practice-enhancement coach) my practice would be on solid ground. Well, that never happened. Oddly, I didn't know or realize the stress brought on by being a chiropractor until I put one foot out of the chiropractic world. It wasn't me!
What is it about the chiropractic profession that I find so stressful? For me it's frustration, something like driving a model-T Ford in a Formula One race. It's always breaking down and in constant need of repair. Similarly, chiropractors are always fighting the same battles, yet never getting ahead. How can we ever get ahead when we're mired in a sea of dogma? Does the chiropractic profession have the capability to adapt?
Make no mistake: without adaptation comes extinction. If chiropractors continue to embrace the concept of remaining separate and distinct, they will surely find themselves separate and extinct. On the other hand, our chiropractic schools will continue to adapt and survive by doing what they've been doing: producing creative programs that benefit their institutions, not the chiropractic profession. I have not seen any substantial change in our chiropractic schools to prepare future chiropractors with the tools necessary to meet the challenges they are about to meet. Does a massage program or an acupuncture program at a chiropractic college really benefit chiropractors in any meaningful way?
Collectively, there is little, if anything a chiropractor can do to change what they are. They can teach at a medical school or have some watered-down version of hospital privileges. Regardless, they are still a chiropractor with the same limitations as every other chiropractor. Nurses, physician assistants, optometrists and physical therapists have adapted to the challenges of a changing society; yet chiropractors continue to embroil themselves in subluxation rhetoric.
If the collective mind of the chiropractic profession does not embrace a paradigm shift, I believe the average chiropractor will continue to struggle. Our current paradigm is based on a tale that occurred over 100 years ago, and sadly has never been challenged or dismissed by the chiropractic profession. If you truly believe that someone's hearing was restored by an "adjustment" of the fourth thoracic vertebrae, then I'd like to sell you some land in Pennsylvania.
The chiropractic profession lacks a clear, coherent and credible scope of practice. The subluxation complex as defined by chiropractors is not a credible paradigm by any measurable standard, exclusive of chiropractors. Using subluxation to identify ourselves as a profession that is separate and distinct from any other health profession serves only to isolate the profession further.
How can we attain the credibility and legitimacy we crave by segregating ourselves? This approach hasn't worked yet. Right or wrong, prescriptive privileges seem to automatically confer professional credibility and legitimacy; just ask the osteopaths. I believe without prescriptive privileges, chiropractors will continue to remain marginalized. At best, we are mired in a dichotomy. I believe the reality is worse: we are totally fragmented. Let's not delude ourselves into believing "diversity is our strength"– it hasn't helped so far.
Robert Falco, DC
Weehawken, N.J.
Let's Use Wikipedia to Our Advantage
Dear Editor:
This is regarding Don Petersen's excellent article in the Sept. 23, 2011 issue ("Put Good Chiropractic on Top"). He mentions how poorly we fair in the Wikipedia definitions. Let me remind him that definitions and explanations in Wikipedia are made by the readers of Wikipedia themselves. So, my recommendation is that Dynamic Chiropractic should help mobilize its editorial staff to provide data to Wikipedia, and mobilize the profession to provide data by making clear the method of providing such data. DC could also contact the ACA and other national and state organizations to also provide data to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is an open-source platform and can be modified by anyone; if people disagree, a committee will vet the differences and put in the best agreed definition. Let's put the best and most complete information in Wikipedia and provide the most accurate definition of chiropractic possible to the public.
Aubrey Miller, DC
Santa Cruz, Calif.
