Dear Editor:

To the Editor:  I recently submitted the following letter to JMPT for publication concerning a case study published in the April issue of JMPT.  For unknown reasons, the editor refused publication.  This letter represents my opinion. However, I feel the information contained in this letter is important for the scientific integrity of our profession.  This being said, I am requesting that you publish the letter in the July issue of the AJCC. 

 

“A Structural Chiropractic Approach to the Management of Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis”

 

To the Editor:

    I recently read with interest the case study entitled, “A Structural Chiropractic Approach to the Management of Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis” by Stephan J. Troyanovich, DC.  Although I was pleased to see structural rehabilitation in the biomedical literature, I felt that it was important to point out what appears to be misreferences and possibly secondary or tertiary referencing.  Under the case report section, Dr Troyanovich states, “A solid curved line representing the normal average lordosis as proposed by Troyanovich.”  The reference to this is Troyanovich SJ 2001.  I feel that this must be a mistake because upon further inspection, the elliptical line represented appears identical to the elliptical spinal model first discussed by Janik et al.1  Either this was a typographical error or merely a mistaken reference. I may be mistaken, but it was my impression that proper citation was the original author(s) first, followed by any modifications, and finally followed by current works.

            Furthermore, Dr. Troyanovich uses the term “inverse posture” and again sites himself.2 In this instance, I think Dr. Troyanovich is showing his unawareness of mathematics in the use of the term inverse while in both his work and in the current article, the depicted postural traction is not merely to the neutral midline, as inverse would suggest, but rather beyond the neutral position, in what would more appropriately be termed an affine transformation or Mirror Image® as first proposed by Harrison  in 1982.3  It does not make sense to me that Troyanovich would use a term which is not correct when he was once an instructor of Harrison’s original methods.  Dr. Troyanovich should know better.

            Additionally, Dr. Troyanovich again sites himself and  “Coleman” for the type of traction depicted in the article.  This reference is again, 2001, however, as Dr. Troyanovich should know, Dr. Deed Harrison has been utilizing this type of traction since approximately 1998.  It seems best that credit should be given where credit is due. 

            Thank you for this forum, I feel that truthfulness in science is necessary for science to accurately grow.

            Sincerely,

            Jason W. Haas DC

 

1) Janik TJ, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovich SJ, Harrison DE. Can the Sagittal Lumbar Curvature be Closely Approximated by an Ellipse? J Orthop Res 1998; 16(6):766-70.

 

2) Troyanovich SJ. Structural rehabilitation of the spine and posture: a practical approach.  Huntington Beach (CA): MPA Media; 2001. p. 63-76.

 

3) Harrison DD et al.  Chiropractic Biophysics Vol II, The physics of Spinal Correction. “ 1982 Harrison Chiropractic Seminars, Inc.  Sunnyvale CA.”

Dear Dr. Harrison:

            I have enjoyed your publication in the past and always appreciate the writings of Drs. Murphy and Colloca among others. In your April 2003 issue, I was taken aback by your political musings in your editorial column, “It’s Don’s Opinion.”

            Dr. Clum, in the same issue, addresses the PACE proposal of the FCLB and makes some constructive observations with several “key” questions.

            Your opinion, however, where you, “personally see the need for some immediate scare tactics” with statements that “FCLB has cleverly disguised their true intent with the PACE document. Their whole goal is based upon the fact that us D.C.’s are clinically incompetent,” is, in my opinion, not scaring anyone but rather propagating obvious negative conjecture.

            You mention that while you were attending the 2002 FCLB annual meeting you “learned that it was actually an ACA event” and later in speaking of the FCLB remark “which is run by ACA.....”. These statements need no defense as they are absurd and not based on fact. The ACA and FCLB are separate organizations with separate missions. You know that! I always had the impression that being factual was more important to you than starting or spreading “rumors.”

            I haven’t made an opinion yet on the PACE program. There are certain questions to be asked; certain answers to be explored with open and honest debate. That is what a highly responsible organization, like the FCLB, does.

            Your “revelation” that the “FCLB is ACA,” only indicates a bias from you that is unbecoming of anyone who strives for honesty and enlightenment.

            Critical thinking is necessary to build our profession, but misinformation, scare tactics and innuendo are tools of destruction.

Sincerely,

J. Michael Flynn, D.C.

Chiropractic & Physical

Therapy Clinic, Inc.

Houma, LA

 

Dear Dr. Flynn:

            Firstly, I must expose your breech of ethics. You sent your above letter all over the internet before it came to me. Thus, your letter is “old hat” and I shouldn’t even bother to respond to it, especially since it was hashed around by such “experts” as Dr. JC Smith. You passed around your letter to me without my chance to respond. Therefore, to set the record straight I will respond here, but not to a second letter if you pass it around the internet again.

            Secondly, do you really believe that the rest of us DCs are that naïve and stupid? Do you really think that we cannot observe that the same persons run (either on the Boards or behind the scenes) ACA, CCE, FCLB, NBCE, NICMC, WFC, FCER, etc. Do you think that it is not obvious that FCLB and WFC had their 2003 meetings in Orlando in the same week in the same hotel? You really believe that the rest of us DCs do not read that the breakout seminars at FCLB 2002 meeting were CCE meetings, ACA meetings, NBCE meetings, WFC meetings, etc? Do you really think that we cannot read that NICMC and NBCE give more than $100,000 to the budget of FCLB each year (if this is not true, why not provide us with a complete accounting of where FCLB gets its funding?)?

            You really believe that the rest of us do not notice that FCLB pays $1 rent to be in NBCE’s nice new brick building, which was built by grossly over charging students for National Boards exams (that leaves FCLB ahead with NBCE to the tune of $100,000 - $1 = $99,999!). Of course, let’s not forget the two new parts (III & IV) of National Boards that the FCLB asked their members to require so that NBCE could make the money? There were 2 National Board Exams when I graduated in 1979; now there are 4 parts? Why, when the medical profession has 3?

            Let’s follow the money. There were 14,000 DC students a few years ago; now there are approximately 8,000 students. Lets just use the “poor” numbers at present instead of the 14,000 during the 1990s. Thus, approximately 8,000 students graduate every 3 years. The Parts III and Parts IV cost the students approximately $1,000 each to take these exams. VOILÁ, we get $1000 x 8000 = $8 million dollars every 3 years for each exam = $16 million extra going to NBCE every 3 years (a few years ago, it was 2 exams x $1000 x 14,000 = $28 million every three years)!! Wow, I think that I could come up with some pretty good exams for that money, a brand new brick building with fountains, and have some change left over!! Of course, that does not count the number of retake exams, which is only chump-change anyway.

            You really believe that the rest of us do not notice that NICMC funds have been used to influence FCER, ACA, FCLB, WFC, and CCE? You really believe that the rest of us have not noticed that NICMC has controlled the direction of chiropractic research since the 1980s by providing about 95% of the funds to FCER. Since it was their money, didn’t the NICMC Board have the power of approval and rejection of research proposals at FCER since the 1980s? A few years ago, I tried to talk to the head of FCER research at a RAC conference about applying for FCER funding; he told me that they knew who I was and not to bother, for anything I submitted would not be approved.

            Thirdly, the PACE document would be totally unacceptable if not for the complaints of the ICA-PACE Committee. This committee spotted numerous flaws and avenues for “Power Control” of Continuing Education by ACA/FCLB. In May 2003, it was refreshing that the FCLB PACE Committee was open to our complaints and they suggested that these changes would be made. However, we, at the ICA, are not too excited yet!

            We noted that the “old” PACE proposal had been passed by the Board of FCLB a full two months before the meeting in May 2003 in Orlando!! This meant that we had been “suckered” again by the ACA! Even though the FCLB’s PACE Committee gave us nice cooperative lip service at the May 2003 meeting, we have yet to see the Board of FCLB approve these PACE suggested changes. Until then, we are still opposed to PACE as a dangerous “big brother” control mechanism to steer Continuing Education in a direction that the rest of us do not want and will not tolerate.

            We wait to see if the FCLB’s PACE Committee leaders keep their word. Furthermore, I have been at two consecutive FCLB meetings. The common theme is that DCs are incompetent and need diagnosis courses. Thus, it is my obvious “leap” to the conclusion that FCLB will force diagnosis down our throats when they get the power of PACE by having enough state boards approve PACE (i.e., 38/51 = 75% is about how many states approve CCE as the only accrediting agency).

            Fourthly, the ICA-PACE committee noted that the new PACE document will bring in about $2 million/year to FCLB while decreasing funds to the chiropractic colleges. This was denied by FCLB’s PACE committee, but I personally ran some of the numbers. Just at the fee of $10 per head at each seminar, payable to FCLB, the dollars are staggering (about $1.2 million without including PACE’s high registration fees!). What is FCLB going to do with $2 million more each year??

            Fifthly, let’s look at some members of Boards of ACA, FCLB, CCE, NICMC, FCER, WFC, NBCE, etc. from published documents (like internet). Check the Boards and faculty of the above organizations for such names as Phillips, Sportelli, Winterstein, etc.? I see the obvious dilemma, there is just not enough competent leaders out of 65,000 DCs in the USA; so we need the same people to double-triple-quadruple up on the various Boards and faculties of these ACA led organizations.

            Sixthly, do you really believe that the rest of us did not notice that CCE cut the two Cleveland and two Palmer Colleges down to one vote each? You expect us to believe that an accrediting agency composed of colleges would legitimately cut out two colleges that previously had votes for 20 years? Did you miss the lawsuit filed by Palmer? You expect us not to observe the subversive power struggle being attempted within CCE by ACA elements? You expect us to not notice that COA (the body that actually does on-site visitations and accrediting) is composed of a majority of ACA elements?

            Lastly, I see “a bias from you that is unbecoming of anyone who strives for honesty and enlightenment.” You well know that a small group within ACA has fingers in too many pies. Power corrupts and chiropractic has been corrupted. If you really want us to “feel” better, why not appoint several ICA Board members to the Boards of FCLB, CCE, NICMC, FCER, WFC, NBCE, etc? Please do not insult me with your nonsense again.

Sincerely,

Donald D. Harrison, PhD, DC, MSE

---

 

Dear Dr. Harrison:

            I just finished reading the latest copy of Clinical Chiropractic and wanted to comment on a letter to the editor by one JC Smith, MA, DC.

            I heartily agree with your response, which was well written and documented, as I recall reading one of Dr. Smith’s attacks on Dr. Williams’ some years ago. I agree that the CCE has overstepped their boundaries and should be dealt with accordingly.

            While I am interested in clinical research findings, I also am interested in the most recent happenings in the profession and appreciate their presentation in your quarterly.

            Thanks for a good job.

Yours in Chiropractic,

Darrell Gibson, DC

Seattle, WA

 

Dear Dr. Gibson:

            Thank you for your support. If one only gets letters that are twisted like Smith’s, then one starts to believe that all DCs think like Dr. Smith. It is good to see that the rank and file DC has a more mature attitude about political happenings.

Sincerely,

Don Harrison, PhD, DC

---