« FSU Board of Trustees Spineless on Chiropractic Program Proposal | Main | Who on FSU's faculty wants this???? »

January 17, 2005


A student

I hope all of the faculty manage to get a well-worded letter/fax/email to these people before January 27th. FSU is loosing decades of its hard-earned reputation as a research university every time this hits the news outlets.
Thank you.

Another student

Contrary to the CNN article, the majority of students ARE NOT in favor of the proposal, quite the opposite.


Thanks. The alumni who have emailed seem deeply concerned about the distraction from core programs. Of course, students should make their views known too.

You talk about this nonsense of chiropractic not being based on sound science. Why? Because chiropractors consult their patients on a healthy diet, proper exercise and a healthy spine as essential to health? How is medicine based on sound science when drugs are consistently taken off the market for deadly adverse reactions? Was Vioxx based on sound science? If so, why did so many die due to its complications. Chiropractic will never compete with allopathic medicine in the amount of people they kill each year.

When I heard about the controversy at FSU regarding the formation of a chiropractic program. I was upset but not shocked at the bigotry towards all forms of healing other than allopathic medicine that still exists today. One can just look at the landmark anti-trust case Wilk v. AMA to realize the enormous bigotry that is purported in medical community that continues to resonate today. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the AMA violated the Sherman act when it conspired to contain and destroy the entire chiropractic profession. Even more troubling is the evidence that soon followed that uncovered the "totalitarian medical-pharmaceutical police state" that existed, and the conspiracy, funded by the pharmaceutical industry and the AMA, to form a medical monopoly. The opinions and actions of people like Dr. Ian Rogers, Dr. Raymond Bellamy, Dr. James Louitt and Dr. Henry Ho are a testament to the ongoing medical ignorance and bigotry. Let's face it! This has nothing to do with science or principle. This has to do with pure economics in a competitive health care market. I am a practicing chiropractor in Tampa. I teach my patients on the importance of a balanced diet, proper exercise and a healthy spine and nervous system. If this is "voodoo" science then I am the epitome of a "quack". The timing of this controversy is ironic considering the recent national exsposure to the deadly complications of popular drugs like Vioxx, Celebrex and Alleve. Chiropractors have never refuted the importance of allopathic medicine. Just the importance of prevention and the inherent ability of the body to heal itself. I concur with Sen. Dennis Jones when he said that if these professors want to resign, "So be it." Considering the state of health care in the U.S. (which ranks behind Cuba, according the WHO), we need a new face of forward thinkers in modern medicine.

Chiropractic has survived of this kind of ignorance for over 100 years and still going strong. Chiropractic is widely accepted except for a small group of extremists and outcasts like Stephen Barrett. I have one question for those of you who talk about pseudo-science. Osteopathic medicine's foundation is virtually identical to chiropractic. Why is this true science? Because they use drugs now? Only a real doctor gives drugs. Those who tell their patients to eat better and exercise are "quacks".


Thie is about science. Period. No one is denying chiropractors opportunities for economic livelihood. You can earn as much money in your trade as you would like, and I have no problem with it.

Why is it so objectionable to require chiropractic techniques to withstand the scientific method before allowing them to claim the badge of science? Why is it so objectionable for biology, statistics, psychology, and chemistry professors to voice concerns? Why has no other university in the U.S. sought such an affiliation?

You seem to think that chiropractic should get a free pass, in the name of pluralism at the university, but then want to claim the badge of science. That is now how universities, or how the scientific community, work. As you know, medicine had to work hard over a period of many, many years -- and had to succumb to scientific methods for evaluation and study -- before it earned legitimacy. At some point chiropractic will be part of the university curriculum, and that may be soon and may even be at FSU, but it will not be a political decision. To think that, thgouth the political process, you can create a stand alone college without earning respect in the scientific and university community shows little respect for science or for FSU's faculty. That is all I and other critics are asking for.

Which part of chiropractic is unscientific? That the central nervous system controls everything in the human body? That interference with this system causes dysfunction (disc herniation causing radiculopathy, osteoarthritis causing pain and neurological signs, nerve entrapment causing headaches)? That manipulation has shown to be more efficacious than drugs like Vioxx without the harmful effects (refer to RAND study, the New Zealand report, etc.)? Physical therapist, osteopaths, MEDICAL physiatrist often perform the same techniques incorporated by chiropractors for years. How is that when these professionals perform the same service it is now considered science? Explain your position that chiropractic is not based on science? Yes it is true that some in our profession profess to cure patient of disease. But these are people not in the mainstream. Every profession has this type. Just like Ray Bellamy and Stephen Barrett in medicine. Chiropractic does not claim to cure ANYTHING. Chiropractors attempt to help patients reach total health through diet, exercise and a healthy spine. How is this not science based on facts?


I never have said chiropractic is inherently unscientific (some others might make this claim but that is not mine). Some aspects may well be based on scientific observations and mechanisms. However, I do not think there has been enough scientific study of the mechanisms by which chiropractic even provide for treatment (and hence patient satisfaction) to make some of the overbroad claims you make in your comment -- and especially their implications for chiropractic treatment of conditions that may have nothing to do with the lower back (doesn't Vioxx provides pain releif for a much broader set of conditions than chiropractic studies you mention - or am I missing something?). Put another way, not all facts -- e.g., the economics demand for chiropractors, patient satisfaction, etc. -- is science. On this blog, I have called for scientific study and I sincerely hope that some of its occurs at FSU. However, FSU certainly does not need to adopt a stand-alone chiropractic college, as has been proposed, and make what many in the scientific community see as a large step into a profession with a murky past (you just cannot deny that many practicing chiropractors, and state regulators, consider sublaxation legitimate), in order to conduct some of these studies. I also made the point the, if FSU cares about its reputation in the scientific community, it would go about the task of creating a chiropractic school in a much different manner. It would start with evidence-based science -- not politics and chiropractic interest groups, as it has. I continue to believe that the FSU administration has really messed this up, and for this reason I continue to look with serious suspicion on this particular proposal -- which is not to say that FSU could not come up with some better chiropractic proposal that is more respectful of both chiropractors and physicians if we started from evidence-based science. I also think that, given the level of distrust both the FSU administration and politicians have created, it will be several years away from now before this happens on FSU's campus.

When you speak of subluxations, you pigeonhole its definition to mean only one thing. If subluxations don't exist than what do you call the lesions that I had just mention - ie. disc herniations, bone spurring, disc degeneration, sacroiliac syndrome, cervicogenic headaches, etc. Do these conditions not fall into the category of subluxations? There are questions that remain as to the extent that subluxations have on the AUTONOMIC nervous system. But to say that subluxations do not exist is just bad science. You say that chiropractic is a profession with a murky past. Where do you think the beginnings of allopathic medicine began? With bleeding patients and drinking gold. Iatrogenic deaths continue to account for over 100,000 deaths per year. How is this good science? This doesn't mean that we don't need medical doctors. Of course not! Just that there are alternatives not driven by drug reps. The state of health care in this country is abysmal. We do not live healthy lives in this country. If a profession that has served millions for over 100 years without doing harm (and more cost effective) continues to grow, isn't it time to look into this science. I don't understand the politics of FSU. I cannot comment on those issues pertaining to the chiropractic school. However, I take exception when you speak of my profession in derogatory manner without much evidence. This is not based on science. This is based on arrogance, bigotry and power.


I am not really sure what your gripe is. Is it with FSU, with other research universities, with me, or with those who trash chiropractic. I hope I am not the later. FSU only wants academic respect and self-governance. Other research unversities have not recognized the arguments you are making either, have they? I have no problem with your profession and have not said anything against it -- what I am speaking about is what is an appropriate claim to sciencein the context of a research university. I agree that any medical treatment, including chiropractic, has risks, and there is a serious need to measure these risks. I would welcome efforts to do so in the context of controlled, blind clinical trials.

I must take exception and personal offense to your vehemence and allegation about bigotry and power. I am not the one threatening academic freedom at FSU -- it is some state legislators who happen to be members of your profession. I am not the one threatening to use positions of power to strong arm a program onto a university without pursuing the normal channels of governance at FSU and any other self-repsecting university. It is state legislators who happen to be members of your profession. I am sorry, but the accusations you are making are a conversation stopper on this exchange. I am through.

The comments to this entry are closed.