måndag 12 september 2011

Här beskrivs S Barretts roll i kommitten mot kvacksalveri.: 

"The Assault On Medical Freedom
a book by P. Joseph Lisa c 1994

Section: The Problem 
Chapter 3 - Rising Out of the Ashes 
"Research shows that during the first one hundred years of the AMA's existence it formed councils and committees which sat in judgement of its economic competitors. These committees would "investigate" the various alternative health-care systems and would then report on their findings and make determinations and recommendations that the public should stay away from such "quackery." The CCHI and the AMA's Committee on Quackery continued to serve this function from 1963 to 1975. However, when the writing was on the wall, Doyl Taylor saw that his propaganda department was "going down for the count." He apparently took steps to see that his work continued even if he weren't around to supervise the AMA's campaigns against the "quacks."

In his description of what the CCHI should be, he took steps to maintain its secrecy by dictating that no minutes of their meetings should be taken. This made finding the new CCHI (or "shadow" CCHI) a lot more difficult. However, even those most careful to cover their tracks often leave clues for determined investigators to find. In the case of the CCHI, Taylor left one big clue. In the OBJECTIVES and GOALS of the CCHI, he stated:

Protection of the public by gathering and disseminating by all means possible any and all information involving health quackery to each member [of the conference], particularly those agencies involved in law enforcement. 
By itself it isn't much of a clue. But when one dissects this stated GOAL of the CCHI and looks closely, one can clearly see several good leads to follow in unearthing this "shadow CCHI." To find such an organization, one needs to find a group who:

First, is pretentious and arrogant enough to espouse the principle that the public needs to be "protected" in the health-care marketplace. From what are we being "protected"? Health "quackery" of course. Exactly what is health "quackery"? Apparently it's simply anything that the medical and pharmaceutical industry cannot control. Interestingly, it is also the economic competition to drugs and medical treatment.

Second, claims to be "protecting" the public by "gathering and disseminating any and all information involving health quackery." One would have to find a group that has a large storage of information on "health quackery."

Third, is connected to the government and whose members are "gathering and disseminating" information on "health quackery," particularly to "those involved in law enforcement."

Fourth, has a [italics] vested interest [end italics] or is doing the work of or for a vested interest. It was proven that the AMA had a vested interest in the original CCHI.

Fifth, consists of most of the same members of the CCHI, or at least is connected to the members of the CCHI.

Sixth, serves the same or similar function as did the CCHI in terms of spreading the propaganda through Congresses on Quackery or some similar type of "conference" on "quackery."

With these leads in mind, I began the search for the link between the old AMA campaign and the current one. I began to build the bridge between the two with information I had come across over the years, as well as information I obtained during my current investigation, which began in earnest in 1984.

Looking back at my visits with Doyl Taylor, I began to assemble the pieces of the puzzle using information he had bestowed upon me regarding activities the AMA was involved in regarding its fight against "quackery."

For some years prior to the 1975 dissolution of his Department, Taylor worked to get groups outside the AMA to take an active role in their campaign against "quackery." One of Taylor's tactics had been to get other groups to take a stand against quackery, to develop position papers on quackery, and to parallel what the AMA was doing in this area. Quite often these groups would simply duplicate the AMA's position on the issue. The AMA would help that group develop their statements, and then the AMA would tout the group's position as being independent of the AMA's. In this fashion the AMA used the other group's statements to strengthen its own campaign. In the seedy world of intelligence this is known as "multiple reports." One creates outlets from outside one's immediate area, and then points to these reports as evidence that there is a "national movement" or "public opinion" against one's target in a campaign.

Another way of doing this is to create either a front group or a cover organization to carry on one's campaign. In the case of a front group, one simply helps to start up a group which parallels one's own organization. One then can feed that group money or information or both.   The front group usually has a different name, but its function is the same. It is always run by someone who knows what the group is all about. This leader is usually in direct communication with the group that helped set it up, so as to continue to receive support from the originating organization. An example of such an operation would be the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) setting up a front group such as Radio Free Moscow to transmit propaganda into the USSR. Radio Free Moscow would receive funding covertly, and the people who would run the operation would also be CIA operatives or employees. The role and mission would be known to all who work there.

However, the function and mission of a cover organization or group would be totally different. Upon cursory inspection it would appear to be just what it was held up to be. The employees of a cover group would not necessarily know what the group was really all about. The person heading the organization would know, but the link between this person and the organization he or she was truly working for would be totally hidden. Usually the group would be a self-supporting entity and no money trail would ever be found going back to the original group that set it all up.

For example, a public relations firm set up in New York during World War II headed by a third-generation German-American could serve as a cover group for a German spy. He or she would go about doing the normal business of a public relations firm. In actual fact, the head of this cover group would be using his firm as a cover to obtain information for the German cause. Upon inspection of the office files and operation, it would appear to be what it seemed to be, when in fact it is only a cover group.

The AMA was not beyond setting up such groups. The Department of Investigation was itself a front group, in a sense. It appeared to function as a clearinghouse of information on quackery, when in fact it was much more than that. It was a propaganda machine involved in effecting the destruction of medicine's competition. It didn't just collect, organize, and disseminate information on quackery. In its attempts to adversely influence government reports and studies on medicine's economic competition, it was directly involved in working behin the scenes to get insurance plans to exclude its competition. This was an anti-competitive activity.

As far as helping to set up front groups, this apparently came into play in the early 1970s. Doyl Taylor made it known that there was a psychiatrist in Allentown, Pennsylvania, a Dr. Stephen Barrett, who was a crusader against "quackery." Taylor encouraged me in 1970 to make contact with Barrett, as he was very involved in the same issues as the AMA, especially in the area of chiropractic. Taylor said that he had given Barrett full access to the "quackery" files in the department of Investigation between 1969 and 1975.  Barrett's group was known as the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud. ([italics] Health Fraud [end italics] is a euphemism for [italics] quackery [end italics] which is still used interchangeably today.) The group was incorporated in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on April 19, 1970.

In reviewing published statements by the AMA and Dr. Barrett, I was able to find some of the pieces of the puzzle in the AMA News, as well as in the minutes of the CCHI. These pieces pointed to the distinct possibility that organized medicine may very well have been involved in setting up, or helping to set up, the first group outside the AMA to fight "quackery" or "health fraud."

The following are Dr. Stephen Barrett's own words, published in the AMA News on August 25, 1975, describing the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud. This was five years after it was incorporated.

[quote follows]

Several of the professional societies endorsed our group and donated money to help the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud, Inc. The medical society allowed us to use its office equipment until we obtained our own.

....By working "undercover" using assumed names and box numbers, we've gotten all sorts of information and publications other groups, like the medical societies, haven't been able to lay their hands on.

....Really, we're a bunch of guerrillas - we're not a large group, there are about 40 members, but we're the only such group in the country. 

[end quotes]

Here we have, in Barrett's own words, the apparent link between organized medicine and his group's operation. Although he didn't name the specific "professional societies" that endorsed and donated money to his group, he did state that such organizations as medical, dental, osteopathic, and pharmaceutical groups did help him set up his operation."

"Another piece of the puzzle came to light in the minutes of the May 4, 1973, meeting of the Coordinating Conference on Health Information. Lois Smith reported, "Dr. Steven Barrett, psychiatrist, Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania, is writing a book entitled [italics]The Deadly Deceivers [end italics], covering all phases of quackery."   Doyl Taylor was quick to add that "Dr. Barrett is zealously opposed to medical quackery," and Taylor suggested that members of the CCHI cooperate with Dr. Barrett in his quest to attack "quackery." Barrett's specialty was attacking chiropractic, and, as the AMA News pointed out, Barrett's group was instrumental in helping to defeat legislation "requiring chiropractic coverage under Blue Shield."

This was one of the many connections between Barrett and members of the CCHI that have been uncovered over the years. However, this was the first [italics] published [end italics] link that I could find. As will be seen later, Barrett's relationship with the governmental members (U.S. FDA, FTC, and U.S. Postal Service) continues even today.

His group was touted by the AMA News as providing the media with "one of the country's most complete clearinghouses of information on quackery.""

"At the time Taylor wrote his infamous memorandum to the AMA's Board of Trustees in 1971 stating that the Committee on Quackery's prime mission was first "the containment of chiropractic, and ultimately, the elimination of chiropractic," he was also feeding his files to Barrett, and apparently had been doing so for more than a year.

Among the targets that Barrett's group went after, in addition to chiropractic, were vitamins, "organic food fads," megavitamins; arthritis and cancer "quackery," naturopathy, acupuncture, and alternative "health promoters." Each of these alternative entities were also on the AMA's priority list. Considering the source of Barrett's "clearinghouse of information on quackery," it is not surprising that he pursued the same targets as those chosen by the AMA.

Here we see that a group, the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud, was set up to act as a clearinghouse of information on "health fraud and quackery," probably using as a data base the AMA's Department of Investigation's files, as well as information that Barrett was able to assemble on his own. This group dedicates itself to attacking the same targets that the AMA has been going after for years. The AMA then uses this group's statements and press articles as a means to strengthen its own campaign against alternatives by pointing to this group and touting its work in the area of anti-quackery as being another source "outside of organized medicine" which feels the same way about alternatives."

"In 1975, Barrett stated that his group was the only one of its kind in the United States. However, this was soon to change. In December 1977, a new group came into being in Southern California. It called itself the Southern California Council Against Health Fraud, and it was headed up by a man named William Jarvis, headquartered at Loma Linda University in Loma Linda, California. The group formed several years after the AMA's Department of Investigation disbanded. It is unlikely that Jarvis' group had the same access to the AMA Department of Investigation's clearinghouse on "quackery" that Barrett had. However, the two apparently did hook up. In December 1984, Jarvis changed the name of his group to the National Council against Health Fraud (NCAHF). This group included Dr. Stephen Barrett on its Board of Directors, and Barrrett's group is an affiliate of the NCAHF to this day."

"The similarities between the Barrett group, the Jarvis group, and the AMA's anti-competitive campaign are many. In one of the newspaper articles on the Southern California Council Against Health Fraud in the Los Angeles Times, Jarvis quoted as attacking vitamins, raw milk, and laetrile. Each of these was a target of the AMA's campaign from the past.

Soon after the NCAHF came into being, another group entered the scene. This was the Kansas City Coucil Against Health Fraud and Nutritional Abuse. It was headed by Dr. John Renner. His group also became an affiliate of the National Council Against Health Fraud. The Kansas City group changed its name a few times, also calling itself the Mid-West Council Against Health Fraud. Today Dr. John Renner heads up the Consumer Health Information Resource Institute, in Kansas City. Renner was also on the Board of Directors of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and his group is an affiliate member.

Each of these groups attacked the very same targets that the AMA had been attacking from 1963 to 1975, as well as many new ones. The difference was that on the surface they had no known connections to the AMA, even though they were apparently continuing the AMA's "quackery" campaign. It would appear that these groups are paralleling the old anti-competitive campaign that the medical establishment initiated with the help of the pharmaceutical industry in the name of "consumer protection." Each group claims to be in independent of any medical association or the drug industry. However this may not be the case. There is a very strong indication from documentation obtained over the years that these groups have been acting in the capacity of mouthpieces for orthodox medicine. This adds a new twist to the old anti-competitive propaganda campaign, and has been going on since 1983.

This campaign has been found to be financed by the vested interests within the pharmaceutical industry. Additionally, there are direct links between these groups and the AMA, the Federal Trade Commission, the United States Postal Inspectors, the United States Food and Drug Administration, and the Council of Better Business Bureaus. Each of these groups was at one time a member of the old Coordinating Conference on Health Information (CCHI). Their function today is apparently the same as it was when they were dictated to by the AMA at the CCHI meetings.

Although these groups claim to be independent of any vested interests, in doing their work to "protect the public" from "quackery and health fraud" there is every indication that this may not be the case.

What the AMA was to the earlier conspiracy and anti-competitive campaign these groups are to the current propaganda campaign. The differences are (1) who is fronting the campaign, and (2) who is openly financing the current campaign.

The people bearing the message are different than in the earlier campaign, but these new messengers are singing the same tune. They are apparently carrying forward an older campaign to restrain and eliminate the competitors of organized medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. These groups claim that they have no financial interest in conducting such anti-competitive activities. However, although they are not the direct beneficiaries of such a campaign, it is possible to benefit in several other ways. These groups and their spokespersons stand to gain (1) publicity, (2) public exposure, (3) increased membership, (4) funding for their activity, (5) financial rewards from the insurance industry in the form of consulting fees for "peer review work" and evaluation of insurance claims, and (6) honorariums paid to these "expert" speakers at conventions and conferences.

Who would stand to gain the most today from such an anti-competitive campaign? Upon inspection the answer would be (a) the medical establishment, and (b) the pharmaceutical industry."

"Additionally, this campaign has targeted vitamins, homeopathy, naturopathy, and many others. The removal of these options would represent many billions of dollars in new drug sales.

The increase in drug sales is good reason in itself to conduct a campaign directed at one's economic competitors. The earlier campaign and the current one have [italics] dollars and profits [end italics] as one common denominator. The other common denominator is that both campaigns are in blatant violation of antitrust laws, as well as RICO conspiracy laws. There can be little doubt that the current crusade is just an extension of the earlier campaign.

The current campaign has several elements in it that were not seen as frequently in the old AMA campaign. These include such illegal acts as breaking and entry, unauthorized phone taps, the theft of files from practitioners offices, intimidation and harassment of patients, violations of search-and-seizure statutes, physical violence and threats of violence, and break-ins into attorneys' offices involving the theft of case records.

In most cases, the perpetrators of these illegal acts have not yet been identified or prosecuted. However, these crimes [italics] are [end italics] being committed against alternative practitioners, manufacturers, and distributors.

The one thing about the current campaign that is very different from the old AMA campaign is that the funding lines have been discovered. It is clear who is behind this campaign, and it is not a shock to anyone familiar with the vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry.

The old campaign and the current campaign have this in common: [italics] the vested interests want the whole pie and thus more of the profits available in the health-care marketplace. [end italics] Unfortunately, they have been very successful in their attempt to accomplish this end."

====================================================End Excerpts of Section:
The Problem, Chapter 3 - Rising Out of the Ashes

To be continued.....
 " Det är en mycket läsvärd bok, som jag kan rekomendera. Det här är citerat från:

onsdag 27 juli 2011

The following is copied from: "Medicine, Monopolies, and Malice How the medical establishment tried to destroy chiropractic in the U.S." by Dr Chester A. Wilk page 173- 179.

Text of the Court Order
in Wilk v. AMA

The following is the full text of the court order issued on september 26, 1987, by Judge Susan Getzendanner aginst the American Medical Association:

"The court conducted a lengthy trial of this case in may and June of 1987 and on august 27, 1987,issued a 101 -page opinion finding that The American Medical association ("AMA") and its members participated in a conspiracy against chiropractors in violation of the nations antitrust laws. Thereafter an opinion dated september 25 ,1987, was substituted for the August 27,1987, opinion. The question now before the court is the form of injunctive relief that the court will order.
As part of the injunctive relief to be ordered by the court against the AMA, the AMA shall be required to send a copy of this Permanent Injunction order to each of its current members. The members of the AMA are bound by the terms of the Permanent Injunction Order if they act in concert with the AMA to violate the terms of the order.
Accordingly, it is important that the AMA members understand the order and the reasons why the order and the reasons why the order has been entered.

The AMA´s Boycott and Conspiracy

in the early 1960s , the AMA decided to contain and eliminate chiropractic as a profession. In 1963 the AMA´s
Committee on Quackery was formed. The committee worked aggressively-both overtly and covertly -to eliminate
chiropractic. One of the principal means used by the AMA to achieve its goal was to make it unethical for medical physicians
to professionally associate with chiropractors . Under Principle 3
of the AMA´s Principles of medical Ethics, it was unethical for a physician to associate with an "unscientific practitioner ", and
in 1966 the AMA´s House of Delegates passed a resolution calling
chiropractic an unscientific cult. To complete the circle , in 1967 the AMA´s Judicial Council issued an opinion under Principle 3 holding that it was unethical for a physician to associate professionally with chiropractors.
The AMA´s purpose was to prevent medical physicians from referring patients to chiropractors and accepting referrals of patients from chiropractors, to prevent chiropractors from obtaining access to hospital diagnostic services and membership
on hospital medical staffs to prevent medical physicians from teaching at chiropractic colleges or engaging in any joint research , and to prevent any cooperation between the two groups in the delivery of health care services.
The AMA believed that the boycott worked-that chiropractic would have achieved greater gains in the absence of the boycott. Since no medical physician would want to be considered unethical by his peers, the success of the boycott is not surprising. However, chiropractic achieved licensing in all 50 states during the existence of the Committee on Quackery.
The Committee on Quackery was disbanded in 1975 and some of the committee´s activities became publicly known. Several lawsuits were filed by or on behalf of chiropractors and this ace was filed in 1976.

Change in AMA Position on Chiropractic

In 1977, the AMA began to change its position on chiropractic. The AMA´s Judical Council adopted new options under which medical physicians could refer patients to chiropractors, but there was still the proviso that the medical physician should be confident that the services to be provided on referral would be performed in accordance with accepted scientific standards. In 1979, the AMA´s House of Delegates adopted Report UU which said that not everything that a chiropractor may do is without therapeutic value , but it stopped short of saying that such things were based on scientific standards . It was not until 1980 that the AMA revised its Principles of Medical Ethics to eliminate Principle 3. Until Principle 3 was formally eliminated,there was considerable ambiguity about AMA´s position.The Ethics code adopted in 1980 provided that a medical physician "shall be free to choose whom serve , with whom to associate , and the environment
in which to provide medical services."
The AMA settled three chiropractic lawsuits by stipulating and agreeing that under the current opinions of the Judical Council a physician may, without fear of discipline or sanction by the AMA,refer a patient to a duly licensed chiropractor when he believes that referral may benefit the patient .The AMA confirmed that a physician may also choose to accept or to decline patients sent to him by a duly licensed chiropractor. Finally, the AMA confirmed that a physician may teach at a chiropractic college or seminar. These settlements were entered into in 1978, 1980, and 1986.
The AMA´s present position on chiropractic, as stated to the court,is that it is ethical for a medical physician to professionally associate with chiropractors provided the physician believes that such association is in the best interest of his patient. This position has not
previously been communicated by the AMA to its members.

Antitrust Laws

Under the Sherman Act, every combination or conspiracy in restraint
of trade is illegal. The Court has held that the conduct of the AMA and its members constituted a conspiracy in restraint of trade based on the
following facts: the purpose of the boycott was to eliminate chiropractic;chiropractors are in competition with some medical physicians; the boycott had substantial anti-competitive effects
; there were no pro-competitive effects of the boycott; and the plaintiffs were injured as a result of the conduct. These facts add up to a violation of the Sherman Act.
In this case however, the court allowed the defendants the opportunity to establish a "patient care defense" which has the following elements:
(1) that they genuinely entertained a concern for what they perceive as scientific method in care of each person with whom they have entered into a doctor -patient relationship;(2) that this concern is objectively reasonable;(3) that this concern has been the dominant motivating factor in the defendants´ promulgation of principle 3 and in the conduct intended to implement it; and (4) that this concern for the scientific method in patient care could not have been adequately satisfied in a manner less restrictive of competition.
The court concluded that the AMA had a genuine concern for scientific methods in patient care , and that this concern was the dominating factor motivating AMA´s conduct. However, the AMA
failed to establish that throughout the entire period of the boycott,from 1966 to 1980, this concern was objectively reasonable.The court reached that conclusion on the basis on extensive testimony from both witnesses for the plaintiffs and the AMA that some forms of chiropractic treatment are effective and the fact that the AMA recognized that chiropractic began to change in the early 1970s. Since the boycott was not formally over until Principle 3 was eliminated in 1980, the court found that the AMA was unable to establish that during the entire period of the conspiracy its position was objectively reasonable. Finally, the court ruled that that the AMA´s concern for scientific method in patient care could have been adequately satisfied
in a manner less restrictive of competition and that a nationwide conspiracy to eliminate a licensed profession was not justified by the concern for scientific method. On the basis of these findings, the court concluded that the AMA had failed to establish the patient care defense.
None of the courts findings constituted a judicial endorsement of chiropractic. All of the parties to the case, including the plaintiffs
and the AMA, agreed that chiropractic treatment of diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, heart disease and infectious disease is not proper, and that the historic theory of chiropractic, that there is a singel cause and cure of disease, was wrong. There was disagreement between the parties as to whether chiropractors should engage in diagnosis. There was evidence that the chiropractic theory of subluxation was unscientific, and evidence that some chiropractors engaged in unscientific practices. The court did not reach the question of whether chiropractic theory was in fact scientific. However, the evidence in the case was some forms of chiropractic manipulation of the spine and joints was therapeutic. AMA witnesses, including the present Chairman of the board of Trustees of the AMA, testified that some forms of treatment by chiropractors, including manipulation, can be therapeutic in the treatment of conditions such as back pain syndrome.

Need for Injunctive Relief

Although the conspiracy ended in 1980, there are lingering effects of the illegal boycott and conspiracy which require an injunction. Some medical physicians´individual decisions on whether or not to professionally associate with chiropractors are still affected by the boycott.
The injury to chiropractors´reputations which resulted from the boycott has not been repaired. Chiropractors suffer current economic injury as a result of the boycott. The AMA has never affirmatively acknowledged that there are and should not be no collective impediments to professional association and cooperation between chiropractors and medical physicians, except as provided by law. Instead, the AMA has consistently argued that its conduct has not violated the anti-trust laws.
Most importantly, the court believes that it is important that the AMA members be made aware of the present AMA positions that it is ethical for a medical physician to professionally associate with a chiropractor if the physician believes it is in the best interest of his patient, so that the lingering effects of the illegal group boycott against chiropractors faintly can be dissipated.
Under the law every medical physician, institution,and hospital has the right to make an individual decision as to whether or not that physician, institution, or hospital shall associate professionally with chiropractors. Individual choice by a medical physician voluntarily to associate professionally with chiropractors should be governed only by restrictions under state law, if any, and by the individual medical physician´s personal judgement as to what is in the best interest of a patient or patients. Professional association includes referrals, consultations, group practice in partnerships, Health Maintenance Organizations, Preferred Provider Organizations, and other alternative health care delivery systems; the provision of treatment privileges and diagnostic services (including radiological and other laboratory facilities) in or through hospital facilities ; association and cooperation in educational programs for students in chiropractic colleges; and cooperation in research, health care seminars, and continuing education programs.
An injunction is necessary to assure that the AMA does not interfere with the right of a physician, hospital,or other institution to make an individual decision on the question of professional association.

Forms of Injunction

1. The AMA, its officers, agents and employees, and all persons
who act in active concert with any of them who receive actual
notice of this order and hereby permanently enjoined from
restricting, regulating or impeding, or aiding and abetting
others from restricting, regulating or impeding, the freedom of
any AMA member or any institution or hospital to make an
individual decision as to whether or not that AMA member,
institution, or hospital shall professionally associate with
chiropractors, chiropractic students, or chiropractic

2. This permanent Injunction does not and shall not be
construed to restrict or otherwise interfere with the AMA´s
right to take positions on any issue, including chiropractic,
and to express or publicize those positions, either alone or in
conjunction with others. Nor does this Permanent Injunction
restrict or otherwise interfere with the AMA ´s right to petition
or testify before any public body on any legislative or
regulatory measure or to join or cooperate with any other
entity in so petitioning or testifying. The AMA´s membership
in a recognized accrediting association or society shall not
constitute a violation of this Permanent Injunction.

3. The AMA is directed to send a copy of this order to each AMA
member and employee, first class mail, postage prepaid,
within thirty days of entry of this order. In the alternative, the
AMA shall provide the Clerk of the court with mailing labels
so the court may send this order to AMA members and

4. The AMA shall cause the publication of this order in JAMA and
the indexing of the order under "Chiropractic" so that persons
desiring to find the order in the future will be able to do so.
5. The AMA shall prepare a statement of the AMA´s present
position on chiropractic for inclusion in current reports and
opinions of the Judicial Council with an appropriate heading
that refers to professional association between medical physi-
cians and chiropractors, and indexed in the same manner that
other reports and opinions are indexed. The court imposes no
restrictions on the AMA´s statement but only requires that it
be consistent with the AMA`s statement of its present position
to the court.

6. The AMA shall file a report with the court evidencing compli-
acne with this order on or before January 10, 1988.

It is so ordered.
Susan Getzendanner
United States District Judge
September 27, 1987

måndag 13 juni 2011

There are people who intentionly spread lies about chiropractic history. One of them is Stephen Barrett.
He writes :" Chiropractic theory is rooted in the notions of Daniel David Palmer, a grocer and "magnetic healer" who postulated that the basic cause of disease was interference with the body's nerve supply. Approximately a hundred years ago, he concluded that "A subluxated vertebrae . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column." [1] He proclaimed that subluxations interfered with the body's expression of "Innate Intelligence"—the "Soul, Spirit, or Spark of Life" that controlled the healing process. He proposed to remedy the gamut of disease by manipulating or "adjusting" the problem areas."

That quote is from 1895. Two years before he started to teach chiropractic.

1896 one year before he started to teach chiropractic to other people he said: "I do not claim to cure all diseases , but I now treat and cure many diseases which I had not thought of doing five years ago.
Medicine and medical doctors are necessary, we cannot get along without them. But they cannot cure everybody. Neither can I. I especially invite those who have tried all other remedies and have failed to find relief."
That was his opinion one year before he started to teach chiropractic, so it is obvious that is not true that he made some kind of religion of the 1895 quotation. Of course he had some strange ideas but he struggled to learn more about the body and spinal adjusting.

måndag 21 mars 2011

D.D. Palmers roll inom kiropraktiken är välkänd. vad skilde D.D. Palmer från de tidigare "kotknackarna". Hans viktigaste insats var att starta en skola för att utbilda kiropraktorer.
Där ansträngde han sig för att förena den dåtida medicinen med gamla metoder från folkmedicinska traditioner. Inledningsvis ser man också spår av påverkan från Osteopatin.

I början hade han en överdriven tilltro till behandlingsformens möjligheter. 1896(Det var ett år inan han startade skolan.) skrev han i
The Magnetic Healer :

"I treat succesfully the following diseases:
Rheumatism of any kind neuralgia, the various kinds of stomach ailments, diseases of the liver, kidneys bowels, bladder, spleen, heart, throat, and head, male and female diseases periodical headaches, inflammation of the bowels , bladder,brain fewer, lung fewer, bronchitits, nervous diseases,shaking palsy,Quinsy, running sores, abscesses of the lungs, liver or stomach, catarrh,
pleurisy, sprains, lameness caused by injuries, asthma, malaria, dyspepsia , female weakness, diabetes, chronic diarrhoea, constipation, loss of strength and vitality,e eczema, indigestion,
erysipelas, dropsy, diphteria, some diseases of the eye and ear, painful menstruation, piles,
incontinence of urine or bedwetting, consumtion,lupus, cancers and tumors when not to far gonne , and some cases of paraparalysis. I give no medicines, you do not have to wait months to
see a change. Three to five treatments usually shows you what I can do. i treat causes not effects. This Vital magnetic Power of curing disease is sufficient to heal any disease when we know how.
I do not claim to cure all diseases , but I now treat and cure many diseases which I had not thought of doing five years ago.
Medicine and medical doctors are necessary, we cannot get along without them. But they cannot cure everybody. Neither can I. I especially invite those who have tried all other remedies and have failed to find relief."

Det här uttalandet är präglat av sin tid. Idag ser kiropraktiken helt annorlunda ut. Kiropraktiken är en legitimerad yrkeskår inom hälso och sjukvården, som behandlar dysfunktioner i rörelseapparaten. Reglerna är samma som för andra grupper inom vården vi har att arbeta i enlighet med bästa möjliga evidens, och
kiropraktorers verksamhet är underställd socialstyrelsens tillsyn. Antalet kiropraktorer
inom den statligt finansierade primär vården är ännu få, men inom de närmaste decenierna
kommer de att öka. En viktig faktor blir när kiropraktor högskolan integreras i den statliga
högskolan. Det är en process som pågår för närvarande, och kiropraktorerna slåss för att få bästa möjligga kompetens för att kunna tillvara taga patienternas intresse på bästa möjliga sätt. Det kommer att ge förutsättningar för ökad forskning om de manuella terapiformernas effekter och bieffekter. Det här är en utveckling som pågår i många länder och
sverige har släpat efter andra länder. Den danska kiropraktik utbildningen vid Odense universitet har varit en viktig förebild för svenska kiropraktorer.

PS   Den här frågan är viktig, för att  AMAs numera förbjudna "kommitte mot kvacksalveri° spred lögnen,  att kiropraktorer tror att de kan bota ALLT med spinala manipulationer, vilket inte ens D.D. Palmer trodde 1896(Det var ett år innan han började lära ut metoden. .). trots att han hade överdrivna förhoppningar på vad som skulle kunna åstadkommas med spinnala manipulationer.  Idag är det några få som sprider AMAs gamla lögn. Men hur det förhåller sig är lätt att kontrollera genom att kontakta en
kiropratik utbildning, eller en förenning för kiropraktorer. DS

Här är en lista på de tidiga kiropraktor skolorna.

Här är en lista på de tidigaste Kiropraktor utbildningarna:
Källa: Chiropractic History: a Primer

Länk : http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ahc/ChiroHistoryPrimer.pdf

Table 3: Several early schools of chiropractic, 1896-1922

Palmer School of Magnetic Cure
American School of Chiropractic & Nature Cure
Marsh School of Chiropractic Pacific School of Chiro-Practic
American School of Chiropractic
Parker School of Chiropractic
Carver-Denny School of Chiropractic
National School of Chiropractic
Palmer-Gregory College of Chiropractic
D.D. Palmer College of Chiropractic
Texas Chiropractic College
Michigan College of Chiropractic
Ratledge System of Chiropractic Schools
Minnesota Chiropractic College
Wichita College of Kiropractic
Robbins Chiropractic Institute
Pacific College of Chiropractic
Universal Chiropractic College
New Jersey College of Chiropractic and Naturopathy
San Diego School of Chiropractic
Ratledge System of Chiropractic Schools
Los Angeles College of Chiropractic
Oregon Peerless College of Chiropractic and Neuropathy
Bullis and Davis School of Neuropathy,Ophthalmology and Chiropractic
California Chiropractic College
Canadian Chiropractic College
Eastern College of Chiropractic
Columbia Institute of Chiropractic
Missouri Chiropractic College
Cleveland (Central) Chiropractic College

Lite om författaren Joseph C Keating Jr var medlem i ACH , och en av de flitigaste skribenterna i ACH. Han avled alldelles för tidigt 2007 vid femtiosjuårs ålder.