Dr Terry Rondberg responds to Smith's lies

[Nemo]

In a series of brief articles, Dr Terry Rondberg has responded to the 10 most common lies told about him from critics such as JC Smith. Dr Rondberg sets the record straight with these hard hitting points:

LIE NUMBER 1: "Rondberg is only in it for the money"


One of the biggest criticisms leveled against me is that I am financially successful. I can't refute that. Yes, I have made what most people would consider a lot of money from my various business ventures.



I have owned large and beautiful homes, Mercedes cars, Armani suits and even at one time, a boat! While these things don't interest me very much nowadays, I have to admit that I've been lucky when it comes to money.



Even when I had a private practice, I was extremely successful. I had a high-volume office and made a good income. For a while, I had a "payment" box near the door and instead of charging patients, I asked them to just put into the box what they thought my care was worth. I still made a lot of money!



Yes, I've been lucky, but I've also worked hard for what I've made. Anyone who knows me jokes about how I took a portable fax machines to the beach during one of my rare "vacations" and even now I never am far from my Blackberry. I'm a workaholic and an unrepentant success story.



But to say I am "in it for the money" is ridiculous. Chiropractic isn't really the best profession to be in if you're thinking only of making money. If I really wanted to make a ton of money the easy way, I could have gone to work as a chiropractic "consultant" to the insurance company, doing paper reviews on other doctors and helping deny claims. There's BIG bucks to be made from that, and very little real work involved.



Or, I could have aligned myself with the more medically oriented camp of chiropractors who charge hundreds of dollars per patient visit to cover the cost of everything from diagnostics to ultrasound and therapy. That has to pay better than focusing on subluxation correction.



Or, I could have turned my back on the chiropractic profession altogether and gone into real estate development or stock trading (which, I'm sure, is what some people wish I had done). But how many of us chose chiropractic because it promised us the lifestyle of the rich and famous? Like many of you, I went into chiropractic because it saved my life and my health and I wanted to do the same for others.



Even when I left private practice, my goal was to protect and promote chiropractic. My first step was to start The Chiropractic Journal because I felt strongly that traditional, subluxation-based chiropractic was being suppressed. The only newspaper published at the time -- Dynamic Chiropractic -- consistently advocated the ACA view of chiropractic and excluded opposing viewpoints. Most of my friends and colleagues warned me that I was committing financial suicide.



The first few issues of The Chiropractic Journal were only 16 pages, with sparse advertising. I paid for the publishing out of my own pocket, and continued my practice to pay for the bills. I had a single sales person and yet we rapidly grew in size and revenue. At its biggest, the Journal was 56 pages. Now, it's leveled off to its usual 40-48 pages. We still have only one staff person who sells ads. If I were truly money motivated, I'd have a whole staff of sales people calling every vendor in the profession for ads.



I've always been proud of the Journal but to tell you the truth, it's never been a huge money maker for me. Printing and mailing costs have skyrocketed in recent years. Many months, we just about break even. Still, I continue publishing because I still believe strongly in the need for a publication that allows for articles that promote the kind of chiropractic that combines science with philosophy. If I lose money on it, so be it.



My detractors accuse me of making a lot of money on the World Chiropractic Alliance as well. At the same time, they continually say the WCA has only relative handful of members. Since the WCA's membership fee has never been more than $396 a year (and only $30/year for students), something is radically wrong with their math.



For instance, one critic claims that the WCA has 240 members. Even if every one of them were a full paying member, that equals revenue of, at most, $95,000 a year.

Do you have any idea what a Washington lobbyist charges? For many years, the WCA retained a lobbyist who fought for chiropractic rights such as direct access in the VA hospitals, Medicare opt out privileges, commissioned medical officer status for DCs, and other important issues.



What about the attorney the WCA hired to fight for chiropractic rights at the court level? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been used to safeguard our legal rights?



To give you some idea of what legal action costs, the ACA reported that it spent between $57 million on the Trigon case. Much of this money, most of which was donated by doctors of chiropractic to the ACA's National Chiropractic Legal Action Fund (NCLAF), went to Chicagobased law firm McAndrews, Held & Malloy, whose founder and senior partner is attorney George McAndrews, brother of Jerome McAndrews, DC, the ACA's national spokesperson.



Millions of dollars for a single lawsuit (that never really helped the chiropractic profession). Millions of dollars in legal fees paid to the brother of a top ACA official. Can you imagine what would have been said if that had happened with the WCA?



What about the costs for working around the globe to make sure chiropractic licensing laws didn't exclude subluxation correction. Or for public relations campaigns that have succeeded in getting positive coverage for chiropractic on television and radio and in newspapers and magazines?



The fact is, the WCA has accomplished a great deal with very little money. If anyone thinks I got rich through the WCA, they're free to bankroll their own organization and see how much profit they make from it! If they share my experience, they'll find themselves subsidizing the group out of their own pocket (and do so willingly).



Still, I have made money from many of my business enterprises, such as the malpractice insurance company that has proven such a boon for doctors around the country and sale of my books about chiropractic (which have sold hundreds of thousands of copies). All the same, much of my money has come from good investments through the years and from careful stewardship of my assets.



The bottom line is: I don't have to apologize for being a successful businessman or for trying to help other doctors increase their income. There is no shame in poverty, but few people deliberately choose it. Instead, I advocate the old fashioned idea that if you love what you're doing and work passionately at it, the money will come. It has for me and I'm sorry if my detractors are so filled with envy that they can't forgive me for having more money than they do.



I choose my projects based on what excites me and what I think will help chiropractic. I started The Chiropractic Journal, World Chiropractic Alliance and Chiropractic Benefit Services for those reasons. Some of my projects make money; others don't. But the fact that I have made a lot of money through the years proves that I'm not alone in my dedication to chiropractic. Numerous people in our profession would have had to agree with me to keep the money flowing.



And speaking of "flowing" -- I keep the wealth flowing out as well as in. I've donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to everything from the ACA's National Chiropractic Legal Action Fund (not one of my best decisions!) to chiropractic college scholarships

[Nemo]

LIE NUMBER 2: "WCA is a sham organization"



The World Chiropractic Alliance has been in existence since 1989 and has always been active in the chiropractic political and public relations efforts. I'm the first to admit we do not have a huge membership, but the members we have are dedicated and loyal, and come from all over the world, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Holland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Peru, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan Republic of China, Thailand and the United States.

We have accomplished far more than many organizations with a larger membership and budgets.

Yet, some of my critics say the group isn't legitimate because it has an unusual organizational structure. Most groups fail to get much dome because they have layers of bureaucracy that spend more time forming "task forces" and "committees" than actually doing anything. Their leaders are so focused on getting elected to higher office that they are afraid of taking daring actions.


By contrast, the WCA has a small but permanent Executive Board that appoints members of the larger Board of Directors. As founder and permanent president, I cannot be "un-elected" and make many unilateral decisions. I also fund the organization out of my own pocket, rather than rely on constant fundraising efforts for every action we need to take.


This is definitely an unconventional way to run a professional organization, but our members are aware of our structure and if they are still willing to become members, why should non-members have a problem with that?

Or is their real problem with how much we are able to accomplish using this innovative approach?


For the record, WCA members have served on important health-related government committees and panels, including:


· Veronica Gutierrez, DC, a member of the WCA Board of Directors, the only chiropractor to serve on the White House Special Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine;


· Christopher Kent, DC, a member of the WCA Board of Directors, chairman of the NGO (NonGovernmental Organization) Health Committee, affiliated with the United Nations;



· Kristina M. Collins, DC, a member of the WCA International Board of Governors, one of six members appointed by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to its National Advisory Council on Complementary and Alternative Medicine;


· Leona Fischer, DC, a member of the WCA International Board of Governors, served on the Veterans Affairs Chiropractic Advisory Committee and was one of only two members to vote against a medical gatekeeper system;


· Terry A. Rondberg, DC, WCA President, member of the Department of Defense Chiropractic Advisory Committee.


In addition, the WCA was instrumental in having pro-chiropractic legislation introduced into Congress and passing bills such as House Concurrent Resolution 46 that states:


We retained one of the capitols most influential professional lobbyists, a man who served on the Board of Directors of the American League of Lobbyists. We lobbed for many important chiropractic related laws and I personally formed positive relationships with many key Washington legislators.



On the public relations front, the WCA responded quickly to negative depictions of chiropractic in the media, including newspapers, magazines, syndicated columnists, and television shows. We retained top attorney Carlos Negrete to evaluate all possible legal actions against organizations that use misinformation to defame chiropractic.


More than two million copies of WCA patient education books have been printed and distributed under the titles "Chiropractic First," Chiropractic Works, "Chiropractic: Compassion and Expectation," and "Under the Influence of Modern Medicine."

Among the WCAs worldwide efforts and accomplishments:



Accreditation as a non-governmental organization (NGO) by the Department of Public Information, affiliated with the United Nations, in December 1998.


Sponsored the first NGO workshop on chiropractic, The Role of Chiropractic Care in Global Wellness at the International Conference of NGOs in Korea.


Presented the first chiropractic program at UN headquarters in New York City titled, Perspectives on Chiropractic Care in Womens Health and Quality

[Nemo]

LIE NUMBER 3 -- "WCA has no right to 'interfere' in foreign chiropractic affairs.


For years, the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) has tried to convince the profession that it has the sole authority to regulate chiropractic internationally. In claiming this authority, it condemns the WCA for "interfering" in global chiropractic affairs. Yet, the truth is, the WFC was founded by and its executive board is comprised of individuals who are steadfast proponents of the medically oriented segment of the chiropractic profession. These individuals include Mr. David-Chapman Smith, Louis Sportelli, D.C., Scott Haldeman, D.C., Reed Phillips, D.C., John Triano, D.C., and others -- either involved in the development of the Mercy Guidelines or vocal supporters of that document.

The WFC and its leaders have frequently attempted to portray the organization as having legitimate authority within or over the chiropractic profession. This is not true. Neither the profession nor any government has ever conferred authority on the WFC to take any action or make any decisions for chiropractic anywhere in the world.

In his highly controversial book, "The Chiropractic Profession," Mr. David ChapmanSmith, who served as the group's "Secretary General," stated that chiropractic educational standards "are monitored by the various CCEs and the World Federation of Chiropractic." Yet, the WFC has absolutely no legitimate role in developing or setting the standards of any chiropractic educational agency nor is it empowered to "monitor" any educational process.


In a letter dated January 1, 2000, to the ICA representative to the WFC, Mr. ChapmanSmith admitted that: "The WFC has no mandate, expertise, or interest in any of the technical areas of chiropractic education, whether curriculum, faculty, accreditation of programmes or otherwise."

Yet, it continues to claim authority in this area. In its policy statement on the "Use of the title Chiropractor," the WFC states that chiropractors must be "graduates of chiropractic educational programmes that are formally accredited by a chiropractic accreditation agency or an alternative governmentrecognized accreditation process in the country in question, or that are recognized and approved on an interim basis within the terms of the World Federation of Chiropractic's Tokyo Charter by the national association of chiropractors in the country in question."

This position paper was revised in 2003 to extend the range of the policy to cover the term "chiropractic" as well.


The WFC has no right or authority to approve any accreditation process or education program and the WFC's attempt to wrest control over these areas is blatantly unethical and without legal or moral basis.


Further, the WFC has tried to claim authority by citing its status as an NGO (NonGovernmental Organization) with a United Nations agency, or its work with the World Health Organization. Yet, recognition as NGO does not confer any authority or indicate global "approval" of the policies of the NGO. The WCA also holds NGO status with the Department of Public Information, affiliated with the United Nations, and plays a prominent role in the work of the NGO Health Committee. According to WHO officials, no exclusive or special relations exist between WHO and WFC. The WCA also enjoys a working relationship with WHO.


The WFC is an association comprised solely of those organizations that share its ideologies. It restricts membership to only one organization per nation (with an exception for the U.S., which is permitted two organizations).

Organizations that represent an opposing viewpoint are not permitted representation in the WFC and have no input into its policies. As such, the actions taken by the WFC are a reflection of only one segment of the profession, with no consideration given to other opinions or philosophies.

While the formation of an association of "like minded groups" is neither unethical nor uncommon, such association cannot purport to represent the entire profession or speak for it.


When the WFC wants to involve itself in the political or professional activities of the chiropractic community anywhere in the world, it does so without the approval or permission of any other organization.


The WCA has the right to do the same thing.


When the WFC wants to involve itself in the political or professional activities of the chiropractic community anywhere in the world, it does so without the approval or permission of any other organization.


It's clear that the leaders of the WFC don't think the WCA has the right to do the same thing. In fact, they've engaged in extremely unprofessional and unethical actions aimed at destroying the WCA's standing in the global health community.

At one point, in 1999, David Chapman-Smith actually went so far as to contact the United Nations Public Information Office and demand that it withdraw the WCA's NGO status. He did this without consulting any other WFC board members or receiving authority from the group. Later, WFC Board member Gerald Clum, DC, the ICA representative to the WFC, wrote to Chapman-Smith that "The tone of your letter (to the U.N.) seems to suggest that the world has been ceded to the WFC and the WFC will be the sole worldwide arbiter of things chiropractic. I find no such role as I review the founding documents of the WFC."


Dr. Clum went on to say, "Your request for reconsideration of the WCA status by the DPI was inappropriate and unprofessional. On behalf of the International Chiropractors Association, I demand the retraction of your letter of November 18, 1999 to Mr. Hoeffel and an apology to the World Chiropractic Alliance."

Not surprisingly, an apology was never forthcoming.


Chapman-Smith even launched a "black ops" campaign, getting WFC member organizations to write letters protesting the WCA's "meddling" in international affairs. The letters were almost all identical -- obviously copied from a model letter that Chapman-Smith provided. Not only that, but the protests came from organizations such as the Chiropractic Association of Trinidad & Tobago, The Singapore Chiropractic Association, the Norwegian Chiropractors' Association -- many of which represented as few as five doctors of chiropractic.


The WCA could have easily gotten many non-WFC groups around the world to write letters in response but the WFC had already damaged the image of chiropractic in the United Nations and I didn't want to make things worse by responding to its blatant lies.


By the way, the United Nations DPI never took any action and the WCA remains an NGO!

[Nemo]

LIE NUMBER 4 -- "Subluxation-based chiropractic is an unscientific 'ideologue'"


The animosity aimed at me cannot be viewed separately from the hatred felt toward subluxation-centered chiropractic itself. I have been labeled "the most dangerous man in chiropractic" because I am a staunch advocate for non-medical chiropractic focusing on the detection and correction of subluxation rather than on the diagnosis and treatment of diseases and medical conditions.


The success of my activities -- such as the World Chiropractic Alliance and The Chiropractic Journal and Chiropractic Benefit Services-- have made me "dangerous" to those who had hoped to divorce chiropractic from its roots as a non-therapeutic wellness system.


If I had been just as successful in promoting the American Chiropractic Association or in positioning doctors of chiropractic as chiropractic "physicians," I would never have been on their hit list. If I had been less effective in my business enterprises, I would not have made enemies among those who compete with me in the chiropractic marketplace.


But I am effective and successful, and have been instrumental in generating a backlash against the "anti-subluxation" crowd. No wonder I'm under attack.


My critics love to claim that "my" type of chiropractic is an unscientific ideologue, yet nothing can be further from the truth. The type of chiropractic I advocate is absolutely dependent on scientific research and I have long promoted the creation of a "research culture" in chiropractic that can transform us into an evidence-based scientific profession that is completely congruent with the chiropractic principles and philosophy.


The World Chiropractic Alliance has supported many chiropractic research projects and currently is focused on promoting the use of advanced technology to emphasize neurologically based chiropractic. This approach stresses the neurological component of the subluxation and is completely accepted by the scientific community.


It is in contrast, however, to the type of chiropractic that places DCs in the position of having to diagnose and treat medical conditions and diseases. This is precisely the reason my enemies attack me. Most of them are dependent on the medical paradigm of treating patients with specific ailments such as back pain, headaches, or 'sports injuries.' Their income is derived solely though the sale of products or services aimed at "treating" patients. My opposition to this approach threatens them and they react with hatred and unethical attacks on me and the entire subluxation-centered chiropractic community. Some of my loudest critics are in trouble for using illegal marketing campaigns regarding the DRX9000 spinal decompression machine.


http://www.worldchiropracticalliance...r/rondberg.htm
http://www.worldchiropracticalliance...2006/sep/c.htm
http://www.worldchiropracticalliance...c/rondberg.htm

[Nemo]

LIE NUMBER 5 "The Chiropractic Journal prints lies"


The Chiropractic Journal is a publication of the World Chiropractic Alliance and an advocacy publication for subluxation-based and neurologically-based chiropractic. Most of our articles are chosen because they are congruent with those principles. However, we also publish articles on a variety of other topics of interest to chiropractors.


When writing of professional or political issues, the Journal has always told the truth from our point of view, just as every publication does. We admit to having a bias toward that segment of chiropractic that is not permitted a voice in other publications, but we have always been truthful and fair. We quote from and reference documented sources and published reports.


Each time a critic has accused the Journal of printing lies, we have been able to clearly show the documentation to support our reports. Never once has the Journal been successfully sued for libel or other instances of "lying."


If you read the accusations about the Journals' "lying" you will quickly see that the statements in question are merely being disputed. I've even had critics say my publisher's columns are filled with "lies" when they are clearly my personal opinion on various issues. How can an opinion be a "lie"? Whenever my critics don't agree with me or one of the articles in the Journal, they scream that it's a "lie."


The Chiropractic Journal has been publishing for more than two decades and has grown from 16 pages to as many as 56 pages. If it were truly the "rag" my critics claim, it would not have attracted as many readers or advertisers as it has. The fact is, they don't like what the Journal stands for and they don't like having a competing publication that prints the information they want buried. So, they attack. But in this case at least, their intent is so obvious that it makes their accusations sound absurd.

[Nemo]

LIE # 6 -- "Rondberg and the WCA have caused dissension and division in the profession"


In any profession, as in any society, the voicing of opposing opinions should be welcomed rather than stifled. Why is it, in chiropractic, when someone speaks out for subluxation-based chiropractic, he or she is considered to be causing dissension and division? If we can't embrace diversity of opinion, can't we at least tolerate it?


Elizabeth Cady Stanton is quoted as saying: "The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls."


Is that what's happening in chiropractic? When chiropractors declare support for traditional, non-medical chiropractic, critics go on the attack. Suddenly, those doctors are "chirovangelists," "evil vendors," "ideologues" or worse (often, much much worse).


Despite a few lapses, I have used tremendous restraint through the years and have tried to avoid ad hominem attacks on others, and have tried to document the truth of my statements. If you read my writings carefully (keeping an open mind) you'll see that although I often criticize other organizations for actions they take or positions they hold, I try to promote a "live and let live" attitude.


In fact, that was the basis upon which the World Chiropractic Alliance was founded. Of course, many opponents preferred the "we live ... you die" approach and immediately tried to destroy the WCA as well as every other enterprise I've ever been involved in. Still, how many times have I delineated the positions of the WCA and ACA and told doctors that if they shared the vision of the ACA (as stated in its own words), they should join the ACA. If they agreed with the WCA, they should join the WCA.


Its always been that simple. No dissension. No division. Simply giving doctors options to choose or reject.


The only people who see something wrong with this are those who want to impose their own opinions on the profession and who see any kind of disagreement as a threat to their place of power and influence.

[Nemo]

LIE # 7: VSRI was a patient getting scam that was forced to close down


Many of my critics like to drag out an old program I started back in the late 1980s, called Vertebral Subluxation Research Institute's "Outreach 2000." This was my first attempt to jump start the kind of research we needed in chiropractic.


My enemies say this was a scam to lure unsuspecting patients into doctors' offices. That's absolutely nonsensical and if they would have taken even a few minutes to look at the facts about the program, they'd never utter such ridiculous lies.


First of all, the research director I hired to develop the original protocol and design the preliminary health survey questionnaire was Michael Hecht, Ph.D. Dr. Hecht was the associate professor of communication and director of the Communication Research Center at Arizona State University. He was a regular consultant to business and industry, and had provided services to such companies as Xerox, Burroughs, the United States Navy, Baskin Robbins, Los Angeles County Bureau of Social Services, Pan Am, and Barclay's Bank.


When the initial phase of the pilot program was completed, the responsibilities for analyzing the research were assumed by Dr. Barbara Nienstedt, M.S., D.P.A., president of Research and Information Specialists, Inc.


Dr. Nienstedt holds a doctorate in Public Administration and serves as a research methodologist for the Auditor General of the State of Arizona and as a research associate and guest lecturer at Arizona State University. She had been contracted by such government offices as the U.S. Department of Justice, the Arizona Supreme Court, and Arizona State University for a wide variety of research projects.


Nienstedt -- who had just returned from Washington, D.C., where she had been involved in a research project for the U.S. Sentencing Commission established by former President Reagan -- spoke out about the validity of the program.


In responding to accusations that VSRI doctors gained new patients through the program, Dr. Nienstedt stated: "Naturally, exams sometimes uncover health conditions which would benefit from chiropractic care. It would be unethical for the participating doctor to keep that condition secret or refuse to provide needed care if it is requested. It is not surprising, then, that a large percentage of volunteers request care from the participating doctor.


"All volunteers, however, are told very clearly that they are under absolutely no obligation to become a patient after volunteering for the research. In fact, they must read and sign a statement reminding them of that policy before they fill in the questionnaire. In addition, each doctor is provided with detailed instructions on how to conduct the volunteer examination, as well as clear and strongly worded admonitions concerning ethics in research conduct."


Dr. Nienstedt's article with these statements appeared in the October 1989 issue of The Chiropractic Journal, which can be accessed online.


Here's more from that article:


It is unfair and ridiculous ... to dismiss a research project as a 'sham' based on his unfounded assertions that some participants might be unethical, just as it would be unfair to paint the entire research community as unscrupulous on the basis of the unethical behavior of some of its members. The other (and perhaps the most interesting) implication is that VSRI is not legitimate because it is a private enterprise program. Because VSRI has not chosen to take advantage of the numerous and lucrative tax benefits of a 'Non-Profit' status, it is supposedly tainted and unclean. Yet, around the country we are seeing a trend toward the privatization of health research. Robert K. Oldham, director of the famed Biological Therapy Institute, has encountered similar criticism. In a speech delivered in Cleveland, Ohio in 1987, he stated that, "it is illogical to ascribe evil motives to those in the business sector and good motives to those in the public sector. We recognize that private sector researchers use as one measure of their success, monetary rewards. Researchers in government and academia strive for rewards as well.

To make sure the program was 100% legal and above board, I also hired noted attorney Paul Eckstein to review all aspects of the program. Mr. Eckstein is a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, and -- at the time he worked with VSRI -- was listed as among the top one percent of the nation's attorneys in "The Best Lawyers in America" and was one of only 27 attorneys out of the nation's top 200 lawyers, to be featured in The American Lawyer magazine as exemplars of their profession, based on legal ability and leadership potential.


When VSRI was contacted by several practitioners in Canada who wanted to participate, the Institute hired David Chapman-Smith, now better known as the Secretary General of the World Federation of Chiropractic.


After a review of VSRI materials, Chapman-Smith offered several suggestions and reported, "I see nothing of concern... a well-based research project, in which those chiropractors acting in a responsible way as directed face no risk whatsoever of a successful charge of misconduct."


The board of several states -- including California, New York, Minnesota, Iowa, and Alabama -- closely scrutinized the program and none took any action against participating doctors.


As reported by the Alabama Board of Chiropractic Examiners, "The Board finds that the OUTREACH 2000 program is an ongoing chiropractic health research project designed to collect and correlate survey data obtained from examining and questioning volunteer research participants throughout the country on, among other topics, the relationship between the presence and level of subluxations and various demographic factors such as age, ethnicity, occupation, gender, lifestyle, and geographic environment."


Further, the Board found that the program was, "sufficiently based in scientific principles, methodology, and statistical analysis so as to constitute legitimate scientific research."


At one point, attorney Michael J. Schroeder -- who represented both the state's Board of Chiropractic Examiners and the California Chiropractic Association -- said he was "familiar with" VSRI's program and felt it was s possibly "a sham." However, the California Board never took any action against the Institute or the approximately 100 California doctors involved in the program even after it made inquiries into the project in 1987.


Ed Hoefling, then executive director of the Board, implied that doctors using the program were soliciting patients. VSRI responded to the accusation, supplying complete, documented information proving that the only purpose of the program is to recruit volunteers. There is no solicitation of patients. The Board took absolutely no action on the matter, and the case, as they say, was closed.


If, as Schroeder suggests, the program is against Board regulations or even against the law, why hasn't he done something about it? Where are the license revocations, the lawsuits, the complaints? Evidently, California realized -- as VSRI's attorney reminded them at the time -- that "any attempt by a State or State agency to prohibit (a doctor) from engaging in this research would be unconstitutional."


My enemies brought out the "big guns" in February 1987, when the American Chiropractic Association, filed an inquiry about the program. Again, VSRI responded in a cooperative and open fashion, providing information for its review. In addition, VSRI attorney Paul Eckstein offered to discuss the matter further in writing or by telephone. I never heard another word about the program from the ACA -- at least not officially.


It was only much later that the VSRI discovered the ACA had secretly filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission's Consumer Protection Bureau. The FTC apparently dismissed the entire matter, since they never followed up on the blatantly unfounded complaint.


Still, the constant harassment took its toll and I finally decided to close down the project rather than subject its members to more attacks. What could have been an important research project was destroyed by those same people who time and time try to annihilate anything to do with subluxation-based chiropractic, or anything I'm personally or professionally involved in.


What a loss for chiropractic!

[Nemo]

LIE # 8 -- "The ACA has achieved great things for chiropractic"


Really? Like what? Is your practice doing better now thanks to the ACA and WFC that it was 5, 10, 15 years ago?


Can you point to a single piece of legislation that the ACA has lobbied for in the past decade that has actually helped advance chiropractic in the right direction?


What about the Trigon lawsuit that cost millions of dollars? Has that helped your practice?


And where are the big public relations campaigns that the ACA always promises? Have you seen any press releases or ads touting the benefits of chiropractic?


The ACA's Annual Report for 2007, listed a month-by-month review of some of its notable efforts, including, for January, its vow to "to fight the discriminatory practices of managed care organizations and asks DCs nationwide to assist by documenting their complaints and providing the data to use as ammunition against the MCOs." We haven't witnessed great strides in this area, and the discrimination continues and even gets worse.



In February, the ACA announced its " ACA announces its 2007 legislative priorities: making chiropractic more readily available to veterans and military personnel and reviving the Patients Bill of Rights." Then why did the ACA representatives on the VA Committee actually vote IN FAVOR OF a medical gatekeeper system, while the WCA and ICA representatives fought against it?


May's big achievement was trying once more to force a merger with the International Chiropractors Association, which -- again -- failed.



In July, it boasts about working with reporters for the Washington Post on a "pro-chiropractic story." It doesn't mention that the article actually was lukewarm toward chiropractic, containing such quotes as:



"(Medical) referrals come despite the still-thin evidence for chiropractic's effectiveness. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) describes studies of chiropractic for back pain as of 'uneven quality and insufficient to allow firm conclusions.' A meta-analysis in the 2003 Annals of Internal Medicine found that spinal manipulative therapy relieved back pain better than sham therapy but no better than other standard treatments."



"Chiropractic treatment for short-term back pain -- 'three or four days, can't get out of bed, that sort of thing' -- Lauerman says, 'is one of the few things that has been demonstrated to significantly alter the natural history of acute back pain. . . . People get better quicker if they go to a chiropractor for a few visits.'"



Not exactly unqualified praise, was it?



In December, the big deal was a 15-second ad on the Times Square superscreen. No mention was made of how much money that cost the profession.



It is no wonder that membership in the ACA has plummeted in recent years. By the way, the annual report does not reveal how many members it actually has (something the WCA is often criticized for) nor does it include any information on its annual budget.


The sad fact is, NO chiropractic organization has accomplished much of lasting importance in the past few years. DCs still can't serve in the medical corps when they join the Armed Services. Veterans still have to go through a medical gatekeeper to see a chiropractor (the ACA representatives actually voted in favor of this protocol!). Magazines still try to convince readers that chiropractic causes strokes. Doctors still have no way to opt out of Medicare. Insurance companies still discriminate against chiropractic and use the Mercy Guidelines (which the ACA funded and supported) as the rationale behind cutting claims

[Nemo]

LIE # 9 -- "Rondberg is always suing people"

For many years, I tried to work out problems with my critics. I hired lawyers to respond to their complaints when necessary, and wrote articles in The Chiropractic Journal to rebut the lies. But in recent years, I felt I had to be more forceful in protecting myself and the various projects I was involved in. So, yes, I have recently filed lawsuits against a few former "allies" who have joined the effort to destroy me.



One markets a product that I've promoted and supported for many years. However, I was recently introduced to instrumentation that far exceeds their device and I had to make the difficult decision to endorse and help market the new, more advanced instrumentation. Rather than act as a "friendly rival," this individual chose to join in the attack against me. They he attacks me for the very positions and actions he formerly praised.



Two other lawsuits have been filed against former partners who are accused of illegal and unethical behavior. I can't and won't say anything more until the cases are settled.



I don't like taking people to court. It's expensive, time consuming, and stressful. But after 20 years of begin targeted by political enemies and business competitors, I just had to yell "I can't take it anymore." I'm fighting back and I hope to find more justice in the court system than I have in the chiropractic profession.

[Nemo]

LIE #10. "Rondberg's personal life is in shambles"


In the most despicable action of all, my enemies have made extremely vicious -- and untruthful -- remarks about me, my wife, my family and my friends, and even my financial situation.



The fact is, although my wife and I have recently divorced by mutual agreement, we've remained close friends and business partners. My circle of friends includes many who have been friends for 20-25 years.



Beyond that, there's only one thing I have to say: my personal life is none of anyone's business. The simple fact that my enemies are taking such cheap shots at me is proof of how desperate they are to find something -- ANYTHING -- to satisfy their hatred.