Re: Message from an ODOC convention attendee

April 2, 2003

So does this imply that the " large task " that ODOC has before it is to make our laws as regressive and narrow as Washington's; where you have to cheat to ultrasound a mysterious extraspinal condition like sprained ankle or prescribe dangerous " drugs " like bromelain for inflammation? WhyIoughta!

Nothing personal but I haven't offended anyone yet today...

Wondering aloud in confused, aphilosophical Oregon,

Abrahamson, D.C.

p.s. I've never met anyone from Washington I couldn't out-adjust and out diagnose (assess in some books).

From: " R. Stearns " <stearno@...>

Reply-stearno@...

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:01:25 -0800

" " < >

Subject: Message from an ODOC convention attendee

For those of you who attended and for those who did not.....

Dear Dr. Stearns:

I want to communicate to you and the rest of the doctors I met over the weekend that I now have a dramatically different opinion of Oregon

chiropractors. The seminar was really the first and only professional contact I've had with Oregon doctors so obviously my stereotyping was

molded by your state chiropractic college message to the industry and the most liberal laws that I observed. I had deep reservations about

attending, however, I really wanted to listen to the three speakers which overrode me supporting Oregon chiropractic.

What I found was a group of chiropractors who love chiropractic the way it was intended. A group who embraces the foundational chiropractic

philosophy. A group who was seeking the truth to the " why " and " how " of chiropractic philosophy and art to make each of us better at

providing loving service to mankind. The quality of speakers chosen set the tone for the weekend. They were very good and very sincere in

their respective works. It glowed from within them.

I came away a much better chiropractor from a place where I would have never ever thought could provide that means. Today I have a better

understanding of Innate as he was definitely at work at the convention.

I am sorry that I had a negative opinion of Oregon chiropractic,and I do not think I am alone on this. You ODOC doctors have a large task

ahead of you. Based on my weekend experience of all the participants you are going in the right direction. I very much support you, and I

will certainly encourage my Washington colleagues to attend your functions especially with the quality presenter you've chosen. Keep up the

great works.

Yous truly, L. Ribellia, DC

April 3, 2003

Dr. Abrahamson-

I was just wondering where you received your inside information that the goal of ODOC is to narrow the scope of chiropractic. The foundation of knowledge is a philosophical concept upon which one bases a theory and upon which one then engages in a pursuit of knowledge and truth in order to prove or disprove the concept.

Since when does following the scientific method in the pursuit of truth constitute the abandonment of anything? It appears you are still reading OCA journals from the 50 and 60's rather than the more recent publications of ODOC. Why don't you try reading the most recent three articles I wrote and which were published in the ODOC journal?

Sorry you are so confused.

Schmidt DC president ODOC

April 4, 2003

Dr. Schmidt,

My understanding is that chiropractors from Palmer dominated Washington's

chiropractic community during their formative years (the pre-cambrian

period) and successfully sought to keep the scope of chiropractic narrower

than granny's behind.

(See: Suburbanites can come up with hinteresqe colloquialisms.)

In Oregon, we had a bunch of broad scopers who wanted to deliver babies, sew

up wounds, prescribe vitamins, and be ND/DC's. Apparently they didn't fear

the day when chiropractors would get so confused that they forgot about the

power of innate intelligence released by a chiropractic adjustment. The

osteopaths forgot it when they became mini-me MD's (Osteopaths welcome:

please use the rear entrance.)

My commentary was directed at my friends (all right I have no friends but

people who I attended school with whom I call friends because they can't

defend themselves). These WSCC grads. had tons of training in lab

evaluation, sports injury care, nutritional management, as well as their

EXCELLENT training in assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of spinal

conditions including subluxations.

Are spinal adjustments and adjunctive care mutually exclusive? I think not.

I can run a business and raise children at the same time giving great care

to both. (Like fighting Saddam and Al Quida simultaneously). I concede that

one can overwhelm the other.

The Washington doctor mentioned the work ODOC has to do and his mistaken

perceptions of Oregon chiropractors. Perhaps I misinterpreted his comments

as criticism aimed at non-ODOC doc's brand of mixer patient care. Having

said all this, please consider the source. I was trained at WSCC and took

the orthopedics course from Dr. Stonebrink (a suspected closet naturopath).

Hence my confusion.

Sincerely,

Abrahamson

From: JFSDC@...

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 02:02:49 EST

drscott@..., stearno@...,

Cc: stearno@..., grsdc@..., RPSDC@..., ehacmac@...,

Dr@ caffertychiro.com, AMDurrant@..., gregghelms@...,

mmmiller@..., BACDOC@..., Kris_97303@...,

tradeclimb@..., stefandc@..., Chcc@...,

lawtonchiropractic@..., peterlind@..., kristentraeger@...

Subject: Re: Message from an ODOC convention attendee

Dr. Abrahamson-

I was just wondering where you received your inside information that the

goal of ODOC is to narrow the scope of chiropractic. The foundation of

knowledge is a philosophical concept upon which one bases a theory and upon

which one then engages in a pursuit of knowledge and truth in order to prove

or disprove the concept.

Since when does following the scientific method in the pursuit of truth

constitute the abandonment of anything? It appears you are still reading

OCA journals from the 50 and 60's rather than the more recent publications

of ODOC. Why don't you try reading the most recent three articles I wrote

and which were published in the ODOC journal?

Sorry you are so confused.

Schmidt DC president ODOC

April 4, 2003

Hello to

all, finally:

It is advantageous

to have arrived at a situation where the leadership of the CAO, ODOC, and WSCC

are each represented. I would venture an opinion that we have all contributed

to the narrowed the scope of chiropractic in the state of Oregon, but will

argue that a forum wherein we can communicate freely and unstintingly is

precisely the vehicle necessary to pull our collective asses out of the

quagmire we have created by draining the freedom of expression, zeal, and

belief from the halls of our chiropractic institutions -- We have done so in

the name of acceptance, in the name of profit, in the name of safety, in the

name of science, in the name of BJ Palmer, and have used just about every name

in the book except, fortunately, the name of the patient. Let no one quit this list

serve until we have each exhausted our resources.

I have just

learned how to snowboard, at great peril to my body and with no little amount

of humiliation and anger. This has

taught me that the discomfort of new learning experiences is worth the price.

Listen to the Eminem’s newest theme song Lose Yourself and get a taste

of the bondage we have passively accepted. “You've got just one shot. This

opportunity comes once in a life time.” I will send you the music video by

email.

I love

this profession and see now, at this moment, a chance for us to begin to work

together. This opportunity knocks just once in so many years.

Willard

-----Original

Message-----

From: JFSDC@...

[mailto:JFSDC@...]

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003

11:03 PM

drscott@...;

stearno@...;

Cc: stearno@...;

grsdc@...; RPSDC@...; ehacmac@...; Dr@

caffertychiro.com; AMDurrant@...; gregghelms@...;

mmmiller@...; BACDOC@...; Kris_97303@...;

tradeclimb@...; stefandc@...; Chcc@...;

lawtonchiropractic@...; peterlind@...; kristentraeger@...

Subject: Re: Message

from an ODOC convention attendee

Dr.

Abrahamson-

I was just wondering where you received your inside information that the goal

of ODOC is to narrow the scope of chiropractic. The foundation of

knowledge is a philosophical concept upon which one bases a theory and upon

which one then engages in a pursuit of knowledge and truth in order to prove or

disprove the concept.

Since when does following the scientific method in the pursuit of truth

constitute the abandonment of anything? It appears you are still reading

OCA journals from the 50 and 60's rather than the more recent publications of

ODOC. Why don't you try reading the most recent three articles I wrote

and which were published in the ODOC journal?

Sorry you are so confused.

Schmidt DC president ODOC

OregonDCs rules:

1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to

foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members

will be tolerated.

2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.

3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However,

it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise

distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent,

unless all personal identifiers have been removed.

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

April 7, 2003

Dr. Abrahamson-

Of course spinal adjustments to reduce or correct subluxations are not mutually exclusive to adjunctive therapy.

If they were it would preclude someone from offering compassionate care to a patient who in one instance needed care for an injury where your training enabled you to offer that service but in a different instance prevented you from adjusting that patient osseously or by some soft tissue or energy modulating technique simply to improve neurological function. I believe improving overall health is rationale for chiropractic care, not just alleviating symptoms.

The problem as far as ODOC is concerned is that some forces in our profession would like to define us in a manner which would preclude us from offering care to correct subluxations of all manner and type by multiple methodologies within an analytical model when that is appropriate. That is the point I have made in the articles in the most recent ODOC journal. I hope you have the opportunity to review them.

If one individual wants to function therapeutically totally within the medical model and others of us want to function giving care within the analytical and more traditional chiropractic model so what. If some of us want to do both types of care within the same practice on the same day, so what. The rub comes when certain individuals try to use their position of power and influence to limit our ability to make that choice.

If you were to tell me you had chronic muscle soreness and I did a hair analysis, found you to have mineral imbalance and recommended several steps to correct that imbalance I would be offering care to correct a nutritional subluxation (better known as an imbalance). If on the other hand I just gave you a bottle of Calcium lactate because experience has shown that to relieve the symptoms, then I believe I would be functioning more in the medical model. The reality is that in my practice I do both and have to use my judgment as to when which method is not only appropriate, but acceptable to the patient.

The problem as I see it is that we are heading for cookbook healing as directed by our licensing board, which dissipates any value assigned to your judgment and the individual needs of each patient as you perceive them. That is why is so vital that we preserve the subluxation based analytical model as the foundation but certainly not the limiting definition of the profession.

Schmidt, DC

April 8, 2003

Hi ,

Having been a member of the group writing the Educational Manual for Consensus based Chiropractic in Oregon, your fears are not being realized. Respect for all techniques and methods is being shown. A 'cookbook' is not even close to what is being written. The board's patience with the process is testament to their interest that DC strengths within each of our own offices is maintained.

Your participation and opinion is welcome. It takes all of us to keep all of us in practice. And you are one of us. The Record Keeping seed panel will be gathering again Thursday morning. Participate with us.

Sunny Kierstyn ;'-)))

Re: Message from an ODOC convention attendee

Dr. Abrahamson-Of course spinal adjustments to reduce or correct subluxations are not mutually exclusive to adjunctive therapy. If they were it would preclude someone from offering compassionate care to a patient who in one instance needed care for an injury where your training enabled you to offer that service but in a different instance prevented you from adjusting that patient osseously or by some soft tissue or energy modulating technique simply to improve neurological function. I believe improving overall health is rationale for chiropractic care, not just alleviating symptoms. The problem as far as ODOC is concerned is that some forces in our profession would like to define us in a manner which would preclude us from offering care to correct subluxations of all manner and type by multiple methodologies within an analytical model when that is appropriate. That is the point I have made in the articles in the most recent ODOC journal. I hope you have the opportunity to review them.If one individual wants to function therapeutically totally within the medical model and others of us want to function giving care within the analytical and more traditional chiropractic model so what. If some of us want to do both types of care within the same practice on the same day, so what. The rub comes when certain individuals try to use their position of power and influence to limit our ability to make that choice.If you were to tell me you had chronic muscle soreness and I did a hair analysis, found you to have mineral imbalance and recommended several steps to correct that imbalance I would be offering care to correct a nutritional subluxation (better known as an imbalance). If on the other hand I just gave you a bottle of Calcium lactate because experience has shown that to relieve the symptoms, then I believe I would be functioning more in the medical model. The reality is that in my practice I do both and have to use my judgment as to when which method is not only appropriate, but acceptable to the patient. The problem as I see it is that we are heading for cookbook healing as directed by our licensing board, which dissipates any value assigned to your judgment and the individual needs of each patient as you perceive them. That is why is so vital that we preserve the subluxation based analytical model as the foundation but certainly not the limiting definition of the profession. Schmidt, DC

April 8, 2003

Dr. Schmidt:

I appreciate and agree with your comments on the need for more than one stylized approach in determining how to care for our patients. I was taught chiropractic includes equal elements of science, art and philosophy. Your "So what" question does summarize my own opinion.

My personal observation over the last 6 years, is the OBCE continues to strive to perform its function as directed by the state legislature. As far as I have seen, technique or philosophy of the individual DC has not been the issue. I know some disagree with this point of view. We don't have to agree on everything. "So what" indeed.

I haven't seen evidence the 'cook-book' approach you mention is a goal of any faction with the OBCE, peer review, or any individual DCs I personally know.

Yours in health,

Jack Pedersen, DC

Sweet Home, Oregon

April 8, 2003

Dr. Schmidt (and friends),

My composition teacher (the Dreaded Mrs. Dolphay) would have docked you

points for a 72 word sentence!

My commentary was referring to ¹s posting of a letter from a Washington

doc. This D.C. seemed to be relieved that his opinion of Oregon

chiropractors being aphilosphical knuckle dragging medical wannabe¹s, was

set right by the work of ODOC. This is more a statement about this doctor¹s

ignorance and prejudice than about ODOC¹s work. It was obviously posted to

make a statement to which I responded.

Well, let me tell you, we HAVE a philosophy and it is clear. It is to get on

every managed care panel that comes through our mail slot and scarf as much

of the 7% of the health care dollar as we can get before the competition

gets it. No. Wait. That¹s our business plan. Let¹s see. Our philosophy. I

knew it was here somewhere. Oh. Here it is. To care for everyone with a

spine and insure that we receive fair exchange often enough to prevent

burnout, lose touch with our own innate intelligence, and forget why we

enjoyed helping people so much.

I am of the belief that the " medical model² while flawed, has some inherent

standards which must be followed by all primary care physicians no matter

what their preference. You use an example of ³chronic muscle soreness² being

diagnosed two different ways. So what? Anyone can safely discuss muscle

soreness including coaches, trainers, and LMT's.

One might say, ³Give us credit for a brain!² Standards are made for safely

diagnosing and managing real problems including spinal subluxations. I've

not seen policy makers arguing that different approaches to diagnosis and

care should not be honored. An analogy might be that my 17 year old daughter

likes to drive with her hands pronated on the inside-bottom of the steering

wheel. I nag her that it's not safe enough but it's a matter of personal

style and she drives alone. On the other hand, I will not allow her to drive

with a headlight out or at speeds higher than mandated by law. (Whether she

gets caught is not the issue at hand [see " credit / brain " ]).

Some rules are made to protect the driver and the other people who share the

road. Similarly, some standards of diagnosis and substantiation of care are

needed to protect the public from lazy, stupid, or greedy doctors.

Let¹s use a more serious condition. Patient arrives with a few hidden

attributes. (Smokes, brittle diabetic, hypertensive)

The chiropractor doesn¹t ascribe to the medical model and discovers spinal

subluxations. He/she adjusts the patient after which the patient complains

of relief of neck pain but has vertigo, some facial numbness, and proceeds

to vomit on the floor.

The doctor, perhaps a Life graduate, (motto: We don¹t need no steenking

accreditation²) who doesn¹t ³diagnose² but only ³assesses², proceeds to

recheck the patient and discovers, Egads! The atlas is subluxated on the

opposite side as well! He/she then adjusts the patient again, and tells the

patient to lie on the table to let the adjustment take hold.

Eventually, the patient¹s spouse, sitting in the reception room insists on

taking the patient home; stops by the village E.R. and has the patient¹s

stroke managed.

(The morrow of the story To quote NCMIC in which this scenario happens, ³We

paid the limit of the policy.²)

Referring back to the ³Give me credit...² even non-ODOC chiropractors know

that a stroke associated with an adjustment is not necessarily malpractice.

Managing said stroke with such rudimentary actions is unconscionable.

Look in the eye: pupil blown?

Check the pulse: rapid and thready? non-existent?

Look at the skin color: blue, red, white?

Take blood pressure: high? low? unreadable?

Are these the signs of a chiropractor trying to be a medical doctor or those

of a chiropractor with overlapping training to a medical doctor using that

training when appropriate?

Your assertion that, ³some forces in our profession would like to define us

in a manner which would preclude us from offering care to correct

subluxations of all manner and type by multiple methodologies within an

analytical model when that is appropriate.²

This reads like a tax form explanation.

Please cite an example of how your right to correct subluxations in all

manner is being trampled upon when you are asked to adhere to standards.

No dodging.

Cite an example.

You will be countered by intelligent responses from some of those selfsame

" some " .

Seriously though, I don¹t see anyone doing this. My experience is that

policy makers overwhelmingly honor a diversity of approaches to spinal

correction.

Now, if you¹re talking about adjusting someone 172 times based upon x-ray

findings and no other symptoms or signs, billing insurance, and expecting

your peers to support it, the canine doesn't pursue quarry (that dog don't

hunt)!! I think that some of the most popular treatment methodologies are

more about greed than need. (I can¹t prove it but don¹t worry about me. I

quit Peer Review because I couldn¹t catch eels with my bare hands and didn't

have the patience to keep trying.)

Respectfully,

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

From: JFSDC@...

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:54:33 EDT

drscott@..., stearno@...,

Cc: stearno@..., grsdc@..., RPSDC@..., ehacmac@...,

AMDurrant@..., gregghelms@..., mmmiller@...,

BACDOC@..., Kris_97303@..., tradeclimb@...,

stefandc@..., Chcc@..., lawtonchiropractic@...,

peterlind@..., kristentraeger@...

Subject: Re: Message from an ODOC convention attendee

Dr. Abrahamson-

Of course spinal adjustments to reduce or correct subluxations are not

mutually exclusive to adjunctive therapy.

If they were it would preclude someone from offering compassionate care to a

patient who in one instance needed care for an injury where your training

enabled you to offer that service but in a different instance prevented you

from adjusting that patient osseously or by some soft tissue or energy

modulating technique simply to improve neurological function. I believe

improving overall health is rationale for chiropractic care, not just

alleviating symptoms.

The problem as far as ODOC is concerned is that some forces in our

profession would like to define us in a manner which would preclude us from

offering care to correct subluxations of all manner and type by multiple

methodologies within an analytical model when that is appropriate. That is

the point I have made in the articles in the most recent ODOC journal. I

hope you have the opportunity to review them.

If one individual wants to function therapeutically totally within the

medical model and others of us want to function giving care within the

analytical and more traditional chiropractic model so what. If some of us

want to do both types of care within the same practice on the same day, so

what. The rub comes when certain individuals try to use their position of

power and influence to limit our ability to make that choice.

If you were to tell me you had chronic muscle soreness and I did a hair

analysis, found you to have mineral imbalance and recommended several steps

to correct that imbalance I would be offering care to correct a nutritional

subluxation (better known as an imbalance). If on the other hand I just

gave you a bottle of Calcium lactate because experience has shown that to

relieve the symptoms, then I believe I would be functioning more in the

medical model. The reality is that in my practice I do both and have to use

my judgment as to when which method is not only appropriate, but acceptable

to the patient.

The problem as I see it is that we are heading for cookbook healing as

directed by our licensing board, which dissipates any value assigned to your

judgment and the individual needs of each patient as you perceive them.

That is why is so vital that we preserve the subluxation based analytical

model as the foundation but certainly not the limiting definition of the

profession.

Schmidt, DC

April 10, 2003

Dear

colleagues:

I agree

with Dr. Schmidt’s view that the board should avoid creating a document that

will in any way constrain the practice of chiropractic to specific time frames

for chiropractic care, definitions of acceptable chiropractic care, or other new

constraints that would very likely be used to prosecute chiropractors. The OBCE

should not deal with efficacy of care; instead it should limit its activities

to violations of practice standards that endanger the public. What comes to

mind: sexual misconduct, fraudulent claims, IME credentialing, licensure

testing, and the like.

Stetting

up practice guidelines is not a governmental task, but one that falls to the

field. The idea of one set of accepted guidelines is unlikely given the lack of

information about even the most basic pathological phenomenon, such as prions. In

the poor light of modern understanding one would be placing the profession in a

legal straightjacket to establish a set of guidelines that would have to be

updated whenever the information upon which it was based had changed. When

would this change take place? Annually, monthly, or when the article of support

was published in JAMA? None of these methods of change are acceptable or free

of political inertia. This reminds me of the City of Union’s desire to pave all

the gravel roads. Sure, we could float a bond to pay for the pavement, but we

would not have enough money annually to pay for the upkeep. That is why we

still have gravel roads in Union, we can’t afford the upkeep on the pavement. We

often make the mistake of putting in the pavement without the foresight to

recognize that we cannot afford the cost of maintenance. I doubt that the

guidelines would be inexpensive to maintain. The earlier NMS guidelines have

not been opened to an upgrade since their inception. There is no sunset

provision upon them. They should be phased out as they are surely out of date.

There are

many good reasons to create guidelines, but all of them begin with guidelines

created outside of the legal straightjacket of government and the voluntary

participation by the profession.

Now, with

that said, I would like to thank all of those who have participated in creating

the guidelines and would suggest that the process be turned over to a

non-governmental body ASAP. By the way, I would very much like to participate

in this process (outside of the OBCE) where hypertension, diabetes, and

hypercholesterolemia are concerned.

Willard

-----Original

Message-----

From: JFSDC@...

[mailto:JFSDC@...]

Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 10:55

PM

drscott@...;

stearno@...;

Cc: stearno@...;

grsdc@...; RPSDC@...; ehacmac@...; AMDurrant@...;

gregghelms@...; mmmiller@...; BACDOC@...;

Kris_97303@...; tradeclimb@...; stefandc@...;

Chcc@...; lawtonchiropractic@...; peterlind@...;

kristentraeger@...

Subject: Re: Message

from an ODOC convention attendee

Dr.

Abrahamson-

Of course spinal adjustments to reduce or correct subluxations are not mutually

exclusive to adjunctive therapy.

If they were it would preclude someone from offering compassionate care to a

patient who in one instance needed care for an injury where your training

enabled you to offer that service but in a different instance prevented you

from adjusting that patient osseously or by some soft tissue or energy

modulating technique simply to improve neurological function. I believe

improving overall health is rationale for chiropractic care, not just alleviating symptoms.

The problem as far as ODOC is concerned is that some forces in our profession

would like to define us in a manner which would preclude us from offering care

to correct subluxations of all manner and type by multiple methodologies within

an analytical model when that is appropriate. That is the point I have

made in the articles in the most recent ODOC journal. I hope you have the

opportunity to review them.

If one individual wants to function therapeutically totally within the medical

model and others of us want to function giving care within the analytical and

more traditional chiropractic model so

what. If some of us want to do both types of care within the

same practice on the same day, so what.

The rub comes when certain individuals try to use their position of power and

influence to limit our ability to make that choice.

If you were to tell me you had chronic muscle soreness and I did a hair

analysis, found you to have mineral imbalance and recommended several steps to

correct that imbalance I would be offering care to correct a nutritional

subluxation (better known as an imbalance). If on the other hand I just

gave you a bottle of Calcium lactate because experience has shown that to

relieve the symptoms, then I believe I would be functioning more in the medical

model. The reality is that in my practice I do both and have to use my

judgment as to when which method is not only appropriate, but acceptable to the

patient.

The problem as I see it is that we are heading for cookbook healing as directed

by our licensing board, which dissipates any value assigned to your judgment

and the individual needs of each patient as you perceive them. That is

why is so vital that we preserve the subluxation based analytical model as the

foundation but certainly not the limiting definition of the profession.

Schmidt, DC

OregonDCs rules:

1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to

foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members

will be tolerated.

2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.

3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However,

it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise

distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent,

unless all personal identifiers have been removed.

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

April 10, 2003

Hi Willard,

As usual, your comments are cogent. And well stated.

As one who has participated in the guideline process from its inception, your concerns are amongst what is evolving: addressing the definition of sexual misconduct and other boundary issues, fraudulent claims and licensure as well as a multitude of other important issues...issues important to every one of us.

And this document IS being created outside of governmental regimen and BY voluntary participation of the profession. The OBCE is only providing the impetus and a meeting room and paying for the procurement of our requested literary research (NOT requiring that x paper or opinion be fostered and/or included) and that fancy box lunch we get each consensus gathering.

This is a document written by review of the evidence (when available) and by consensus of those who are participating. Consequently it is a slow process. But it is progressing with some of the most difficult chapters written and several others in the works. My guesstimate is that it is about 1/2 done so there is still time for you to participate…and by your presence, assure that we are doing our very best to avoid anything that could be used against us in a court of law. We are very aware that it takes all of us to keep all of us in practice.

If you would like to participate, the opportunity is available. With no intent to offend, it would appear that it is your lack of participation that could be feeding your fears.

Sunny Kierstyn

RE: Message from an ODOC convention attendee

Dear colleagues:I agree with Dr. Schmidt’s view that the board should avoid creating adocument that will in any way constrain the practice of chiropractic tospecific time frames for chiropractic care, definitions of acceptablechiropractic care, or other new constraints that would very likely be usedto prosecute chiropractors. The OBCE should not deal with efficacy of care;instead it should limit its activities to violations of practice standardsthat endanger the public. What comes to mind: sexual misconduct, fraudulentclaims, IME credentialing, licensure testing, and the like.Stetting up practice guidelines is not a governmental task, but one thatfalls to the field. The idea of one set of accepted guidelines is unlikelygiven the lack of information about even the most basic pathologicalphenomenon, such as prions. In the poor light of modern understanding onewould be placing the profession in a legal straightjacket to establish a setof guidelines that would have to be updated whenever the information uponwhich it was based had changed. When would this change take place? Annually,monthly, or when the article of support was published in JAMA? None of thesemethods of change are acceptable or free of political inertia. This remindsme of the City of Union’s desire to pave all the gravel roads. Sure, wecould float a bond to pay for the pavement, but we would not have enoughmoney annually to pay for the upkeep. That is why we still have gravel roadsin Union, we can’t afford the upkeep on the pavement. We often make themistake of putting in the pavement without the foresight to recognize thatwe cannot afford the cost of maintenance. I doubt that the guidelines wouldbe inexpensive to maintain. The earlier NMS guidelines have not been openedto an upgrade since their inception. There is no sunset provision upon them.They should be phased out as they are surely out of date.There are many good reasons to create guidelines, but all of them begin withguidelines created outside of the legal straightjacket of government and thevoluntary participation by the profession.Now, with that said, I would like to thank all of those who haveparticipated in creating the guidelines and would suggest that the processbe turned over to a non-governmental body ASAP. By the way, I would verymuch like to participate in this process (outside of the OBCE) wherehypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia are concerned.Willard-----Original Message-----From: JFSDC@... [mailto:JFSDC@...]Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 10:55 PMdrscott@...; stearno@...; Cc: stearno@...; grsdc@...; RPSDC@...; ehacmac@...;AMDurrant@...; gregghelms@...; mmmiller@...;BACDOC@...; Kris_97303@...; tradeclimb@...;stefandc@...; Chcc@...; lawtonchiropractic@...;peterlind@...; kristentraeger@...Subject: Re: Message from an ODOC convention attendeeDr. Abrahamson-Of course spinal adjustments to reduce or correct subluxations are notmutually exclusive to adjunctive therapy.If they were it would preclude someone from offering compassionate care to apatient who in one instance needed care for an injury where your trainingenabled you to offer that service but in a different instance prevented youfrom adjusting that patient osseously or by some soft tissue or energymodulating technique simply to improve neurological function. I believeimproving overall health is rationale for chiropractic care, not justalleviating symptoms.The problem as far as ODOC is concerned is that some forces in ourprofession would like to define us in a manner which would preclude us fromoffering care to correct subluxations of all manner and type by multiplemethodologies within an analytical model when that is appropriate. That isthe point I have made in the articles in the most recent ODOC journal. Ihope you have the opportunity to review them.If one individual wants to function therapeutically totally within themedical model and others of us want to function giving care within theanalytical and more traditional chiropractic model so what. If some of uswant to do both types of care within the same practice on the same day, sowhat. The rub comes when certain individuals try to use their position ofpower and influence to limit our ability to make that choice.If you were to tell me you had chronic muscle soreness and I did a hairanalysis, found you to have mineral imbalance and recommended several stepsto correct that imbalance I would be offering care to correct a nutritionalsubluxation (better known as an imbalance). If on the other hand I justgave you a bottle of Calcium lactate because experience has shown that torelieve the symptoms, then I believe I would be functioning more in themedical model. The reality is that in my practice I do both and have to usemy judgment as to when which method is not only appropriate, but acceptableto the patient.The problem as I see it is that we are heading for cookbook healing asdirected by our licensing board, which dissipates any value assigned to yourjudgment and the individual needs of each patient as you perceive them.That is why is so vital that we preserve the subluxation based analyticalmodel as the foundation but certainly not the limiting definition of theprofession. Schmidt, DC

April 11, 2003

Hey Willard –

The central mission of the guidelines

process is the development of a patient centered evidence based document.

There is no attempt to constrain practice in any form or define acceptable vs.

non-acceptable. It’s simply to develop some guidelines based on available

evidence. (This is my impression mind you)

It’s not a “government task”

it’s entirely driven by members from the field. You are more than

welcome to join the party.

Believe me, no one in that group wants to

set up a “legal straight jacket” that would come back to haunt us.

It is not a board or government driven process other than they provide our

meeting room, A.V. equipment and editorial/transcription assistance (and a

lavish lunch.)

Diabetes, hypertension,

hypercholesterolemia et al have not been addressed yet but you should get in on

it. The consensus process is an effective method for this type of project

and I’m convinced will ultimately produce a much more relevant document

than OCPUG. Believe me, this is not something the profession should fear

but something we should welcome. There is no hidden agenda.

I am confident if you get involved you

will see the value of the project.

Don

RE: Message

from an ODOC convention attendee

Dear colleagues:

I agree with Dr.

Schmidt’s view that the board should avoid creating a document that will

in any way constrain the practice of chiropractic to specific time frames for

chiropractic care, definitions of acceptable chiropractic care, or other new

constraints that would very likely be used to prosecute chiropractors. The OBCE

should not deal with efficacy of care; instead it should limit its activities

to violations of practice standards that endanger the public. What comes to

mind: sexual misconduct, fraudulent claims, IME credentialing, licensure

testing, and the like.

Stetting up

practice guidelines is not a governmental task, but one that falls to the

field. The idea of one set of accepted guidelines is unlikely given the lack of

information about even the most basic pathological phenomenon, such as prions.

In the poor light of modern understanding one would be placing the profession

in a legal straightjacket to establish a set of guidelines that would have to

be updated whenever the information upon which it was based had changed. When

would this change take place? Annually, monthly, or when the article of support

was published in JAMA? None of these methods of change are acceptable or free

of political inertia. This reminds me of the City of Union’s desire to

pave all the gravel roads. Sure, we could float a bond to pay for the pavement,

but we would not have enough money annually to pay for the upkeep. That is why

we still have gravel roads in Union, we can’t afford the upkeep on the

pavement. We often make the mistake of putting in the pavement without the

foresight to recognize that we cannot afford the cost of maintenance. I doubt

that the guidelines would be inexpensive to maintain. The earlier NMS

guidelines have not been opened to an upgrade since their inception. There is

no sunset provision upon them. They should be phased out as they are surely out

of date.

There are many good

reasons to create guidelines, but all of them begin with guidelines created

outside of the legal straightjacket of government and the voluntary

participation by the profession.

Now, with that

said, I would like to thank all of those who have participated in creating the

guidelines and would suggest that the process be turned over to a

non-governmental body ASAP. By the way, I would very much like to participate

in this process (outside of the OBCE) where hypertension, diabetes, and

hypercholesterolemia are concerned.

Willard

April 11, 2003

Sunny,

As Regan used to say, " There you go again! "

In this case, inserting REALITY into an excellent emotionally charged arguement. You will never make it in talk radio Sunny. Humor aside, thank you for forging ahead in the guidelines process.

Willard, we are eagerly awaiting your comprehensive reply.

ODOC guys, we are also awaiting your correction of my irritating remarks to and Dr. Schmidt.

I heard something witty which may be germaine (with which I don't entirely agree but I can't avoid a good one liner): " Conservatives are afraid you are not going to understand where they're really coming from; liberals are afraid that you will. "

Will ODOC engage in a dangerous email conversation about some of its agendas? Dangerous because they go fast but not too fast to ponder the response, there is a record of your comments, and many sharp minds can join the converstaion.

Most of what I read in the ODOC journal is so hyperbolic that it takes multiple exchanges to tease out the issues. You are developing a history of publishing diatribes but when reasonbly confronted or asked for clarification, move on to the next diatribe.

You'll have to forgive me. I grew up in an alcoholic home and have a hard time with elephants inthe living room which go unacknowledged.

Abrahamson, D.C.

From: " sunny kristyn " <skrndc1@...>

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:52:08 -0700

<JFSDC@...>, <drscott@...>, <stearno@...>, < >, " Dr. Willard Bertrand, D.C. " <mail@...>

Cc: <stearno@...>, <grsdc@...>, <RPSDC@...>, <ehacmac@...>, <AMDurrant@...>, <gregghelms@...>, <mmmiller@...>, <BACDOC@...>, <Kris_97303@...>, <tradeclimb@...>, <stefandc@...>, <Chcc@...>, <lawtonchiropractic@...>, <peterlind@...>, <kristentraeger@...>

Subject: Re: Message from an ODOC convention attendee

Hi Willard,

As usual, your comments are cogent. And well stated.

As one who has participated in the guideline process from its inception, your concerns are amongst what is evolving: addressing the definition of sexual misconduct and other boundary issues, fraudulent claims and licensure as well as a multitude of other important issues...issues important to every one of us.

And this document IS being created outside of governmental regimen and BY voluntary participation of the profession. The OBCE is only providing the impetus and a meeting room and paying for the procurement of our requested literary research (NOT requiring that x paper or opinion be fostered and/or included) and that fancy box lunch we get each consensus gathering.

This is a document written by review of the evidence (when available) and by consensus of those who are participating. Consequently it is a slow process. But it is progressing with some of the most difficult chapters written and several others in the works. My guesstimate is that it is about 1/2 done so there is still time for you to participateŠand by your presence, assure that we are doing our very best to avoid anything that could be used against us in a court of law. We are very aware that it takes all of us to keep all of us in practice.