• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Chiropractic

Dr. Richard Tyler (the Dick Tyler of the Golden Era fame, author of West Coast Bodybuilding Scene) is a chiropractor and author of Alternative Chiropractic. He offers the following explanation of chiropractic medicine.

There are some who may not know much about chiropractic and are inclined to dismiss the profession a kind of pseudo profession composed of poorly educated MD wannabes.

Let me try to enlighten those folks. To become a Doctor of Chiropractic the student must go through pre-med college with a good GPA. This is followed by four and a half to five years of resident study. If that is completed National Board Examinations must be taken and passed. The doctor may then take graduate courses in such specialties as orthopedics, diagnostic imaging, neurology and sports medicine. These specialty courses average two to three years in length with examinations for diplomate status.

Now the allopathic medical profession has several areas of contention with chiropractic. One of the most egregous is there contention that we are poorly educated. That while we may invest years in study the quality of that study is poor. On numerous occasions I have challenged, both in print and on television, the AMA to have a specified number of their top senior students take the same basic sciences examinations as a commensurate number of chiropractic seniors and have the results published. I firmly believe that the chiropractic students would win such an academic confrontation. We will never know because the medical profession won't accept.

Since organized medicine continually expresses the belief that chiropractic is a form of quackery, one would think they would be anxious to expose our presumed stupidity to the public. Another point of contention is that the chiropractic profession labors under a fallacious paradigm that promulgates the concept that structure can effect function. That faulty spinal biomechanics may, and often does, effect organic function. This concept was espoused by Hippocrates and by the osteopathic medical profession of today. The concept is known as the somatovisceral/viscerosomatic reflex. In other words extended structural pressure upon neural and vascular components that effect a specific organ might be adversely influenced and predispose that viscera to compromised function. Does that mean that by making a specific spinal correction you eliminate disease? Of course not, but it could have a salubrious effect and often does.

Allopathic medicine is based upon the idea that the body has been bad or you wouldn't be in the MD's office. It must therefore be disciplined with drugs. If that doesn't work it must be cut or burned. These are the basic modalities of medicine. And remember the MD is not a pharmacist. He or she has had the average of 60 to 120 hours in resident study in pharmacology. This is why they use that famous term "try". "I want you to try this medicine - oh you can't walk or swallow? - I want you off of that - lets try this." I was almost killed by a well meaning medical friend who prescribed the wrong combination of medications. And my oldest daughter was indeed killed by an experimental drug for cancer. Even the AMA has published the fact that the profession kills approximately 250,000 people a year because of bad surgery and poorly prescribed drugs. They further admit that this is only the tip of the iceberg and that millions are permanently injured - all in this country alone.

On the other hand, natural therapeutics doesn't heal anyone of anything. The body does that. The natural practitioner merely attempts to create an environment within the body to heal itself.

Are there medical doctors who are quacks? Yes. Are there chiropractors who are quacks? Yes there are. That's why boards have been established to control aberrant behavior.

Have I convinced some MD or pharmacist who has an inbred hatred of any enterprise that believes health doesn't always arise out of a bottle of drugs? Or a chiropractor who has a visceral hatred of all things medical? Nope. I know this. However I felt the dialogue needed a little more than what I had previously written. We indeed need all forms of viable therapy.

There's an old saying that translated from Latin says - "The welfare of the ailing is the supreme law." That after all is all that matters.

I feel I must add one more comment. I do not hate medicine. I don't even dislike medicine. Some of my best friends are M Ds and I once even practiced in a medical office. What I don't like is intolerance in any form. Medicine can do wonderful things as can chiropractic. It's as simple as that.

As for the difference between the different professions:

It is my belief that a well trained osteopathic physician has the potential of being the most complete healer. The problem is that many osteopaths have forsaken manipulation in favor of drugs and because they don't want to be confused with the DC.

In 1962 the osteopaths voted themselves out of business in California because of a promise from the allopaths that if they voted out their board and paid 65 dollars they could put MD after their name so they wouldn't have to try explaining that a DO was after all a "real" doctor. Unfortunately they soon found that the fruit of their efforts was bitter and that they were treated as second class professionals who, among other things, found themselves listed in medical directories with a lower case md after their name instead of MD. A few hundred D Os resisted the takeover and after 11 years got their board back.

As for quality - there are better and worse in each profession. My advice is to interview those you might be interested in seeing. The patient is honoring whatever kind of doctor he decides to go to. Without arrogance - let them know it.

Dick Tyler

• Find a chiropractor in your area.