Libraries
Medical News

Keywords
CHIROPRACTIC SUBLUXATION ANXIETY STRESS RESEARCH HEADACHES BEHRENDT

Contact Information

Available for logged-in reporters only

Description

According to a newly published case study, a patient reported an 80% reduction in anxiety symptoms, including a 90% decrease in her headaches, after a four-month course of chiropractic care.

Newswise — A recent study, published in the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research (JVSR -- http://www.jvsr.com), describes a 19-year old female diagnosed with General Anxiety Disorder (GAD) who suffered from somatic and psychiatric symptoms for two years. After a four-month course of chiropractic care, the young woman reported an 80% reduction in her anxiety symptoms, including a 90% decrease in her headaches. The patient was able to resume a normal lifestyle without resorting to prescription or over-the-counter drugs.

The patient’s previous medical treatment had included multiple emergency room visits; private specialists; and a rotation of drug therapies including Paxil, Xanax, and Celexa -- which all failed to manage her symptoms.

The research was co-authored by Dr. Madeline Behrendt, Associate Editor of JVSR, and Dr. Nathan Olsen, a chiropractor in private practice in Boise, Idaho. The patient’s history included at least three motor vehicle accidents between 1995 and 1997; in one, her head shattered the windshield. The initial chiropractic evaluation detected the presence of spinal distortions, referred to as vertebral subluxations, which can result from trauma. Subluxations may interfere with the integrity of the nervous system and affect mental health.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, anxiety is the most common mental health illness, affecting more than 19 million Americans ages 18-54. These patients make three to five times more visits to doctors’ offices and emergency rooms and the Anxiety Disorders Association of America reports that direct healthcare costs and lost productivity of these conditions cost more than $42 billion per year.

The drug therapies commonly used in treatment for mental health disorders have recently come under closer scrutiny because of their poor rate of effectiveness and potentially deadly side effects, including increased suicidal tendencies in young people.

Despite this, most consumers are not given information on non-drug options and remain unaware of the benefits and cost savings that complementary and alternative care may offer.

“This young woman spent two years in crisis, going from emergency room to private specialist, spending thousands of dollars for tests and drug therapy, without any resolution of her problems. A simple, non-invasive spinal screening ultimately provided the findings that made the difference: her spine was subluxated, impinging on nerves, and altering the proper function of her nervous system,” Behrendt reports. “How many other people are suffering unnecessarily because they are missing the proper screening?”

JVSR is a peer-reviewed scientific journal devoted to subluxation-based chiropractic research affiliated with the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA), an international organization representing doctors of chiropractic. WCA promotes the traditional, drug-free and non-invasive form of chiropractic as a means of correcting vertebral subluxations that cause nerve interference.

The WCA is a NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) associated with the United Nations Department of Public Information.

Poof! Half of our flu vaccine is gone, because the British government suspended the license of a major manufacturer, Chiron, over a contamination problem. Is this a public health nightmare, as the "authorities" are crying, or an opportunity to stop and think?

The Chiron disaster comes as these authorities are now telling us that the flu vaccine is desperately needed not just for senior citizens, but also for infants and pregnant women. Besides the fact that the vaccine is not uniformly effective and often gives people the flu, it contains a witch`s brew of toxic chemicals including mercury and aluminum. Is this something that a pregnant woman, and her baby, should be exposed to? This sudden shortage would seem more a blessing!

On another front, Vioxx, the much-advertised, much-prescribed arthritis "wonder drug" was pulled off the market last month because it doubles the risk of heart disease (including "sudden cardiac death") and stroke. It turns out that a good part of this knowledge about Vioxx`s danger was suspected since 1999. It also turns out that Vioxx, despite the slick TV and magazine ads, has not been shown to be significantly more effective than the much cheaper nonprescription anti-inflammatories such as Tylenol and Advil.

The Chiron flu vaccine and Vioxx fiascos are not isolated incidents. Two years ago, after decades of doctors pushing hormone replacement therapy for virtually every menopausal woman (as if menopause was a disease), alleging side benefits of decreasing rates of heart disease, stroke and cancer, it became known that HRT actually causes these ailments. Anyone in the field should have realized that sex hormones (including estrogen) are, chemically, steroids, very powerful and usually dangerous when used as drugs.

The examples don`t stop there: The diabetes drug Rezulin was pulled from the market because it was killing people by destroying their livers; a vaccine for infants to prevent diarrhea due to rotavirus was pulled because of deaths caused by the intestines folding up into themselves; and the anti-cholesterol drug, Baycol, was withdrawn due to deaths from a condition known as rhabdomyolysis, in which muscle tissue breaks down into the blood, after which it clogs the kidneys.

In the not too distant medical past (in the 20th century), we can look back on radium nasal suppositories for sinus infections, numerous mercury- based drugs commonly prescribed for a variety of diseases, tonsils yanked out of almost every child (forgetting that the tonsils are an important part of the immune system) and frontal lobotomies, insulin shock and electroshock for various mental disorders. All these catastrophes were once "state of the art."

Back in 1991, the British Medical Journal, one of the oldest and most respectable scientific journals in the world, published an editorial entitled "Where is the wisdom? The poverty of medical evidence." The author, Dr. Richard Smith, stated that "... only about 15 percent of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence. This is partly because only 1 percent of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound, and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."

These days, whatever has previously been somewhat scientific has been perverted for commercial gain by the pharmaceutical giants. DTC ("direct-to- consumer") drug ads have become ubiquitous on TV, radio and in magazines. Patients come in demanding a particular drug, and doctors usually prescribe it. Medical education itself, both pre- and post-graduate, is sponsored, to a great degree, by pharmaceutical companies, which get naming rights for their donations (e.g., Purdue Pharma Pain Center at Massachusetts General Hospital).

What should you do if you have been on drugs that have been pulled? Just go on to the next "wonder drug"? Some count on the "next wave," like gene therapy or stem-cell therapy. I assure you that, in these cases as well, the "wonder drug," or therapy, of today, will be the "blunder drug," or therapy, of tomorrow.

In the realm of health care, it is time for a mental "regime change." The modern obsession with high tech cannot, rationally, extend to health care in the form of trust in the next medical breakthrough.

There are two alternate choices for your health. One is to consider "alternative medicine," such as Chinese medicine and homeopathy, which are considered safer than establishment medicine. However, like traditional medicine, they still rely on diagnosis and treatment.

The other alternate road is totally different, philosophically as well as practically. It leads to the ultimate high tech, the wisdom within the body, its innate intelligence. The type of doctor who has respect for this intelligence -- making sure that it is expressed more fully, resulting in healing, resulting in health, resulting in wellness -- is the chiropractor. When people read books by Harvard-trained "alternative" doctors like Deepak Chopra and Andrew Weil, they think that it is so cool that they have discovered that the body can heal itself. Chiropractic has been saying this for more than 100 years.

Chiropractic has no contamination problems, no recalls, no death, no faked or commercialized research. And we don`t care about any shortage of flu vaccine!

Donald E. Harte, a doctor of chiropractic in Corte Madera, is a governor of the World Chiropractic Alliance (www.worldchiropracticalliance.org).

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/08/EDGNE95Q191.DTL

Jamie DeCubellis and Vincent Cavallaro have this in common: they`re chiropractors. They`re each president of a chiropractic association in Rhode Island.

And while Cavallaro usually uses a tool called an Activator to coax spines into shape, and DeCubellis almost always uses just his hands, both do pretty much the same thing to the people who lie face-down on their treatment tables.

Here`s where they`re different. Cavallaro operates his office similarly to most medical practices, with a cordial and traditional staff and patients who call him "Doctor."

DeCubellis calls the people he treats "practice members" and they call him "Dr. Jamie." His receptionist answers each phone call practically singing the words, "It`s a GREAT day for chiropractic."

But the main difference between the two goes beyond office customs. Cavallaro, president of the Chiropractic Society of Rhode Island, believes that chiropractors are spine specialists who alleviate pain when it occurs.

"My scope of practice is basically musculo-skeletal problems," the Providence chiropractor says.

DeCubellis, president of the Rhode Island Chiropractic Alliance, believes that people should get their spines adjusted weekly for their entire lives so they can live to their full potential.

"If the spine is disorganized, the person operates at a lower level of life and health," the Wickford chiropractor says.

CHIROPRACTORS, as most people know, fix spines when they`re out of whack. After a long battle for legitimacy, chiropractors finally got the nod they were seeking when the American Medical Association sanctioned referrals to them in the early 1990s. Now, medical doctors often refer patients for chiropractic care. Not all consumers, however, know what they`re getting into when they make their first appointment.

In Rhode Island, most chiropractors subscribe to Cavallaro`s more conservative philosophy. His group, the Chiropractic Society, has 90 members and has been around for 86 years.

The Chiropractic Alliance, DeCubellis` group, formed in 2000 and has 13 members. Though small, the Alliance is big on promotion; most members have detailed Web sites and offer free classes on the chiropractic lifestyle. Alliance chiropractors get their names out in the community by doing things such as offering free adjustments for contestants in the popular Save the Bay Swim.

The Alliance members split from the Society after it succeeded in getting the state to call chiropractors "chiropractic physicians" and what they do "chiropractic medicine."

"The terms chiropractic and medicine are diametrically opposed," DeCubellis says.

"When you go into a chiropractic office with a medical bent and someone has low back pain, the chiropractor will look at it and adjust it," he continues. "It`s still the diagnosis and treatment of disease."

Alliance members, on the other hand, examine the whole back and adjust areas that might not hurt at all.

"No pain doesn`t mean that you`re a healthy person," says Tim Warren, a Warwick chiropractor and Alliance member.

Therein lies the difference that both sides agree on: Alliance members believe chiropractic, as they practice it, can change your life. Most of the chiropractors in the state, however, just want to make your back stop aching.

"Some people believe chiropractic is a panacea," Cavallaro says. "Some people believe chiropractic is a religion.

"If they want treatment for a problem, this isn`t really the place for them," he says.

He wants his "practice members" to subscribe to the whole philosophy. That philosophy is based on "subluxations," which the dictionary defines as a partial dislocation of a bone in a joint. Warren defines a subluxation as "a bone out of place, pinching a nerve, causing a problem."

Pinched nerves, the theory goes, can`t communicate with the brain properly so nothing in the body can work as well as it should.

"A subluxation is like a short circuit in the nervous system," Warren says. "There`s human potential to strive for. People cannot reach their full potential with subluxations."

Physical, emotional and biochemical stresses may lead to subluxations, he says, so Alliance members teach people how to avoid these by living more healthfully.

When people are put on hold at Warren`s office, before hearing, "It`s a great day at Warren chiropractic," they`re treated to a lecture on vitalism, described on the tape as "I am more than my physical body represents." When asked what this has to do with chiropractic, Warren says he doesn`t want to explain it.

He says he explains vitalism during his patient education class, which is also where DeCubellis explains his philosophy. And he tells his patients why he`ll need to see them so often. He says a person needs so many initial adjustments because the back has been subluxated for so long that the person has to retrain it and learn to "hold" the adjustment.

At first, DeCubellis likes to treat patients three times a week for about three months. That drops to twice a week for about one to three months, then once a week for life.

Alliance members generally think everyone should be adjusted -- even newborn babies, who they say can get subluxations from the birth process.

To pay for all those adjustments -- most insurance companies that cover chiropractic only pay for a limited number of visits -- DeCubellis has set up payment plans. For $90 a month, for example, a practice member can come in for as many adjustments as they want.

Warren charges $40 a visit and doesn`t necessarily recommend weekly adjustments. But he uses more extensive diagnostic tools than DeCubellis, who mainly diagnoses by feel.

Warren says he takes x-rays of all his patients and also scans them with an instrument connected to a computer that shows hot -- and thus stressed -- areas in the back. All patients are rescanned after about 10 visits.

His patients can also sign up for a $49 Wellness Quotient test, which basically tells people how stressed out they are. The test involves questionnaires and a measure that works like a lie detector test.

Warren, an avid mountain climber, wants his patients to be as healthy as they can be. He says simply fixing subluxations isn`t enough.

"If you`re just banging on someone`s back until they feel better, I don`t call that wellness care," he says. "I just call that back pain care."

MOST TRADITIONAL chiropractors have nothing against preventive care. But they also don`t claim to do much more than alleviate back or neck pain.

Mary Basler, a chiropractor in Providence, says some of her patients have felt improvement in other areas of their body after a back adjustment, but she wouldn`t say that`s her goal. She tells her patients that she`s adjusting them because their "mechanics" are off. The adjustment can cause nerves to fire, which can tone down pain.

"How they in fact lead to pain relief -- these are things that are under more and more research," she says.

Basler makes adjustments much as DeCubellis does, leaning over her patients and pressing down hard and fast in specific areas until a mild crack sounds. She sometimes uses an Activator, as does Cavallaro. The small instrument, which sounds like a staple gun when it`s painlessly poked into the back, also adjusts joints, she says, and can be more gentle and precise than a manual adjustment.

Philosophically, she leans toward Cavallaro`s view, which she sees as more scientific than some other ways of practicing.

"There is a spectrum between science and dogma, so any chiropractor is going to lie somewhere on that spectrum," she says.

While members of the Society and the Alliance are careful not to harshly criticize each other, they aren`t too timid to comment on the way the other works. Cavallaro says he doesn`t see any patients for weekly maintenance care.

"Prove to me in black and white that you`re doing something to help this child," he says.

"I don`t think they`re doing any harm," he says. "My problem is if they`re doing any good, because I don`t know if they`re treating someone who has a problem."

He says chiropractors who share his view aren`t "at odds" with medical doctors. They just do something completely different. Cavallaro, on the other hand, works with medical doctors to help people.

Dr. Jerry Rosenberg, a rehabilitative physician, refers patients with pain caused by muscle spasms to chiropractors "because it helps put a stretch on the muscle." He supports chiropractic care, but says some chiropractors go overboard, especially those who "tell everybody that their spine is out of alignment."

He strongly disagrees that spinal adjustments can alleviate pain in other parts of the body.

"Most pain in the body is not related to a pinched nerve," Rosenberg says. "Most pain is related to where it hurts."

The following is a letter I sent to CBS and Dan Rather in response to their piece on 60 minutes about vaccine safety. It is actually an expansion of the great letter Dr. Stu Bernson sent to them. Please consider sending them a letter of your own if you are passionate about the vaccine issue or at least truth in reporting.

Kevin Donka, D.C.

TO: CBS News
RE: 60 Minutes piece entitled “Are Vaccines Safe?”

To whom it may concern,

On Wednesday, October 20, 2004, you aired a piece on your program “60 Minutes” entitled “Are Vaccines Safe?” This was one of the most biased pieces of reporting I have witnessed in my 44 years. I was appalled at how one sided the program was. While you did present people on both sides of the issue, the time given to the “anti-vaccine” view was at best severely edited and at worst made those of us with real vaccine concerns appear foolish and naïve.

The question you asked about whether or not vaccines are safe was never really explored except by your so-called expert Dr. Paul Ortiff. Dr. Ortiff’s reliability as a credible source must be called into question when it is revealed that he is a consultant to the Merck Pharmaceutical Company (who shares the patent on the Rotavirus Vaccine) and who has himself received a $350,000 grant from Merck.

Dr. Ortiff made the statement that vaccines are “safer than vitamins.” I would like to see his evidence for this statement. I find his remarks fascinating since there has never been a billion dollar federal fund set up to compensate for injuries and deaths due to vitamin ingestion. The reason I make this statement is that you may be unaware that the government has established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program that has paid out over one billion dollars to families whose relatives have been damaged or killed as a result of being vaccinated since the early 1980’s.

You obviously are also unaware that the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) – the second largest organization of medical doctors behind the AMA – has made a public statement calling for an end to mandatory vaccines stating, “Our children face the possibility of death or long-term adverse effects from mandated vaccines that are not necessary or that have very limited benefits. We believe parents should be allowed to make informed decisions about their children’s medical care – not government bureaucrats.” I say you must be unaware of this statement because it was missing in your report.

Your report was based on the theory of “herd immunity,” i.e., the idea that once a great enough percentage of the population has reached immunity that the incidence of disease becomes insignificant. However, this phenomenon was observed in populations that had achieved this through natural means, not vaccination. This theory does not apply to artificially immunized populations as evidenced by the fact that epidemics have often occurred in 98% and 100% vaccinated populations. This was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998; 280:635-637.

Even the Centers For Disease Control reported in its morbidity and mortality weekly report that 80% of all measles cases are in fully vaccinated people. (US Govt. 6/6/86; 35(22): 366-370.

The CDC’s own figures put the number of childhood deaths in the 2003-04 “flu season” at 135. Of these, 59 had received their flu shots. 43% of these children did as they were told and died from the flu anyway. This means that the odds that the flu vaccine will “save” a child are not much different statistically than simply flipping a coin. (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avia/gen/info/pandemics.html)

I also did not see in your report, any of the data that is readily available from many sources that show unequivocally that every single disease a vaccine has been credited with wiping out was either significantly decreasing or nearly gone when the vaccine was introduced. And, in fact, that many of the mass vaccination programs actually caused an increase in the diseases initially. Nor did I see on your program the report from the CDC in the 1990’s that stated that 100% of Polio cases in the U.S. since 1978 were actually caused by the vaccine.

The consensus regarding this phenomenon is that improved hygiene (including the introduction of sewer systems) was really responsible for the decline of these diseases.

You mentioned in your report that you had found over 9000 articles in your own research. What you neglected to tell the public is that none of them – not one – was a double blind scientific study that showed that vaccines actually prevent the flu. I know this is true because no study of this type has ever been done anywhere, at anytime! If it has, I would ask you to produce it for me and I will retract my statement.

Still, these figures I have given you only point to the fact that there is no evidence that vaccines even work. The real question you asked is, “are vaccines really safe?” You never mentioned that fact that vaccines have many toxic and cancer-causing ingredients including:

∑ Ethylene Glycol (antifreeze), a known neurotoxin and carcinogen.
∑ Phenol (AKA carbolic acid), a disinfectant/dye and carcinogen.
∑ Formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.
∑ Aluminum, known to cause Alzheimer’s disease, seizures and cancer.
∑ Thimerosal (a mercury derivative), known to cause autoimmune diseases and brain injury.
∑ Neomycin & Streptomycin (antibiotics), these kill the normal flora or “good” bacteria and contribute to an overgrowth of yeast and fungus. In addition, the Physician’s Desk Reference specifically states that these antibiotics “should never be used in the absence of a positive bacterial culture or other overwhelming evidence of present infection” and that they should not be used for “preventative measures.”

It is true that you did actually mention thimerosal in your report, but you referred to it as “a preservative that was once used in many vaccines.” The truth is that it is still used in nearly all vaccines. In fact, Dr. Julie L. Gerberding of the CDC made the statement to congressional representatives that at best, the preservative may be eliminated from most vaccines by 2009.

Dr. Hugh Fundenburg (one of the most quoted biologists of our time) sited a study in his speech at the NVIC International Vaccine Conference (Arlington, VA, September, 1997) that showed that a person who has received five consecutive flu shots has a ten times higher risk of Alzheimer’s Disease than if he or she only received one or two shots.

What about the data from the California Department of Public Health that showed a 287% increase in the use of the MMR vaccine and a 283% increased incidence of autism during the same time period? This was also conspicuously missing from your report. There is so much more evidence that I cannot list it here.

I am truly disappointed in your program and in Dan Rather for this obviously misleading and totally biased report. You have lost my confidence in your ability to present the truth to my practice members, my family and me. You have also lost my loyal viewing of your program.

Sincerely,

Kevin Donka, D.C.
1728 W. Algonquin Road,
Hoffman Estates, IL 60195
10/25/04

FDA red-flagged flu vaccine factory

By Anita Manning, USA TODAY

U.S. health regulators say they found quality-control problems at a flu vaccine factory in Liverpool, England, in June 2003 but did not begin a full inspection of the plant again until Sunday, five days after British authorities yanked the company`s license because of tainted vaccine.

The British regulatory decision cut the U.S. vaccine supply in half.

Food and Drug Administration officials Sunday defended their oversight of the plant, saying that inspections of vaccine plants are normally done every two years, and U.S. officials were not notified until Aug. 25 by vaccine maker Chiron Corp. of more serious problems of bacterial contamination in 6 million to 8 million doses of flu vaccine.

FDA official Karen Midthun said that in June 2003, inspectors found some batches of flu vaccine that had contained bacteria and had been reprocessed. The license did not allow reprocessing, she said. The company told the FDA that it was fixing the problem, Midthun said.

But in August, Chiron notified FDA it had found bacteria in another batch of vaccine, she said.

Congressional representatives, in a hearing Friday, wanted to know how the FDA was so blindsided.

"The British government immediately announced that it had already purchased a backup supply of vaccine," after notification in August of problems, said U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.. But in the USA, "public health officials appear to have been taken completely by surprise."

Midthun said Chiron had assured the FDA that only a few lots of vaccine were involved and that further testing of the doses for contamination were negative.

As recently as Sept. 28, Chiron officials said they would distribute 46 million to 48 million doses in early October.

But on Oct. 6, the British government suspended Chiron`s license, citing "breaches of good manufacturing practice leading to possible product contamination."

Contributing: Noelle Knox in Liverpool, England.

British Medical Journal

(Editorial: lessons from the withdrawal of rofecoxib)

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7471/867

Following the withdrawal of the painkiller and anti-inflammatory drug rofecoxib (Vioxx), researchers in this week`s BMJ argue that patients would be safer if drug companies disclosed adverse events before licensing.

Single phase III drug trials are simply not big enough to detect relatively uncommon but important adverse events, which may affect large numbers of people in routine clinical use, writes Paul Dieppe and colleagues.

Furthermore, the impact of undetected adverse events is likely to be made worse if widely marketed new drugs are prescribed haphazardly and rapidly to large numbers of people. Within five months of the launch of rofecoxib, more than 42,000 patients had been prescribed the drug in England.

To prevent further similar episodes, drug companies should be legally required to make all data on serious adverse events from clinical studies available to the public immediately after completion of the research, say the authors. This will allow independent, timely, and updated systematic reviews of serious adverse events.

They also suggest phased introduction of new drugs in independent, large-scale, randomised trials before licensing, together with better postmarketing surveillance.

"Although these measures will not be popular with pharmaceutical companies,they will limit the numbers of patients exposed to unknown hazards and provide robust and unbiased evidence on adverse events before a drug is fully licensed," they conclude.

Contact:Paul Dieppe, MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, University of Bristol, UK

Email: p.dieppe@bristol.ac.uk

Chiropractic Care May Reduce Surgeries, X-rays

Treating Back Pain Less Costly With Chiropractic Care

Oct. 12, 2004 -- Chiropractic care cuts health care costs, a new study shows.

The study comes from American Specialty Health Plans Inc. of San Diego. The company provides employers with health insurance coverage for complementary medicine, including chiropractic care and acupuncture.

The company compared four years of back pain claims from two groups: 700,000 health plan members with chiropractic care coverage and 1 million members with the same health plan without chiropractic care coverage. It`s the largest study yet of how chiropractic care affects the cost of health care, notes study co-leader Douglas Metz, DC, chief health services officer at American Specialty Health.

"No matter how we perform the analysis -- whether we look at total costs to the health plan, at lower back pain care, at musculoskeletal care -- in each data set, the population covered for chiropractic had a lower overall cost to the health plan than the population without access to chiropractic benefits," Metz tells WebMD. "We believe this study is the first to show that chiropractic [care] can be a cost-effective treatment option for back pain."

Costs Down, Patient Satisfaction Up With Chiropractic Care

Compared with doctor-only health plans, the study found that:

Chiropractic care cut the cost of treating back pain by 28%.
Chiropractic care reduced hospitalizations among back pain patients by 41%.
Chiropractic care reduced back surgeries by 32%.
Chiropractic care reduced the cost of medical imaging, such as X-rays or MRIs, by 37%.

The report appears in the Oct. 11 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.

Although the researchers did not look at patient satisfaction in this study, Metz says company studies show that 95% of chiropractic care patients are satisfied with the care they receive.

Patients often say they are satisfied with the chiropractic care they receive, says Scott Boden, MD, director of the Emory Orthopaedic and Spine Center in Atlanta.

"Chiropractic patients tend to be satisfied because of the hands-on attention they get," Boden tells WebMD. "But there are different schools of chiropractic and different kinds of chiropractors. There are some that make accurate medial diagnoses and give appropriate treatments, and there are those that treat less well-documented disorders with treatments that may not be of acceptable quality. There is a wide range of variation."

Doctors, too, vary in the quality of care they offer back pain patients, Boden says. Patients without chiropractic care coverage may first see general practitioners who may run up health care costs by prematurely sending patients off to get expensive tests and treatments.

"A disease like back pain can have a lot of variability in the ways medical professionals approach patient care," Boden says. "The best thing is to have an organized, integrated approach that uses state-of-the-art and cost-effective care. Many -- if not most -- primary care providers have little training in how to manage musculoskeletal disorders. That leads to some of the costs. If you were to match a chiropractic network against trained physicians instead of general medical practitioners, you might get different results."

Chiropractic Care Entering Mainstream

This may be the first study to offer concrete evidence that chiropractic care saves money. But businesses already are getting the message, says George DeVries, president and CEO of American Specialty Health.

"Since 1987, we have thousands if not tens of thousands of employer groups that offer chiropractic coverage as a supplemental insurance rider," DeVries tells WebMD. "These range from mom-and-pop groceries to top-10 businesses. The reason they continue to offer these plans is patient satisfaction and low cost."

Boden says his institution is opening a new facility that will offer patients integrated medical care that will include chiropractic care.

"We have everything under one roof. The finishing piece is going to be a complementary medicine center that will include chiropractic, massage, acupuncture, and probably nutrition," he says.

Even so, it would be a leap of faith to say that doctors and chiropractors always agree on the best way to treat back pain.

"We screened 50% of the chiropractors in the Atlanta area before we found two who were medically appropriate and similar in approach to how we deal with spine problems," Boden says.

But Metz maintains that chiropractic care offers quality treatment of back pain.

"The bottom line is that conservative management of back care is effectively performed by doctors of chiropractic," he says. "In cases where medical intervention is needed, chiropractors are schooled to make the appropriate referrals. It is a cost-effective option for back pain."

SOURCES: Legorreta, A.P. Archives of Internal Medicine, Oct. 11, 2004; vol 164: pp 1985-1992. Douglas Metz, DC, chief health services officer, American Specialty Health Plans, San Diego. George DeVries, president and CEO, American Specialty Health Plans, San Diego. Scott Boden, MD, professor of orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine; director, Emory Orthopaedic and Spine Center, Atlanta.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/95/103236.htm

Posted 9/13/2004 11:41 PM     Updated 9/15/2004 2:13 PM
Prozac linked to child suicide risk
By Marilyn Elias, USA TODAY
BETHESDA, Md. — Prozac, the only antidepressant certified as safe for children, may make kids more suicidal, according to evidence out Monday.
A large new study added to previous research on Prozac shows that kids taking the drug have about a 50% higher risk of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts than those getting placebos, says Robert Temple, director of the Office of Drug Evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.
Temple spoke at the first day of hearings on potential label changes for antidepressants taken by more than a million children and teenagers. The discussion continues today, and an advisory committee could end the day by asking for tougher warning labels on all antidepressants taken by kids. The FDA typically follows the advice of its advisory committees.
Following a February hearing, the FDA in March asked drug companies to relabel 10 antidepressants, warning that young patients should be watched for worsening depression and anxiety. Critics at the time derided that move as "too little, too late," considering that, in December, British drug regulators had advised doctors to prescribe only Prozac for depressed kids.
  Drugs in question
The FDA is reviewing label changes for:

Prozac
Zoloft
Paxil
Luvox
Celexa
Lexapro
Wellbutrin
Effexor
Serzone
Remeron.
Other major antidepressants prescribed for kids already have been found to raise the risk of suicidal behavior. Prozac had been an exception. "What`s interesting and persuasive is that these studies now all lean the same way," Temple says.
So far, only Prozac has been found to be effective in children and teens, although the other drugs, approved for adults, are prescribed to children as an off-label use.
There were no suicides in the antidepressant studies of about 4,600 children. The increased risk for suicidal behavior is small: About two to three kids in a group of 100 become more suicidal because they`re on antidepressants, says Tarek Hammad, medical reviewer for the FDA.
Dozens of parents testified at the hearing that antidepressants had caused their children to kill themselves — or others. Their claims were "passionate and plausible," says psychiatrist Wayne Goodman, chairman of the FDA advisory panel.
But other parents and psychiatrists said the popular pills, such as Zoloft and Celexa, are saving lives every day.
Drug company spokesmen argued that antidepressants are safe. Company studies show most suicide attempts by children on Zoloft are linked to stress, not to taking the drug, says Steve Romano of Pfizer Inc., which makes Zoloft.
Although antidepressants seem to generate more suicidal behavior, "we can`t forget all those who are protected from suicide by treatment," Goodman says.
There may be a group of kids who are particularly vulnerable to dangerous effects, but the limited studies so far don`t suggest how they can be identified, FDA officials say.
And all the bad publicity on the drugs "is going to put a real damper on research just when we need more. Now (the drug) industry isn`t going to want to fund more studies," says Graham Emslie, child psychiatrist at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
Prescription for reform?
By Rita Rubin, USA TODAY
Against a backdrop of spiraling prescription drug costs, questions are mounting about whether drugmakers — and the doctors who test and prescribe their products — always have patients` best interests in mind. Increasingly, critics say, money, not medicine, drives drug development and use.
But recently, there have been signs of a backlash:
•A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee began a meeting on Monday to discuss whether to require stronger labels warning about antidepressant use in children. The FDA meeting follows allegations that drugmakers suppressed unfavorable studies. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, or PhRMA, a trade group, announced last week that it will launch an online, voluntary registry of clinical trials Oct. 1, but others say it should be mandatory.
  BE DIRECT
In her new book about the drug industry, former New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell suggests that consumers ask their doctors the following questions when prescribed a new medication:
What is the evidence that this drug is better than an alternative drug or treatment approach?
Has it been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, or are you relying on information from drug company representatives?
Is this drug better only because it`s given at a higher dose?
Would a cheaper drug be as effective if it were given at an equivalent dose?
Are the benefits worth the side effects, the expense and the risk of interactions with other drugs I take?
Is this a free sample? If so, is there a generic drug or other less-expensive equivalent when the free samples run out?
Source: The Truth About the Drug Companies

•New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued GlaxoSmithKline in June, alleging that the company withheld studies that showed its antidepressant Paxil was not effective in children and adolescents and actually raised the risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in young patients. Spitzer dropped the lawsuit last month after Glaxo agreed to post online the results of all clinical trials of its drugs, not just those that were favorable.
•At a House Commerce subcommittee hearing last Thursday, an American Medical Association trustee outlined his group`s criteria for a mandatory national registry that would list the results of all clinical trials. "Physicians need complete and unbiased information about the safety and effectiveness of the treatments they prescribe for their patients," Ronald Davis told the panel. The hearing had been postponed from July because then-subcommittee chairman Rep. James Greenwood, R-Pa., who had spearheaded it, announced that he will become head of a biotechnology trade group — whose members include drug companies — when his term expires.
•The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on Wednesday announced that its 11 journals will publish only studies that had been entered into a public registry of trials. "Honest reporting begins with revealing the existence of all clinical studies, even those that reflect unfavorably on a research sponsor`s product," according to the group`s statement.
•Four new books — two by former editors of The New England Journal of Medicine and two by Harvard-affiliated doctors — slam the drug industry and doctors who accept its largess for profiting at the expense of Americans` health.
Focus on profits
PhRMA president Alan Holmer blames the intense scrutiny on the fact that patients have to pay a bigger chunk out-of-pocket for prescription drugs than they do for doctor visits or hospital care.
"That`s why people are writing these books, and that`s why politicians are beating up on the pharmaceutical industry, because we have a lack of insurance for these medicines that are becoming an increasingly important part of our medical system," Holmer says.
PhRMA wrote a 28-page rebuttal to The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It by former New England Journal editor Marcia Angell, the only book it obtained before publication.
Angell and her colleagues say the problem is as big as the drug companies` pockets are deep. Pharmaceutical firms now fund the majority of U.S. clinical trials. On top of that, it`s hard to find a high-profile researcher who doesn`t pad his pay with speaking or consulting fees from the makers of relevant drugs. Lesser lights accept meals and other freebies from drug sales reps in exchange for listening to their spiels.
Harvard clinical professor John Abramson, author of Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine, bluntly assesses the situation this way: "I`ve written this book because I want my colleagues to understand that much of what they believe to be true about the best way to practice medicine is distorted by commercial interests and has no more integrity than commercially sponsored infomercials on TV."
Drug companies have funded studies of their own products for years, Angell notes. "But it used to be they gave grants at arm`s length," she says. "They had nothing to do with the way the study was done or whether it was published. Now they are intimately involved in every detail of the study."
Because the companies decide what gets studied, Angell says, there are too many "me-too" drugs that are quite similar to six or seven already on the market. "What I`m most concerned about is the opportunity costs of all the me-too drugs," she says. "We do have shortages of some drugs. Too few antibiotics. We have way too few drugs for tropical diseases and other non-paying customers."
Holmer counters that so-called me-too drugs are usually cheaper and some patients tolerate them better than older drugs on the market. Besides, he says, "the government does a lot of good things, but discovering and, particularly, developing new medicines is not one of them."
Surprisingly, Peter Rost, a vice president at drug giant Pfizer, sides with Angell. He posted a 5-star review of her book on Amazon.com.
"It`s really hard to find new drugs, and it`s getting harder and harder," Rost, representing himself, not Pfizer, said in an interview. "There is a lot of low-hanging fruit out there that has been picked off. It is very, very difficult to really find a breakthrough." Instead, Rost says, drugmakers focus on tweaking existing drugs to make money, not to advance science.
Changing principles
Critics say the medical profession deserves part of the blame for drug companies` ascendancy.
"Gee, journals are not interested in publishing negative studies?" says Jerome Kassirer, former New England Journal of Medicine editor and author of Bad Medicine, which will hit bookstores early next month. "Doctors were involved in those studies. Why weren`t they out there screaming that these studies were no good?"
Editorial writers sharpened their pencils after learning that all but one author of a July report calling for more aggressive treatment of high cholesterol have financial ties to companies that make cholesterol-lowering drugs. While the co-authors might well have based their advice solely on the science, critics say their industry connections can`t help but raise doubts.
"The problem, of course, is that many of the people with true expertise in an area are called upon by the pharmaceutical industry to help with the design of clinical trials and the evaluation of data," says update co-author Sidney Smith, a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill cardiologist.
Smith rejects Angell`s suggestion that experts be excluded from writing practice guidelines because of their conflicts of interest. "If all this amounted to was analyzing drug trials, then you could have a biostatistician doing it," he says. But expertise in treating patients and conducting trials is important, too, Smith says.
Times have certainly changed, Kassirer says. "When I was a fledgling researcher in the `60s and `70s, if you were taking money from a drug company to do research, people would look down their nose at you," he says. "Now ... there`s prestige associated with the fact that you`ve become a consultant for various companies."
Doctors` role
The drug industry and doctors go way back, notes Catherine DeAngelis, editor of The Journal of the American Medical Association. To this day, DeAngelis says, she still feels ashamed about accepting a doctor`s black bag from Eli Lilly at the end of her first year of medical school. Now, when she unexpectedly finds that a professional dinner to which she has been invited is being paid for by a drug company, DeAngelis either pays for the meal herself or only drinks water.
Can gifts and free meals persuade doctors to prescribe a particular drug? "Probably. To what degree? I don`t know. It should be zero," DeAngelis says. "To me, it would be a problem if only one physician were involved. Of course, I know there are many more than one."
No doctor can escape drug companies` attempts to shape prescribing habits, says Harvard doctor Jerry Avorn, author of Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs.
"We simply can`t keep going on the way we have been with the industry being the main source of information for doctors about the appropriateness of drugs and the choice of drugs," Avorn says.
That`s all going to change this fall in Pennsylvania and Kentucky, when those states begin sending out their own sales reps to doctors` offices, Avorn says.
They`ll be taking a page from the drug companies` marketing manuals, he says. For example, if doctors say they don`t have time to meet, the pharmacists will offer to buy them lunch. But, Avorn says, these reps, mainly pharmacy professors, will be promoting only the most cost-effective treatments.
"We as prescribers are starved for neutral information," says Avorn, whose research serves as a basis for the state programs. "I think the trouble is not that doctors are easy marks, but that there ain`t no alternative."
The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn`t just how you like it, think about how things used to be.
Here are some facts about the1500s:

Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.

Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty, you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying,
"Don`t throw the baby out with the bath water."

Houses had thatched roofs - thick straw - piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof... When it rained, it became slippery, and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying, "It`s raining cats and dogs."

There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That`s how canopy beds came into existence.

The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying "dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they adding more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway. Hence the saying a "thresh hold."

(Getting quite an education, aren`t you?)

In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day, they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight, and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme, "Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old."

Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could "bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and "chew the fat."

Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.

Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or "upper crust."

Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a "wake."

England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a "bone-house" and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside, and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the "graveyard shift") to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be "saved by the bell" or was considered a "dead ringer."

And that`s the truth... Now , whoever said that History was boring ! ! ! Educate someone...Share these facts with a friend.

What comes around, goes around

He almost didn`t see the old lady, stranded on the side of the road, but even in the dim light of day, he could see she needed help. So he pulled up in front of her Mercedes and got out. His Pontiac was still sputtering when he approached her. Even with the smile on his face, she was worried. No one had stopped to help for the last hour or so .. was he going to hurt her? He didn`t look safe; he looked poor and hungry.

He could see that she was frightened, standing out there in the cold. He knew how she felt. It was that chill which only fear can put in you.

He said, "I`m here to help you, ma`am. Why don`t you wait in the car where it`s warm? By the way, my name is Bryan Anderson."

Well, all she had was a flat tire, but for an old lady, that was bad enough. Bryan crawled under the car looking for a place to put the jack, skinning his knuckles a time or two. Soon he was able to change the tire. But he had to get dirty and his hands hurt.

As he was tightening up the lug nuts, she rolled down the window and began to talk to him. She told him that she was from St. Louis and was only just passing through. She couldn`t thank him enough for coming to her aid.

Bryan just smiled as he closed her trunk. The lady asked how much she owed him. Any amount would have been all right with her. She already imagined all the awful things that could have happened had he not stopped. Bryan never thought twice about being paid. This was not a job to him.

This was helping someone in need, and God knows there were plenty who had given him a hand in the past. He had lived his whole life that way, and it never occurred to him to act any other way.

He told her that if she really wanted to pay him back, the next time she saw someone who needed help, she could give that person the assistance they needed, and Bryan added, "And think of me."

He waited until she started her car and drove off. It had been a cold and depressing day, but he felt good as he headed for home, disappearing into the twilight.

A few miles down the road the lady saw a small cafe. She went in to grab a bite to eat, and take the chill off before she made the last leg of her trip home. It was a dingy looking restaurant. Outside were two old gas pumps. The whole scene was unfamiliar to her. The waitress came over and brought a clean towel to wipe her wet hair. She had a sweet smile, one that even being on her feet for the whole day couldn`t erase. The lady noticed the waitress was nearly eight months pregnant, but she never let the strain and aches change her attitude. The old lady wondered how someone who had so little could be so giving to a stranger. Then she remembered Bryan.

After the lady finished her meal, she paid with a hundred dollar bill. The waitress quickly went to get change for her hundred dollar bill, but the old lady had slipped right out the door. She was gone by the time the waitress came back. The waitress wondered where the lady could be. Then she noticed something written on the napkin. There were tears in her eyes when she read what the lady wrote: "You don`t owe me anything. I have been there too. Somebody once helped me out, the way I`m helping you. If you really want to pay me back, here is what you do: Do not let this chain of love end with you."

Under the napkin were four more $100 bills.

Well, there were tables to clear, sugar bowls to fill, and people to serve, but the waitress made it through another day. That night when she got home from work and climbed into bed, she was thinking about the money and what the lady had written. How could the lady have known how much she and her husband needed it? With the baby due next month, it was going to be hard.

She knew how worried her husband was, and as he lay sleeping next to her, she gave him a soft kiss and whispered soft and low, "Everything`s gonna be all right. I love you, Bryan Anderson."

There is an old saying "What goes around comes around." Today, I sent you this story, and I`m asking you to pass it on ... Let this light shine.

To all my friends and family:

Thank you for making me safe, secure, blessed, and wealthy by sending me your chain letters over the last year.

Because of your concern:

I no longer drink Coca Cola because it can remove toilet stains.

I no longer drink Pepsi or Dr. Pepper since the people who make these products are atheists who refuse to put "Under God" on their cans.

I no longer drink anything out of a can because I will get sick from the rat feces and urine.

I no longer use Saran wrap in the microwave because it causes cancer.

I no longer go to movies because I could sit on a needle infected with AIDS.

I no longer check the coin return on pay phones because I could get pricked with a needle infected with AIDS.

I no longer use cancer causing deodorants even though I smell like a wet dog on a hot day.

I no longer go to shopping malls because someone will drug me with a perfume sample and try to rob me.

I no longer receive packages from UPS or FedEx since they are actually Al Qaida in disguise.

I no longer shop at Target since they are French and don`t support our American troops.

I no longer answer the phone because someone will ask me to dial a stupid number for which I will get the phone bill from hell with calls to Uganda, Singapore, and Uzbekistan.

I no longer eat prepackaged foods because the estrogen`s they contain will turn me gay.

I no longer eat KFC because their chickens are actually horrible mutant freaks with no eyes or feathers.

I no longer look at the opposite sex because they will take my kidneys and leave me taking a nap in a bathtub full of ice.

I no longer have a cell phone, but that will change once I receive my new Ericcson phone.

I no longer have any sneakers, but that will change once I receive my free replacement pair from Nike.

I no longer buy expensive cookies from Neiman Marcus since I now have their recipe.

I no longer worry about my soul because I have 363,214 angels looking out for me.

I no longer have any savings because I gave it to a sick girl about todie in the hospital for the 1,000th time.

I no longer have any money, but that will change once I receive the $15,000 that Microsoft and AOL are sending me since I participated in their special e-mail program.

I want to thank all of you soooooooo much for looking out for me!

Now if you DON`T send this e-mail to at least 1200 people in the next 60 seconds a large bird with diarrhea will make a deposit on your head at 5:00 pm this afternoon !!

Here are a list of my upcoming talks and seminars. Please note that these may change.

October 30 - 31, 2004 Kansas City ICPA – Introduction to Chiropractic for the Family

November 6 – 7, 2004 Atlanta, Ga. ICPA – Introduction to Chiropractic for the Family

Yours in Chiropractic, Armand Rossi

"When is the pain going to get better?"

"How long do I need to keep coming in?"

"Why are you adjusting me here when I hurt there?"

"Can`t you just fix it after one adjustment?"

"Why do the kids need to come in?"

"Can`t you just give me something for the pain?"

"I want you to just adjust my lower back and leave my neck alone."

These and many other questions and comments can come along in a day and make you quite negative. These statements can invade your concsiousness and make the day miserable. But it only takes one positive statement to completely offset these.

After listening to all the negativity, one of the patients told me: "Doc, I will be getting adjusted the rest of my life. Not just because it keeps me healthier, but because I find that I like myself more when I don`t have any interference."

My day and more was salvaged by this person who recognized her innate connection to God is why she continues to come in. When I hear these statements, all the negativity is worth the trouble and the persistence of telling the chiropractic story over and over again.

Here are a list of my upcoming talks and seminars. Please note that these may change.

October 30 - 31, 2004 Kansas City ICPA – Introduction to Chiropractic for the Family

November 6 – 7, 2004 Atlanta, Ga. ICPA – Introduction to Chiropractic for the Family

November 13 - 14, 2004 Portland, Or. ICPA – Introduction to Chiropractic for the Family

February 19 -20, 2005 Calgary, Canada ICPA – Introduction to Chiropractic for the Family

March 5 - 6, 2005 Los Angeles, Ca. ICPA – Introduction to Chiropractic for the Family

March 12 - 13, 2005 Montreal, Canada ICPA – Introduction to Chiropractic for the Family

April 23 - 24, 2005 Detroit, Michigan ICPA – Introduction to Chiropractic for the Family

Sept. 17 - 18, 2005 Hamburg, Germany ICPA – Introduction to Chiropractic for the Family

This newsletter does not replace pure, principled, unadulterated chiropractic care!!!