No-Touch Chiropractic (5-2-2006)

Subject: Re: [healthfraud] No-Touch Chiropractic 
From: jbadanes 
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006

Randall Lord:
This discussion of No-touch chiropractic has reminded me of a commentary James Randi did on the no-touch martial arts known as "yellow bamboo"

Excuse me? What "discussion," Randall? There really has NOT been any substantive and insightful discussion about "chiropractic" or the implications of a "Dr. Hoeller" for Q-busting, "chiropractic" and chiropractors, health fraud, quackery -- or anything else a reader might find on a list presumably devoted to these subjects. In fact, there has been no actual discussion at all, other than your post now and a post I submitted yesterday.

The problem here is that most state laws the defone the scope of practice for chiropractic is deliberately so vague that anything a DC does with the INTENTION of removing a mythical subluxation is allowed.

What do comments like this have to do with this particular discussion (such as it is) except nearly everything? Of COURSE, "Dr. Hoeller" has a chiropractic license and so is allowed to practice 
"chiropractic." There is nothing about what she thinks, says, or does professionally that isn't "chiropractic." She practices NUCCA Technic. NUCCA is one of more than 101 chirodigms a chiropractor CAN use to treat patients. Dr. Hoeller is allowed to bill for these chiropractic services, too.

Now, Randall ... I have a question for you. Would you characterize your and my descriptions of the chiropractic situation and problem as "optimistic," "pessimistic" or "realistic?" Not that any of these 
subjective descriptions has the least bit to do with anything that you or I have actually said about "chiropractic" and chiropractors, mind you. It's just that Dr. Hall believes that doctor Perle is an 
"optimist," that she is a "realist," that I (and you, I'd have to guess) are just being "pessimistic" when we mention "other than that Mrs Lincoln" type stuff like this.

At the risk of detouring even more from the chiropractic issue on the HF table, let me ask you quickly: Do you think doctor Perle has any substantive basis for being "optimistic" given what you know about 
"chiropractic" and chiropractors? Also, do you believe that Dr. Hall is being a "realist" with regards any outrage and/or expectation she might have that the Washington chiropractic board is going to give 
her anything more than the time of day -- at least as far as taking any action against "Dr. Hoeller," that is.

If you (Randall) don't expect any meaningful action from the board, 
are you just a "pessimist" (as Dr. Hall appears willing to believe)? Also, if you do NOT think there will be any meaningful chiropractic board action, do you think that's because the wrong "form" was submitted with her complaint? This was doctor Perle's explanation of the problem Dr. Hall is encountering -- that the lack of action against Dr. Hoeller is "bureaucratic" and "legal" in nature. Would you say that doctor Perle is being "optimistic," "pessimistic," "realistic," or "none of the above" when he says this?

I'll take my answer on the air.


John Badanes, DC, PharmD
LCCW '84, UCSF '97