Natural Solutions Radio header image

Chiropractic History - The AMA vs. Chiropractic

The medical profession has a long history of opposing alternative healing professions. While always claiming public safety as its reasons for the attacks, the true reasons involve protecting their monopoly of the health care market.

In the past, medicine has fought battles to limit the practices of such professionals as homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths, podiatrists, optometrists, dentists, psychologists and chiropractors. In the case of osteopathy and chiropractic, there are distinct differences in the approach to healing and health when compared to medicine. The last thing that organized medicine wants is for there doctrine of drugs and surgery to be challenged.

Osteopaths allowed themselves to be absorbed by medicine--today there is little difference between an M.D. and a D.O. Chiropractic on the other hand, fought hard--through the personalities of those like B.J.Palmer to remain a separate and distinct profession.

Medicines opposition to chiropractic was at its strongest under the leadership of Morris Fishbein. Fishbein as Secretary of the American Medical Association from 1924 to 1949, lead a 50 year anti-chiropractic campaign in both professional publications and the public media. Fishbein called chiropractors "rabid dogs" and referred to them as "playful and cute..but killers." He tried to portray chiropractors as members of an unscientific cult, caring about noting but taking their patients money.

In 1949 the AMA removed Fishbein but continued its wage an anti-chiropractic campaign. In 1971, H. Doyle Taylor, the Director of the AMA Department of Investigation, and Secretary of its Committee on Quackery (COQ), submitted a memo to the AMA Board of Trustees stating:

Since the AMA Board of Trustees decision, at its , meeting on November 2-3, 1963, to establish a Committee on Quackery, your Committee has considered its prime mission to be, first, the containment of chiropractic and, ultimately, the elimination of chiropractic.

The following is an excerpt form the COQ's first annual report to the Board of the AMA:

...The Involvement (and indoctrination) of the State Medical Society leadership, in our opinion, is vital to the success of the chiropractic program...We hope and believe that, with continued aggressive AMA activity, chiropractic can and will be contained at the national level and that steps are being taken to stop or eliminate the licenser of chiropractic at the state level.

In 1967 the COQ released its anti chiropractic campaign goals:

Basically, the Committee's short-range objectives for containing the cult of chiropractic and any additional recognition it might achieve revolves about four points:

1. Doing everything within our power to see that chiropractic coverage under title 18 of the Medicare Law is not obtained.

2. Doing everything within our power to see that the recognition or listing by the U.S. Office of Education of a chiropractic accrediting agency is not achieved.

3. To encourage contained separation of the two national chiropractic associations.

4. To encourage state medical societies to take the initiative in their state legislatures in regard to legislation that might affect the practice of chiropractic.

The AMA through its Committee on Quackery continued its war against chiropractic through such acts as, distributing propaganda to the nations teachers and guidance councilors, eliminating the inclusion of chiropractic from the U.S Department of Labor's, Health Careers Guidebook, and establishing specific educational guidelines for medical schools regarding the "hazards to individuals form the unscientific cult of chiropractic."

The AMA did not stop with these acts of propaganda against the chiropractic profession. They worked both publicly and politically to insure that chiropractic failed as a profession. But, even with all of this negative publicity against the profession, chiropractic continued to gain acceptance with the general public, because chiropractic got results.

In 1975 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Goldfarb vs. The Virginia State Bar, that learned professions are not exempt form antitrust suites. In 1982 the Court ruled that the FTC can enforce antitrust laws against medical societies. These two suites paved the way in 1976 for five chiropractors to file an anti-trust suite against the AMA and several other heath care agencies and societies in Federal District Court (known as the Wilkes Case).

Similar suites were filed in New York and Pennsylvania in 1979. The pressure of these law suites forced the AMA even before these suites went to court to propose a modification of their Medical Code of Ethics which prohibited M.D.s from associating with chiropractors. But, it was not until 1980 that the Ethics Code was changed to reflect that each individual doctor may decide for themselves whether to accept a patient from or refer a patient to a chiropractor or other limited practitioner.

The law suites caused so much fear in the medical profession that Mike Wallace (of 60 minutes) was unable to find an M.D. to take the anti-chiropractic side for a 1979 documentary piece on chiropractic.

In 1980 the Wilkes suite went to court, were the AMA and other defendants were found not guilty of all charges. That decision was overturned and a new trial was ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals in February 1983.

Judge Susan Getzendanner found the AMA and others guilty of an illegal conspiracy against the chiropractic profession in September of 1987, ordering a permeate injunction against the AMA and forcing them to print the courts findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Several other of the defendants settled out of court helping to pay for the chiropractors legal expenses and donating to a chiropractic non-profit home for disabled children, Kentuckiana Children's Center.

This decision was upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1990 and again by the U.S. Supreme Court that same year.

Even with success of the Wilkes Case and other anti-trust litigation, the AMA continues to this day to wage a campaign against chiropractic. Today the attacks take the form of over-stated concerns for the safety of chiropractic health care. The truth is that chiropractic has proven it self over the last 100 plus years, to be a safe and effective means of maintaining health and treating musculo-skeletal injuries.

JAMA Stats Tell the Tale

(Journal of the American Medical Association)

Doctors kill more people than guns and traffic accidents: by Don Harkins

In the last century we chose the wrong fork in the road with regard to our health care paradigm.

Most people have been conditioned to believe in what is called the germ theory of disease -- that germs cause disease. The truth is that germs are everywhere and they are attracted to and proliferate in diseased tissues.

Bacteria decompose dead matter. That is their job. For instance, when a tree dies, bacteria come in and eat the tree and it eventually becomes soil. Bacteria does not eat a live, healthy tree.

The same thing is true in people -- bacteria are attracted to dead matter. Therefore, if you have dead matter in your body, bacteria will get to work decomposing the dead tissue so that it may eventually become soil. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

In the mid 1800s, western medical science had the choice of going one of two ways. Antoine Bechamp's theory of disease maintained that every living thing has arisen from the microzyma (the fundamental unit of the corporate organism ) and every living thing is reducible to the microzyma. Bechamp believed that microzymas secrete fermentative substances that aid in digestion in a healthy body and evolve into bacteria when they encounter dead or damaged cells. This theory has been tested and amplified by a string of scientists since then, including Carl Edward Rosenow, William F. Koch, Otto Warburg, Gunther Enderlein, Royal Rife, Alexis Carrel, Rene Dubos and Gaston Naessens.

Louis Pasteur's competing germ theory of disease maintained that diseases come into our bodies from outside germs, so that we must fight to kill them.

Bechamp's theory placed all of the responsibility of disease prevention on the individual and his lifestyle. In a practical sense, there was no money in that because people would be able to resist disease simply by taking care of themselves, and would require no store-bought potions.

Western medical science went with Pasteur's theory because it opened the door which created the world's medical and pharmaceutical industries, and because it seemed to support Darwin's new theory of survival of the fittest. Since the 1850s, we have been developing new drugs to attack and kill the disease invaders and the result has been epidemics of sickness and disease -- and a very rich and powerful pharmaceutical industry.

Last year, the pharmaceutical industry did $182 billion in drug sales world wide. In contrast to that figure, it cost approximately $183 billion to treat adverse reactions from all of those drugs. The following admissions were taken from JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) : The top five causes of death in the United States, in order, are: 1) Tobacco 2) Alcohol 3) Medical malpractice 4) Traffic accidents 5) Firearms

According to JAMA, doctors kill more people than auto accidents and guns put together. With that in mind, one has to wonder why gun control is such a hot legislative issue when, perhaps, we should be more concerned about doctor control.

Statistics show that when allopathic doctors are on strike, fewer people die from disease.

The number of people that doctors kill per day from allopathic medical malpractice is roughly equal to the amount of people that would die if every day, three jumbo jets crashed and killed everybody on board. Just imagine what headlines would result if a chiropractor or a naturopath accidentally killed just one patient?

Another JAMA statistic stated that 20 percent of all people who see an allopath will suffer an iatrogenic (doctor-induced) injury.

Again, according to JAMA, 16 percent of all people who die in the hospital are determined by autopsy to have died of something other than their admission diagnosis. In other words, the doctor had no idea what was really wrong with the patient and, therefore, the patient may have died for want of appropriate care that would have been subsequent to an accurate diagnosis.

Another trade publication, American Medical News, stated that 28 percent of people admitted to hospitals are there because they have suffered an adverse reaction to prescribed drugs.

Allopaths are miserably losing the battle against viruses and bacteria. Antibiotics do not work. We need to take a different tack because this is obviously not working. Only ozone therapy offers hope against the increasingly resistant 'germs'.

The British Medical Journal Lancet states that only one percent of all scientific research papers which explore medicine are scientifically sound. So, if that is true, then not only are allopathic doctors incorrect in their understanding of the basic nature of disease, they are basing their conclusions, and therefore their diagnosis and treatment of people, on flawed science. And it is killing us.