“QUACKS AND QUACKERY”

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 191, 9 May 1921, Page 6

“QUACKS AND QUACKERY”

Sir,—l have no intention of entering further into a newspaper correspondence with people who evidently have been disturbed by the light I threw on quacks and quackery in a recent lecture, but after the failure of anonymous writers to attract my notice, tho lucubration of Messrs. Ottorholt, Bryce, and Wratt perhaps deserves a better fate, seeing that they have had the courage to sign their names. They are guilty of (1) Avoiding tho point at issue. (2) Inaccuracy of statement. (1) The point at issue is simply this: Mr. Otterholt advertises: “Chiropractic consists of relieving pressure on the nerves at the point where they leave the spine, thus eliminating the cause of disease.” I challenged the chiropractors to prove this theory, in the only way it can Ito proved, by demonstrating it on the dead body. The chiropractors admit that they "cannot, perhaps, prove it to him by regular medical methods,” regular medical methods being methods of proof common to the whole scientific world. One would think that this admission scientifically disposes of the theory, but they say in extenuation that “the law puts into the hands of regular medicine the absolute control of the dissection of dead bodies.” Cannot they get permission from the Coroner to attend a post-mortem examination at the morgue, for I know that the medical pathologist will give them every facility to attempt to prove what in the absence •of nroof can only be called humbug. (2) With regard to inaccuracy, I did not say that hysteria is the explanation of the "cures” of chiropractic, but I gave also as explanations vis medicatrix naturae, faith, and mental suggestion, and I explained that some people are "cured” of diseases they never had. My antagonists say. further, that I have “been to no trouble to investigate the science of chiropractic.” This is not correct, for I have read a great deal of the literature on the subject, oh, so patiently! Three of the publications of Mr. Otterholt himself now lie before me. His diagrams are not accurate anatomically. but fanciful, and the letterpress when not gleaned from regular anatomical and physiological sources is incoherent. assertion, which, if "science” and true, is surelv capable of proof, but no proof is supplied. The names of the American doctors who praise chiropractic are unknown outside chiropractic circles (and I think I can surmise why they left regular practice), except that Dr. diaries Mavo. the famous surgeon, is mentioned, lint his reference is to preventive medicine, and not to chiropractic, in which I know he has no faith. I shall be thankful to accept the offer to simply me with the addresses of the persons in New Zealand who have .studied both medicine and chiropractic.” Another glaring inaccuracy is the statement of your correspondents that T said “it was impossible for the segments of tho spine to be so misplaced ai to produce impingement on the spinal nerves.” The chiropractors assert that a draught nf air, "anxiety, or turning over in bod during sleep will cause, a partial dislocation of the spine. Prodigious! What I did say is that a force of great violence i« necessary to dislocate flic vertebrae; hut the statement of halftruths and misrepresentation is good propaganda- for a- while. All that now remains in my antagonists’ letter is the reference to X-ray photographs, and the cheerful offer to move any vertebra in mv spine. I shall bo pleased to see the X-ray photos, belonging to the chiropractors and giro my candid opinion thereon. Tint Dr. Cameron and Dr. Stowe nre highly competent and experienced radiologists, and their opinion will carry much weight. T regret that not having eyes in the hack of that part of my anatomy which encases what the chiropractors call the "dynamo.” T cannot see my spine before, during, and after the interesting process of having my vertebra allegedly moved hr one of the chiropractic triumvirate. hut I suggest that wo get th? best radiologist in Wellington to take an X-ray phntoaronh of Mr. Otterholt’s spine, let Mr. Wratt move one of Mr. Offerholt’® vertebrae by spinal adiustmeTif. and then have another X-ray photograph taken of the result, and we shall see. Tt is a fact that no X-ray photograph can show the nerves in any way. either a« they are or as they appear in the Otterholt diagrams. But all is of minor importance, except tho main issue, that is. actual ocular demonstration in tho dead I>n«lv of the bene crushing the nerve, and tho microscopic anatomy of the injured part of the nerve. The cliironmctors have much to say of anatomy in their hooks, and surelv it is a practical art.—T ere. etc.. J. S. ELLIOTT. Wellington, May 7.