“A NEW SORT OF TREATMENT”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18515, 28 March 1922, Page 5

“A NEW SORT OF TREATMENT”

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The manner in which “Grateful” has been forced to resort to wholesale quol tations, many of which have nothing to I do with the subject under discussion, is to any logical mind sure proof of -Ilia own lack of knowledge. He neglects to give the dates of his quotations —a very serious omission. Many of them were obviously written by men who were “sacrificing truth for effect. Dr 0. W. Holmes was referring to the medicine of the middle ages. In any case he is no authority on medicine, especially modem medicine, seeing he is dead and buried Tne quotation from Hubbard may bo dismissed, as he is only a chiropractor, speaking with the chiropractor’s glib assurance so well-known by anyone who reads chiropractic advertisements. Mayo, like every other surgeon, certainly realises that surgery will in time give place, partially at least, to other forms of treatment, but he never said it would give place to chiropractic. The practice of surgery will diminish only as that of medicine advances The last two quotations are too epigrammatic to bo accepted in serious argument. Let me remind “Grateful” that the devil to suit his own purpose«, can quote from the Bible. He would do well now to leave matters to “Credit where credit is due,” an acknowledged chiropractor, whom I have stung into action. The only other remark I would like to make to “Grateful” is that in attacking medicine, he is not proving any truth in chiropractic. “Credit where Credit is Due,” also, is largely reduced to quotation even in his first communication. Dr Walton 'says: “Chiropractic is not a ‘cure-all,’ ” etc. I can give him the credit of being more honest than the writer of the original cutting, the cause of this controversy. It is very significant that neither “Grateful” nor ‘“Credit where Credit is Due” cares to undertake any reply to my original criticism of the above cutting. Will “Credit where Credit is Due” be honest with the public and admit the fallacies that I pointed out ? or does he prefer to be discreetly silent about the childish nonsense that was meant to be served up to, a gullible public? . _ Having admitted that chiropractic is not a “cure-all” will “Credit where Credit is Due” name, say, a dozen diseases which chiropractic can cure and let him explain the rationale, not in vague terms as in bis letter in this morning’s Daily Times, -but in terms that have some meaning and sens© to tile fundamental sciences', on whiol} medicine is securely based? Seeing that I refrain, from quotations, it would only bo “fair play” for “Credit where Credit is Due” to do likewise. I am calling on chiropractic’s bluff. Let it show its hand openly without resorting to the pack for help. If chiropractic can prove scientifically any single fact I shall be only too ready to give it credit, but it must be proved, step by stop, from a correct foundation and in accordance with the proven findings of the fundamental sciences. If it is as easy to juggle with the spine as “Credit whore Credit is Due” suggests, then surely it would be easier for a chiropractor either to. cause damage to a healthy spine or to make worse one that is already diseased. “Anti-ohiro” prefer his spine as it is, and if at any time he requires X-ray diagnbsis and treatment he would prefer to go to the Public Hospital where, at a more moderate charge, he could receive the benefits of an up-to-date apparatus under tfio car© of a specially trained medical man. “Credit where Credit is Due” admittedly once a scoffer, who has evidently “remained to pray.” would do “Anti-chiro” a great service if he were to explain chiropractic in intelligible and reasonable terms, leaving quotations, glib assurances, and vague sweeping statements to such people as “Grateful.”—l am, etc., Anti-chiro. Dunedin, March 27. Sir, —“Anti-Ohiro’s” flippantly worded communications forcibly remind one of Spencer’s well-known words: “The principle which is a bar against all argument and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance, is the principle of Condemnation without Investigation.” At any rate that “Anti-Chiro’s”, investigation (it any) must have been of a very superficial character is proved by his assertion that chiropractors never seek the aid of X rays. If ho had taken the trouble to inquire before committing this foolish statement to writing, he would have found that any one of the chiropractors in this city could produce for his oxanunaton not one but many X-ray photographs of clients’ vertebrae, and that they use the process whenever they are not satisfied with examination of clients. “Anti-Chiro,” of course, resorts to the threadbare argument of a credulous and igrorant clientele whose “iraaginery ailments” the medical fraternity is too conscientious to treat. Undoubtedly there are some tine medical men who, in such cases, would tell the patient that nothing really ailed him, and who would decline to take money from him, but there are also doctors who would not dismiss the foolish fellpw so long as ho had any good money in his pocket. Some indeed, holding “AntiChiro’s” opinions, would regard it as a virtuous act to intercept any money likely to be going in tl?e direction of a chiropractor. Then yo.ur correspondent speaks of the ignorance of the persons who take “adjustments,” and here again he argues without knowledge. If “Anti-Chiro” spent on hour in the waiting room of any chiropractor in Dunedin, he would be surprised to find many prominent business and professional men taking adjustments and ready to tell him of the benefit they have received from chiropractic after being cut about, and drugged for years by various medicos, without benefit save to the doctors’ banking account. _ There are in Dunedin at least two doctors of repute who advise certain patients to take “adjustments. How does “AntiChiro” explain this fact? Are these colleagues of his “ignorant”? If so, whv does that wonderful and strict trade union, whose first object is the honour of the profession, allow them to continue in practice? •"As for “Anti-Chiro’s” assertion that chiropractors “cure” people by “suggestion, will he tell ua why, if this he so easy, the doctors _do not follow suit? Presumably ho -believes in the theory himself. Are the doctors lacking in the force of character necessary to exercise the requisite influence over their patients? Or do they feel that to justify their often exorbitant fees they must either stick in a knife or dose with drugs? Would not, “suggestion” in the long run pay better, besides being, free from the unpleasant character of the present methods? Then it. were surely Christian charity to “cure” any person, even of imaginary diseases, without cutting away parts of his anatomy and dosing him with poisonous drugs. And there is no, getting away from the fact that “Anti-Chiro.” judged by his letters, believes this can be done. Finally I would ask “Anti-Chiro” to comment in your columns on this fact: Chiropractors “take their own medicine.” that is to say they “adjust” each other when necessary, and bv this means keep themselves so fit that they have no need to resort. 1o doctors. I enclose my card that you may see, fur, I have no professional interest in chiropractic. I morelv write as one of those “ignoramuses” (with whom mv wife must be numbered also) who have dadved benefit from the art.—l am, etc., TVinadin. March 25. H. W. L.