A REPLY TO: WHY NETWORK TV AND PBS SKEWER ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/media_watch/2002_june12.html

A reference source for the Scientific American Frontiers documentary was my
new book on chiropractic titled "Chiropractic the Greatest Hoax of the
Century?" The book concludes that the chiropractic theory of vertebral
subluxations as a cause of disease, as defined by the 1996 paradigm signed by
the 16 chiropractic college presidents, is false.
 

This is precisely the clear basic conclusion offered by the program by Drs
Baratz, Sampson and reformed chiropractor Badanes. Despite the agony of the
chiropractic community and its supporters, no scientific evidence to the
contrary has been provided to negate this conclusion.

Some of the criticism of scientific medicine and the program, made in your
column, may well have merit, but this in no way legitimizes the practice of
the clear hoax that is chiropractic.

So, the challenge to you and your followers, after reading about the
opinions of 27 medical college deans' unanimous finding and the opinion of
the country's most respected medical authorities, in the book, that the
theory is false, is to provide the evidence that the theory is true.
 

Thus far, no one has been able to do so, and the Scientific American
Frontiers program has done a service in exposing this fact.
 

L.A.Chotkowski MD FACP

NICHOLAS REGUSH REPLIES TO DR. L.A. CHOTKOWSKI:

My column focused on the lack of journalistic balance in the PBS program and I particularly did not like the fact that Alan Alda, known grandly as a comedian from his doctor days in MASH, fronted this piece. I also did not like the fact that a segment which aimed to "expose" chiropractic was sponsored by a medical company or by Scientific American, a magazine that I feel is as narrow-minded as they come. It should be called "Scientific Limited," and I’m trying to be nice here. I didn’t like the fact that there was no good opportunity for the chiropractic community to have a sufficient say in the piece. Bringing on a few venal critics is not journalism. These points address journalistic integrity. You could substitute any health practice and I would feel the same way about the inadequacy of the PBS production. My column was NOT about chiropractic per se, but about the continuing saga of traits such as ignorance and sloppiness that characterize so much of American medical reporting.

I personally welcome strong investigation of ANY form of health practice - this is appropriate journalistic territory - but I do not like to see my profession look like a horse’s ass when it does its job. And can we please do REAL investigations with REAL journalists and not comedians? And that goes for projects on Alternative Medicine too. I’ve seen my share of bad reporting IN FAVOR of Alternative practices.

As for "my followers," that Dr. Chotkowksi mentions, I have no idea what he is going on about.

RFW is an Internet newsmagazine that tries to provoke discussion of neglected issues and to build debate, and therefore we welcome debate on this issue as we would welcome a debate on any other form of health practice. What we would like to see is careful presentation of facts and not some fanaticism or politically-motivated BS. If anyone out there wants to have a role in a RATIONAL debate with some rules, please let us know.