Evil Vendors


Terry Wrongberg al-Zarqawi

Radical Insurgents & Evil Vendors

The elimination of the murderous al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi came as great news not only to the US military forces, but also to the good people in Iraq who have been victimized by this radical psychopath for too long, killing hundreds of innocents, fomenting sectarian discord, and creating a living hell for millions of peace-loving people in the Mid East as he professed his Islamic jihad. Indeed, it’s amazing what people will do in the name of religious fundamentalism, ya folla?

Sadly, our profession has an equivalent nutcase in the presence of Terry Wrongberg, a sociopath and evil vendor who has exploited and tormented us as a radical chiropracTIC fundamentalist insurgent for over 20 years now as he professes to be a Defender of ChiropracTIC (okay, stop laughing for we all know how hypocritical that claim is!).

Wrongberg al-Zarqawi has waged a political war against the mainstream with his yellow journalism, political corruption, and profiteering from his demagoguery and media misinformation. Regrettably, Wrongberg has hidden his agenda from his sycophantic followers while he acts like a cancer to weaken our profession’s infrastructure, image, and solidarity. He states his supposed quest for good for this profession, but hidden within his motive is the obvious evil.

Indeed, if there were just one radical insurgent this profession would love to see eliminated, it would be Terry Wrongberg. The more this sociopath writes, the clearer it becomes he’s lost all sense of professional ethics and common sense. His distorted reality resembles al-Zarqawi in that “anything goes” to pursue his ambition of greed and power. They both hide behind skewed ideology as they defame others, they both are willing to destroy a society for their mission of conquest, and they both exploit others for personal profit. Indeed, the more Terry al-Zarqawi speaks, the clearer it becomes the man is very sick and dangerous. (Just how sick? Logon on to http://www.stoprondberg.org/MostDangerousMan.htm )

In the past Wrongberg al-Zarqawi has misrepresented every progressive effort by the WFC, CCE and ACA no matter the merits—indeed, he’s against anything the mainstream attempts to accomplish, such as improving educational standards, establishment of worldwide criteria, introduction of chiro care into the military health services, VA, or Medicare improvements. For too long this misfit has been the fly in the ointment.

As well, he and his WCA ideologues like McCoy and Kent have misrepresented their “alliance” of evil vendors to Congressmen and the profession, the TCJ has defamed opponents without any fair or balanced feedback, their money-making efforts are mischaracterized, e.g., CBS malpractice, Sub Station, JVSR, and now the infamous RCS scam. In fact, on every issue, these evil vendors and radical insurgents have lied to the profession, misrepresented themselves as experts (okay, stop laughing), constantly mischaracterized the mainstream organizations, and sabotaged much needed efforts to improve our unity and image. These flies need to be swatted, ya folla?

Wrongberg al-Zarqawi’s latest example of such mischaracterization is his lame attack on Scott Haldeman for criticizing the RCS scam. Enjoy my response to his latest diatribe.

June 2006

Professional prejudice rears its ugly head

[aka, The Pot Calling the Kettle Black]

by Dr. Terry A. Rondberg

I have a confession to make. I’m prejudiced. [Might also include psychotic, egomaniacal, vain, and corrupt]  I think, to some extent, we all are. [Speak for yourself.]  I’m not talking about being racist or anti‑Semitic. [He just hates anything medical, any DC who doesn’t practice simplistic, high-volume chiropracTIC, anyone who doesn’t buy is CBS insurance, or isn’t a member of the WCA or won’t join his RCS, that’s all.] I’m talking about pre‑judging something before you really know the facts about it. [How ironic! As a yellow journalist, TR has done this forever.]

I do it all the time when it comes to drugs. [Pushed or prescribed? FYI: prescribed drugs are called “meds.” Methinks TR is too familiar with the other kind of drugs, ya folla?] If I read an announcement in the paper about a new “wonder drug” that promises to cure cancer or diabetes or the common cold, I snarl in disgust. [No doubt a byproduct of his “anti-anything-medical” hate-straight dogma. Tell us, Terry, will you discourage your wife, Cindi, from using the new cervical cancer vaccine?] Without knowing anything about the drug or the research done on it, I’m pretty sure that the announcement is the product of a drug company’s PR department and that the pill will ultimately offer little or no benefit. [Demonizing Big Pharma always makes for good demagoguery in chiropracTIC, but it’s a de-modernization attitude that the public rejects, ya folla?] I assume the drug company paid for the research and that the FDA ‑‑ which receives most of its funds from the drug industry ‑‑ will approve it without a second glance. [Cynical, possibly true, but it still doesn’t discount the value many meds have for many folks. Geez, just reading McCoy’s JVSR and TR’s TCJ is enuf to make me take tranquilizers!]

That’s prejudiced, although it’s justifiable given the history of the drug industry. [And to be expected from TR considering his dogmatic, anti-MD mindset. I had hoped this profession would get off this tirade, but as long as these insurgents make hay with it, we’ll always be burdened with this antiquated argument that only turns off the public.]

But when it comes to chiropractic, I try not to pre‑judge any news I hear. [Okay, stop laughing. Coming from the most renowned yellow journalist this profession has ever experienced, this is a joke.] If I get a press release from National or Northwestern College or from the American Chiropractic Association, I try as hard as possible not to assume it’s going to be supportive of chiropractic medicine. [There he goes again; “supportive of chiropractic medicine”: isn’t this a slam against comprehensive chiropractic as opposed to the simplistic, pop and pray to Innate version he endorses?] I admit that when a press release arrives from the International Chiropractors Association or the Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations, I am more inclined to read it with interest, [Indeed, cultists stick together!] but I still try not to make assumptions before I learn the facts. [“Facts”? Stop gasping—TR has never let the facts stand in the way of his yellow journalism before!] Thankfully, I’m not alone in my effort to put aside prejudices when it comes to our own profession. Over the years, I’ve heard from a great many doctors who said they weren’t subluxation‑centered but read The Chiropractic Journal with an open mind and learned a great deal from the experience. [There he goes again with his hyperbole. Only naïve fools would learn “a great deal” from his yellow rag—the al-Jazeera of chiropractic journalism.]

That’s why it still shocks me when I encounter someone who immediately dismisses (or even criticizes) a chiropractic program without knowing anything about it, just because it comes from “the other camp.” [Methinks there are better terms such as George McAndrews once said, “freaks and cultists.”] It’s particularly astonishing when that “someone” is a chiropractic leader. [Again, stop laughing! This is truly astonishing considering TR’s infamous reputation as the biggest con-man in this profession. Just shows us the delusional world this wannabe dictator lives in!]

A recent case in point was an incident that occurred in late April at the “Symposium on Evidence Based Healthcare in Contemporary Chiropractic Practice” that was held in New York. Although I wasn’t able to attend the Symposium, [Since he was hiding in his spider hole as usual.] I’ve had reports on what was said and it was disturbing to say the least. [TR has a habit of missing important seminars like NCLC, RAC, ACCC or any seminar where the intelligentsia congregates for fear of being confronted by the vast majority of ethical leaders and academicians who hate him.]  Apparently, Scott Haldeman, MD, DC, chose to use the event as a platform to criticize RCS (Research & Clinical Science), the private‑sector research program that’s compiling a massive database on the effects of vertebral subluxation and chiropractic care on wellness. [That’s the ruse: in fact, it’s nothing more than a patient solicitation scam that will make TR and McCoy millions in the name of research. BTW: it appears McCoy, Life’s Director of Research, doesn’t even have a BS degree behind his name, yet he purports to be an editor and researcher. Why doesn’t this surprise me? Okay, stop gasping!)]

Constructive criticism is a good thing but it was clear that Dr. Haldeman had pre‑judged RCS and was criticizing it without even knowing the facts about it. [That’s a huge assumption, TR. Perhaps Haldeman knows exactly what RCS is and you’re just avoiding the truth of this scam.

For example, here’s one expert’s analysis of the RCS methodology:

Dr. Smith,


Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this research. I have requested a research proposal from Dr. Blanks, but have not received it as of today. But from what scraps of information exist regarding this enterprise, I see too many weaknesses warranting attention before anyone should invest money, time, or other resources. 


By focusing on scientific merit, we are actually talking about whether such research could eventually be published in a high-impact peer-review scientific journal. Without addressing these issues, this work would not be of sufficient merit to meet high quality scientific publishing standards from what I can observe of it at this time. To date, RCS appears to fall short of what would be expected in a rigorously designed scientific research project.


The following points of concern are by no means exhaustive, but rather highlight some of the primary issues that the scientific community will challenge in various models of health care and health services research.


1)  “Correlational research” of large data sets is called “fishing.” Unless the RCS research is theory-driven and effect sizes estimated, such studies lack sufficient scientific quality to be published in legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals. Correlating every variable with every other variable inevitably produces significant correlations and other associations. With large data sets of 1000 or more, correlations and other measures of association are guaranteed to produce significant correlations, even from very small values. That is why theory must guide analysis here.


2) Lack of a manipulable independent variable would suggest a naturalistic experiment in which levels of chiropractic care could be compared to outcomes. This assumes that types and degrees of chiropractic treatment are tracked, and preferably some chiropractic treatment withheld or substituted with another kind of treatment to give a full range of responses. Otherwise, given the …


3) Lack of a comparison group and lacking random assignment, observed clinical changes could be due entirely to the healing power of time itself.


4) Lack of experimental equipoise. Setting out to prove chiropractic effectiveness for a variety of conditions lacks the neutrality required to test hypotheses and to be taken seriously as science. A correlational exploratory study could never validate anything; let alone chiropractic theory and application.


5) Measurement issues. What is chiropractic effectiveness in this study, anyway? Are the measures of subluxation and health outcomes based upon good psychometric analysis? What are the Cronbach’s Alpha’s of the instruments used? Were convergent and discriminant validity of the assessments established? By what method? Campbell and Fiske’s MTMM? LISREL or other structural equation modeling? In other words, by now there should be a “cottage industry” of research published showing reliability and validity of the RCS measurement models and instruments. That data collection has commenced without this important foundation is a bad sign.


6) Patient self-selection gives a biased sample. When patients self-select, you get wacky inferences such as “better DNA” and more “pregnancies” after chiropractic care – neither of which are scientifically tenable. Also, by researching only the “chiropractically willing,” variable distributions will start to “look weird” – deviate from the normal – a condition that influences correlations – in many cases driving them down. This is easily overwhelmed by especially large sample sizes, in which “everything is found to relate to everything.”


7) After the initial scan for associations in a subset of the sample, theory-derived analysis commences to testing multiple competing hypotheses (Chamberlain, 1996), strong inference (Platt,1964) and model cross validation with bootstrapping or other re-sampling techniques. It is too early to tell if these inferential precautions are to be undertaken. But with a “prove chiropractic” intention, and lack of theoretical development and associated publications from study’s participants, this foundation appears unlikely.


8) A comparison to drug companies to justify secrecy and private funding of the RCS research is comparing apples and oranges for several reasons.


9) A lack of a posted or shared research plan may be appropriate for developing new and proprietary technology. However, when asking people to invest in this study, do they also become shareholders of a technology? Again, in looking to what products will be produced from this project (“deliverables”), the science appears weak from whatever observable parts we have, and accumulating substantial evidence for “chiropractic” [Adjustments? Advice?] seems unlikely. In short, the specific aims and relevance of this research remain unknown.


10) This enterprise is a close cousin to the Vertebral Subluxation Research Institute (VRSI) of just a few years ago which failed to produce anything of scientific value. Many of the same players are in positions of authority in the RCS project. The VRSI never delivered, so we might reasonably expect no more in this most recent version. Without any meaningful and informative scientific publications advancing knowledge of chiropractic’s role in health policy or patient care, the project will fall far short of its claims. Press releases without good science would only confuse the public, and damage the credibility of the chiropractic profession even further, when the scientific and medical communities respond with criticisms.


Investors, chiropractors, patients, and participants are, whether they know it or not, chiefly interested in scientific merit and if their hard earned money will build a better and brighter future for the chiropractic profession. All interested chiropractors deserve to know if scientific integrity and treatment fidelity can be delivered by RCS. The issues I raise and others must be addressed first.



Michael Menke, MA, DC

Evaluation Group for Analysis of Data

Department of Psychology,

and Program in Integrative Medicine

University of Arizona

520-318-7259 X122


As you can read, there’s more to proper research than “compiling a massive database on the effects of vertebral subluxation,” but that won’t stand in TR’s way of marketing this scam to naïve field docs who are solely interested in patient recruitment, not actual research.

Dr. Menke makes a valid observation by stating the similarity of RCS to the ill-fated VSRI scam that Wrongberg did years ago, a telemarketing patient solicitation scheme known as the Vertebral Subluxation Research Institute (VSRI). Despite the fact that VSRI had been universally condemned as teaching unethical practices within the chiropractic profession, Rondberg continually claimed through The Chiropractic Journal that VSRI’s practices were legal and ethical. Fortunately, finally the Attorney General of Alabama put an end to this scam.  www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/positions/telemarketing.htm  


Just to prove the many unseemly issues Rondberg has been involved in throughout his unheralded “sock puppet” career, 83 citations can be found in a simple search in Dynamic Chiropractic’s archives. Indeed, Wrongberg’s litany of miscues has become legendary within this profession, and the sooner this “rascal” is isolated and stopped, the better this profession will be. (Logon on to http://www.stoprondberg.org/Taming%20of%20the%20Shrewd.htm )

I daresay neither TR or McCoy have any idea the complexity of research as Dr. Menke has illustrated. For those few who are interested in learning about research, let me direct them to the www.FCER.org .]

Now to return to the main article about Wrongberg al-Zarqawi…

Our “leaders” ‑‑ even if they’re medical doctors as well as chiropractors ‑‑ should be above that kind of bigotry. [Oh my god: for TR to cast aspersions at anyone in Dr. Haldeman’s rarefied air is over the top!] I realize that Dr. Haldeman has aligned himself firmly in the chiropractic medicine camp, [There he goes again with his denunciation of anyone associated with medicine—if this isn’t bigotry, what is? I find it odd that TR with only his outdated DC degree has the gall to attack Haldeman who has a DC, MD and PhD. Methinks TR is over his head in ignorance now, ya folla?] serving as chairman of the World Federation of Chiropractic’s “Research Council” and as chairman of the Mercy Steering Committee. [Dr. Haldeman is to be applauded for his WFC and Mercy  involvement, not criticized by a delusional demagogue. I can’t wait for Haldeman’s response, if he’s willing to waste his time responding to this megalomaniac.] But he’s also recognized as a proponent of objective, scientific research. [This is exactly why he denounces the RCS scam.]

Where was his objectivity when he blasted RCS for a lack of scientific protocols? [Duh: just one look at the goal of RCS and its methodology is reason enuf, ya folla, let alone the bait-and-switch nature of this scam. Indeed, as Yogi once said, “you don’t have to be a rocket surgeon” to see this fraud.]  He said he hadn’t seen any information on the protocols used for the RCS program. Obviously, he’d never looked for them since Robert Blanks, PhD, one of RCS’s founders and principals, discusses them in detail on the RCS website. [Just gobbledygook for the uninitiated to research.] If he couldn’t locate them there, he could have simply asked for them or spoken with Dr. Blanks. He did neither. According to Dr. Blanks and the other RCS leaders, Dr. Haldeman has never requested any material on RCS or spoken to anyone about the program. [Why should he when it’s a scam?] Yet, he felt he was qualified to judge the legitimacy of the program. On what basis did he judge it? [As Dr. Menke showed, any real researcher knows the mission of the RCS to prove the Big Idea was doomed from the start and, secondly, it’s merely a patient recruitment scam.] Was it his well known disdain for subluxation‑based chiropractic in general? Or, his personal animosity toward me, since I’m one of the most enthusiastic boosters of RCS? [Yes, since he invested $750,000 into this fraudulent scheme. Every ethical DC on earth knows TR is a fraud, pure and simple, just as we all knew Big $id was an academic phony too.]

His other criticisms of RCS were equally unfounded. He implied there was something unethical about the fact that RCS was a private‑sector, for‑profit research company. Anyone with any knowledge or experience in research knows (or should know) that the majority of all health‑related research is done by or funded by for‑profit companies. [Wrong: According to Marcia Angell, MD, former editor of JAMA, and author of “The Truth about Drug Companies,” the majority of medical research is done by universities, not drug companies themselves, that then lease these patents to the drug companies.]  Drug companies, for‑profit hospitals, research institutes and schools, medical device manufacturers, and many other private sector firms engage in legitimate research. Even “non‑profit” status can be a bit disingenuous. The Mayo Clinic, which took in $5.6 billion in 2004, has a “non‑profit” status. Of course, so does Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Does having a non‑profit status automatically make research purer or more ethical? [No, but they also don’t offer patient recruitment as the benefit of their research either, ya folla?]

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The private sector is also increasingly involved in earlier‑phase basic research, as a new generation of medical treatments develops on the basis of more specifically targeted genetic, biochemical, and physiological interventions. These research interests are being pursued both in house and in collaboration with other institutions. A recent survey of biomedical firms found that 58 percent were engaged in research collaborations with academic institutions.” [So, what academic institutions is RCS involved with? None because TR and his WCA is banned from every legitimate chiro college!]

When drug companies do medical research, they know they’ll make billions of dollars back in sales when the drug reaches the market (and they only pursue those that will make billions). RCS doesn’t manufacture drugs to sell to the public, so the research has to pay for itself. How does Dr. Haldeman suggest we fund this type of massive chiropractic research effort? Is he willing to put up $250,000 to defray the costs? [No, but he also knows this bait-and-switch scam is unethical! Indeed, some people won’t do anything to make a buck like TR, ya folla?]

For years, our educators and researchers have lamented the fact that chiropractic has produced relatively little research, partly due to a lack of money to conduct it. Our schools are struggling to give students a basic chiropractic education and can’t be expected to fund a multi‑million‑dollar research program. [But selling out to vested interests with phony research scams isn’t the answer.]

We have two choices. We can just give up on the idea of producing the scientific evidence to prove the effect of vertebral subluxations on health. Maybe Dr. Haldeman wouldn’t be too disappointed with that approach, but the vast majority of chiropractors ‑‑ those who recognize the subluxation as a detriment to health ‑‑ would suffer. In time, they’ll be restricted to “treating” low back pain in adults and limited to six‑to‑twelve visits per patient. [Again, ridiculing LBP care is nuts, but typical of these non-practitioners who ignore the epidemic of MSDs.] That’s what our research so far has supported.

[That’s where the research has led, which is the nature of research rather than to start with a foregone conclusion that you then try to prove. Indeed, BJ had over 50 years to prove the Big Idea and Big $id had 28 years, but both failed to do so. Perhaps the Big Idea is dead, TR. Indeed, I wonder who are real chiro researchers feel about TR’s bastardization scheme  to profit? His RCS is a slap in their faces. Again, if TR has a backbone, I urge him and McCoy to a panel discussion at the next RAC conference. Are you man enuf, TR, for this challenge or will you hide again in your spider hole, you girlyman?]

The other choice is to try something innovative (for chiropractic anyway). Private‑sector research paid for by thousands of doctors around the world who collect the data from volunteers. With each doctor paying as little as $149 a month, the program can produce an incredible wealth of research (and each doctor enjoys the further benefit of introducing chiropractic to hundreds of volunteers, many of whom will choose to remain in the program as paying patients).  [He parenthetically admits to the true goal of this RCS scam—patient recruitment. At $14,000 each, just 100 doctors will make over $1.4 million for TR and McCoy. His silver tongue and perverted rationale may sound seductive for naïve field docs wanting more new patients, but it’s all a scam for TR to profit by.]

Albert Einstein once said the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Well, we have been doing the same thing over and over again for more than a century and there’s no sense in expecting that all of a sudden we’ll get different results.  [As I mentioned, BJ and Big $id failed to prove the Big Idea, but now TR will do what they failed to do—is that not insanity or what?] We haven’t been able to produce the kind of research we need and if we don’t try something different we never will. [Then let the real researchers devise a study rather than the WCA evil vendors.]

There is absolutely no reason to fault RCS because it is a “for profit” organization. [You’re missing the point, TR. The disdain is for your scam, not just the idea of “for profit” research itself.] Dr. Haldeman gets paid for doing his job. Chiropractic colleges make a profit from tuitions and fees. Researchers ‑‑ even those working in non‑profit institutions ‑‑ receive salaries, grants, stipends and other financial compensation for their work. It’s hypocritical to say RCS is somehow tainted because its principals may someday actually make money from the program [Where do ethics enter into research?] or because doctors bring in new patients because of their participation as Authorized Clinical Investigators. [TR just doesn’t get it: this entire RCS is an unethical scam. It’s an ill-conceived study as Dr. Menke suggests, plus the fact that we can see thru the RCS scam itself as a money-maker for TR and a bait-and-switch patient recruitment scheme.]

The last of Dr. Haldeman’s criticism was that RCS couldn’t be legitimate because it hadn’t announced the name of the Independent Review Board which thoroughly examined and approved the program. It didn’t seem to matter to him that the IRB is, as the FDA put its: “an appropriately constituted group that has been formally designated to review and monitor biomedical research involving human subjects … and … is subject to the Agency’s IRB regulations when studies of FDA regulated products are reviewed and approved.” [If this IRB is as illegitimate as the TCJ Board of Directors and the so-called “peer-reviewed” board of the JVSR, is it any wonder Haldeman questions the IRB of the RCS? Okay, stop laughing!]

When a college is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the federal government, it is presumed to have met certain educational standards. This might be a regional accrediting body or a specialized one, like the CCE. But the fact that the agency was recognized by the federal government is enough to give the accreditation validity and credibility. [Tell us, TR, does your IRB understand the bait-and-switch agenda with patient recruitment too, or is this another parenthetical benefit omitted from your IRB proposal?]

While many IRBs are constituted by and affiliated with specific colleges or medical institutions, many are private companies that work with a variety of research entities. There is nothing inherently “better” about an institutional IRB or a private IRB. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, for instance, works with two of its own on‑site standing Institutional Review Boards AND a private IRB that acts as a third IRB when reviewing certain studies. [Now TR compares RCS with Johns Hopkins—what a stretch, eh? This IRB can be scammed just as TR scammed the UN into believing the WCA is an NGO: see The WCA as NGO: More Deception http://www.stoprondberg.org/WCAAsNGO.htm ]

Does Dr. Haldeman doubt that RCS actually is IRB‑approved or does he want to know the name of the IRB in order to contact them and try to turn them against RCS with his unfounded accusations and prejudiced views? [Yes, indeed. As Dr. Menke indicated, the whole mission of this RCS scam is impossible to do with its foregone conclusion and spurious methods.] Anyone who has taken time to look at the list of world class [Okay, stop choking!] scientific researchers serving on the RCS International Scientific Research Advisory Panel can have little doubt of the program’s legitimacy. [Why is it no one has ever heard of any of these “international scientists” from FAU?] Why would so many MDs and PhDs willingly associate with a fraudulent program? [Let’s see: At $14,000 each, the money might be one factor, ya folla? Indeed, if TR wanted renowned chiro researchers, why didn’t he recruit Meeker, Triano, Mertz, Haas, Menke, Schneider, Hawk, Kawchuk, Long, Mootz, Haldeman, van der Velde, Adams, Gatterman, Perle, Murphy, Rosner, Goertz, Smith, Evans, Bronfort, Pickar, Khalsa, Henderson, Cramer, Killinger, Hansen, Nelson, to name but a few?]

I think it’s time for all of use to examine our prejudices and resolve to base our criticisms on the facts, not on our professional biases or personal animosities. [Sounds like al-Zarqawi blaming the US and Iraqi people for being biased against his insurgency.] If anyone can’t extend their colleagues that minimum courtesy, they should refrain from displaying their bigotry in public and trying to pass it off as objectivity. [Oh my god, TR has lost his mind with this hypocritical if not totally delusional statement. This man is the most prejudicial journalist in our profession; he has made a mockery of our political efforts, he defames opposition constantly in his free tabloid, his WCA is a total fraud misrepresenting itself to legislators, media, and the profession, yet now he calls for “minimum courtesy.” Okay, stop laughing! Indeed, this last paragraph illustrates the deceit TR will resort in order to persuade readers to his con-job. If anyone believes TR, I’ve got riverfront property in New Orleans for sale.]



Now wasn’t that entertaining to read the delusions of a megalomaniac? I haven’t had this much fun since I read Big $id’s editorial, “Learning a Lesson from the Snake Oil Salesman,” (Today’s Chiropractic, Jan/Feb 1998). If that wasn’t a Freudian slip, what is?


I can’t help but to think what a waste of time it is to respond to his constant yellow journalism when we should be discussing our image, identity, unity, increasing membership in our associations, integrating evidence-based education and practice, mainstreaming, and increasing market share. Instead, our profession engages in fruitless conversation of twisted tales from demented demagogues.


Just as progress and reform for the good people in Iraq have been stymied while fighting the radical insurgents, this profession has always had the same insurgents who detract from our Reform and Progress. From BJ to Big $id, now we have TR and his gang of WCA misfits who will not stop until they are eliminated.


Again, here are a few suggestions that would put a dent in TR’s image as a dictator and in his pocketbook:

  • I call upon Life and Sherman to stop any relationship with the WCA by not allowing TR or his TCJ on campus, 
  • I call upon the ACA, ACC, FCLB, and RAC to publicly denounce the RCS as a scam perpetuated on the public by unscrupulous vendors,
  • I call upon advertisers to stop using the TCJ,
  • I urge all authors not to submit papers to either the TCJ or  JVSR,
  • I urge all WCA members to overthrow this dictator for life by demanding a democratic vote,
  • I urge all CBS policy holders to switch to NCMIC,
  • I call upon Life University to eliminate McCoy as its Director of Research,
  • I urge all state chiropractic licensing boards to investigate RCS and to stop this patient solicitation scam.


It’s time to end the terrorism of these radical insurgents and proceed with solving the real issues facing our profession that cannot be solved until they are eliminated by the good people in our profession. Although many fail to see, evil has hidden within the good in our profession for too long as self-proclaimed defenders, philosophers, and gurus. It’s time for all DCs to see this cancer and excise the evil from the good before we all perish, ya folla?





The link below is to a blog about an interesting case in Australia.  If you’ve not heard of the Pearson-Gills case, I suggest reading this through.  The Aussie regulators showed that Down Under they have the testicular fortitude to police their profession and work to rid it of the pseudo religion that is supported by the WCA sociopaths.