RCS Revisited


The irony of life is the source of jokes for many comedians, and certainly we chiropractors have much to laugh about (if not cry, that is). Perhaps the greatest irony recently has been by hate-straight chirovangelists who now attempt to capitalize on the evidence-based healthcare movement. To hear administrators from Life or Sherman claim to be evidence-based at the ACC-RAC conference was hard to swallow, and now to read in Terry Wrongberg’s free penny pincher tabloid articles that claim his WCA and RCS to be on the forefront of evidence-based chiropractic is over the top. If it weren’t so improbable, it might be funny, but this claim is just another example how Wrongberg will stoop to lies and deception in order to profit. He has proven that he can fool some of the people all the time, ya folla?

Again, I urge everyone to file a complaint with your state board of chiro examiners against this obvious patient solicitation scam.

Enjoy my remarks to the following article found in his WCA rag.



December 2005

The next step in becoming an evidence‑based [or, How to Scam the Chiropractic Profession, Ya Folla?]

by Dr. David A. Jackson

A great deal has been said recently about evidence‑based practice and there can be little doubt that the chiropractic profession will move toward that paradigm along with all other health care disciplines. [No thanks to the chirovangelist dogmatists who live in the fantasy of the Big Idea that chiro care cures all despite the complete lack of evidence.]

The most frequently quoted definition of evidence‑based care is “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of the individual patient. It means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.” (Sackett, D. Evidence‑based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd edition. Churchill Livingtone, 2000.)

Sounds good, but ‑‑ as one recent Clinical Chiropractic article by Jennifer E. Bolton, PhD, points out ‑‑ “the practicality of integrating clinical research evidence into clinical practice arguably remains today’s biggest challenge.” (Bolton, J. “Time to (evidence‑base) practice what we preach.” Clinical Chiropractic 2005, 8, 1‑4). [Certainly among the faith-based chiropracTORs who renounce anything scientific as a “reductionist” effort to exclude chirovangelism, vitalism, or Innatism, eg, “only Innate Intelligence heals the body via mental impulses/ nerve energy,” ya folla?]

The real challenge for chiropractors may not be the implementation of evidence‑based practice as much as the accumulation of the actual evidence upon which to base that practice. Right now, nearly every major chiropractic researcher agrees that there is a serious deficiency of the type of clinical research we need to validate and support our practice. [Actually not since many seminars speak of this EB research such as the FCER, ACCC, RAC-ACC, and other academic seminars that Wrongberg, Jackson, McCoy, Kent,  Gentempo, CJ Mertz, Riekeman and other Evil Vendors never attend, so obviously they wouldn’t know what’s being taught by legitimate educators or the plethora of research of late that supports conservative care over the medical model of drugs or surgery.]

As William Meeker, DC, director of the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, stated: “”The research has not been done. Let’s face it. We have a massive fact deficit in chiropractic.” [Thankfully he and other researchers at PCC, NCC, SoCal UHS, WSCC, TCC, and other reputable chiro colleges are doing legitimate research unlike this RCS patient recruitment scam.]

Donald R. Murphy, DC, went so far as to claim: “Scientific literature has failed to demonstrate the very existence of the subluxation.” [Indeed, the Murph is right—the nebulous term VSC is so hazy, most DCs have little idea or agreement what it is, perhaps suggesting that the early Palmer definition of the “vertebral subluxation” was wrong.]

This summer, during the World Federation of Chiropractic’s “Identity Consultation,” that group’s Assembly declared: “There is little existing research or scientific evidence to support chiropractic’s role in overall health improvement” [Certainly the Big Idea has become the Big Bane of this profession since its magical “cure-all” claim has never been proven by BJ or Big $id or anyone else. Indeed, perhaps we should consider our identity to be limited to the conservative care of spinal disorders rather than the chirovangelists’ concept of a cure-all.]

Outsiders have taken up the refrain as well. [Rather odd syntax, don’t you think?]

The British Medical Association warned, “There is a lack of sufficient evidence to support many of the claims of efficacy (for chiropractic and CAM). … Without evidence, it is impossible for the public and the medical profession to make informed decisions on the risks and benefits of different therapies.” [While this assertion is popular, there is plenty of evidence for SMT helping NMS problems like neck, low back and headache pain. There is also plenty of evidence against spinal fusion, drugs, and injections for the treatment of LBP. When the public learns of this evidence, perhaps this skeptical attitude will change in favor of DCs for the epidemic of MSDs, but if some chiropracTORs keep preaching the Big Idea, our Practical Idea helping NMS problems will continue to be overshadowed.]

The refusal to fund a chiropractic college as part of Florida State University was based, in part, on a consultant’s report that claimed any beneficial physiological response by the body to chiropractic is “largely speculative.” [Perhaps this consultant was critical of the unproven Big Idea, not necessarily the effectiveness of SMT for NMS disorders. Indeed, our chirovangelists continue to embarrass us all with their unproven claims to help organic conditions when it’s never been proven by anyone.]

And the now‑famous analysis of chiropractic in Newsweek magazine concluded that it suffered from a “Dearth of good research to prove efficacy.” [Again, this is not true for our efficacy for LBP, but rarely does the media give a fair and balanced look at chiro care, instead choosing to focus on the outrageous statements made by our infamous chirovangelists, ya folla? Indeed, when Big $id tells the world that “the only thing chiropracTIC can’t cure is rigor mortis,” we all get a black eye.]

Why, then, are we adjusting anyone? [Good point—maybe there is no good evidence for the Big Idea except for random anecdotal or placebo cases.] Where is the evidence that chiropractic helps anyone except some adults with low‑back pain? [Is he suggesting helping patients with LBP is beneath his professional dignity as many chirovangelists espouse? I daresay if we DCs were the primary POE for all LBP cases, we would be hugely successful and appreciated by the public considering 90% of American adults will suffer from  many bouts of acute LBP.]

Until recently, few DCs cared much about chiropractic research. [Wrong: only the Palmer chirovangelist branch of this profession disliked research since the “rational” branch of chiropractic—the National branch—has long supported research.] They “knew” chiropractic worked because they saw the results in their offices every day. [Realistically, those results were with NMS disorders, not organic problems as Jackson implies.] Most of them had been on the receiving end of chiropractic care at one time in their lives [for back pain mainly, just like Big $id’s story of his Ga. Tech football injury.] and the experience convinced them of the far‑reaching benefits [Here comes the hyperbole again.] of spinal adjustments. “We don’t need research to ‘prove’ chiropractic works. We already know it does,” was a common refrain. [Only among the die-hard chirovangelists. Remember: not all DCs are Palmer Innatists who renounce education and research. The National branch of the chiro tree has always embraced science and rational practice scope, but this branch has been virtually ignored by the media since they don’t make outrageous claims like the radical Palmer-Life-Sherman branch has, ya folla?]

But, in this day and age of evidence‑based practice, it isn’t enough to ‘know’ chiropractic works. [Duh, welcome to the real world, Jackson. Ironically, after 110 years of rejecting research, suddenly these chirovangelists jump on the bandwagon only after they devise a scheme to profit by this effort.] We have to be able to prove it with clinical, scientific evidence that will convince those who have never gotten an adjustment in their lives. [So true, but the RCS is NOT the way to conduct real research since it is simply a patient recruitment scam posing as research.]

As Dr. Bolton said, “Up to now, research evidence may have been something of a luxury that clinicians chose to use when it suited, and then put aside while they go on with the routine of everyday practice. However, the world is rapidly changing to one where evidence is becoming increasingly important…”

Obviously, the first step to establishing chiropractic as an evidence‑based profession is to amass the evidence. [This has already been done and presented at FCER, ACCC, and RAC-ACC conferences by legitimate educators and researchers. If Jackson, McCoy and Wrongberg were to attend RAC, they might already know this.]

There are two ways to do this. The first is to sit back and wait for our colleges and research organizations to produce the needed research. This is what we have traditionally done but after more than a century, we still haven’t filled the information void. As Dr. Meeker noted in the Spring/Summer 2005 issue of the FCER publication Advance, “there are not many more people doing chiropractic research now than there were 10 years ago.” [So, is the answer to let evil vendors exploit this need with phony scams?]

The second is for research to become a professional priority. Dr. Bolton was absolutely right when she stated “clinicians do not get off that lightly simply by leaving evidence‑based practice to the researchers. From its definition, evidence‑based practice is about the use of research evidence, not for, or by, external stakeholders, but by individual practitioners treating individual patients…. For chiropractic practice to become evidence‑based, as espoused by the champions of evidence‑based practice, clinicians need to be able to act both as ‘research‑users’ and as ‘research‑providers.'” [So, will RCS give clinicians strict EB guidelines to follow, or will it digress to anything goes as Wrongberg’s phony vendor-driven practice guidelines allow? Okay, stop laughing! This scam is so full of holes it will never convince legitimate researchers of anything other than proving some chiros still scam the public with phony research projects like this RCS ploy.]

To do so, she maintained, “clinicians will need to attain the skills to undertake research that answers meaningful clinical questions that arise in everyday practice, and then to be able and willing to disseminate that evidence in a publishable format.” [As if WCA chirovangelists can do that? Okay, again, stop laughing.]

Yet, there can be no doubt that being a clinical investigator isn’t something you can easily do in between seeing patients and managing a busy chiropractic office. How many of you can simply decide to “do some research” in your office and get the results published? Where do you even start? [Attend an FCER seminar to learn how!]

One place to start is with RCS (Research & Clinical Science), the private sector research firm that is developing a global network of field doctors interested in becoming clinical investigators as well as research‑users. [Yes, for only $14,000, you too can scam your community to start an unethical and possibly illegal patient recruitment scam  under the guise of research.]

To begin with, RCS authorized clinical investigators receive specialized training, including the National Institutes of Health “Human Participant Protections Education for Research Teams” and RCS’s own health outcomes research training program. In addition, every RCS doctor is individually assessed by an independent Institutional Review Board and must be IRB‑approved before participating in RCS. The RCS project is itself IRB‑approved and backed by a world class International Scientific Advisory Panel made up of MDs, DCs, and PhDs who are active in scientific research. [None of whom have any experience in this field, nor are any known by anyone in medical or chiro research. Indeed, just who is Robert Jackson, you might ask? Any real research experience at any chiro college? None!]

To make the actual research gathering experience trouble‑free, RCS doctors may opt to utilize RCS supplied electronic equipment, including a Tablet PC loaded with proprietary research software or web based technology that uploads patient data to the main RCS data warehouse, where it will be analyzed by the Panel. [Yes, yours for only $14,000]

Thousands of doctors around the world will be gathering uniform data on hundreds of thousands of volunteers and patients, including “before and after” data on those who receive chiropractic care over a period of time. This data will serve to help provide scientific evidence on chiropractic’s impact on all aspects of health, wellness and quality of life. [Oh yeah, that ought to be interesting! Will this include their sex lives too? How about financial, emotional, spiritual, or family relationships—after all, shouldn’t this be included in “all aspects of health”? Once again, this hyperbole illustrates how these chirovangelists continue to overreach their expertise.]

The RCS program, in effect, eliminates one of the biggest hurdles faced by our profession: apathy. [Gimme a break.] As Dr. Bolton noted, “From our own experiences of putting on workshops and seminars in evidence‑based practice for chiropractors in the field, the interest is dramatically disappointing to say the least.” Because of its unique structure, RCS is able to generate excitement in the data‑gathering process. RCS makes research not only easy but exciting. [Exciting as in dodging the police when they come knocking  at your office door angry about this patient recruitment scam.] With it, doctors are able to contribute valuable data while having the opportunity to introduce thousands of people to the basic chiropractic concepts. [Finally, he alludes to the real goal—patient recruitment, not real research.]

In exchange for their participation fee (currently as low as $149 a month), RCS doctors place themselves at the forefront of the evidence‑based trend [Okay, stop barfing!], showing to their patients and their communities that they are active in research and cutting edge practice. [This is just too much—overnight these faith-based chirovangelists will instantly become “cutting edge” evidence-based practitioners? If this isn’t ironic, nothing else ever will be. It shows how Wrongberg and the Evil Vendors will say or do anything to fool naïve DCs in order to make a profit, or at least try by fooling the public. How quickly the chiro community has forgotten Wrongberg’s phony VSRI scam years ago that was finally shut down. To anyone who falls for this scam: I have land in New Orleans that has a waterfront view for sale.]

(Dr. David A. Jackson is chief executive officer of Research and Clinical Science ‑‑ RCS ‑‑ a private sector research program exploring issues of subluxation correction and chiropractic care as they relate to health and wellness. Previously, he served as president of the Chiropractic Leadership Alliance and Creating Wellness Alliance and was owner/operator of several private practice offices in California and Idaho that specialized in high‑volume, family wellness‑based care. For more information on RCS, call 800‑909‑1354 or 480‑303‑1694, or visit the RCS website at www.rcsprogram.com. Doctors of chiropractic may log on to a special limited‑access area of the site by using the username DC1 and password RESEARCH.)