TR Smears Again


Wrongberg Smears Again


Once again, Terry Wrongberg, phony WCA dictator and renowned yellow journalist, has used his bully pulpit to discharge his poisoned pen against one of the most esteemed chiropractic educators in the profession, Dr. Stephen Perle. Apparently Dr. Perle’s call for progress, ethics and reform annoyed Wrongberg who used his tabloid to spew misinformation and personal attack, not uncommon for Wrongberg. Of course, the hidden agenda is Wrongberg’s latest money-making scheme, the RCS scam. As a classic chiro sociopath, notice how Wrongberg uses demagoguery to vilify his opponent, incite passions/prejudices among his readers, and makes his call-to-arms to support RCS.

Indeed, just as Big $id will leave a legacy as the biggest academic fraud in this profession, Wrongberg will be remembered as the biggest journalistic fraud. His conflicts of interest are obvious—WCA, CBS, RCS, VSRI—yet he refuses to disclose this to his readership. In fact, many of his TCJ authors are vendors as well, another unethical issue for a so-called professional journal. Even the JAMA has taken a hard line on disclosure:

“’JAMA has immediately begun requiring authors to disclose potential conflicts when the articles are submitted–a step that would be taken even before the journal decides whether to publish the article,’ JAMA Editor in Chief Dr. Catherine DeAngelis said.”

Sadly, as long as Wrongberg has a voice in this profession, we can expect more of the same—misrepresentation of facts to the profession and legislators as we’ve seen with the recent VA victory, mischaracterization of rival political personalities as we see in the following article, conflicts of interest, yellow journalism, and journalistic fraud. I might add he’s also the largest source of dissension nowadays and will fight any movement toward peace and unity in the profession. Certainly as a demagogue, he will fight any effort for reform and progress as well. As I once wrote, Wrongberg remains the most dangerous (and sick) man in chiropracTIC, ya folla? Logon to The Most Dangerous Man in ChiropracTIC to learn why. ( )



July 2006

No ‘Perles’ of wisdom here [Cute—Wrongberg the punster, ya folla?]

by Dr. Terry Rondberg [Dictator of WCA and Yellow Journalist]

When Stephen Barrett (aka the “Quackbuster”) puts misleading or erroneous information about chiropractic on his website, chiropractors are justifiably enraged. The same goes when a so‑called “stroke victims” group pays for anti‑chiropractic bus ads and billboards. After all, we can’t tolerate lies and innuendo about our profession. [Nor can Wrongberg handle the truth about the pitfalls of SMT, the hyperbole of our radicals, the claims of pseudo-science, or his phony WCA, but he will use any issue to demonize his opponents in order to raise money for himself as you will read in his article.]

But where’s the outrage when lies and innuendo are directed at a portion [the cultists] of the profession by someone within the profession? [Once again, Wrongberg uses his poison pen to vilify any critic of his schemes to defraud this profession.]

Is it any less offensive when a DC spreads false information about other chiropractors? [Is this the pot calling the kettle black? Okay, stop laughing!] Why should we tolerate that kind of behavior? [Indeed, how can mainstream DCs stop the false information and demagoguery done by Wrongberg over the past 20 years? The ACA HOD already has publicly denounced his sham WCA, yet this radical insurgent continues to misinform the profession via his sham TCJ and his internet articles.]

A case in point was a recent column by Stephen Perle, DC, who teaches mechanical engineering at the University of Bridgeport’s School of Engineering. He also teaches courses for the University’s College of Chiropractic although his concept of chiropractic is so different from that held by most subluxation‑based chiropractors, it almost doesn’t qualify for that name. [Another shameless insult to one of the most astute chiro instructors in our profession. If Wrongberg is so self-assured of himself, let’s have a debate between Wrongberg and Stephen at the next RAC. How about it, Wrongberg, or are you still afraid of an open debate? Indeed, put your mouth where your poisoned pen is, ya folla?]

Underscoring the difference in Perle’s professional perspective are his “research interests” as posted on the Bridgeport University website: [None of which the small minded Wrongberg can comprehend.]

***  Human performance effects of manipulation of the extremities

***  Biomechanics of manipulation

***  Measurement of therapeutic ‘dosage’ of manipulation used in the treatment of low back pain

***  Comparative evaluation of chiropractic treatment methods

Dr. Perle has admitted that “there are no prospective studies, that I am aware of, showing that people without subluxations are healthier than those with subluxations. Further, in my experience, the clinical trials that have examined spinal adjusting have not tracked changes in health with changes in indicators for the presence of subluxations.”

Since he apparently has little interest in conducting such research (as opposed to the best “therapeutic dosage” for back pain) one would think he would support legitimate efforts by others to do so. But that isn’t the case. [The key words are “legitimate efforts” as opposed to illegitimate efforts by Wrongberg and McCoy’s RCS sham.]

In his latest column on “ethics” for Dynamic Chiropractic, he displays a total lack of ethics by using lies and innuendo to attack the subluxation‑based research agenda of RCS (Research & Clinical Science). [Again, Wrongberg mischaracterizes his sham RCS: it is not an attack on “sub-based research” as much as on a pre-determined effort to prove the Big Idea using poor methodologies.  Let me quote Dr. Mike Menke again about the failings of the RCS agenda:

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

He drags me into his latest mud‑slinging fest by referring to a research effort I started back in the 1980s, the Vertebral Subluxation Research Institute (VSRI). That effort is totally unrelated to RCS, but apparently served as a convenient way to confuse the issue. [Let’s get this straight: Wrongberg made millions off his phony VSRI that was a patient solicitation scam before it was finally stopped, and now he and his WCA partners have invested over $800,000 into RCS, but he tries to convince us that he has no relationship to his latest scam. Okay, stop laughing.]

Perle calls VSRI “unprincipled and disgraceful” and labels it a “bait and switch” scam. [Exactly right on both counts!]  What nonsense! [What a delusion!] At the instigation of several ACA “leaders” who were also attacking every element supportive of subluxation‑centered chiropractic. [Wrong, just attacking con-artists like Wrongberg.] VSRI was investigated by several state boards and state Attorneys General. Despite such aggressive attacks, not a single board action was ever taken against the program. In fact, the Alabama and Arizona Board of Chiropractic Examiners both officially declared the program legal and said there was “no basis for action” against it. [Then why was it stopped, Wrongberg? Mr. Dan Osborne, MS, a private investigator who presented to the FBI on chiropractic fraud and abuse, told the ACCC conference that Wrongberg was served a cease and desist order.]

Perle doesn’t mention that in his article. Nor does he state that the program was initially developed with the legal advice of nationally noted attorney Paul F. Eckstein or that the research was conducted by Barbara Nienstedt, DPA, then a research methodologist for the Auditor General of the State of Arizona and a research associate and guest lecturer at Arizona State University. [Again, if VSRI is so great, why did it cease? Also, what were the outcomes of this research? All that it appeared to be was another money-maker for Wrongberg, but of no real value to the profession, ya folla?]

Instead, Perle blithely [honestly] labels the program a “scam” and hopes readers will be gullible enough to take him at his word. [or gullible to believe RCS is a legitimate research project??] He even points out that no actual research was ever conducted by VSRI, but doesn’t bother noting that this was due to the extreme pressure put on the program from organizations and individuals opposed to subluxation‑based research at the time [What a lame excuse! So, what happened to the data? Did it disappear into Innateland?] (Perle was only out of school for three years when VSRI was started, so he wasn’t involved in the attacks back then. To write his column, he obviously had to read all the anti‑VSRI material still in the Dynamic Chiropractic archives. Too bad he didn’t bother reading the information in The Chiropractic Journal archives as well to get a balanced view. But I guess “ethicists” don’t have to worry about fairness.) [Okay, stop gasping! For Wrongberg to slam anyone about “fairness” is the epitome of his delusionary mindset. Does anyone think his TCJ will give any reader a “balanced view”?]

But this column isn’t about VSRI, which ‑‑ as I said ‑‑ has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with RCS despite Perle’s insinuation. [Then why has Wrongberg given nearly $800,000 plus free advertising toward this RCS scam? If that’s not a vested interest, what is?]

However, since Perle has pulled me into this argument about RCS, I think it’s only fair for me to respond to some of his more blatantly misleading statements. [So, Wrongberg, where does Stephen get a chance to respond to your statements? If you “worry about fairness” yourself, can he get equal access to your readership to defend himself?]

The purpose of research

First of all, Perle says that, in chiropractic, there seems to be confusion about the purpose of research. Really? Perhaps he’s confused but the rest of us know very well that the purpose ‑‑ the sole purpose ‑‑ of chiropractic research is to discover the truth about chiropractic. [For over 110 years chiropractors have tried to prove the Big Idea that Innate cures all, but failed. Perhaps the “truth about chiropractic” is that it is not a cure-all, ya folla? Indeed, can anyone name one research project done by BJ or Big $id that proved the Big Hypothetical?]

For me (and the vast majority of chiropractors, according to every recent survey of the profession) that means finding out the extent of the impact of subluxations on general health and wellness, and the efficacy and cost‑effectiveness of chiropractic adjustments. [This has already been done by others. If Wrongberg were aware of chiro research, he’d know the answers to these questions already. The truth is his RCS is not about real research as much as it’s all about patient solicitation and practice building schemes.]

Notice that I didn’t say it’s to verify whether or not subluxations exist. That has already been adequately proven through scientific research. [Please cite your references on this point other than the Journal of Very Silly Research, ya folla?] We no more have to “prove” that than medical research has to “prove” hypertension exists. [Sounds like more gobbledygook to obfuscate the real issues because VSC has not been proven in any RCTs anywhere, nor will his phony RCS conduct a RCT on VSC either.]

Nor did I say it’s to figure out the dosage of chiropractic manipulation for back pain. That may be Perle’s interest, but it isn’t the area RCS (or most doctors) are concerned about. [Does Wrongberg claim to speak for mainstream? Okay, stop laughing.]

Perle says, “Many think it is to prove chiropractic works, to help us get reimbursed, or to help us build our practices.” He gravely underestimates chiropractors if he honestly thinks they don’t know the difference between the reason we conduct research and the ways research can, ultimately, help individual practitioners. [He now subtly mentions the real goal of his RCS scam—to “help individual practitioners.” Besides, I thot research was to benefit patients, not doctors!]

When the medical and pharmaceutical industries conducts research, they don’t let that knowledge sit isolated in a laboratory. They use it to help formulate treatment guidelines, sell drugs, ensure insurance coverage, and win bigger research grants. I’m surely not saying we should model ourselves after them, but we have to have a realistic understanding of the many benefits of research, aside from knowledge for knowledge sake. [Again, research is to benefit patients!]

Even Perle admits this, although he tries to remain cloistered in his ivory tower by dismissing any other considerations as “secondary.” [Just who’s really cloistered: Stephen who’s involved with education and research on the forefronts, or Wrongberg who hides in his spider hole lashing out with his poisoned pen? If Wrongberg is as brave as he thinks, then I challenge him to an open debate once again. But he’s too afraid to confront Stephen or me, that’s for sure!]

Research shouldn’t prove anything [Spoken like a true chirovangelist.]

He next calls RCS leaders to task for stating up front that their aim is to prove that chiropractic works. After all, he chides, “research should never be seen as a way to prove anything, for if our intent is to prove something, what happens if the data from our research disproves our hypothesis?”

Unlike Perle, I have a hard time envisioning a research project that would end up “proving” that chiropractic is useless, [Actually, the predominant studies show that chiro care is best for MSDs, not organic disorders, ya folla?] and I think the RCS leaders share my optimism [for big profits, that is.] about the results of the project. We know ‑‑ from personal and clinical experience ‑‑ that it has a beneficial impact. We need the research to determine just how much of an impact it has. [Again, where is the data from the VSRI that supposedly showed the same benefits?]

But, still, the actual research proposal spells out the objectives in proper scientific terms:

“The three‑year research plan calls for the use of the electronic data capture network to evaluate the contents of the central data repository in a variety of research formats (retrospective, case reports, time series, and controlled clinical trials). These research designs will allow analyses of health outcomes across the large pool of patients required to provide control for the hundreds of clinical, sociodemographic, socioeconomic, and health lifestyle variables encountered in clinical practice. Of course, all of these functions will have required approvals (IRB, HIPPA). Public health surveillance strategies will be employed to sample: 1) incidence of clinical sign (vertebral subluxation), 2) primary and secondary benefits of chiropractic, 3) optimal duration and frequency of care, 4) health conditions benefitted by chiropractic, and 5) effects of age, sex, ethnicity and prior existing conditions. Multivariate statistical analyses will be used to identify the relationships between variables; structural equation modeling will be used to provide operational models relating to health interventions, health behaviors and health outcomes (Schuster et al., 2004 a, b). We will begin with an analysis of chiropractic in years 1‑3, but our long‑term goal will be to expand the network to include other selected fields in medicine and nursing thereafter. This comprehensive program permits a comparison of health outcomes and cost‑effectiveness across and between (co‑therapies) health disciplines. These strategies will ultimately improve the quality of health care service delivery, radically advancing the evidence‑based documentation of the fields under study, and promote the re‑establishment of a rationale, information technology‑based, national health policy.”

Ironically, Perle never contacted RCS to request a copy of the actual proposal before condemning it. I hope that’s not the same type of thorough literature search he conducts for his research on chiropractic “dosage.”

At the Bridgeport U site, he provides students with a “sample” research proposal with this objective:

Chiropractors have long claimed that the chiropractic adjustment, also called a manipulation, has an ergogenic effect. There have been no comprehensive literature reviews of this topic published in the peer‑reviewed indexed literature.

Perhaps RCS would have received Perle’s approval had its objective been stated as:

Chiropractors have long claimed that the chiropractic adjustment, to correct vertebral subluxations, has a beneficial impact on human health and wellness. There has been no comprehensive clinical research on this topic published in the peer‑reviewed indexed literature.

If Perle had bothered to read the actual RCS proposal objective, he would have seen that it says pretty much the same thing, except in more detail. [If Wrongberg had the insight/knowledge of a legitimate researcher like Mike Menke, he’d know this RCS is a delusion whether or not it’s sublime mission to prove the Big Hypothetical.]

So much for his bogus criticism. [If Wrongberg can’t understand criticism above his head, he simply discounts it. Well, enuf sed, ya folla?]

Another critical piece of information Perle fails to give readers is that RCS research is not being conducted by the DCs who, in their foolish optimism, are apparently fairly certain chiropractic can help people. [Despite the fact that 95% of patients who see DCs  are there for MSDs, Wrongberg still ridicules those who deal with these disabling injuries.]

The actual research is done by a group of highly respected medical researchers including MDs and PhDs who have been published in hundreds of scientific journals around the globe. [Then why hasn’t anyone ever heard of them?] Each month, The Chiropractic Journal has been featuring profiles of these panel members, so there’s no excuse for Perle not to know about them and their credentials. For him to lecture them in proper research techniques is, at the very least, arrogant. [Any “respected medical researcher” would have nothing to do with Wrongberg if they knew of his sordid past, his megalomania, his sham alliance, his censorship by 13 foreign countries, the denouncement by the ACA, his yellow journalism, just to name a few of his irrefutable dirty dealings as the Evil Vendor that he is.]

Of course, arrogance is something of a trademark for Perle, who once stated: “I love being a chiropractor … even though I often feel embarrassed about being one. I am not embarrassed because of chiropractic, but because of chiropractors.” [Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Wrongberg can’t believe that he is the source of this embarrassment, just as Big $id embarrassed this profession for 28 long years before his demise, ya folla?]

Maybe that’s why he seems opposed to chiropractors enjoying any kind of success. In his Dynamic Chiropractic columns, he’s labeled as unethical just about every marketing tool used by chiropractors: advertising, free screenings, health fair booths, etc. [Indeed, all the tacky methods used by $idiots and low-brow chiropracTORs who also might buy into the RCS scam.]

“I could go on and on about the various practice‑building methods that the public views as unethical,” he said in one column. And he does! He may have won the 2004 “Academician of the Year” title from the American Chiropractic Association, but he won’t win many accolades from doctors around the country struggling to get patients in order to stay in practice. [What Wrongberg won’t admit is there are ethical ways to recruit new patients that don’t include bogus research scams, free exams, or any of the free chicken dinner methods from the past.]

In addition, Perle never mentions the fact that the RCS research proposal was approved by an independent Institutional Review Board. Following guidelines set down by the FDA, this IRB examines every facet of the research program, including objective, methodology, informed consent, confidentiality, etc. It even looks into even the least hint of financial impropriety. RCS won IRB approval with flying colors. [So, who comprised this IRB anyway? This has as much significance as McCoy’s claim that his Journal of Very Silly Research is “peer-reviewed.”]

I suppose it’s possible that the entire IRB committee, the members of the International Scientific Advisory Panel, the RCS leadership, RCS Authorized Clinical Investigators, and RCS supporters around the country, all fail to live up to Perle’s ethical standards, or are part of a massive conspiracy. [Yes! Just as the entire WCA board and members are misguided, so too are these RCS crooks misguided by their zeal to prove the impossible!]

More likely, the criticism is merely part of Perle’s elaborate but ultimately transparent ‘smoke and mirrors’ crusade. [Okay, stop laughing! Wrongberg has been smokin’ and foolin’ some members of this profession for too long; now he accuses a reputable academician of the same—again, the pot calling the kettle black.]

Paying for research

The next criticism Perle aims at RCS is that it is a private‑sector research company that derives its revenue from membership fees rather than government grants or institutional funding.

Robert Blanks, PhD, president of RCS, addresses this issue very well in an article in this issue of The Chiropractic Journal so I won’t repeat what he says. [Why is it that no one in this profession has ever heard of Blanks or any of the RCS medical experts?]

I will, however, mention that Perle’s information on this matter is so full of errors and out of date that I really have to wonder when he wrote his column (and why Dynamic Chiropractic chose to print it now). I spoke with David Jackson, DC, the CEO of RCS, and confirmed that RCS does not lease the program nor does it charge $400/month ‑‑ and it hasn’t offered that arrangement for several months. [How interesting! Why the sudden change? Perhaps because they did lease the RCS scam for $400/per month, which is highly unethical. Now they’re trying to hide their tracks.] Dr. Jackson also told me that Perle never called him to verify the information in his column.

Perle says, “We would challenge those involved with the RCS program to provide examples of any other major research institutions in which the researchers themselves are paying a fee to participate in such research.”

First of all, I wonder who the “we” is. [The “we” is the other author of the article, Dr. Mike Schneider.] His use of that pronoun confirms my suspicions that he’s being used as a mouthpiece for others of like mind. [If Wrongberg knew Stephen, he’d never say anyone could use him as their mouthpiece!]

To answer his question, though, I don’t know of any other profession where the practitioners are willing to pay for the privilege of collecting data for research. Maybe we’re the first and we’re going to be the model the others will follow. [Okay, stop laughing!] Of course, medical researchers hardly need to follow RCS’ example, do they? They have billions of dollars in government grants and drug company money to fund their research. [Is it any wonder chiropractic gets so few funds when they see the “pseudo-science” published in JVSR?]

Perle should ask himself what’s wrong with being innovative. [When it becomes a scam to commit intellectual fraud, that’s what’s wrong, ya folla!] What are the alternatives? He says the money doctors pay to participate in RCS would “have a far more positive impact on our profession if the doctor would commit this amount of money as a monthly donation to FCER.”

Why should they? [Because there are legitimate chiro researchers doing great work altho they’re not selling any bogus programs to profit by, ya folla?] So the FCER can pay Perle to do a research project on the proper therapeutic “dosage” of manipulations? [Sounds reasonable to rational DCs who don’t adjust ad infinitum as Wrongberg might suggest.] So it can hire another ACA academician to do a literature search on low back pain? [Does Wrongberg have a problem with LBP—the leading reason why patients seek chiro care?] They know very well that the FCER’s 2005 teleconference series was called “Back to the Future ‑‑ New Perspectives in Back Pain Research.” [So, what’s your point? Is back pain a taboo issue to these vitalists?}

FCER has no interest in doing the kind of research most chiropractors want [Once again, Wrongberg mistakenly speaks for mainstream DCs, a fatal error for this demagogue.] and frankly, it hasn’t been able to scrape up enough funds to do much research at all. In the Spring/Summer 2005 issue of the FCER publication Advance, Dr. William Meeker complained, “there are not many more people doing chiropractic research now than there were 10 years ago… We can’t even find jobs for promising young scientists in our institutions. Only a small number of grant applications are submitted to the National Institutes of Health, even though manipulation research is explicitly on their scientific agenda. Our peer‑reviewed scientific journals are in chronic financial trouble.” [So Wrongberg’s answer is to create bogus, for-profit patient solicitation schemes under the guise of research? In fact, can he tell us what astounding research came from his ill-fated VSRI?]

And Perle wants the profession to keep doing what it’s been doing rather than try something new? [We’re all for ethical innovation, not bogus scams to defraud the public and profession, ya folla Wrongberg?]

That sounds to me like Einstein’s definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” [Likewise, trying to prove the Big Hyperbole over and over again isn’t insanity?]

Ad hominem ho hum

No doubt, Perle will categorize this column of mine as an ad hominem attack, [just as Wrongberg has done to others who he envies, such as Lou Sportelli, Jim Edwards, and even JCS, Lord of the GOA.] all the while failing to admit that calling the VSRI program a “scam” is, in essence, a personal attack. [As the leading Evil Vendor in this profession, you should take it personally when your scam is revealed.] Or that accusing the RCS researchers of “bait and switch” is equally personal. [Indeed, selling a research project that is actually a patient solicitation scheme is a bait and switch scam that should embarrass any reputable researcher.] He likes to hide behind a sanctimonious veil of false civility. [Oh my god—coming from this horse’s mouth, this is just too ironic! Wrongberg’s journalism is nothing less than sanctimonious evil spewing by a demagogue to fool the profession to follow his misguided machinations, ya folla? Every demagogue in this profession has done the same—from BJ to Parker to Rev. Reggie to Big $id—they all use a supposed attack on chiropracTIC to rally the troops in order to profit. Now we see the WCA guys do the same in their yellow journalism.]

And note that he has stated: “There is one situation in which ad hominem is a valid argument ‑‑ when it is used to attack the credibility of a person who is the sole source of information, not on the validity of their deduction, for there is none. For example, one chiropractor wrote me: ‘You are the most unprincipled man on earth and should do the profession a favor and jump off a cliff.’ Since he presented no logical argument or evidence that I am unprincipled, attacking his credibility is a valid argument.” [I’ve had the same displeasure of dealing with hate-straights who personally attack whenever any critical thinker questions the validity of their chirovangelism or their evil vendor leaders. Just like a religious fanatic, they cannot deal rationally with the issues; instead they attack the messengers.]

Actually, I think Perle’s column on RCS provides ample evidence that its author is unprincipled, since it contains the same kind of lies and misinformation we see on Barrett’s “Quackbuster” site all the time. It’s not surprising that many of Perle’s articles are posted on the Quackbuster site in support of Barrett’s consistently misleading (and often outrageous) claims! [While Barrett is no friend of ours, he has shown the downside of this profession with the pseudo-scientific claims made by the hate-straights in the WCA and ICA. Indeed, charlatans like Wrongberg actually fuel Barrett’s fire with ample proof of the lunacy of some of our colleagues, ya folla?]

My column, then, is no ad hominem attack but simply a way to expose Perle’s lack of credibility. [Perle has plenty of credibility within this profession and Wrongberg’s silly attack will not diminish it whatsoever. In fact, Stephen’s column and Wrongberg’s response perfectly illustrate the nonsense by which the RCS and the WCA are founded upon. One fact is clear: Wrongberg will attack anyone who opposes his schemes.]

Let’s tell the truth [Okay, stop laughing!]

I think it’s clear that there’s more going on here than just one disgruntled, “embarrassed” chiropractor trying to destroy a research program he wasn’t invited to participate in. [Oh, geez. It’s as simple as that, eh?] A lot more. [Oh, please enlighten us.]

When a state board tells subluxation‑based chiropractors they can’t discuss innate intelligence or nerve interference in their ads, but approves ads from “chiropractic physicians” that display a laundry list of pain symptoms and complaints, there’s more going on. [Yes! It’s called cleaning up our image by stopping the gobbledygook in ads—those statements that are cultish with unproven hyperbole.]

When American Chiropractic Association representatives to the government advisory committees vote in favor of having medical gatekeepers and against references to subluxation correction, and then hypocritically wastes $7,000,000 on a law suit to Save Our Subluxation, there’s more going on. [Again, Wrongberg mischaracterizes the VA decision: DCs are second-tier specialists and not PCPs, so the best we could have is what we got or we would have gotten nothing if the ACA reps had demanded PCP or else.]

When the same people who developed the Mercy Guidelines try to foist their “next generation of limited back pain treatment guidelines” CCGPP “Best Practices” document on the profession, regardless of massive opposition from subluxation‑based chiropractors, there’s more going on. [Where’s the “massive opposition from sub-based chiros” coming from? No less than Wrongberg’s poisoned pen! I’ve not heard of any massive demonstration against the CCGPP document at all; in fact, I’ve heard only praise and the need to create our own Best Practices before someone else does it for us. His comment is just another example of journalistic fraud when editors state their own opinions as fact! Logon to ]

You don’t have to be a research scientist to look at the mounting evidence and see that the attack on RCS is part of a larger campaign against subluxation‑centered chiropractic. [There he goes again with his demagoguery—any attack on his scams is projected as an attack on sub-centered chiropractic.] The opponents don’t have the guts ‑‑ or the ethics ‑‑ to just come out and say it [Hey Wrongberg, while you’re challenging your opponents to come out, when will you come out of your spider hole and accept my challenge to an open debate? Indeed, just who had no guts, you girlyman!], but Perle came pretty close when he sent an e‑mail last year stating: “Now we must undertake the effort to weed the fringe out of the profession (CCE’s decision on Life should help reduce their breeding rate). This I believe is an ethical obligation of the profession to the public.” [So true!]

Well, listen up Dr. Perle. Subluxation‑based chiropractors are NOT the “fringe” of this profession. [Since when has Wrongberg become the spokesman for anyone other than his few WCA sycophants?] We ARE the bulk of this profession and we will not allow you and your comrades in arms to weed us out. [Here comes the war cry of the demagogue to save the profession from the evil reformists. Now he will follow with his sales pitch, ya folla?] We will continue to support RCS [I told you he’d make his plea for money!] because it’s the one sure way we have of proving that chiropractic’s unique subluxation correction service has a long‑term beneficial effect on health. [Why bother with the so-called research if you’ve already come to your conclusion, Wrongberg?]

And if that gives Perle even more reasons to be embarrassed to be a chiropractor, then I wish him well in whatever less shameful profession he wishes to join. [Indeed, with the loonies like Wrongberg and his WCA cohorts, there’s plenty of reason to be embarrassed.] Perhaps there’s a full time opening on Bridgeport University’s mechanical engineering staff? [Is this an attempt at ridicule, Wrongberg? I doubt a full time teaching position in mechanical engineering is a put down to most folks, except for the WCA crazed sycophants, ya folla?]


Obviously Wrongberg isn’t interested in true science as much as he uses this as a ploy to profit by financing this RCS scam. While he wants to appear as a leading edge research promoter, in fact, his agenda is laden with an anachronistic attitude that would even shock ol’ dad chiro himself, DD Palmer.


“Every important chiropractic idea that I have advanced has been bitterly assailed, yet, although somewhat discouraged at times, I have not turned from that which I knew was correct,” said DD Palmer in his book, The Chiropractor. “Science is the knowledge of knowing… Knowledge is superior to faith and belief.”


Perhaps Wrongberg should listen to our Founder rather than ranting on his own against Dr. Perle’s idea of reform, ethics and progress. Anyone who has ever questioned the old ideas in this profession is attacked by those who are frightened to think out of the box of old ideas. Indeed, should we continue along DD’s agenda and speak of “nerve vibration” as the essence of life? Should our profession remain in the 1890 mindset about science or advance? Obviously, DD himself would want scientific advancement, altho his son, Bartholomew Joshua might disagree.


“As Dr. Palmer unblushingly states in his booklet, “Majors and Minors,” that nothing new or of value can possibly come to the chiropractic profession except through him, it of course, always appears audacious to him when any other person in the field deigns to raise his voice in opposition.  Somehow he is able to cast the “spell” over many of his students, and they are wont to write and ask his opinion before they would even change their winter under-garments.  Such students seem to lose all power to think and act for themselves and become merely automatons in the profession.”

1917 (Sept): National (School) Journal of Chiropractic, J.M. McLeese, D.C., a National grad and future president and owner of Texas Chiropractic College, authors “Live and let live*” (pp. 6-8).


So, I challenge our chirovangelists who wish to remain intellectually in the past to accept DD’s belief in science rather than to remain stagnant in the ruts of BJ’s chirovangelism. Don’t look upon Wrongberg as a conservative leader since he is not; he is merely another Evil Vendor acting as a demagogue to incite passions, to demonize mixers and medics, and to profit by selling products/services/diplomas, just as Big $id did for too long.


If this profession is to progress, it’s not by following Evil Vendors whether they be practice gurus, insurance salesmen, college administrators/educators, phony alliance leaders or researchers. This baggage must be abandoned, these demagogues must be exposed for what they are, and our rank and file must adopt a modern attitude of progress and reform if we are to survive as the proud profession we should be.


Enuf sed, ya folla?