When the Texas Medical Association Looks for Quacks, It Should Search Its Own House
By George McAndrews, Esq.
With sincere misgivings about utilizing or repeating the latest outrageous attack on chiropractic recently unveiled by the Texas Medical Association's Political Action Committee, but as a prelude to my evaluation of its twisted concept of health care, I reproduce a recent document created by that "Quack PAC." [See images below.]The TMA's actions have just made my blood boil! Shades of 1963, when the AMA decided to form a Committee on Quackery.Back then, the arrogance and all-powerful position of the AMA emboldened the organization to act with impunity, regardless of the illegality of its activities. The AMA boldly stated in its "internal memoranda" that its goal was to first contain, and then eliminate, the profession of chiropractic.
Imagine the arrogance of the AMA's thoughts and actions: Just because it did not like chiropractors, it could eliminate the entire profession in all 50 states? The AMA was no more interested in "patient safety" by eliminating chiropractic than the tobacco companies were interested in people's health by selling cigarettes.
The AMA, we now know, is interested in one thing: a monopoly over all health care delivery. I could list the many social programs the AMA has been opposed to, but suffice it to say, its goals are not lofty, its intent is not honorable and its methodology is not laudable.
It is no surprise that in Texas, the Texas Board of Medical Examiners and the Texas Medical Association have taken up the subversive objectives of the AMA under the ruse of a state medical board trying to "protect the innocent public" from quackery. Let's see who's looking in a mirror.
The real quackery in this latest despicable Texas Medical Association PAC advertisement is the deceit of the hypocritical political medical action committee. Apparently all is fair game in politics, but I am certain many of the practicing clinical medical physicians in Texas are humiliated by the actions of their political organizations, just as members of the AMA were appalled to learn of the action of their national association.
The ad pictured is technically not deceptive; of course Dr. VanDeWalle is not licensed as a medical physician by the medical board. So what? The fact is Dr. VanDeWalle never claimed to be. Neither are the thousands of dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, psychologists and yes, even doctors of divinity, who are all "doctors," licensed by their respective boards to practice their non-allopathic method of healing, serving and caring.
After the AMA was found guilty of conspiring to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession, it changed its tactics under an ongoing court injunction. And therein lies the issue that has not gone away.
The issue simply is that the AMA has in the past, and will in the future, continue to be one of the major causes of, not solutions for, the health care crisis in America. By its power and influence, the AMA has managed to "contain and eliminate" lower-cost and more effective health care providers from offering services that would impact the AMA directly as competition in health care delivery.
The AMA fought (and continues to fight) nurse practitioners and physician assistants who would be able to deliver primary care; doctors of chiropractic who are viewed as a competitive model to medical care, particularly in the neuromusculoskeletal arena; naturopathic doctors, who would be competing with medical physicians; psychologists who would infringe on psychiatrists; midwives competing with obstetricians ... the list goes on.
While it is "legal" to petition the legislature to address a grievance, what is not legal is the subversive activities that are going on behind the scenes. What the medical associations are doing suggests in my opinion, racketeering.
You read that correctly: The RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act of 1970 should be considered being used against the individual and collective medical associations in some fashion. (See the AMA News, July 20, 1990.) Am I delusional? Let's look at the facts.
Doctors in the state of Washington can attest to the fact that the Washington state medical groups (with a supportive brief filed by the AMA) attempted to eliminate chiropractic providers from doing truck-driver physicals. The Texas Medical Board is trying to systematically reduce doctors of chiropractic to essentially a no-health-authority practitioners and is now trying this underhanded method to see that a doctor of chiropractic does not get elected to the Texas legislature [Dr. VanDeWalle lost the runoff election]– not based on a lack of qualifications, but a lack of an MD degree! Travel to Virginia, where the Virginia Medical Board (a composite board) is attempting to define what a doctor of chiropractic can do. (By the way, most board members are medical physicians, with only one DC member.) The AMA has sent its disciples to destroy any competition that would interfere with the medical monopoly.
In my opinion, this is toying with the RICO Act, and apparently the AMA did not learn its initial lesson with Wilk et al v AMA et al, where the AMA was found to have engaged in a "lengthy, systematic, successful and unlawful boycott" of members of the chiropractic profession. Maybe it is time for the profession to consider another attack against the AMA and its estimated 1,900 state, county and local affiliates – in court, where "rules of evidence" and "discovery" will be the determining procedure to be followed and not some propaganda piece in a newspaper.
There is still a conspiracy existing in the health care delivery system and if anyone does not believe it, the attack against the doctor of chiropractic running for the Texas State House of Representatives is a good place to start.
Musculoskeletal Care: No Contest
As you can undoubtedly see, I am extremely troubled at the AMA and its affiliates, who have for decades enjoyed a privileged class, akin to the fourth branch of government. What's more, they have contributed to the escalating cost of health care delivery by their monopoly on the marketplace, and have subverted every attempt to reform the system.
But most revolting and inexcusable, they are covering up the lack of training and skill of medical physicians in areas where their own studies show that chiropractic excels; and while doing so, contribute to the pain, suffering, unnecessary surgery and drug addiction / dependency of millions of patients.
Evidence from many trials and many research projects clearly demonstrates the superiority of chiropractic services in the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions:
Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction, evidence and outcomes are all clearly evident and not contested. The education and training of the DC is superior for NMS conditions, and for anyone to call the DC a quack when the very definition of Quack – a person who falsely pretends to have medical skills or knowledge – is unquestionably the medical physician, whose limited training and skills are obvious from their own tests and studies. This should cause concern about who is calling whom a quack.
I dedicate this to all those who have been and are still suffering from the misinformation disseminated by the medical profession and its organized Quack PACs. May they find relief and health from the knowledge and truth displayed above and in many, many other studies and admissions. (For example, see the Medical Times, New York, 1921, 'Sympathetic Segmental Disturbances-II' by Henry Winsor, MD, pages 267-271.)
Editor's note: Click here to review supporting documentation / references used in the writing of this article.
Dr. VanDeWalle lost the Jan. 28, 2014 run-off election for Texas House District 50 to Celia Israel, garnering 41 percent of the vote to Israel's 59 percent. To learn more about Dr. VanDeWalle, read the app version of this article. (Click here to register for the free app.)
George McAndrews served as lead trial counsel for the successful plaintiffs in the celebrated 14-year antitrust case, Wilk et al v. AMA et al.; and as lead plaintiff's counsel in the racketeering case Chinnici v Central DuPage Hospital et al. (1990). Learn more by clicking here.