Sent to me by Dr. Len Schwartz.
drlen@chiropowerinc.com

2/20/02

I received an e-mail from a malpractice lawyer who wrote the 
following to me:

„One of my clients (an insurance carrier) has recently picked up a 
book of business insuring chiropractors and since I may be 
representing their insured, I was asked to do a little research and 
provide an opinion on certain forms of chiropractic advertisements 
that may in the future have an impact on potential malpractice 
defenses. My intent is not to argue the benefits or lack thereof 
regarding chiropractic care. Instead, I pass along to you the benefit 
of the opinion I recently provided.
 
Having reviewed a number of chiropractic web sites, yours included, 
I note a rather uniform and consistent reference to quotes from 
various physicians (M.D., D.O. & PhD) espousing the effectiveness of 
chiropractic care. I assume, many chiropractors subscribe to some 
central source, which provides reference to these quotes, which are 
then incorporated into web sites in the form of an endorsement. 
 
Within 1/2 hour, I was able to determine that many of the authors 
uniformly quoted on chiropractic web sites have either been dead for 
a very long time, have questionable credential, or have been grossly 
misquoted out of context. As an individual posting these quotes, you 
have an obligation and duty to investigate the accuracy and 
credibility of the statements you purport as advertising 
endorsement. Any layperson reading your information can reasonably 
assume the information to be correct and accurate, and if not can 
use the misrepresentation as impeachment to your (generically) 
credibility in a lawsuit. 
 
Again, my intent here is not to debate chiropractic care, but instead 
to pass along a word of caution about the manner in which you 
advertise and to some extent bolster the efficacy of chiropractic 
care through the use of "quotes" from allopathic physicians. You 
tread on very dangerous water here and I would be very careful about 
disseminating information which may come back to haunt you in the 
future.
 
My opinion to my carrier was to pass along the same caution to their 
insured's. If I was able to determine the misrepresentations within 
1/2 hour of research, imagine what a plaintiff's lawyer can and will 
do with more extensive investigation.

ääI am telling you that some of your sources have been dead for 100 
years; some of your sources are cited from 40+ years ago; and some 
of your sources have questionable credentials. That you cite the 
journal is your attempt to bolster credibility -- lay people are not 
expected to research journals you advertise. Further, overall 
credibility is based on current literaturee, trends and peer review. 
Information and/or statements which are 50 - 75 - 100 years old 
and not currently supported by peer review, are legally deemed as 
"junk science" and not admissible in court. Take my word for it.¾

So I did some research.
I spoke to a Mr. Copulos who headed a government reform committee 
(on this type of thing) and also spoke to my friend Dr. Tedd Koren 
about his experience. Here is the bottom line. It doesn't matter if 
someone from 1792 said that chiropractic is the best thing on earth. 
There is no „official¾ definition for „junk science¾ and just because 
something is not peer reviewed doesn't mean that you can't 
„advertise¾ that quote somewhere. The one thing that you do need to 
be aware of is misquoting someone, or taking a quote out of context. 
I also found out that it is very important that you assign a date and a 
source for your quotes. Again, the age of the quote doesn't matter, 
but citing the date and source of the quote allows the reader to know 
when the quote was made thus allowing the reader to make his/her 
own opinion as to the credibility of the quote.