Toronto, June 4, 2002 ‚ E-mail correspondence 
from Dr. John Norris, the immediate past chair of the Canadian 
Stroke Consortium, to anti-chiropractic crusader Dr. Murray Katz 
today revealed the extent of collaboration between the two 
physicians to discredit the chiropractic profession.  The e-mail 
dated August 2, 2000 reads: „Murray ‚ I¼m back!  Sure I¼d be happy to 
consult these cases as long as I¼m not treading on your toes.  Your 
remarks about the chiros indicate a high degree of panic! We¼ve got 
them on the run!¾ 

                             Numerous pieces of correspondence between the 
two were entered into evidence during the day¼s testimony including 
an e-mail news release from 60 neurologists for which Dr. Norris 
was listed as a contact.  The release describes the Stroke 
Consortium as having „published a major prospective study¾ 
regarding the association between chiropractic neck adjustment and 
stroke.  Dr. Norris testified that the release had misrepresented the 
Consortium¼s work.  He stated that although he had received a draft 
of the release to review he did not correct the inaccuracy.  Dr. Norris 
further testified that he did not think putting his name on the 
release as a contact could be perceived as endorsement of its 
contents.

                         

                             He stated that many of the conclusions drawn 
from the study were „speculative¾ and „conjecture¾ and he 
confirmed that more than 100 cases in the Consortium¼s stroke 
study have been removed due to incomplete information and 
suspected bias toward associating stroke with neck adjustment.  Dr. 
Norris also testified that the methodology for the study has never 
been published nor has it undergone external peer review both of 
which are standard procedures for validating the credibility of 
research.

                         

                             Counsel Tim Danson noted that as recently as 
April 2002, the study¼s website reported that follow-up data on half 
the patients in the study was missing.  Dr. Norris testified that the 
situation had now been corrected and agreed that missing data would 
invalidate the study¼s conclusions.  He could not say how long the 
situation had persisted.

                         

                             Danson drew the jury¼s attention to a commentary 
on stroke associated with neck adjustment which Dr. Norris wrote 
for the Canadian Medical Association Journal in July 2000 in which 
he attributes Ms. Lewis¼ stroke to neck adjustment.  Danson asked Dr. 
Norris what evidence he had at that time to come to that conclusion.  
Dr. Norris replied that his conclusion was based on what he had read 
in the newspapers.