concise information. That's what everyone should be utilizing and, if they don't have the tools for that, certainly bring to any of our attention things that you see out in the public. You also said something about our own colleagues putting out information about, I'll just pick one, neuropathy. It's not to suggest that we shouldn't take care of patients suffering from neuropathy or diabetic neuropathy, but some of the promotion that we get to see simply says, "Where medicine has failed, we can definitely make you better." I'm exaggerating, but only a little bit. Those are the things that wind up going to our licensing boards, and then we complain that our boards are being unfair. I've written about our boards being activists and some of the things I think are unfair, but not everything. We have to take responsibility, as you said, for what we're talking about, what we're writing, what we're putting out in the public because it affects the entire profession, not just you as an individual. I think that's where you touched on. I appreciate your words on that. I guess it's the long way of saying it. Where do we go from here? Is there any avenues left with this whole Baylor issue? Is there more back and forth? What's still available to us? I don't believe that's a viable option. I don't believe that's ... I think, as much as we want to do that, as much as we feel assaulted by their attitude and their perspective on some of these things, I'll be honest with you, the feedback came from them. I'm paraphrasing this, but it basically said, "Hey, listen. [inaudible 00:30:01] you want us to make to this matter is three times longer than the original article. We're not going to do that." It came down to the length of the response was too much in comparison to the original article. I was dumbfounded by the idea that sometimes it takes a long time to explain a problem. When you put the problem on the table, then it takes a good bit of information to correct it so that it's understandable, why wouldn't we want to pursue this? I didn't understand there was a word limit to addressing these kinds of concerns. Relative to this, the real bottom line is that Stu Hoffman can respond to the things that come onto the table, Jerry Clum can respond to the things that come onto the table, other people who have a good understanding of the literature can do the same thing, but we need to disseminate that knowledge base among the chiropractic community at large, and every chiropractor needs to take responsibility for being on top of this literature and understanding what it says and understanding, more importantly, what it means. I, quite honestly, haven't thought that far into it. If you're suggesting can we bring litigation against them, can we complain to somebody, that sort of thing. I was indicating that, yes.
Dr. Clum:
Dr. Hoffman:
Dr. Clum:
Made with FlippingBook HTML5