activator doctor. It's irrelevant," which is interesting because, this last week, we had an article come out documenting an activator adjustment causing a vertebral body dissection and stroke. In fact, I've been in touch with Arlan Fuhr about that, and he's doing exactly what you did in this situation. He's starting that process of responding to them with information that is relevant utilizing research, some that he's done and some that we've even talked about on here. I think it's very important that the doctors know that this information that comes out will get in the hands of every attorney in the country. When that happens, it's another thing that we have to deal with to overcome whenever you are accused wrongly of causing an actual dissection and stroke. Some of the doctors are very appreciative of that because they either had their own experience and/or know someone that has, but a lot of people don't realize how close this hits to home. One of the examples that I've given a number of times is, one of the claims, unfortunately, that we've taken in was an older woman that came in to the doctor's office, just filling out paperwork, and they see that she's not okay. They call 9-1-1, she winds up going to the hospital, they're saying it was a stroke, and she died. No one in the family knows what was going on. They called it a chiropractic stroke but, in the end, she never saw the chiropractor. She never even finished filling out her paperwork, but the fact that she merely came from the chiropractor's office just like this led to a lot of assumptions. Based on those assumptions, the family sues the chiropractor for causing her stroke and death. We have to understand that this is an attack, whether we like it or not, and we need to utilize information that is credible and just responding, which is what I want to get to, just responding, "No, that doesn't happen. No, this. No, that" and having it be an emotional response does not work. We need to use some of the references like, "You signed it earlier," and we have almost all of those in our informed consent packet already for the doctors to familiarize themselves with and be able to educate rather than defend. That's what my concern is with the doctors being able to understand that this information, when it comes out, it can be very far-reaching. It may not hit home for them personally or for them today, but it's something that we, as a profession, will have to deal with if it's not corrected for a long time to come. That's correct. One of the great things of the moment that we're living is the capacity that the internet provides us, and the problem is that there's no filter on it. There's no truth panel on the internet that says, "This is true. This is false." It's just up there. That's one part of it on the public side. On the more scientific side, when you go to something like PubMed, and that's where that attorney that you're talking about is going to go, they're going to find these case studies. The reality is that case studies cannot be used to establish causation nor can they be used to cause rates of incidence of a given circumstance or problem. That would be like you and me saying, "Stu, the last three people that I had
Dr. Clum:
Made with FlippingBook HTML5