Being kind and friendly helps patients get better.

November 16, 2010
By

image As the best chiropractor in Europe I had always hoped it was because of my superior adjusting skills and now I know its because I kissed the blarney stone when I was young and like to have a good laugh with my clients.

CAM bigots get very excited because homeopathy does not make any “scientific sense” and so what if its just a placebo and  works because homeopaths are pleasant people who have time for their patients and listen to them. Why are the bigots not campaigning for nice friendly GPs with more time for their consultations as opposed to Nice friendly CAM practitioners.

CAM bigots say all I do is give a back rub that has no biological basis as to why it should affect the function of the nervous system- Dahh. New research tells us not only does my skilful adjusting technique stimulate joint receptors and facilitates the healing process, the fact I am not very “professional” and like to talk and have a bit of a laugh with clients is also of benefit to them.

By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent Daily Telegraph

Homeopathy works – but it is talking, not tinctures that helps patients

Homeopathy can reduce the symptoms of disease, but it is the consultations not the remedies which are responsible, a new study has found.

Sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis who visited a homeopathic doctor experienced significant reductions in pain, inflammation and other key markers of the disease, the research shows.

Yet it made no difference whether the solution they received was a genuine homeopathic tincture prescribed to treat rheumatism, or a placebo.

The research, published today in the journal Rheumatology compared different groups of patients, who were already being given conventional medication for the disease

Those who had a series of five consultations with a homeopathic doctor experienced “significant clinical benefits,” – whether the tincture they received was a specially prepared “homeopathic” remedy used to treat rheumatism, or a placebo.

Patients given exactly the same remedies without the consultations did not gain the improvements.

The study’s authors said the findings suggested that simply “talking and listening” to patients could dramatically assist their health.

Prof George Lewith, Professor of Health Research from Southampton University, said: “This research asked the question: ‘Is homeopathy about the talking, or is it about the medicine?’ We found it was about the talking, and indeed about the listening.”

Homeopathy is based on a theory that substances which cause symptoms in a healthy person can, when vastly diluted, cure the same problems in a sick person. Proponents say the resulting “remedy” retains a “memory” of the original ingredient – a concept dismissed by scientists.

While the study suggested the remedies itself had no benefit, conventional medics should learn from the way homeopaths treated their patients, said Prof Lewith, a reader in the University’s Complementary Medicine Research Unit

“When you place the patient at the heart of the consultation you get a powerful effect. I think there are a lot of lesssons here for conventional medics about the need for patient-centred care, instead of treating people as walking diseases.”

Dr Sarah Brien, the study’s lead author, said that while previous research had suggested homeopathy could help patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the study provided the first scientific evidence to show such benefits were “specifically due to its unique consultation process”. END

This research not included in Bronfort et al: begs the question if being warm and kind to someone helps them get better why is the GCC going after chiropractor Alan Taylor. Perhaps warm and kind are not emotions GCC people are familiar with at least according to former GCC employee Maxine White.

PARTICULARS OF THE GCC ALLEGATION: against Alan Taylor
Who has a hearing later on 22/11/10 That, whilst a registered chiropractor:
1. At the material times, you were in practice as a chiropractor at Eastbourne Chiropractic
Clinic, 5 Old Orchard Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex, BN21 1DB;
2. Patient A first consulted you for chiropractic treatment on an unknown date in 1999 and
continued to be your patient until January 2006;
3. You did not know Patient A before you commenced seeing her as a patient;
4. In the period in which Patient A was your patient, you conducted a personal relationship
with her, during which:
(a) you and members of your family visited Patient A’s home on a social basis for
meals with Patient A and her family;
(b) Patient A attended yoga classes at your home, and on occasions:
(i) Patient A was the only pupil attending; and/or
(ii) Patient A remained at your home until around 11.45pm;
(c) you took walks alone with Patient A;
(d) you took Patient A out for meals and to plays;
(e) on or about 26 and 27 August 2004, you sent a series of text messages of a
personal nature to Patient A;
(f) you were in telephone or text communication with Patient A on a number of
occasions from 9 September 2005 to 8 October 2005 early in the morning and
late at night;
(g) you arranged for Patient A to be insured to drive your car and she drove you in
it;
5. Given your continuing professional relationship as Patient A’s treating chiropractor,
your personal relationship, as detailed at paragraphs 4 (a) to (g) above, either
individually or cumulatively was:
(a) inappropriate;
(b) and/or improper;
6. By your conduct of a personal relationship with Patient A, you failed to maintain
appropriate professional boundaries;
7. You became aware from your treatment of Patient A, of the difficulties Patient A was
experiencing in her marriage at the time;
8. By pursuing a personal relationship with Patient A, you abused the position of trust you
held as her treating chiropractor;

Share Button

Related posts:

  1. Making the complaint fit the GCC Code of Practice so charges can be brought.
  2. Its none of Margaret Coats business how adult chiropractors get their sexual pleasures, when patients are not involved.
  3. A typical GCC complaint. Due to a chiropractors incompetence or just bad luck that patient came in?
  4. How the General Chiropractic Council uses Private Investigators to regulate. In 2007 Peter Dixon denied the GCC used PIs?
  5. Margaret Coats may have chiropractors attending the ECU conference in London arrested
  6. According to General Chiropractic Council we could treat sciatica, asthma and infant colic, between October 2003 and March 2010
  7. PCC find 18 chiropractors not guilty of trying to mislead the public into thinking they were medical doctors. 680 to go.

Tags: ,

  • http://spinaljoint.com Richard Lanigan

    Two “misters” were witnesses for the GCC, presumeably the ex husband was one of them. The women herself supported the chiropractor who befriended her.

  • Rod MacMillan

    So who made the complaint?

  • Garland Glenn

    You can’t fix stupid.

  • http://spinaljoint.com Richard Lanigan

    The PCC found this guy guilty and suspended him for a month. Below is what the PCC stated; http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/hearing_file/Notice_of_Finding_(web)1.pdf Perhaps the GCC is hoping to stop chiropractors breeding, because many chiropractors marry people they meet through practice. The Chiropractor and the patient were happy about the friendship, the PCC and the former husband were not.

    During the hearing, all Particulars of the Allegation with the exception of Particular 4(d) were admitted and found proved. The Committee, having considered the evidence in this case and the submissions made on behalf of Dr Taylor and the GCC, determined that the allegation of Unacceptable Professional Conduct was well founded. Whilst it found the Unacceptable Professional Conduct to be serious, the Committee decided that it was not fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be a registered chiropractor. The Committee concluded that a one month Suspension Order is a sufficient and proportionate sanction and the minimum necessary to maintain confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct.

    Dr Taylor,
    At the outset of the hearing, Mr Robertson, on your behalf, admitted the facts and matters as
    set out in Particulars 1 , 2, 3, 4(a), 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), 4(c), 4(e), 4(f), 4(g), 5(a) and (b), except in
    relation to 4(d), 6, 7 and 9. In accordance with Rule 6 (3) (a) of the General Chiropractic
    Council (Professional Conduct Committee) Rules 2000 (the Rules), those facts and matters
    are therefore found proved.

    During the hearing Mr Robertson on your behalf admitted Particular 8 and Particular 10,
    except in relation to Particular 4(d). In accordance with Rule 6(3)(a) of the Rules, those facts
    admitted were also found proved.
    Before reaching a decision on Particular 4(d), the Committee considered carefully all the oral
    and documentary evidence, including the documents provided by you, and the submissions
    made on your behalf and on behalf of the General Chiropractic Council. It has also taken into
    account the advice of the legal assessor, and has borne in mind that the burden is on the
    General Chiropractic Council to prove its case and that the standard of proof is the civil
    standard, which is the balance of probabilities.
    In its consideration of the evidence, the Committee found Mr W and Mr B to be honest and
    measured witnesses, upon whom the Committee could rely. The Committee found you and
    Patient A at times, to be evasive when answering questions and consequently the Committee
    found this evidence less reliable.
    With regard to Particular 4(d), the Committee has found this not proved.
    4
    The Committee heard evidence from Mr W in relation to whether you took Patient A out for
    meals and to plays. Mr W’s evidence was based on information that he said he had obtained
    from Patient A. While on other matters the Committee found Mr W’s evidence to be cogent
    and it could rely upon it, on this matter, he was unclear about the year, the times and the
    occasions when this was supposed to have occurred. Further, both you and Patient A denied
    that this had occurred in the way that this Particular was framed, in that it alleges that you had
    specifically taken Patient A out for meals and to plays.
    On this basis, the Committee was not satisfied to the required standard that Particular 4(d)
    could be found proved. Particular 5(a) and (b) and Particular 10 are, consequently, not
    proved with regard to Particular 4(d).
    UNACCEPTABLE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
    The Committee went on to consider whether the facts found proved in your case amount to
    Unacceptable Professional Conduct, which is conduct falling short of the standard required of
    a registered chiropractor in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Chiropractors Act 1994. The
    Committee determined they did amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
    In reaching this decision, the Committee noted that Mr Robertson, on your behalf, did not
    contest that your behaviour amounted to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
    The Committee’s reasons for its decision are that you breached the fundamental principle
    which is set out in the Standard of Proficiency and Code of Practice issued pre-June 2005, at
    section 2, paragraph 2.6 with regard to personal relationships. You admitted and the
    Committee has found proved that you became involved in an improper personal relationship
    with Patient A and until this complaint was drawn to your attention, you took no steps to
    arrange for Patient A to be treated by another chiropractor. In the course of your evidence, you
    admitted that you became emotionally involved with Patient A while she was your patient and
    you realise now that you failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.
    Patient A first consulted you for chiropractic treatment on an unknown date in 1999 and
    continued to be your patient until January 2006. During this period you conducted a personal
    relationship with Patient A during which you and members of your family visited Patient A’s
    home on a social basis. Patient A attended yoga classes at your home. On occasions she was
    the only pupil attending and on occasions she remained at your home until around 11.45 p.m.
    You took walks alone with Patient A and on or about the 26 and 27 August 2004 you sent a
    series of text messages of a personal nature to her. You were in telephone or text
    communication with Patient A on a number of occasions from 9 September 2005 to 8 October
    2005 early in the morning and late at night. You also arranged for Patient A to be insured to
    drive your car and she drove you in it.
    The Committee was particularly concerned that you did not fully acknowledge Patient A’s
    vulnerability. You appeared to differentiate Patient A’s vulnerability from the general
    vulnerability of patients in a chiropractor/ patient relationship. The Committee accepted the
    evidence of Mr. W and Mr B that Patient A was vulnerable during this period, despite her own
    evidence that she was strong willed and not vulnerable. From a reading of Patient A’s notes, it
    was quite clear to the Committee that you had recorded from first seeing Patient A in 1999 up
    until late 2003 that Patient A was seeing a psychologist, had marital problems and was
    suffering from emotional stress at home.
    5
    The Committee accepted the clear evidence of Mr W and Mr B about the accuracy of the typed
    text messages which you sent to Patient A. The Committee was satisfied from a reading of the
    text messages that you were seeking a long-term relationship with Patient A. In evidence, you
    admitted that someone reading those text messages could interpret them as being sent from
    someone infatuated and in love. Whilst neither you nor Patient A fully accepted the accuracy
    of those text messages, you both avoided answering questions in relation to the sense and tenor
    of the content of the messages.
    Members of the public are entitled to expect that chiropractors should respect the implicit trust
    and confidence that a patient should have in the professional conduct of a chiropractor. You
    failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Patient A.
    For these reasons, the Committee is satisfied that your conduct fell well below the standard
    required of a registered chiropractor and the Committee is satisfied that you are guilty of
    Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
    SANCTION
    Dr Taylor,
    The Committee has carefully considered the submissions made by Mr Cosgrove on behalf of
    the General Chiropractic Council and those made by Mr Robertson on your behalf. It has also
    taken account of the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Committee is mindful that its role is to
    protect the public, and in particular patients, to maintain public confidence in the profession,
    and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. In determining the appropriate
    sanction, the Committee has taken into account the General Chiropractic Council’s Indicative
    Sanctions Guidance. It has been mindful that any sanction should be proportionate and whilst
    not intended to be punitive, it may have that effect.
    The Committee first considered the sanction of admonishment. Mr Robertson submitted on
    your behalf that the sanction of admonishment is sufficient in this case. He submitted that you
    are of previous good history, that you have shown insight, and that you are willing to consult a
    clinical psychologist. He further submitted that there has been no repetition of the event since
    2005. Mr. Robertson produced fourteen testimonials from patients and colleagues which show
    that you are a highly respected and effective chiropractor. He also submitted that the
    Committee should take into account a number of the mitigating factors set out in the Guidance
    ‘Clear Sexual Boundaries Between Healthcare Professionals and Patients: Guidance For
    Fitness to Practise Panels’.
    Although a number of the factors relevant to an admonishment are present in your case, given
    the reasons for the finding of unacceptable professional conduct, the Committee determined
    that an admonishment would not reflect the seriousness of your conduct. In reaching this
    decision, it noted that there had been no apology or expression of regret.
    The Committee then considered whether or not a Conditions of Practice Order would be
    sufficient. This case concerns your relationship with a single patient over a long period of time.
    The Committee has heard no evidence of other problems with regard to you being able to
    maintain appropriate professional boundaries with patients. Therefore, the Committee was
    unable to identify areas of your practice in need of retraining. On that basis, it would not be
    possible for the Committee to formulate conditions that are appropriate, proportional, workable
    and measurable. Further, the Committee concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order would
    6
    be insufficient to maintain confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of
    conduct. Consequently, such an Order would not be the appropriate or proportionate sanction
    to impose in this case.
    The Committee then considered whether or not a Suspension Order would be appropriate in
    this case. It concluded that it would be and determined that a one month Suspension Order
    was the minimum sanction necessary to protect the public, maintain confidence in the
    profession and uphold proper standards of conduct.
    This was a serious breach of the fundamental principles, as set out in the Standards of
    Proficiency and Code of Practice issued pre-June 2005, with regard to personal relationships.
    You admitted that you became involved in an improper personal relationship with a patient and
    until this complaint was drawn to your attention you took no steps to arrange for the patient to
    be treated by another chiropractor. This relationship was with a married patient and you knew
    from the start that she had marital problems, financial problems, emotional stress at home and
    was being treated by a psychologist. You knew or ought to have known that these problems
    would make this patient particularly vulnerable. Despite the evidence that this was a
    consensual relationship, it was your responsibility to maintain appropriate professional
    boundaries. Such relationships are inappropriate because the relationship between a
    practitioner and a patient is not an equal one. By crossing the boundary between a patient and a
    professional, your conduct was inevitably serious.
    With regard to insight, you made a number of admissions at the start of, and during this
    hearing. Further, in a witness statement prepared by you in mitigation, you stated that you
    now understand what boundaries need to be observed and believe that you have sufficient
    insight into your failings. The Committee accepts that you now have an understanding of the
    importance of maintaining professional boundaries. However, the Committee remains
    concerned that you still perceive your relationship with Patient A to have been outside the
    normal chiropractor/patient relationship because of your deep emotional attachment to her. The
    Committee considers that this is a serious aspect of the case and, taken with the other
    important issues, it has determined that suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case.
    In reaching its decision that suspension is the appropriate and proportionate sanction, the
    Committee concluded that your conduct was not fundamentally incompatible with you
    continuing to be a registered chiropractor.
    In determining the length of the period of suspension, the Committee took particular account
    of the fact that these events took place some five years ago and since that time there has been
    no repetition of this conduct. Consequently, the Committee has decided that a period of one
    month’s suspension would be sufficient, balancing the public interest with your interests and
    the interests of your patients.
    The Committee decided that it was not necessary in this case to order a review of this Order
    because of the short period of the suspension.
    In accordance with Section 31 of the Chiropractors Act 1994 and Rule 18(1)(a) of the General
    Chiropractic Council (Professional Conduct Committee) Rules 2000, this order will come into
    effect 28 days from the date on which notification of the decision is sent to you, unless you
    exercise your right of appeal, which must be exercised before the expiry of that 28 day period,
    in which case it will come into effect only if and when the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed.
    7
    The Committee is not minded to impose an interim suspension order to cover the period until
    the substantive order comes into effect or until any appeal, if there is one, is concluded. The
    Committee considered that such an order would be unnecessary because there is no issue of
    patient safety or clinical competence in this case.
    Chairman of the Professional Conduct Committee
    In accordance with provision of Rule 18(1)(a) of the General Chiropractic Council
    (Professional Conduct Committee) Rules 2000, we must remind you of your right of appeal
    under Section 31 of the Chiropractors Act 1994, as amended by Section 34 of the National
    Health Service Reform and Health Care Provisions Act 2002, to the High Court of Justice in
    England and Wales against this decision of the Committee. Any such appeal must be made
    before the end of the period of 28 days, beginning with the date upon which this notice is
    served upon you.
    Please note that the decision of this Committee is a relevant decision for the purposes of
    Section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002.
    As of 1 January 2009, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence has a period of 40
    days, in addition to any appeal period provided to the chiropractor, in which to lodge an
    appeal.
    Signed: Dated: 25 November 2010
    Winnie Walsh
    Specialist Officer (Regulation)
    On behalf of the Professional Conduct Committ

  • Eugene Pearce

    @ Skeptic Barista

    …… it has been scientifically shown that it’s the placebo effect from the consultation rather than the actual therapy.

    I can see how this is true across the full range of CAM therapies and chiropractic is no different to homeopathy!

    So the placebo effect only is involved in CAM we are so lucky. Medicine obviously doenst have any placebo effect associated with it at all.

    It is a stupid comment you make. Are you a Barriter? Placebo exists across the whole range of therapies, orthodox or CAM. There are undoubtedly in my opinion some conditions we definately appear to help above and beyond placebo, some I think we help, and some we dont help. I dont have a “control” clinic next door so I can’t be certain.

    I choose to practice where I believe the evidence is stronger, and tailor the treatment to the patients need.

    Give exercises
    Advise on how to manage pain, how to sleep, How they can deliver a Bowl and not get arm pain etc.
    Give balance exercises to prevent falling in osteoporosis,
    Teach old people how to get up off the floor if the fall,
    How to lift carry,
    Eply’s manouvre for BPPV,
    Stand at the river ness and watch someone fly casting (world distance champion) to determine why they have impingement.
    Make orthotics,
    Provide supports,
    Use Boston Brace for unstable Spondy following RTA
    And manipulate facet joints for back and neck pain

    All of this is in the chiropractors remit, and all very useful for the patient, why do you assume we are not properly trained, bogotry or informed.

    Do you really think that a website dedicted to “resisting the medicalistation of chiropractic” is representative of the profession. I may agree there is not suffiecient evidence to treat some of the conditions other chiropractors claim to treat. I also question the existence of an untestable subluxation and just see it as a model by which most treat back pain. The techniques chiropractors use are generally low risk compared to medical alternatives, so the level of evidence for efficacy does not need to be as high (although it would be nice). Having trained as a chiropractor I know our diagnostic skills are excellent and would defend the patients right to an informed choice very time.

  • Eugene Pearce

    @ skeptic Barrista

    I dont use he title Dr. I practice in a T-shirt and moleskin jeans, gave up on clinic jackets because I thought I looked like a Chef which was a bit silly.

    Still it could be worse I would look really stupid if I had to wear a cloak and a wig to work.

    Luckily I was playing Dr. last week when a lad came in with his “sprained ankle” diagnosed by GP… Slater Harris fracture, last year whiplash (hospital diagnosis…. DENS fracture, Bruised back….. Burst Fracture. I hope your real Dr gets all his diagnoses right, because only a fool wouldnt want a second opinion.

    @ Richard, are you seriously suggesting if the allegations are true that this guy hasnt overstepped professional boundaries, and we are using homeopathy as a defense??!!

  • Paul

    skeptic barista – are you the waiter chap?

  • http://spinaljoint.com Richard Lanigan

    There you go again seeing only what you want. If you knew anything about me you would know I dont use the doctor title (my clinic director however does use the title she has a PhD in chemistry.

    As for wearing a white coat? I dont wear suits, ties or white coats, what about you, are you y fronts or boxer shorts.

  • http://skepticbarista.wordpress.com/ Skeptic Barista

    Hopefully the frog won’t ask you for evidence to substantiate your claims!

    I thought the pic at the top of this post was VERY appropriate …
    …. an actor in a white coat playing at being a doctor!

    RRRIBET RRRIBET! Surely as a chiropractor you mean RUBIT RUBIT!

    :-)

  • http://spinaljoint.com Richard Lanigan

    @ SB
    You guys only see what confirms your beliefs “I had always hoped it was because of my superior adjusting skills and now I know its because I kissed the blarney stone when I was young and like to have a good laugh with my clients”

    So its fair to say, I understood the article, but thanks for your explanation. However I am not sure you do “I can see how this is true across the full range of CAM therapies and chiropractic is no different to homeopathy”!

    Chiropractic is very different from homeopathy, but if we are just talking about the consultation and the fact that all CAM practitioners understand the importance of a thorough consultation and examination, perhaps its the GPs and their seven minute slots you should be explaining the study to. They might actually get better results in treating back pain.

    If patients think I am a great chiropractor because my consultation is so good, I dont have a problem with that. If they get better because my consultation is so good I dont have a problem with that either.

    You still have to figure out though what happens physiologically when a chiropractor stimulates mechanoreceptors in a spinal joint with an adjustment. Homeopaths give some kind of potion which I believe is taken orally, chiropractors move a joint restoring motion to the joint. You should not need any scientific or anatomical knowledge to figure out the difference.

    If like Blue Wode et al you want to insist symmetrical spinal joint motion is not important and as long as you are without pain your are healthy, fine. As I have said before SB we will have to agree to disagree because I would rather discuss the matter with a frog, than continue to go around in circles trying to explain something you clearly can not get your head around. RRRIBET RRRIBET

  • Garland Glenn

    Skeptic

    Scientific does not equal true.It only equals scientific. AND Unscientific does not equal untrue or without value.

  • http://skepticbarista.wordpress.com/ Skeptic Barista

    Richard,

    Is good quality research evidence on the (supposed) benefits of chiropractic so lacking that you need to refer to a news paper article on placebo effects of homeopathy in treating rheumatoid arthritis!

    You comment on ‘CAM bigots’ who don’t believe that homeopathy works, well the research you quote seems to back that up:
    “Yet it made no difference whether the solution they received was a genuine homeopathic tincture prescribed to treat rheumatism, or a placebo.”

    I’ve not managed to get a copy of the actual report, but from the article it is clear that the CAM in question was of no value what-so-ever in treating the condition. The study actually says:

    “the study provided the first scientific evidence to show such benefits were “specifically due to its unique consultation process”

    So although there seems to be a benefit from CAM without any actual evidence to support it …… it has been scientifically shown that it’s the placebo effect from the consultation rather than the actual therapy.

    I can see how this is true across the full range of CAM therapies and chiropractic is no different to homeopathy!

  • http://www.chiropracticlifehove.com Karen McMinn

    Lets get more Patch Adam Chiropractors!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://spinaljoint.com Richard Lanigan

    Skepticat,I am not defending anybody, and I wont loose any sleep by not being taken seriously by your community.

    I dont know all the details of the case, only what is on the GCC website. But it appears the chiropractor became good friends with a patient who was having problems with her husband. I dont have a problem with that, if he had used the situation to have sex or take advantage of the patient that would be different in my opinion.

    Which takes me back to my original point warm kind people make good doctors, homeopaths, chiropractors or whatever. You prefer the ones who read journals and does as the research tell them.

  • http://www.skepticat.org Skepticat

    Richard wrote “This research not included in Bronfort et al: begs the question if being warm and kind to someone helps them get better why is the GCC going after chiropractor Alan Taylor.”

    Being “warm and kind to someone” includes pursuing a ‘personal relationship’ with a patient with marital problems? Do you seriously expect to be taken seriously as professionals if you defend someone who waited more than SIX years before remembering their professional boundaries?

  • Eugene Pearce

    Of course Homeopathy is tablet mediated psychotherapy, it is the only plausible xplanationif there is an effect beyond placebo.

    I’m not sure how the homeopathy analagy applies to taking a patient out to dinner and plays, if I did that for all my patients I would have to put my prices up.

  • Garland Glenn

    Bruce Lipton, PhDs book The Biology of Belief offers an explanation of how the “environment” effects the biology at the cellular level. I would strongly encourage every chiropractor to read it. It will help you understand how so much of what you do works.

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: