Chiropractor Appointed to Harvard Medical School Faculty

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Yes, but tell it like it is PublicHealth, he was hired for his research work. He holds a Ph.D. and has done extensive research outside of chiropractic. In actual academia, very few institutions other than colleges of chiropractic accept the DC as an academic degree (that is one which can be used to credential for professorship). Harvard is such a place. From their manual on faculty appointment to the medical school, (Available at: http://www.hms.harvard.edu/fa/handbook/purplebook/Purple.pdf) the criteria for an assistant professor (the entry level) are:

As an investigator: "Two or more years post-M.D. or post-Ph.D. having completed elevant training and demonstrated major commitment to original and independent basic or clinical research."

For a clinician teacher: "Three or more years post-M.D. or post-Ph.D., with one or more years as Instructor or equivalent and with major commitment to teaching, and/or clinical service and/or academic community service."

An "academic part-time" track is open to those who demonstrate "Successful performance as clinical instructor or equivalent for two or more years, with major commitment to clinical service, teaching, and academic mission." However, clinical instructors are described elsewhere in the manual as "for physicians who participate in clinical teaching, but whose primary commitment is to professional activity outside HMS and HSDM and their affiliated institutions."

Bottom line, he was hired for his Ph.D., not his DC.

If we are supposed to legitimize chiropractic by the sucesses of those who have obtained a DC and then went on for more education, there are a large (relatively speaking) number of DCs who have obtained a DO or MD degree and are now working in some of the most prestigious hospitals in the country. But they are working as MDs or DOs, not chiropractors. The gentleman in the article you cite is working as a Ph.D., not a chiropractor.

- H
 
When I become junior faculty next year, do you think they will say "PT holds faculty position in medical school?" I hope not, they have hired me for my degree in medicine and my residency in emergency medicine!!!

der.
 
FoughtFyr said:
Bottom line, he was hired for his Ph.D., not his DC.

If we are supposed to legitimize chiropractic by the sucesses of those who have obtained a DC and then went on for more education, there are a large (relatively speaking) number of DCs who have obtained a DO or MD degree and are now working in some of the most prestigious hospitals in the country. But they are working as MDs or DOs, not chiropractors. The gentleman in the article you cite is working as a Ph.D., not a chiropractor.

- H
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, Dr. Bove is a good example of how chiropractors have fought to legimitize their profession and gain acceptance in medicine. According to the above article:

"In 1992, Dr. Bove co-authored "Family Physicians, Chiropractors and Back Pain" with Peter Curtis, MD, of the Department of Family Medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill. Published in the Journal of Family Practice in November of that year, it was touted as one of the most positive papers on chiropractic ever to appear in a medical journal. The article addressed the topic of family practitioners' understanding of and referral to DCs, and encouraged readers to "re-evaluate chiropractic" and "reconsider referrals to chiropractors for musculoskeletal problems." At the time, Dr. Bove was a Fellow of the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (FCER) and a PhD candidate at UNC."

Dr. Bove is also quoted as saying, "I am also going to start seeing patients two mornings a week, to get my hands back on patients." I'm curious to know if he will do so in Harvard hospitals, as studies evaluating the efficacy of chiropractic have been conducted within the Osher Institute and Division for Research and Education in Complementary and Integrative Medical Therapies there (http://www.osher.hms.harvard.edu/;http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/15/08/10.html). Several other allopathic medical institutions including Columbia, Rush, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, and Georgetown have caught on to the benefits of complementary and alternative medicine, some including chiropractic research, some not. Georgetown even established degree programs in the area (http://camprogram.georgetown.edu/index.html;http://som.georgetown.edu/cam/; http://som.georgetown.edu/cam/GUmed.pdf), and the NIH has developed a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (http://nccam.nih.gov/), which sponsors a number of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of chiropractic therapy(http://nccam.nih.gov/clinicaltrials/chiropractic.htm)

Current Harvard study: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/c/w2r/show/NCT00010985?order=3&JServSessionIdzone_ct=rd02fm5sc1

General info on CAM: http://nccam.nih.gov/news/camsurvey_fs1.htm

Also worth reading:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12567035

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9818801

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12463292

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12356612


Before outright denying the utility of complementary and alternative medicine, perhaps medical fundamentalists should open their eyes to the therapeutic world that exists outside of drugs and surgery. Americans spend tens of billions of dollars each year on CAM, much of which is out-of-pocket. While this may explain why money-hungry researchers at allopathic institutions jumped all over CAM, I sincerely believe that such therapies have more to offer than meets the allopathic eye. 😉
 
Obviously, this man is in the group of 10% of all chiros who are actually legit.

I'd love to ask him about subluxations.

I cant believe he compared Palmer college of chiropractic to Harvard. What a joke. Last time I looked, Harvard doesnt have "researchers" who claim that spinal manipulation can cure cancer, and that chiropractors are effective primary care physicians for all medical ailments.

Palmer is a joke of the highest order.

Harvard hired this dude because of his PHD. They sure as hell didnt hire him because of his DC or his chiropractic practice.
 
Hey publichealth I threw you down a challenge last time about chiro and you still havent responded.

Those PubMed references talk only about neck pain and back pain.

Show me legitimate PubMed references that have RCTs which prove that chiro is good for ANYTHING OTHER than back pain, neck pain, and headache.

Chiros can treat 3 things and 3 things ONLY.
 
MacGyver said:
Hey publichealth I threw you down a challenge last time about chiro and you still havent responded.

Those PubMed references talk only about neck pain and back pain.

Show me legitimate PubMed references that have RCTs which prove that chiro is good for ANYTHING OTHER than back pain, neck pain, and headache.

Chiros can treat 3 things and 3 things ONLY.
Click to expand...

You and your RCTs. There's more to clinical validity than RCTs. Have you ever taken a course in experimental design or epidemiology? Chiropractic research is progressing, albeit slowly because of enduring opposition from the allopathic community. Why be so quick to judge an entire profession when you haven't seen all the data?

And what's so wrong with being able to "treat 3 things and 3 things ONLY?" Last I checked, that's what most specialists do.
 
Freeeedom! said:
When I become junior faculty next year, do you think they will say "PT holds faculty position in medical school?" I hope not, they have hired me for my degree in medicine and my residency in emergency medicine!!!

der.
Click to expand...

Who are you kidding, I'm still waiting for the headline "Firefighter hired by the Mayo Clinic to perform surgery!" I mean we do surgical procedures in the ED on occasion. They did hire me as an EM resident. And my headline is at least a valid as the one posted by the OP.

- H
 
PublicHealth said:
And what's so wrong with being able to "treat 3 things and 3 things ONLY?" Last I checked, that's what most specialists do.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah? NAME ONE MEDICAL SPECIALTY THAT ONLY TREATS 3 CONDITIONS.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
FF, you got me...can I use "Former Record Store clerk hired as medical school faculty?!"
 
Freeeedom! said:
FF, you got me...can I use "Former Record Store clerk hired as medical school faculty?!"
Click to expand...

The guy is still a chiropractor who still actively practices chiropractic. The assumption that he was hired because of his research and PhD degree may indeed be true, but the fact that a chiropractor was hired to join the HMS speaks to the open-mindedness of this institution. If being a chiropractor is the equivalent of "a quack who manipulates metaphysical life forces" (as people in this forum have suggested), then I highly doubt that the most prestigious allopathic medical institution in the world would hire such an individual. They're obviously a bit more open-minded.

Chiropractors are now practicing in VA hospitals and have been practicing in military hospitals for decades, often in collaboration with PM&R doctors and other specialists. There are hundreds of DCs who are on the staffs of hospitals throughout the world. This profession has fought the opposition (folks like those in this forum) for decades and has grown to become the most widely utilized form of alternative medicine in the country. Good luck trying to slow down their progress. God knows you're not doing much by arguing with me in an internet chatroom. :laugh:
 
Obviously, this man is in the group of 10% of all chiros who are actually legit.

Only 10% of chiropractors are legit? Where did you read that?

What chiropractic school has researchers that "claim that spinal manipulation can cure cancer"?

Also, what chiropractic college claims "chiropractors are effective primary care physicians for all medical ailments"?

Harvard hired this dude because of his PHD. They sure as hell didnt hire him because of his DC or his chiropractic practice

How do you know? Did you call Harvard and ask the guy that hired him?
 
BackTalk said:
Obviously, this man is in the group of 10% of all chiros who are actually legit.

Only 10% of chiropractors are legit? Where did you read that?

What chiropractic school has researchers that "claim that spinal manipulation can cure cancer"?

Also, what chiropractic college claims "chiropractors are effective primary care physicians for all medical ailments"?

Harvard hired this dude because of his PHD. They sure as hell didnt hire him because of his DC or his chiropractic practice

How do you know? Did you call Harvard and ask the guy that hired him?
Click to expand...

Great to have you back, BackTalk!

Would you care to comment about FoughtFyr's thoughts about DCs advocating against immunizations? I think they're in the other thread on chiropractic. Thanks!
 
Public, I think that AWDC had a great response to this issue with regard to chiropractic and vaccination. Here it is in case you missed it.

I respect with much you have to share regarding your concerns about chiropractic but I'd like to clarify a few things. I seriously doubt that non-immunization is taught at most, if not all, chiropractic schools. It definitely wasn't taught at the school I went to. But for some reason, certain students seem to be overly drawn to the philosophical basis of chiropractic (including non-immunization). And unfortunately, at a few schools, students get conflicting ideas about immunizations from the more philisophically based clinical professors/instructors. Also, the major professional organizations are not the ICA nor the WCA. The ACA is by far the largest chiropractic organization, I don't have the numbers on me but if I had to dig deep in my memory, it's probably five times larger than both the ICA and WCA (if not more)... but I wouldn't quote me on that. And I definitely don't think it's the official position of the ACA to endorse non-immunizations.

I agree that "most" schools do not teach against vaccination. My school did not. It's possible that some of the more straight chiropractic schools do this. I really do not know as I did not attend. Personally, I feel the parent has the right to choose if they want their kids immunized. I feel that vaccinations have saved more lives than they probably have harmed. Even with that said lets still not forget that they can and do cause serious disorders and even deaths. They are definitely not without risk. I think most doctors agree the benefit outweighs the risk. Then again, I wouldn't want to be the one to tell our troops with GWS that.
 
BackTalk said:
I agree that "most" schools do not teach against vaccination. My school did not. It's possible that some of the more straight chiropractic schools do this. I really do not know as I did not attend. Personally, I feel the parent has the right to choose if they want their kids immunized. I feel that vaccinations have saved more lives than they probably have harmed. Even with that said lets still not forget that they can and do cause serious disorders and even deaths. They are definitely not without risk. I think most doctors agree the benefit outweighs the risk. Then again, I wouldn't want to be the one to tell our troops with GWS that.
Click to expand...

BT and I generally agree on most issues, but I have to comment on a couple of things in this post.

In terms of the parents right to choose: I certainly respect the notion of freedom of choice, but I have equal respect for the greater good. Keep in mind that the avoidance of epidemics requires high levels of vaccinations. It's easy to frighten parents with long lists of potential adverse effects of vaccines, and the parent may say, "well, I've never even heard of these diseases, so the vaccine must pose more danger than the diseases! No vaccines for my child, please!". The obvious problem is that if too many parents refuse vaccinations for their kids, we can expect to see epidemics that haven't been seen here in many years.

Here's an anolgy that I think is valid. For the purpose of the analogy, let's ignore that drunk driving is illegal and pretend that it's legal. Let's say that me and my friends have no qualms about driving drunk. The fact is, it's unlikely that I'm going to do any damage the vast majority of the time that I drive drunk. However, if thousands and thousands of us are out there driving drunk frequently, perhaps nightly, then the risk of causing damage to ourselves increases. Moreover, the risk of us doing damage to innocent bystanders and sober drivers increases as well. But, hey, I should be free to choose to drive drunk because I'm comfortable with it and I'm prepared to take the risks, right? Not quite. Me and my drunk driving cohort put ourselves and others at risk, and therein lies the problem.

The unvaccinated kids are like the drunk drivers (well, it's more like the parents are telling the kids to drive drunk). Put more of them out there, expose them to the whole population, and the risk of adverse events increases exponentially. The risk to the population trumps the choice of the individual in some instances.


You mention the serious disorders that vaccines can cause. This is true, but you have to recognize that based on the best available data the number of adverse events related to vaccines absolutely pales in comparison to the number of serious adverse events they prevent. We're talking about several orders of magnitude. It is the tremendous success of vaccines that has resulted in our focus on their small risks, i.e., the serious conditions that they prevent are now so uncommon that they are less common than the adverse events of vaccines. Vaccines are generally considered, and with good reason, to be on of the greatest public health triumphs of the last century. That's why I have a problem with thre ACA's statement. They've basically chosen to cop-out so as not to alienate their anti-vaccination members. The staement from the ACA, quoted in a post on a concurrent thread, is absolutely irresponsible and reflects a lack of willingness to critically evaluate the available evidence. The ACA's statement should be making it absolutely clear that the weight of the scientific evidence heavily favors vaccination (or , at least , a group of childhood vaccinations) as an effective public health measure.

You mention GWS. From what I can gather, this is thought to be related to one of the adjuvants (squalene) in the anthrax vaccine. As far as I know, no such syndrome has been demonstratred in relation to childhood vaccines, and the anthrax vaccine is only given to individuals who are placed in harms way regarding anthrax. If your point is that some vaccines can have unacceptably high rates of side effects, then the point is well-taken, but the weight of the evidence favours the risk-benefit ratio of the childhood immunisation schedule.
 
BackTalk said:
How do you know? Did you call Harvard and ask the guy that hired him?
Click to expand...
Actually, yes, in a manner of speaking. I posted the relevant "purple book" sections. The purple book is Harvard's guide to hiring medical school faculty. DC is not recognized. Ph.D. is. Also, even the chiroweb article cites his extensive research work in the area of his Ph.D.

- H
 
BackTalk said:
Also, what chiropractic college claims "chiropractors are effective primary care physicians for all medical ailments"?
Click to expand...

Palmer comes pretty close... (from: http://admissions.palmer.edu/info/whatis.htm)
"Chiropractic philosophy begins with the principle that the human organism has an innate power to maintain its own health. The art of chiropractic focuses on adjustments to correct spinal malfunctions, called subluxations, in order to remove interference to the spinal cord and the nerves that exit between the bones of the spine. Science has found that the nerve system controls all other organs and tissues of the body, so a nerve system functioning at its best facilitates the body's ability to cope with disability and disease. Because of its potential to enable patients to live healthier, more fulfilling lives, chiropractic has been called "The Big Idea."

The chiropractic approach to health care is holistic, stressing the patient's overall well being. It recognizes that many factors affect health, including exercise, diet, rest, environment and heredity. Chiropractic focuses on maintaining optimal health naturally so that the body is better able to resist disease, rather than simply treating the symptoms of disease. Chiropractors use natural, drugless, non-surgical health care and rely on the body's inherent recuperative abilities.

Chiropractic is whole-body health care with the vision to see the human body as much more than the sum of its parts. Chiropractors see their patients as more than people coming to their office with a set of symptoms. Their vision encompasses the entire individual in all of his or her unique complexity, and they work in partnership with their patients to ensure optimal health and wellness in all facets of their lives.

This unique health care approach views the body as having an innate, natural ability to adapt to changes in its internal and external environments and maintain itself in a state of health. Traditional medicine and its allied health fields typically views the body from a more mechanistic standpoint ? as a system of parts that can be altered through outside interventions to produce certain results. Both approaches have important roles to play, but they are fundamentally different.

Chiropractors focus on the nerve system (the brain and spinal cord) which manages the body?s vast chemical interactions to help ensure proper function. The brain sends messages through the spinal cord across a huge network of spinal nerves to deliver information to every cell, organ and system of the body. This information system coordinates the myriad chemical reactions that dictate how well you sleep, how food is digested, your ability to concentrate, physical coordination, the capabilities of the immune system and all aspects of body function.

When bones of the spine become misaligned or move out of their normal position, they can distort the flow of information from the brain to the body. Without the proper information from the nerve system, the body cannot function to its full potential. That?s why chiropractors gently correct these misalignments (or vertebral subluxations) ? to correct interference to the nerve system and the body?s ability to control and coordinate its many functions."

Also check out http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/webclaims.html for an interesting look at chiropractic college website claims.

- H
 
BackTalk said:
Public, I think that AWDC had a great response to this issue with regard to chiropractic and vaccination. Here it is in case you missed it.

I respect with much you have to share regarding your concerns about chiropractic but I'd like to clarify a few things. I seriously doubt that non-immunization is taught at most, if not all, chiropractic schools. It definitely wasn't taught at the school I went to. But for some reason, certain students seem to be overly drawn to the philosophical basis of chiropractic (including non-immunization). And unfortunately, at a few schools, students get conflicting ideas about immunizations from the more philisophically based clinical professors/instructors. Also, the major professional organizations are not the ICA nor the WCA. The ACA is by far the largest chiropractic organization, I don't have the numbers on me but if I had to dig deep in my memory, it's probably five times larger than both the ICA and WCA (if not more)... but I wouldn't quote me on that. And I definitely don't think it's the official position of the ACA to endorse non-immunizations.

I agree that "most" schools do not teach against vaccination. My school did not. It's possible that some of the more straight chiropractic schools do this. I really do not know as I did not attend. Personally, I feel the parent has the right to choose if they want their kids immunized. I feel that vaccinations have saved more lives than they probably have harmed. Even with that said lets still not forget that they can and do cause serious disorders and even deaths. They are definitely not without risk. I think most doctors agree the benefit outweighs the risk. Then again, I wouldn't want to be the one to tell our troops with GWS that.
Click to expand...

I'm just going to cross post my response to this BS in another thread with one additional comment. I agree that most schools don't teach non-immunization. What they teach is to "educate" patients as to the risks and benefits in order to encourage "informed decisions". Unfortunately, they do so with almost no discussion of benefit and grossly exaggerated assessments of risk.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=1770443&postcount=26

BTW - Saw my first case of HIB meningitis yesterday. Hope the kid (10 yo) makes it. Not immunized on the advice of the parents' chiropractor. The shame of it is that we almost never see the disease anymore because of successful immunization. Bet the parents rethink their stance on chiropractic... or should we just invite him (the chiropractor) to the PICU to realign the kid's spine to fight the infection?

- H
 
FoughtFyr said:
BTW - Saw my first case of HIB meningitis yesterday. Hope the kid (10 yo) makes it. Not immunized on the advice of the parents' chiropractor. The shame of it is that we almost never see the disease anymore because of successful immunization. Bet the parents rethink their stance on chiropractic... or should we just invite him (the chiropractor) to the PICU to realign the kid's spine to fight the infection?

- H
Click to expand...

I wonder if the family plan to sue the guy who advised not to immunise if their kid suffers permnent impaorment (or worse). I would bet that they would have a strong case. However, parents who listen to that kind of advice may well 'believe' in their Chiropractor and be unwilling to question his advice.

Have any members of the team caring for the patient called the Chiropractor in question? Might be fun to hear his response and listen to him try to avoid taking responsibility for his lousy advice.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
russellb said:
I wonder if the family plan to sue the guy who advised not to immunise if their kid suffers permnent impaorment (or worse). I would bet that they would have a strong case. However, parents who listen to that kind of advice may well 'believe' in their Chiropractor and be unwilling to question his advice.

Have any members of the team caring for the patient called the Chiropractor in question? Might be fun to hear his response and listen to him try to avoid taking responsibility for his lousy advice.
Click to expand...

No, we didn't call because the chiropractor was not treating the child directly. He was / is treating the patient's father for low back pain. Given the time that has passed (~10 years) and the lack of patient / provider relationship, I don't see how we could even make such a call... Unfortunately.

- H
 
PublicHealth said:
The guy is still a chiropractor who still actively practices chiropractic.
Click to expand...

And I still volunteer as a firefighter. What is your point? Harvard did not hire him for his extra-cirricular activities. Otherwise, they would have changed the hiring requirements and post positions open to chiropractors.

PublicHealth said:
The assumption that he was hired because of his research and PhD degree may indeed be true, but the fact that a chiropractor was hired to join the HMS speaks to the open-mindedness of this institution. If being a chiropractor is the equivalent of "a quack who manipulates metaphysical life forces" (as people in this forum have suggested), then I highly doubt that the most prestigious allopathic medical institution in the world would hire such an individual.
Click to expand...

Sure they would, are you trying to tell me that no highly esteemed research academians have strange, even bizarre, habits and hobbies outside of their fields? Please. This says nothing except that his research work and academic credentials were sufficent to land him the job.

- H
 
😱 wow! i had no idea that there were such open opposition to chiropractic practice. i hope i can use my public health and research background to further the education and research in the field of chiropractics. just remember that most, if not all, field of health faced some opposition in the beginning. medicine was once considered voodoo in the society. let's keep an open mind on chiropractics. my concern will always be primarily for my future patients and won't be promoting non-immunization for the sake of public health.

kudos to the first d.c. who broke grounds at the prestigious harvard med school.
 
benogurl said:
😱 wow! i had no idea that there were such open opposition to chiropractic practice. i hope i can use my public health and research background to further the education and research in the field of chiropractics. just remember that most, if not all, field of health faced some opposition in the beginning. medicine was once considered voodoo in the society. let's keep an open mind on chiropractics. my concern will always be primarily for my future patients and won't be promoting non-immunization for the sake of public health.

kudos to the first d.c. who broke grounds at the prestigious harvard med school.
Click to expand...

It may surprise you even further as you study the issue to find that much of the opposition comes from within the profession. There are "straight" chiropractors who hold dear the principles of Palmer and the belief that nervous system dysfunction holds the key to most health problems. Then there are the "mixers" who agree that there is little scientific basis for most of Palmer's theories, but who feel chiropractic is a useful modality for treatment neuro/muscular/skeletal problems. Then there are the "psuedo-mixers" who hold on to Palmer's theories and try and expand them through "new" and decidedly non-medical practices. These folks are often very "anti-medicine" and truly believe that the "Rosetta Stone" to all of health lay within their grasp.

These groups infight so much that it is impossible to even define chiropractic care anymore because the care you will recieve will vary so greatly based on which "camp" your practitioner comes from.

And let's be clear, the "first D.C." you speak of did not break ground at Harvard. That is spin worthy of a presidential election. There have been holders of both the D.C. and M.D. degrees at Harvard before. The difference is that those individuals openly practiced allopathic medicine and readily acknowledge their hiring had nothing to do with their D.C. degree. Like this person, they were hired for the degrees they held besides the D.C. No great shakes - Harvard Medical School hired a Ph.D. I'm shocked!

- H
 
H, that was direct and to the point. I couldn't have said it any better. 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Left med school, transitioning to NP or CRNA
Replies
0
Views
297
berryzcute
B
A
CRNA to MD
Replies
1
Views
1K
jwk
jwk
Emzilla3
Anesthesiologist assistant school interview
Replies
4
Views
4K
chilly_md
chilly_md
M
The Path To Get Accepted Into PA School?
Replies
6
Views
5K
PA_dud3
P
S
Applying for PA school
Replies
4
Views
6K
wholeheartedly
wholeheartedly
Top Bottom