Dear Dr. Why not: I'm not sure what to make of you. I'm referring to the March 2007 issue of The American Chiropractor magazine in which you wrote an article. "Frequency and Duration of Care for the Doctor of Chiropractic." The title caught my eye. And it's not trying to sell me something!? That's more like it. I thought. You say you're "evidence-based," but then you actually cite the Rondberg CCP guidelines. Are you not aware that, for most DCs—other than Rondberg and his embarrassing disciples, who wrote the "Guidelines"—they are a joke in our profession? If you're evidence-based, as you claim—which I am, too. being trained in forensics—why would you even mention the CCP rag? It's totally discredited, as you should know. In your two paragraphs discussing CCP, you admit their only conclusion is there is no conclusion. To conclude to "treat until you're finished" is not a treatment guideline—leaving the decision totally up to the subjective impression of the DCs whose incentive is to continue care as long as possible. A joke, perhaps? But you spent one of your two paragraphs discussing how the CCP rag is listed with the NGC. That means NOTHING!!!! That's a talking point from Rondberg. It's stupid!!! I actually thought the rest of your discussion on Mercy and Croft was good. Why did you throw two paragraphs of manure in with what would otherwise have had some clinical value? It ruined the taste of what would have been a decent meal. Garth Aamodt, D.C.
