11-9-05

Further comments regarding Q and A entry #163.

In reference to the claim in The Upper Cervical Subluxation Complex that J.F.G. accepted only four new patients per week:

We have, in our practice, over more than four decades, established the following –- we must obtain at least one (1) new patient for every fifty (50) office calls. If we do not do this, the number of office calls per week will begin to decline. If the number of office calls per week declines, then we are working with an even smaller base from which to acquire new patients. One does not have to be a statistician to see the downward spiral that would occur.

Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that either the "four NPs per week" statement regarding Grostic's practice was incorrect, or that J.F.G.'s adjustments did not hold well, requiring patients to return more frequently over a longer period of time.

If the cervical adjustment is made properly and the check-ups are done properly, the frequency of return visits has to diminish rapidly, thus requiring a constant large number of NPs in order to maintain the practice level. This is true regardless of how long the practice has been in existence. That's what it's all about, isn't it? Getting more sick people well and getting them on their way so they can spread the word about the work we are doing?

Real simple -- you can't have it both ways. 100 patients per day with only four NPs per week doesn't stretch.

10-18-05


This section of ONCAUSE commentary is titled “Higher and Deeper,” or, “C’mon, fellas, this is embarrassing.” UC chiropractic deserves better than this.

How about the five or six cases I sent back to Ann Arbor in the early sixties, three or four of which had favorable outcomes, two or three of which had very unfavorable outcomes?

Corresponding with J.F.G. concerning the unfavorable outcomes, he assured me that they would be okay because he had “ zeroed them out.” Unfortunately, they were not “okay.” C’mon, fellas!

The following is an excerpt from the Fall, 2005 issue of the AUCCO journal, Vector -- an interview by Dr. Kirk Eriksen of Drs. Mathias and Laney.

"Dr. Mathias: He told me he had a little boy that had been in the hospital paralyzed from the waist down.  When they took him home from the hospital they called Dr. Grostic that night to see if he would take care of this child. He said to bring him in. He then x-rayed him, adjusted him, and told them to bring him in Monday. Monday came but Dr. Grostic didn’t hear from them, so Monday night, Dr. Grostic called and said, “How is Johnny?” They said, “Oh he’s fine, he went to school.  It was like a miracle."

Were little Johnny’s parents really imbecilic enough to send him back to school a day or two after he was released from the hospital still paralyzed? C’mon, fellas! If you are going to be that creative, how about “little Raymond” or “little Wally” or even “little Cletus”?