"Doctored" Official Movie Trailer. 2012 Documentary.

Doctored.  Official movie trailer.



 

New Film 2012: Doctored. Here is the Film Review

This should be good...

Film Review: Doctored

Doctored, as the title implies, blames doctors for America’s failed healthcare system.

Sept 19, 2012

-By Maria Garcia

For movie details, please click here.

Doctored is a documentary about the chiropractic profession primarily, and the American Medical Association’s longstanding opposition to it. Chronicling the suits and countersuits filed by the AMA and a group of chiropractors (beginning with Milk v. AMA in 1973), director Bobby Sheehan leaves the impression that the final outcome legitimized chiropractics. Actually, the lawsuits were filed and resolved under federal antitrust legislation. The judge found evidence that the AMA and some healthcare providers were guilty of restraining “trade,” of trying to put chiropractors out of business; her 1987 decision ended their campaign. Having sufficiently demonized doctors, Sheehan then blames them, rather disingenuously, for the unwillingness of health insurers to pay for alternative cures.

Less than 30 percent of the nation’s physicians are members of the AMA, so the organization’s views can hardly be said to represent the medical community. Healthcare providers’ policies with regard to which procedures or treatments will be covered are decided by actuarial formulas, not by doctors or the standards of medical practice. Blaming the AMA, and physicians who harbor prejudicial views of alternative medicine, for what ails the American healthcare system, as Sheehan does here, is as simplistic as believing that what will repair it are chiropractors and enlightened doctors who embrace alternative therapies. As other documentaries on this subject point out, including the upcoming Escape Fire: The Fight to Rescue American Healthcare (from Roadside Attractions), the fault lies with lawmakers who have failed to reform profit-oriented insurers and pharmaceutical companies.

Sheehan will succeed with TV viewers accustomed to ripped-from-the-headlines “journalism”; in fact,Doctored opens with a 1980s broadcast of “The David Susskind Show.” Aired when alternative therapy generally referred to chiropractic intervention, the program pitted a sneering doctor against a composed and articulate chiropractor. Through a mix of archival footage and interviews with doctors, chiropractors and their patients—sometimes in ineffective, staged conversations—Doctored, as its title implies, appears to put Western medicine on trial. Employing conspiratorial thinking rather than thoughtful commentary, in the end the documentary is actually little more than a deftly edited commercial for the chiropractic profession.

Sheehan gets some candid interviews with doctors in which they admit to unholy alliances with drug companies, and failures in Western medical practice that compel patients to seek alternative therapies, but these startling disclosures are edited to within an inch of apprehension, undermined by the film’s proselytizing. Ironically, the most effective criticism of America’s healthcare system comes from doctors, not from the self-aggrandizing chiropractors. Doctored offers no fix for the problems it identifies, beyond a visit to your local chiropractor. 

STANDARD OF CARE: Just my two cents.

STANDARD OF CARE:  Just my two cents.

Alan Himmel, DC. PA

If there is one thing I am very sure of by now, it is the fact that not all patients respond the same to medical treatments.  For example, if you have five patients and they all come in with the identical complaint of lumboscacral radiculopathy, caused by the identical thing, you will find that each one of these patients will typically respond different than the next patient to medical care.  I have learned over the years to respect this fact.  This, by the way, is a fact across the entire list of medical conditions.  There is no such thing as a guaranteed success with any medical treatment, because each patient is unique.  Any physician who tells you otherwise is lying to you. The treatments given to a patient for any one particular reason, are usually one that comes out of a bag of questionable tricks.  I use the metaphor "bag" here, because that's exactly what doctors have--a bag of tricks or treatments in their arsenal which they grab from, when a condition calls for it.

Within the arsenal of treatments that doctors have, is what is called "standard of care."  In other words, the standard of care treatments are treatments that all your doctor's colleagues do, and so, since everyone else is doing it, it makes it the treatment of choice.  Since the standard of care is the treatment that everyone else does, it is therefore reasonable and correct for your doctor to do the same.  In fact, many doctors are reluctant to step out of the box, and prescribe a medication, or do something, which is not considered the standard of care.

Reaching for the standard of care each time, in my opinion is problematic and can also be dangerous to a patient's health.  This type of thinking by doctors opens up several issues because physicians are well aware that standard treatments do not always equate to resolution of  a medical condition.   Treating patients is not like mathematics where you can predict the outcome, every time.   If you think about it,  if it was as simple as choosing the standard of care, then we wouldn't need doctors at all.  Could you imagine if we could do away with most docs and create a computer program which people would keep on their home computer, or even as an app for the smart phone, that would do everything, including calling in a prescription at your pharmacy?    Several years ago, a well respected friend of mine, who is in medical research once told me that most doctors and researchers are like robots.  She used to say that these people have lost their ability to think on their own, that they have no curiosity, and they don't question anything.  She asked me once, how many physicians do I think go home at the end of the day and do research, and try to find the BEST options and treatments for their patients?  This is something that I never thought of before, but certainly with the advent of the internet, this type of research is pretty easy to do, and reasonable, especially with a patient with a life threatening condition.

If you ever want to stop a physician in her tracks, look your doctor straight in the eyes and ask her what she would do if her mother or father or child was the patient.  This usually works.  If the doctor is giving her honest opinion of the best treatment, then she will confidently look you right back in the eyes and stick to her original recommendation.  If the doctor seems uneasy with the question, or looks away or down, I would be concerned and would seek another opinion.

Politicians (Senators and Representatives) who Voted for and Against The New Florida PIP Bill, SB 1860 and HB 119

Politicians (Senators and Representatives) who Voted for and Against The New Florida PIP Bill, SB 1860 and HB 119

Here are two Groups of Politicians.  The first list of Senators and Representatives voted against the passage of the New Florida PIP Law.  These are our friends.

The second list of Senators and Representatives voted FOR the New Florida PIP Bill.  In other words, the second group of politicians voted to give the Insurance companies more reasons they can DENY your injury claim.  It took away your rights as a consumer and limited your income as a practitioner.

Here are our 19 FRIENDS in the Senate – These Senators stood up for your consumer rights:
Bennett
Braynon
Bullard
Dean
Diaz de la Portilla
Dockery
Fasano
Garcia
Gibson
Jones
Joyner
Margolis
Rich
Ring
Sachs
Siplin
Smith
Sobel
Storms

Here are our 30 FRIENDS in the House - The House Representatives Stood up Up For Consumer Rights:

Abruzzo

Campbell

Clarke-Reed

Clemens

Cruz

Fullwood

Garcia

Gibbons

Jenne

Jones

Kiar

Kriseman

Pafford

Perman

Porth

Randolf

Reed

Rogers

Rouson

Sands

Saunders

Soto

Schwartz

Slosberg

Stafford

G.Thompson

Thurston

Waldman

Watson,

A.Williams

Here are our 21 FOES in the Senate -- They stood up for Insurance Industry Profits:
Alexander
Altman
Benacquisto
Bogdanoff
Detert
Evers
Flores
Gaetz
Gardiner
Haridopolos
Hays
Latvala
Lynn
Montford
Negron
Norman
Oelrich
Richter
Simmons
Thrasher
Wise

Here are 86 House Representatives FOES who supported Insurance Industry Profits:

Corcoran

Holder

Oliva

Adkins

Costello

Hooper

Ahern

Crisafulli

Horner

Passidomo

Smith

Albritton

Hudson

Patronis

Snyder

Artiles

Davis

Hukill

Aubuchon

Diaz

Ingram

Perry

Baxley

Dorworth

Pilon

Stargel

Bembry

Drake

Plakon

Steube

Berman

Eisnaugle

Julien

Porter

Taylor

Bernard

Ford

Bileca

Fresen

Kreegel

Precourt

Boyd

Frishe

Proctor

Tobia

Brandes

Legg-Randolph

Trujillo

Brodeur

Gaetz

Logan

Ray

Van Zant

Broxson

Lopez-Cantera

Mayfield-Rehwinkel

Vasilinda

Burgin

Glorioso

McBurney

Renuart

Weatherford

Caldwell

Gonzalez

McKeel

Roberson

Weinstein

Goodson

Metz

Cannon

Grant

Moraitis

Rooney

Williams

Chestnut

Grimsley

Nehr

Wood

Hager

Nelson

Workman

Harrell

Nuñez

Young

Coley

Harrison

O'Toole

Schenck

Rear End Collisions and Injuries. It's Not What You Think!

Rear-End Collisions, Crumple Zones, and Injuries. 

Alan Himmel, DC.

For the purposes of simplicity, I'd rather skip over the details of Newton's laws of motion and try my hand at  quickly explaining with the use of a few images and facts, why its better to be fully stopped when someone rear-ends your car, rather than rolling forward.

One has to be aware of the way modern vehicles are manufactured.  They are made much different than the way they used to be made in the early days.  Nowadays, and actually for the last several decades, automobiles are made with crumple zones.  A crumple zone is part of the structure of vehicles that simply allows the metal to deform and bend.  The purpose of these crumple zones are to absorb energy from the impact.  To give you an example of the importance of a crumple zone in a vehicle, just think; if you for example, fall from a roof and land on a concrete floor, the chance of injury to your body would be much greater than if you fell from the same roof and landed on, say a very thick mattress.  This is due to the ability of the mattress to slow your body down by absorbing the energy of your falling body.

Look at the way the cars are deformed and will absorb the energy of the collision.

Here is another car.  Look at the way the hood folds up and practically acts like an accordion.  Again, its designed to absorb energy.

Here is a diagram of a car hitting a fixed object.  The crumple zones in a car are located in both the front and the back.

Now if you try to relate this concept to the impact of a car collision, it will begin to make sense why it is advantageous (in most cases) for your car to be completely stopped if you get rear ended.  It is difficult for some people to get this concept.  The mathematical brain is thinking mathematics.  "Okay, if I am traveling forward at about 10 miles per hour and get hit in the back by someone who is traveling at 20 miles per hour, you simply subtract 10 mph from 20 mph to get a net force on the back of my car of only 10 mph."  The thought process is 20 mph-10 mph = 10 mph impact which always sounds better than getting hit at 20 mph.  The math is correct.  You are only being hit at 10 mph.  But, in terms of shock and impact to the body, including the neck and head, during the rear end collision and whiplash, you are probably better to be standing still with your foot on the brake when you are hit from behind.  "But wait, you just told me a 10 mph hit is better than a 20 mph rear end hit?"   Here is the confusion.  Read on.

Okay, back to the crumple zones.  Remember, the crumple zones are designed to absorb energy.  They are designed to absorb energy that that would normally get transferred to the occupants of the vehicle.  So,  here are both scenarios; the first scenario is car rolling and second is car completely stopped: 

Scenario 1.  You are rolling forward 10 mph, you get hit from the back, your car's crumple zones do NOT have the chance or ability to fully absorb the impact of the other car hitting you.  Your car lunges forward from the impact, and your neck and head flies back in the seat as a result of the other car hitting you.

Scenario 2.  Your car is completely stopped, foot on the brake.  You are going 0 mph, and you get hit at 20 mph.  In this case, the crumple zones have a chance to do their job, which is to absorb the impact of the collision and reduce the forces upon the occupants of the vehicle getting hit.  Your car will (generally) not lunge forward as much if you were already rolling forward.

The other way I can explain this to you is for you to just look at the way race cars are made.  Have you ever seen a race car going 150+ mph that crashes into a wall or another car?   What does it do?  It comes apart.  Parts fly everywhere, including the wheels, which fly everywhere.  The purpose here is the same thing.  It's to absorb energy so that the driver of the car gets less of a shock to his body.  Of course, this is just a very simple way for me to explain how these car accident impacts cause injuries, and how the relative motion of the car paradoxically affects the injuries to the passengers.  I say, paradoxically, because it goes against ones rational thinking.  Just remember, crumple zones are your friend.  

A piece of advice to you:  If you think you are about to get get rear ended, good advice would be to firmly plant your foot on the brake and put your head against the head rest.  Let the cars absorb the impact, not your neck!  Also, call a chiropractor right away.

I treat these injuries all the time.  My address is 3161 Dykes Road in Miramar Florida. 33027. Dr. Alan Himmel. My Telephone Numbers are: 954-659-8600 and 305-979-5549. My Web address is: www.PembrokePines-Chiropractor.com