Reply to comment

You might be interested in my e-mail (below) describing the International Chiropractors Association's plagiarism of chiropractic guidelines it actually criticized years prior. Fallon was involved as was current ICA president Gary Walsemann who chaired the ICA's guidelines committee. The ICA continues to ignore this major ethical & intellectual violation. Perhaps some international scrutiny could get the ICA to move forward with an explanation/apology? I'll try sending you the PDF example of the plagiarism through your "Contact" link as I don't see how to attach it here. If you don't receive it, just e-mail me and I'll forward it to you.

Bruce Weisbein, D.C.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, USA
www.mychiroinfo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: ICA's Plagiarism of Mercy

Drs. [name removed] and Maltby,

You both asked for some information on the ICA's plagiarism of the Mercy Guidelines. Attached is a scan of p. 71 from the ICA's Guidelines and p. 161 of the Mercy Guidelines. Start with "Collaborative Care" on the ICA page (from the Child Care chapter) and compare to the Mercy page. Do you see the plagiarism? Everywhere I underlined in red is text I found to be identical to Mercy, and there are at least 94 pages of plagiarized text. As you compare both works, you'll see omissions and modifications... presumably for political reasons. After all, the ICA does claim to be the first to REJECT Mercy! Notice on the ICA page, Joan Fallon et al use a Mercy paragraph that begins, "Firstly,..." but fail to follow it with the "secondly" and "thirdly" paragraphs. Oops! As well, the ICA's plagiarized "List of Subtopics" is never followed-up in the remainder of the Child Care chapter. Oops! The ICA's plagiarism of the references is also amusing in that where the ICA omitted paragraphs from Mercy, it neglected to also omit the references cited in those paragraphs... so the ICA listed references that refer to nothing in the text. In one Mercy paragraph, that the ICA plagiarized completely, there is a numeric reference to the ACA Code of Ethics; you guessed it, the ICA actually had the audacity to remove this particular reference despite plagiarizing the entire paragraph. The ICA even reprinted Mercy's erroneous use of an apostrophe after "Chiropractors" in "International Chiropractors Association" in a reference (although I always thought there should be an apostrophe there, it's possessive, isn't it?).

Some background: In 2001, I was composing a rebuttal letter to an insurance company for denying a service. In quoting numerous authoritative references, I noticed when I was quoting the ICA guidelines the text was identical to the quote from Mercy. Over the next several months, while eating breakfast every morning, I would read both documents together and underline ICA text that was identical to Mercy. I burned-out at 94 pages of plagiarized text. I confronted ICA Executive Director Ron Hendrickson and ICA guidelines committee Chair Gary Walsemann, and both continue to deny any wrongdoing (Bob Hoffman, who is credited with "bringing ICA's landmark Recommended Clinical Prodocols and Guidelines for the Practice of Chiropractic to their completion" was no longer ICA president when I caught the ICA infraction). They further rationalized that the ICA legitimately purchased the publication rights to the guidelines from the 1997 "Guidelines and Practice Parameters for Chiropractic in the State of Florida." The FCA/FCS as co-publishers of the Florida guidelines are likely responsible for the original plagiarism and apparently the ICA unwittingly used a plagiarized document to "create" its "own" guidelines... apparently unaware they would be plagiarizing Mercy which they "rejected" eight years prior. Oh, the irony!

Aside from the plagiarism issue, the ICA's use of the Florida guidelines is wrong on many levels, but mainly because there is no disclosure by the ICA of its original source for its guidelines and the ICA still promotes these guidelines as a work that they created through a consensus process. They really pulled-one over on the entire chiropractic profession.

Amazingly, Joan Fallon still claims that her Child Care chapter is original despite the obvious plagiarism on the single page I attached for you to see. ICA guideline co-author Chris Kent was even fooled by the ICA when in a JMPT letter to the editor he criticized some of Mercy guidelines that were plagiarized in the ICA guidelines. Also in JMPT, Cates et al compared the ICA guidelines to Mercy, but they never actually noticed the plagiarism, which raises a serious question about the scientific objectivity of their review (ICA scored lower than Mercy) and the peer-review process for publication of their paper.

Below are some of my comments to others from a few years ago... when I was a member of the ICA. I eventually terminated my membership over embarrassment with what the ICA did.

So, why would this come up now?

[name removed] mentioned the Iowa Chiropractic Society reviewing the ICA's new guidelines. The ICA has never fessed-up to their plagiarism of Mercy, and they have yet to make a public apology to the entire profession (internationally, of course). I believe that before any organization consumes time, effort, and money to review (and give any degree of credibility) to the ICA's new guidelines, every organization should demand from the ICA a full explanation and apology to Aspen Publishers, the Mercy authors, and the international chiropractic profession. The ICA should also explain how plagiarism was avoided in the production of its new guidelines.

Bruce Weisbein, D.C.

======================

(2002)

That's exactly what the ICA should have
done back in October when Dr. Walsemann was notified
of this serious problem. I do, in fact, understand
the ICA's position on this, but I think that you are
incorrect. Why? The ICA's guidelines (2000) contain
at least 91 pages of text verbatim from Mercy (1992).
The "Guidelines and Practice Parameters for
Chiropractic in the State of Florida" bear a copyright
date of 1997. Even the disclaimer contains plagiarism
from Mercy! Now can you see why others and I feel
that the ICA has committed a huge offense?

As an ICA member, I thank you for beginning to take
the appropriate actions.

=====================================
(2005)

I'd like to express my concern about the election of
Dr. Gary Walsemann to any leadership position in the
ICA. Dr. Welsemann's actions in his role as
Chairperson of the ICA Committee that plagiarized
nearly 100 pages of its Protocols and Guidelines from
the Mercy Guidelines were not only reprehensible but
likely illegal, and he has exposed the ICA to damaging
and costly legal action... and significantly lowered
this member's ICA pride. I urge you to give the ICA
membership the opportunity to OPPOSE the election of
Dr. Walsemann to any leadership position of the ICA
until he can issue the appropriate apology,
explanation, and remedy for the ICA's plagiarism of
the Mercy Guidelines.

======================================
(2005)

I faxed a sample page with plagiarized text underlined,
and for your convenience I also faxed the pages from
Mercy. As a member of the ICA, I'll admit I'm
certainly embarrassed at the ICA's copyright
violation, but worse, I'm ashamed that my association
hasn't admitted its ironic wrong-doing (I alerted the
ICA in 2001) and the ICA still proclaims that it was
the first reject Mercy. Even Kent was fooled as his
letter to editor of JMPT criticizes several Mercy
recommendations that the ICA actually plagiarized as
well. Since the ICA is ignoring this member, perhaps
you could encourage the appropriate profession-wide
apology from the ICA for its plagiarism. This sample
has also been sent to Drs. Fallon and Haldeman.

======================================
(2005)

I am an ICA member, since approximately 1991. The
ICA's plagiarism of Mercy appears to pose several
problems:

1. Violation of Aspen's copyright. Nearly 100 pages
of ICA's guidelines contain verbatim or slightly
altered text plagiarized text from Mercy. The
alterations appear to be for the purpose of suiting
the conservative ICA membership. Even errors in
Mercy's references were plagiarized by the ICA. In
fact, even Mercy variations to reference to the ICA
were plagiarized by the ICA.

2. Principle. The ICA fooled the entire chiropractic
profession in to believing the ICA authored/produced
an original guideline document. There is even a
reference to an apparently fictitious concensus
process in the ICA guidelines. Of course, no cretit
to Mercy is cited.

3. Contradiction. The ICA claims to be the first to
reject Mercy, but eight years later the ICA
plagiarizes nearly 100 pages of Mercy and attempts to
pass it off as its own! Can you see the irony?

4. Scientific Integrity. In JMPT, Cates et al
evaluated the ICA guidelines and even compared scores
to Mercy... but they never noticed that the ICA
guidelines were largely plagiarized from Mercy. This
raises the question, Did Cates et al actually read
either the ICA Guidelines or Mercy? Is there a major
flaw in JMPT's peer review process if the peer
reviewer didn't catch this either? Even Christopher
Kent (listed as an ICA guideline contributor)
apparently didn't realize that the Mercy recommendations
he criticized in a letter to the editor in JMPT were
also plagiarized into a document he co-authored.

Those are all the issues I can think of. I'm planning
to be in Santa Ana in June; if Dr. Haldeman would like
to see my copy of the ICA guidelines with the nearly
100 pages of underlined plagiarized text, I can
certainly make time to pay him a visit.