The New Zealand Report 1978

This section was compiled by Frank M. Painter, D.C.
Send all comments or additions to:

The New Zealand Commission Report

A particularly significant study of chiropractic was conducted between 1978-1980 by the New Zealand Commission of Inquiry.

In its 377-page report to the House of Representatives, the Commission called its study "probably the most comprehensive and detailed independent examination of chiropractic ever undertaken in any country."

The Commission entered the inquiry with "the general impression ... shared by many in the community:

that chiropractic was an unscientific cult, not to be compared with orthodox medical or paramedical services."

By the end of the inquiry, the commission reported itself "irresistibly and with complete unanimity drawn to the conclusion that modern chiropractic is a soundly-based and valuable branch of health care in a specialized area...:

Conclusions of the Commission's report, based on investigations in New Zealand, the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, stated:

  • Spinal manual therapy in the hands of a registered chiropractor is safe.

  • Spinal manual therapy can be effective in relieving musculo-skeletal symptoms such as back pain, and other symptoms known to respond to such therapy, such as migraine.

  • Chiropractors are the only health practitioners who are necessarily equipped by their education and training to carry out spinal manual therapy.

  • In the public interest and in the interests of patients, there must be no impediment to full professional cooperation between chiropractors and medical practitioners.

The New Zealand Report 1978

A look back in time sometimes reveals that organizations or individuals may have a special agenda.   The following excerpts, quoted from the 1979 New Zealand Government investigation into chiropractic brings such issues to mind:

Commissioned by the New Zealand Government in 1978, The New Zealand Report developed into the most comprehensive and detailed independent examination, at that time, of chiropractic ever undertaken in any country. The focus of the investigation was to consider whether health and accident benefits should be made for chiropractic services. When the Report was commissioned, it was believed it would take a month or two at the most to resolve the issues, but it took nearly two years, generating over 3600 pages of testimony under Oath from numerous witnesses and thousands of pages documents submitted from organizations and private parties from around the world.

The investigators also traveled to Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia in their quest for information. The lengthy report was presented in September 1979, long before the findings, favorable to chiropractic and manipulation, appeared in the Rand Study, Meade studies, BMJ, Magna Report, ACHPR report on back pain, and the subsequent numerous journal research studies.

In the United States, the Commission interviewed the American Medical Association, American Chiropractic Association, Council on Chiropractic Education, Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research, Blue Cross & Blue Shield, and various individuals.

The New Zealand Report was printed in 1979, by the New Zealand Government Printer.  Most large research libraries either have copies or can obtain copies for those interested in reading this eye-opening investigation. Of interest, with regards to Dr.Stephen Barrett is Chapter 21 of the report, entitled "North American Sources", which is quoted below in it's entirety:


  1. We deal, in this chapter, with the three primary sources of information on chiropractic, which were relied upon at various stages of the inquiry by those opposed to chiropractic. They are, first the United States Consumer Union; second, the Lehigh Valley Committee against Health Fraud, Inc.; and finally a book entitled At Your Own Risk: The Case against Chiropractic, by Ralph Lee Smith."

  2. There is one general comment we need to make. It is clear that the official medical opposition to chiropractors in North America has been clamorous and unrelenting. But as far as we are able to judge it has been maintained principally by a relatively small number of people, irrepressibly vocal. Much of the North America material strongly opposed to chiropractic can be traced back to three sources. Some of it can be traced to the now defunct Department of Investigation of the American Medical Association, which seems to have had more than a little to do with the publication and distribution of the book At Your Own Risk.


  1. The United States Consumer Union is generally regarded as a consumer organization of high prestige. In its periodical, Consumer Reports, for September and October 1975, the Consumers Union published a two-part report entitled "Chiropractors, Healers or Quacks?" The report was based on a 6-month investigation by Mr Joseph R Botta, senior editor of Consumer Reports who specialized in medical and environmental reporting.

  2. The report was brought to our attention at an early stage of our inquiry by the New Zealand Consumer Council. At that stage we intimated that although the Consumers Union report was plainly useful background material we doubted its probative value in relation to the chiropractic situation in New Zealand. In the first place the situations in New Zealand and the United States were plainly different; and secondly, we had no way of knowing what information Mr Botta had relied, and we had no way of testing the reliability of the report on matters of fact. On the other hand the report, dealing solely with the North American chiropractic scene, should certainly be said to have some relevance in New Zealand because the majority of chiropractors in practice here trained in the United States.

  3. The report is worth reading as background material. It comes out strongly against chiropractic on a variety of grounds, which are conveniently summarized at the end under the heading "Recommendations":

    "Overall CU believes that chiropractic is a significant hazard to many patients. Current licensing laws, in our opinion, lend an aura of legitimacy to unscientific practices and serve to protect the chiropractor rather than the public. In effect, those laws allow persons with limited qualifications to practice medicine under another name. We believe the public health would be better served if state and Federal governments used their licensing powers and their power of the purse to restrict the chiropractor's scope of practice more effectively. Specifically, we think that licensing laws and Federal health insurance programs should limit chiropractic treatment to appropriate musculoskeletal complaints and ban all chiropractic use of X-rays and drugs, including nutritional supplements for the purported treatment of disease. Above all, we would urge that chiropractors be prohibited from treating children; children do not have the freedom to reject unscientific therapy that their parents may mistakenly turn into a crisis. If you've been considering a chiropractor for the first time, we think you'd be safer to reconsider. Even if you are dissatisfied with your physician's treatment of a back problem, you can ask for a consultation with another physician, such as an orthopedist or physiatrist. Then, if manipulative treatment were indicated, it could be performed by that specialist or by a physical therapist."

  4. We have decided that we cannot give the United States Consumers Union Report any weight as proof that the New Zealand chiropractors practice "unscientifically" or, in general, abuse their position, thus putting their patients at unnecessary risk. Whatever the situation may have been in the United States in 1975, we are concerned with the situation in New Zealand in 1979. In any event it would be patently unfair to place any undue reliance on material emanating from a consumer organization when we had no means of testing the soundness of that material.

  5. The Commission has another reason for its reservation on the weight to be placed on the Consumers Union report. That is because of evidence which was given before us by Dr Murray S. Katz, a Canadian medical practitioner who was brought to New Zealand for the purpose.

  6. Dr Katz told us that he had played some part in influencing the emphasis of the CU report. In the course of orally presenting his submissions he volunteered this comment:

    The Consumers Union started off very much in favor of chiropractic. After hearing what the AMA had to say about chiropractic, they were even more in favor of chiropractic, considering they had a vested interest, but it was only after Joe Butta came to Montreal and discussed this issue over many hours and many telephone calls [with me] that the Consumers Union in the United States completely reversed their stand on the chiropractic issue and went exactly the other way."

  7. Under cross-examination Dr Katz enlarged on this:

    "I can only relate secondhanded that when Joseph Butta began to look into the whole issue of chiropractic he was initially favorably disposed. Stephen Barrett told Joseph Butta that he should speak with me in Canada, and Joseph Butta refused to call me up or come to see me. As it turned out later, the reason for this was that Joe Butta -this is secondhand, it is pure hearsay, but it is what happened - felt that I was just another doctor, that I would just be saying what the American Medical Association said, and I would not be helping. However, Joe Butta did finally contact me, discuss the issue with me on the phone for 15-20 minutes, and felt impressed enough to fly down from Montreal, to spend some eight hours of discussions with me, and I think the turning point was my presenting him with the Pediatric hospital Report, which he had not seen before, and subsequently we were in constant contact, and he has credited me with telling me so, and with other people who have spoken to him, such as Don McKenzie, with having completely reversed his position on chiropractic".

    Q:   To summarize, then - I don't wish to contain any your answers in any way but you may feel at liberty to make them short - the position that Dr Barrett was consulted by those who were doing the article for Consumer?

    A:   That is right.

    Q:   You were also consulted by those who were doing the article by Consumer, and you yourself managed to change the view of the principle author?

    A:   Yes. I don't know if I was the only one that did that, but I can tell you that the heart of the pages of the article by Joe Butta strongly resembled things that I have written. He is free to edit them or change them as he likes, but someone who read Consumer Reports asked me if I had written it

    We should explain that the Dr Stephen Barrett referred to by Dr Katz is, or was, the chairman of the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud, Inc., an organization operating out of the city of Allentown in Pennsylvania. We will speak of Dr Barrett and our assessment of the value of his contribution to the debate on chiropractic in the next section.

  8. If it is true that Dr Katz was instrumental in convincing the author of the Consumers Union report to "completely reverse his position on chiropractic", then we must record that we are provided with further ground for placing little reliance on the report. Our reasons for taking this view of the matter will appear from our assessment of Dr Katz'z submissions and evidence in a later chapter.

[name since changed to Quackwatch, Inc.]

  1. The Lehigh Valley is a district not far from Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. Allentown is a small city in the district. It is there that the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud, In. has its headquarters. In 1976 the committee published a book called The Health Robbers.

    On page 312 the composition of the committee is described:

    "Currently, we have about 35 individual members whose interests, availability and talents are quite varied. Some are seasoned political activists, both in and out of the health field. Some are excellent writers and public speakers....All share a deep sense of fair play and interest in our fellow man. As time goes on, each of us carves out his or her own niche in our action network."

  2. The chairman of the committee's board of directors is Dr Stephen Barrett. He is a psychiatrist and is described in The Health Robbers as "the nation's most vigorous opponent against health quackery". He has for some years been the moving spirit behind the committee, at least on the question of chiropractic.

  3. We have considered material published over Barrett's name. The chapter on chiropractic in The Health Robbers (entitled "The Spine Salesmen") was written by him. It is plainly propaganda. What we have seen of the rest of his writings on chiropractic has the same tone. Nothing he has written on chiropractic that we have considered can be relied on as balanced.

  4. Other material which we have issued under the auspices of the Lehigh Valley Committee Against health Fraud has features which in our opinion render it unreliable on matters of fact. A good example is a package of material issued by the committee concerning, among other things, experiences of the Federal Insurance Plan with chiropractic, and in particular the experience of the National Association of Letter Carriers. This package was sent by the Lehigh Valley Committee to the Senate Finance Committee under cover of a letter dated 15 February 1972. The explanatory document (to which a number of exhibits was attached) states:

    The radiologist who examined 300 sets of X-rays found most of them to be of inferior quality and 'unfit for domestic purposes'....Even chiropractic officials who reviewed these X-rays could not locate the subluxations reported by the chiropractors who had submitted them.   We have italicized certain words in this passage so as to draw special attention to them.

  5. According to the photocopy of the radiologist's report dated 1965, attached to the explanatory document as Exhibit E3, the radiologist examined 200, not 300, sets of X-rays. He found a "large majority" of them to be of "poor" quality and of "limited diagnostic value". According to Exhibit E4, 20 sets of the X-rays (neither 300 nor 200 sets) were reviewed by chiropractic officials who could not identify subluxations supposed to be portrayed in them.

  6. Exhibit E2 purports to be a report by the medical consultant to the National Association of Letter Carriers on the same incident. His report asserts that the radiologist had reviewed "over 300" sets of X-rays and had "found only one subluxation" (the radiologists report says nothing about finding only one subluxation); and that "over fifty percent" were "totally unfit for any diagnostic purposes."

  7. We do not feel it necessary to attempt to unscramble this cavalier treatment of simple straightforward facts, obvious to anyone who reads the documents. It is astonishing to find this patently unreliable data from 1965 being recited to us in an attempt to prove in 1978 that chiropractic X-rays, and their diagnoses from their X-rays, are inadequate (see Dr P J Modde's evidence - Submission 126, pp 17,19).

  8. It is clear that the enthusiasm of the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud is greater than its respect for accuracy, at least in regards to facts concerning chiropractic. We are not prepared to place any reliance on material emanating from the Lehigh Valley Committee.


  1. We mention this book to show that we have not overlooked it. Some reliance was placed on it, and extracts from it, in the course of our inquiry. It comes down heavily against chiropractic .

  2. It cannot in the Commission's opinion be regarded as a text on which any reliance can be placed. It was published in the United States and Canada in 1969. It is a piece of special pleading. There is no true attempt of objective appraisal of chiropractic. It emphasizes the sensational.

  3. The author does not appear to have any particular qualifications except a desire to present chiropractic in the worst possible light. The Department of Investigation of the American Medical Association seems to have had something to do with encouraging Smith's investigations; certainly the American Medical Association took a considerable hand in disseminating the book once it was published. It appears to have been published shortly before the United States Senate's Finance Committee's investigation into whether chiropractic treatment should be included in social welfare aid programs. The Senate Finance Committee disregarded it and so do we.

**********end chapter 21************


Chapter 23, untitled "A North American Medical Practitioner", addresses the background, findings and testimony of Dr Stephen Barrett's colleague, Dr Murray S. Katz.   It is quoted below in its entirety:

  1. Dr Murray Simon Katz was potentially a very important witness from Canada. He was called before us as an expert witness by the New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists. That society and the Medical Association jointly paid his fares and expenses. At the time he appeared before us he was chairman of the Committee of Health Affairs of the Consumer' Association of Canada.

  2. Dr Katz put in a lengthy written submission. He presented it orally with the aid of projected slides. That, and his cross-examination, occupied three full sitting days. His principle thesis, as far as we were able to grasp it, was that chiropractors had clothed themselves with a "unity" theory of disease, but when that theory was examined through the impartial and unprejudiced eyes, such as those of an innocent child, the clothing turned out merely to be a chiropractic delusion.

  3. We should make it clear that Dr Katz presented himself as a most influential international figure. He is a pediatric practitioner in the city of Montreal. He set out details of his career in a notarized (i.e.sworn) preface to his written submission. As well as being a medical practitioner in active practice, Dr Katz is also an occasional journalist. He has published articles in about 11 different newspapers in North America and in Europe. His journalistic and extra-curricular activities label him, in his won words, "as a concerned advocate of consumer rights in many areas of consumer use of medical services". Using the third person to describe himself, he goes on:

    "Through numerous radio, TV, and news media reports, his opinions and advice have been heard, seen, and read by millions. Partly in recognition of this work, he was selected, in 1977, to be Chairman of the Committee on Health Affairs of the Consumers' Association of Canada. He continues in that capacity today."

  4. It might be thought that with that background Dr Katz would have been a witness whose submissions and evidence would be entitled to the greatest respect. Indeed, according to his statement he undertook a first hand study of chiropractic, involving interviews with over 100 different chiropractors across Canada. He attended lectures at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College in Toronto, and, by registering himself as a chiropractor, obtained access to information relative "to the inner workings and philosophy of chiropractic organizations in North America". In Dr Katz's own words:

    "The information obtained from his past and presently continuing research into the subject of chiropractic has been sought after by numerous individuals and groups. His letter correspondence on the subject is worldwide, and is in the hundreds. Over the past years he has addressed numerous meetings of lay-organizations, consumer organizations, hospital meetings, medical associations, physiotherapy associations, government commissions, and government civil servants organizations."

  5. Dr Katz also asserted his services as a consultant were in demand by Canadian Provincial Government Agencies. Again in his own words:

    "In 1973 Dr Katz served as a consultant to the Manitoba Health Services Commission on the subject of chiropractic. In 1973-4 he served as a consultant to the Ontario Ministry of Health. He was the principal researcher and author of the government report Recommendations for Health Disciplines Act Regarding the Practice of Manipulation Therapy. Dr Katz wishes to make it clear that the report of the Ontario Ministry of Health is not an official representation of the opinion and/or positions of the political leaders of that province. He does believe however that it does represent the basic thinking of the majority of civil servants concerned with this issue. Civil servants, have to adapt to political reality if they want to keep their jobs."

  6. Dr Katz was insistent that the stance he adapted on chiropractic was independent. He emphasized that point again under cross-examination. In his notarized statement, from which all the above quotations are taken, he said:

    "In order to maintain his independence and his right to speak on behalf of consumers, Dr Katz does all his work on a volunteer basis. Beyond the cost of travel expenses he refuses to accept financial payments for his time and expertise. He appears today before this Commission on this same basis."

    That was how Dr Katz described himself in the sworn preface to his written submission. He reaffirmed it when he presented his submission orally.

  7. Dr Katz might therefore be thought of as a persuasive speaker and writer and altogether an influential figure. He so regards himself, and is no doubt regarded by some others. That makes it necessary for the Commission to take what is perhaps an unusual course. We must explain in some detail our reasons for finding, as we do, that the submissions and evidence given by Dr Katz were unreliable and entitled only to very limited weight. The Commission did not expect to have to report on the credibility of any overseas expert witness. In this case the Commission has a clear responsibility to do so.

  8. As we have said, we saw and heard Dr Katz on the witness stand for 3 full sitting days. He was strongly cross-examined by counsel for the Chiropractor's Association. It was suggested during his re-examination that much of the cross-examination amounted to an unwarranted personal attack on him. The Commission does not agree. The cross-examination was directly relevant to credibility and bias.

  9. In spite of his assertions in his evidence in chief and cross-examination that he adapted an independent stance we were told at a late stage of his evidence that he was in the process of suing chiropractic interests in Canada for damages of libel. The Commission was later told at a public sitting by counsel for the New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists that the defendant was in fact the Canadian Chiropractic Association.

  10. We do not know what was the alleged libel in respect of which Dr Katz seeks damages in the Canadian courts, or how enthusiastically he is pressing his claim, but it is clear because he is a plaintiff in litigation of this kind it is impossible for us to regard Dr Katz as an independent expert witness on the subject of chiropractic. As a plaintiff suing chiropractors for damages he has a personal and financial interest which is contrary to theirs. Plainly he could not be regarded as presenting an independent viewpoint. That must affect the weight to be given to his evidence. He said he was independent. He may well have believed he was when he gave evidence before the Commission. But in fact he was in no position to be independent.

  11. Next, Dr Katz was very frank about how he came by certain material and information regarding chiropractic. It appears that he so strongly felt the need to investigate chiropractic from the inside that he adapted a series of dishonest stratagems to enable himself to do so. He gained entry to the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College by giving false information. He induced a friend in the United States to supply him with a letter, which Dr Katz himself prepared, asserting falsely, that Dr Katz (using another name) was a chiropractor living in the United States and wanted to move to Canada.

    Dr Katz also had himself registered as a chiropractor: He did so by asserting that he held the degree of Doctor of Chiropractic from Palmer College. He had no such degree. He had never been a student at Palmer College. His conduct was plainly fraudulent. By these means and by using various pseudonyms, he was able to gain the confidence of a number of chiropractors. He freely conceded under cross-examination -and indeed he had no alternative - that he had lied to the authorities of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College in Toronto, and to others, and that his assertion that he held a degree of Doctor of Chiropractic was fraudulent.

  12. At the time when he adapted this policy of lies and fraud, which was deliberate and calculated, he was registered as a medical practitioner. Dr Katz told us that the medical authorities in Canada had never taken any disciplinary action against him. It is not for the Commission to say whether disciplinary action is or is not appropriate in such a case, but the Commission wishes to state that it is disappointing to find that a practicing medical practitioner could think it right to indulge in a deliberate course of lies and deceit of that kind. Dr Katz told us of these matters without any appearance of shame. Bearing in mind the high standard of ethical behavior rightly demanded of its members by the medical profession throughout the British Commonwealth, the Commission would not wish to appear to condone in any way Dr Katz's conduct in this respect.

  13. Dr Katz's cover was however, blown when he gave evidence as an expert medical witness in a criminal prosecution against a chiropractor on February 8, 1974 in a Montreal court. As we understood Dr Katz's evidence, this was not a prosecution which had been initiated by the police. It was a prosecution initiated by a group of private citizens concerned with consumer affairs, of which Dr Katz was one. So much for Dr Katz's independence. After that Dr Katz found understandable difficulty communicating with his various chiropractic contacts. It is perhaps a measure of Dr Katz's sensitivity and sense of reality that we understood him to express before us a feeling of disappointment that chiropractors would not talk freely to him or listen to speeches from him after that incident and after they knew the facts about him.

  14. The weight of the materials and information acquired by Dr Katz, by the stratagems we have briefly outlined above is not, of course affected by the manner in which they were obtained. We think, however, that Dr Katz's interpretation of that material and the information which he passed on to us orally must be suspect.

  15. Next, as we have said, Dr Katz held himself out to us as having acted as a consultant to various Canadian Government agencies. He was cross-examined on these matters. In the source of his cross-examination official correspondence relevant to these matter was produced to us, and it was not suggested that the correspondence was anything but genuine.

  16. The first matter is Dr Katz's assertion that he served as consultant to the Manitoba Health Services Commission on the subject of chiropractic in 1973. In February 1974 the executive director of the Manitoba Health Services Commission (Dr D. H. Crofford) wrote to the Canadian Chiropractic Association a letter which was produced to us in which it was categorically denied that Dr Katz had ever been appointed, or ever had served, as a consultant either to the Manitoba Government or the Manitoba Health Services Commission. In fact he visited Manitoba on one occasion to talk to the commission about chiropractic.

  17. On the question of Dr Katz's alleged consultancy to the Ontario Ministry of Health, on February 25, 1974 the Canadian Chiropractic Association wrote to the Minister of Health (at that time the Hon. Dr Richard Potter). A copy of the letter was produced. The relevant parts of it read:

    "It is with the gravest concern...that we received the information that the chief antagonist of regulatory legislation in the Province of Quebec has been retained as a consultant on such matters by the Government of Ontario. Dr Murray Katz of Montreal, announced in a Court of law in Montreal on February 8th that he is a consultant to the governments of Manitoba and Ontario."

    We have been in touch with the government of Manitoba and have been advised that Dr Katz is not now, and has never been, a consultant to that Government. We would like at this time to make the following inquiries of your Ministry:

    1.   Has Dr Murray Katz been appointed a consultant to the Government of Ontario or any of its ministries, branches or agencies?

    2.   If so, are any informational sessions planned, or have any been held between Dr Katz and the officials of the Ministry?"

    On March 4, 1974 the Minister of Health replied. The following letter was produced. The relevant portions of it are as follows:

    "In response to your specific questions:

    1.   Dr Katz has not been appointed a consultant to this Ministry nor, to my knowledge, any branch of this Government.

    2.   Ministry people have talked with Dr Katz and will no doubt have further discussions with him."

    So the Ontario Ministry of Health plainly took the view that Dr Katz was never its consultant.

  18. Finally, there is Dr Katz's assertion that he was the principal researcher and author of the Ontario Government report (the italics are ours and the word "Government" is his) entitled Recommendations for the Health Disciplines Act regarding the Practice of Manipulation Therapy by Physiotherapists and Chiropractors. Dr Katz represented this report as emanating from the Ontario Ministry of Health. He produced a photocopy of the original as part of his submission. Its title page bears the legend "Ontario Ministry of Health, June 1974". There can be no doubt that we were intended to believe, from the title page of the report, and Dr Katz's evidence, that the report was in fact an official document emanating from the Ontario Ministry of Health.

  19. On September 14, 1978 the Canadian Chiropractic Association wrote again to the Ontario Minister of health. The letter, a copy of which was produced to us stated:

    "The Canadian Chiropractic Association has been requested to authenticate before a commission inquiry, certain statements made by Dr  Murray Katz in a submission he will present shortly to the Royal Commission of Inquiry in New Zealand."

  20. The Canadian Chiropractic Association then set out the passage from Dr Katz's notarized statement which we have quoted above, attached a photocopy of the title page of the report as exhibited by Dr Katz, mentioned the letter of March 4, 1974 in which the then Minister of Health had confirmed that Dr Katz was not a consultant to the Ontario ministry of health, and continued:

    "Our Association appreciated receiving this information regarding Dr Katz. He does however continue to make these statements. As this is before a royal commission of inquiry, and as some of these statements appear to be questionable, we would be grateful if you could respond to the following:

    1.   Has Dr Katz served as a consultant to, or been employed by the Ontario Ministry of  Health subsequent to March 4, 1974?

    2.   Is the referred report to an official report commissioned by the Ontario Ministry of  Health?

    3.   If so, was Dr Katz the principal researcher and author on behalf of the Ontario Ministry of Health?

    4.   Were Ontario Ministry of Health officials involved in the preparation of this report?

  21. The following is the Minister's reply, which was produced to us, dated September 28, 1978:

    "In response to your letter of September 14, 1978 regarding Dr Murray Katz, I wish to re-affirm this Ministry's response of March 4th, 1974, in which the Honorable F. S. Miller, then Minister of Health, stated:

    'Dr Katz has not been appointed consultant of this Ministry nor, to my knowledge, any branch of this government.' Furthermore, Dr Katz has not been appointed a consultant to this Ministry subsequent to March 4th, 1974. I also wish to make clear that the referred to report entitled 'Recommendations for the Health Disciplines Act regarding the Practice of Manipulation Therapy by Physiotherapists and Chiropractors' was written entirely by Dr Katz and sent to this Ministry as information. The Ministry was not involved in either the researching of authoring of this report."

  22. So the report was not the ministry's report at all: Dr Katz had written the whole thing himself, no doubt hoping the ministry would adopt it.

  23. Before us, Dr Katz sought to explain that patent inconsistencies between what he had sworn to in his notarized statement and his evidence in chief on the one hand, and the official responses which were produced to us, portions of which we have set out above. As we understood him, his explanation was that the official responses were dictated by political expediency. We see no reason to make such assumption. We think Dr Katz has become so emotionally involved in his self-appointed role as a "concerned advocate of consumer rights" that over a period of some years he has allowed his enthusiasm to override his judgement, his sense of reality, and his sense of what is proper. In his evidence in chief he was voluble, and we are satisfied that he found it difficult to distinguish between the role of expert witness and that of advocate. In cross-examination he tended to be evasive.

  24. Having regard to the matters we have specifically mentioned, and to Dr Katz's general demeanor as a witness as we observed him during the three days of his submissions and evidence, we are abundantly satisfied that it would be quite unsafe to rely on his opinions, or on any of his evidence on matters of fact which were not completely verified from an independent and reliable source.

  25. At the same time we found a limited number of the ideas which Dr Katz expressed valuable to us in throwing a new light on some aspects of our inquiry, and in suggesting some matters which we should take into account, which we might otherwise have overlooked. Dr Katz told us that he believed he had been instrumental in influencing the view of Mr Joseph R. Botta, who is the executive director of the United States Consumers Union, and that the union's report on chiropractic (see chapter 21) contained in the September and October 1975 issues of its magazine had been materially influenced by Dr Katz's views. We have already expressed some doubt whether the United States Consumer's Union report is entitled to any real weight in our inquiry, since it deals with the United States situation which for a variety of reasons is different from that of New Zealand. If Dr Katz did materially influence the findings in that report, his evidence only adds to our doubt as to the weights to be attached to the report.

**************end of chapter 23************

Thanks to Jay Perrin for his tireless efforts in typing out these materials!



                  © 19952024 ~ The Chiropractic Resource Organization ~ All Rights Reserved