The Inside Story

Background

Dr. Christian H. E. Farthing has been a chiropractic patient since he was six months old. His mother, Valerie, having had nursing training, understood many years ago that the birth process can be traumatic to the spine of newborns, and how important a healthy spine and nervous system are for growth, development and optimal health. Therefore, she took her son for his first evaluation. Since then, as a young boy, Christian has grown to understand wellness care first hand, having spinal check-ups throughout his life. It is now his mission to share this "health secret" and way of life with his patients and community.

Dr. Farthing graduated with a double degree in Bachelor of Applied Science (Clinical Science) and Bachelor of Chiropractic Sciences. At graduation, he was awarded with Clinical Science awards and the prestigious 'Graduate of the Year Award'. Dr. Farthing was quickly sought after as a professional locum to take care of some of the largest chiropractic practices in Australia. In Australia he continues to remain a registered chiropractor and is asked to speak at seminars here in the United Kingdom and overseas to a variety of health professionals.

Chiropractors around the world now form the largest drugless profession on the planet. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom are reducing chiropractic to something very different than the principles it was founded upon in 1895.

Two forms of Chiropractic.Two different Chiropractors

Chiropractic, around the world, is divided. There is one half that practice in a way that is congruent with medicine, but not what chiropractic was founded upon. This small faction of chiropractic only provide palliative care and provide treatment to relieve symptoms. It is the purpose of this kind of chiropractor to see a patient for 6-8 visits for pain relief and possibly some kind of treatment regime to minimise pain. This kind of chiropractor is trained in the UK. Unfortunately, training is limited to this one form of chiropractic. It is unfortunate for the profession but even more unfortunate for the community who miss out on the many benefits that the other, more prevalent faction of chiropractic, provide all around the world, from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA, Europe, South Africa and even Ireland.

The leading and most prevalent group of chiropractors are trained overseas in countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States.

Dr. Farthing graduated with a double degree as a Doctor of Chiropractic in Australia, where he practiced as a Chiropractor until June 2000 when he decided to move to the UK. Due to his reputation, he was contracted to come to the UK and help lead the wellness movement.

Dr. Farthing now practices as a Spinal Specialist in Blean, near Canterbury in Kent in the United Kingdom. His speciality in the detection of the most common form of nerve stress, vertebral subluxation, has made him well-known around the world. His commitment to providing a service to his patients and community has allowed him to create one of the busiest spinal and subluxation-based practices in the UK.

He has a vision and commitment to creating a healthier community, educating and adjusting as many families as possible toward optimal health and wellness through modern natural spinal care.

Dr. Farthing wants the public to receive the highest standard of healthcare that is among the fastest growing, natural forms of healthcare around the world.yes, chiropractic. He has spent the last ten years studying and practicing the principles of optimal performance health and healing, spinal correction and wellness care. This, and the deteriorating health in the community, inspired him to create a health practice providing superior facilities with affordable, modern natural healthcare for families.

The Ideal Spine Centre was designed and built to provide solutions to the many unanswered health problems as many people experience every day in their lives. It is a unique health practice that is not only a healing environment, but also an educational institution to empower people to make better health choices and understand what true health and wellness really is.

Dr. Farthing has received numerous distinctions, including:

• International recognition as a distinguished fellow for technical excellence in clinical and spinal biomechanics;

• Awarded and recognised internationally for providing the highest standard of patient care;

• He is the leading author of the best seller "The World's Best Kept Health Secret Revealed".

• He is also a community based leader, having been elected with a large majority as a Canterbury City Councillor, for the heart of the city, the city centre from 2003-2007.

Dr. Farthing is the leader of the wellness movement in Europe with the Ideal Spine Centre being the headquarters for wellness care here in the UK.

The Wellness Movement

By Dr Christian H. E. Farthing

The community have been led to believe their current and/or future health comes from a pill, potion or tablet. If that were the case, surely we would have been born with a bottle in our hands.?

It is hard to believe only a few centuries ago, people thought the world was flat. Fortunately Christopher Columbus didn't hold this belief and set out to discover the new world. By doing so, he changed existence on the planet for everyone.

Even after the discovery was made and evidence to prove it true, not everyone believed it. Now we look back and try to imagine how anybody could have ever thought the world was flat.

Was the world ever flat and then turned round? Of course not. It was only until we were made aware of the truth that our beliefs changed.

Today because of the widespread use of antibiotics in the "sick care" system, bacteria have become completely resistant to antibiotics. When in pain, sick care offers answers in the form of pain killers; when swelling occurs - anti-inflammatories; headaches have a wide list of pills to choose from; muscle relaxers for muscle spasms; sinus medication for sinus problems; potions for allergies and other cocktails of other tablets and potions for digestion problems, bowel problems, moodiness and so on.

The list for "sick care" can go on indefinitely!

We have been led to believe taking medication is a normal part of life. There is no doctor on the planet who could tell us exactly how all these medications would react with each other once they enter each individual person's body.

Making the switch?

Health care is now going through a shift in beliefs. What we have named the "health care" system is really a "sick care" system. I believe the "flat world" society of sick care is becoming the alternative, rather than the mainstream choice.

The public needs to respect the human body for what it is really capable of. But more importantly, we must embrace the wellness care movement which relies on you taking responsibility for your health and not passively handing it over to your doctor and a bottle of pills.

Health and healing always come from within. Just like the world was NEVER flat, health has NEVER come from outside sources like medication, injections and foreign substances to the body.

Have you been someone who has thought the world was flat or health came from the outside? Now you know the truth, your beliefs can change - HEALTH COMES FROM WITHIN.It always has done and always will do.

I hope you can now make better health choices like millions of other people in the UK and around the world and look for greater wellness, rather than waiting for sickness to occur.

From Trivia to Truth

The Flat World versus the Round World

Unfortunately, many organizations in the United Kingdom are still living in the dark ages. W e have greater technology and science, yet medical injury is at an all time high, adverse reactions to medication at record levels and more people dissatisfied with our current health care system.

We are at a point in our community when there is more sickness today, more suffering and greater heartache due to the loss of loved ones from chronic illness than ever before.

Never in history have we seen so many diseases, conditions and ailments. Never in history have we seen more drugs, more medication and surgical procedures being consumed in our community. They are at an all time high!

We are living in a 'Flat World' in relation to health care systems. Unfortunately, the people at the centre of all decisions are not the doctors and those out there in the field doing the work. That is because they are doing a great job and extremely busy at that. Therefore, those people who don't succeed in private practice or prefer administration rather than helping people end up making the decisions for the welfare of the masses. Is this right? Definitely not, but as you will see with Dr. Farthing's case, he was called to answer a case by those who are not necessarily the best in private practice and helping the people

The question is: what can we do about it.?

I hope you see through the information you are about to read and how there is possibly another agenda being played out by a registration and Dr. Farthing was the perfect case to use to help a small group of people to achieve their own objectives.

You will be able to read statements, comments and observations made by other experts in the field, from the UK and internationally, regarding standards of care. You may ask, why weren't these ever considered at the case hearing.simply, they were not allowed to be.

Dr. Farthing has provided his own personal account of the findings and also facts that have not been exposed so you may not get a balanced view. These are in GREEN text.

Imagine being a builder and being judged by a hairdresser, a plumber who didn't like builders, two non-practising builders who really didn't keep up with the latest information, a plasterer who can smooth over the edges and cover up bad building work, and a legal advisor. Well, that is what happened to Dr. Farthing. Dr. Farthing was judged by a retired Dentist, a Pharmacist, two non-practising chiropractors, a relief based chiropractor, and a legal advisor.

NOTE: This section is currently under construction, but we wanted you to know what happened to Dr. Farthing so you can make your own judgement.

Yours for greater truth and wellness, The Wellness Movement UK.

Patients speak out.

 

The Padiachey Family

 

 

 

In the matter of Section 22 of the Chiropractors Act 1994 ("the Act")

And

The General Chiropractic Council (Professional Conduct Committee) Rules 2000 ("the Rules")

And

The consideration of allegations by the Professional Conduct Committee by way of public hearing

NOTICE OF FINDING BY

THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

OF THE GENERAL CHIROPRACTIC COUNCIL

This Notice has been amended to incorporate the notice of the Committee's reasons published on 18 June 2003.

Name of Respondent : Christian Hamilton Edward Farthing

Address of Respondent: Kent Family Chiropractic

30 Whitstable Road

Blean

Canterbury

Kent CT2 9EB

Registration Number of Respondent: 00666

On 23-25 April 2003, 6-8 and 12 May 2003, and the 5-6 June 2003 the Professional Conduct Committee ("the Committee") of the General Chiropractic Council met to consider the following allegations against you, referred to it by the Investigating Committee in accordance with Section 20(12)(b)(ii) of the Chiropractors Act 1994 ("the Act"):

ALLEGATIONS

That you, having been registered continuously as a chiropractor since 31 August 2000 to date under registration number 00666, whilst practising at the Hope Chiropractic Clinic, Canterbury, Kent:

PATIENT A

1. On 27 October 2000, whilst treating Patient A, you unnecessarily exposed her to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000 ("the IRMER 2000")

2. On a further occasion, on 23 January 2001, you unnecessarily exposed Patient A to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000.

3. Whilst treating Patient A between 1 August 2000 and 9 March 2001, you failed to maintain adequate records, in particular:

(a) There is no record of continued reassessment of the patient's condition at each visit;

(b) There is no record of pre- or post-treatment analysis;

(c) Where re-examination has taken place, there is no record of the examination procedures undertaken and the positive and negative findings thereof;

(d) The notation for each visit is not such that other chiropractors or health care practitioners could understand the treatment given;

4. Between approximately 28 September 2000, by which time Patient A had received approximately 25 treatments, and approximately 15 March 2001, by which time she had received approximately 76 treatments, you failed to act in her best interests in that in the absence of improvement in her condition, and latterly despite clear evidence of deterioration, you:

(a) Failed to re-evaluate the treatment protocol

(b) Failed to refer her to another clinician

5. Whilst treating Patient A between 1 August 2000 and 9 March 2001, you failed to take steps to minimise the need for further treatment or to avoid dependence, in that there is no record of continued reassessment at each visit or the provision of appropriate advice.

6. Whilst treating Patient A between 1 August 2000 and 9 March 2001, you exerted undue influence over Patient A in that you:

(a) Provided advice which placed Patient A in a position where she felt unable not to comply with your recommendations;

(b) Misrepresented the gravity of Patient A's condition and the therapeutic effects of treatment;

(c) Attempted to reinforce the need for a year's course of treatment through the use of mechanisms such as group lectures, pre-payment to reduce total treatment costs and misrepresenting the consequences of failing to have regular chiropractic care.

PATIENTS B, C and D

7. On 12 July 2000, when treating Patient B, you unnecessarily exposed him to ionizing radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000.

8. On 12 October 2000, when treating Patient B, you unnecessarily exposed him to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000.

9. On 24 May 2001, when treating Patient B, you unnecessarily exposed him to ionizing radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000.

10. On 16 January 2001 you performed X-rays on Patient C, the wife of Patient B, unnecessarily exposing her to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000.

11. On 22 August 2000, whilst treating Patient D, the daughter of Patient B, you unnecessarily exposed her to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000.

12. On 5 September 2000, whilst treating Patient D, you unnecessarily exposed her to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000.

13. On 26 April 2001, whilst treating Patient D, you unnecessarily exposed her to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000.

14. Whilst providing treatment to Patient B between 4 July 2000 and 13 June 2001 you failed to maintain adequate records, in particular;

(a) There is no record of continued reassessment of the patient's condition at each visit;

(b) There is no record of pre- or post-treatment analysis;

(c) Where re-examination has taken place, there is no record of the examination procedures undertaken and the positive and negative findings thereof;

(d) The notation for each visit is not such that other chiropractors or health care practitioners could understand the treatment given;

15. Whilst treating Patient B between 4 July 2000 and 13 June 2001, you failed to take steps to minimise the need for further treatment or to avoid treatment dependence in that there is no record of continued reassessment at each visit or the provision of appropriate advice.

16. Whilst treating Patient B between 4 July 2002 and 13 June 2001, you exerted undue influence on Patient B in that you:

(a) Provided advice which placed Patient B in a position where he felt unable not to comply with your recommendations;

(b) Misrepresented the gravity of Patient B's condition and the therapeutic effects of treatment;

(c) Misrepresented the gravity of his family's conditions and the therapeutic effects of treatment;

(d) Attempted to reinforce the need to attend a lengthy course of treatment through the use of mechanisms such as group lectures, pre-payment to reduce total treatment costs and misrepresenting the consequences of failing to have regular chiropractic care.

And that having done so, in relation to the facts alleged, you are guilty of conduct that falls short of the standard required of a registered chiropractor (Section 20(1)(a) of the Act), referred to as unacceptable professional conduct (Section 20(2) of the Act).

In accordance with the provisions of Rule 18(1)(a) of the General Chiropractic Council (Professional Conduct Committee) Rules 2000 ("the Rules"), notice is hereby given of the decision of the Committee.

Dr Farthing was found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct in respect of 13 of the 16 allegations listed and a suspension order of 9 months was made , to have effect 28 days from the date notice of the Committee's reasons was served upon him. In addition, Dr Farthing was advised to undertake further training.

DECISION

The performance of X-rays as part of a routine care plan cannot be justified by date or schedule only. Each X-ray needs individual justification under the requirements of the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000 ("the IRMER 2000").

Patient A

In relation to Allegation 1, that on 27 October 2000 whilst treating Patient A, you unnecessarily exposed her to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000. We find this particular X-ray was not justified [allegation proved].

That on a further occasion, on 23 January 2001, you unnecessarily exposed Patient A to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000. We find this allegation not proved.

That whilst treating Patient A between 1 August 2000 and 9 March 2001, you failed to maintain adequate records: We have considered this allegation in the round, as well as the particular matters set out in [Allegation 3 Sectio ns] (a) - (d) and find this allegation proven. As has been admitted by Dr Farthing, the standard of record keeping was inadequate and the notation used was not sufficiently clear to be understood by other chiropractors, in that it failed to reach the standard required by the Standard of Proficiency, and the working diagnosis required was not in a form that could be readily understood by other health care practitioners. We consider that the records kept in relation to (a) - (d) are inadequate.

In relation to Allegation 4, we found that between approximately 28 September 2000, by which time Patient A had received approximately 25 treatments, and approximately 15 March 2001, by which time she had received approximately 76 treatments, you failed to act in her best interests in that in the absence of improvement in her condition, and latterly despite clear evidence of deterioration, you failed to re-evaluate the patient and/or to refer her to another clinician.

Similarly, in respect of Allegation 5, we found that whilst treating Patient A between 1 August 2000 and 9 March 2001, you failed to take steps to minimise the need for further treatment or to avoid dependence in that there was inadequate record of continued assessment at each visit or the provision of appropriate advice.

In relation to Allegation 6, the Committee found that whilst treating Patient A between 1 August 2000 and 9 March 2001, you exerted undue influence over Patient A in that you:

(a) Provided inappropriate advice which placed Patient A in a position where she felt compelled to comply with your recommendations;

(b) Exaggerated the gravity of Patient A's condition and the therapeutic effects of treatment;

(c) Attempted to reinforce the need for a year's course of treatment through the use of mechanisms such as both group lectures and pre-payment to reduce total treatment costs in an inappropriate way, and exaggerated the consequences of failing to have regular chiropractic care.

Patients B, C & D

The performance of X-rays as part of a routine care plan cannot be justified by date or schedule only. Each X-ray needs individual justification under the requirements of the IRMER 2000.

Regarding Allegation 7 that on 12 July 2000, when treating Patient B, you unnecessarily exposed him to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000. We find that this particular X-ray was not justified [allegation proved].

And similarly regarding Allegation 8 that on 12 October 2000, when treating Patient B, you unnecessarily exposed him to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000. We find that this X-ray was also not justified [allegation proved].

In relation to Allegation 9, that on 24 May 2001 when treating Patient B, you unnecessarily exposed him to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000. We find that the obtaining of consent for a patient to an X-ray examination is not in itself justification and that there was no case made for any other justification. An X-ray is not essential to the detection of structural change in every case, as other less invasive methods are available.

In relation to Allegation 10, that on 16 January 2001 you performed X-rays on Patient C, the wife of Patient B, unnecessarily exposing her to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000. This X-ray was not justified [allegation proved].

In relation to Allegation 11, we found this charge not proven.

In relation to Allegation 12, we found this charge not proven.

In relation to Allegation 13, that on 26 April 2001, whilst treating Patient D, you unnecessarily exposed her to ionising radiation in the absence of indicative clinical symptoms, contrary to the provisions of the IRMER 2000. We found this charge proven.

In relation to Allegation 14 we found that, whilst providing treatment to Patient B between 4 July 2000 and 13 June 2001, you failed to maintain adequate records. We have also considered this allegation in the round, as well as the particular matters set out in [Allegation 14 Sections] (a) - (d) and find this allegation proven. As has been admitted by Dr Farthing, the standard of record keeping was inadequate and the notation used was not sufficiently clear to be understood by other chiropractors, in that it failed to reach the standard required by the Standard of Proficiency, and the working diagnosis required was not in a form that could be readily understood by other health care practitioners. We consider that the records kept in relation to (a) - (d) are inadequate.

In respect of Allegation 15, we found that whilst treating Patient B between 4 July 2000 and 13 June 2001, you failed to take steps to minimise the need for further treatment or to avoid dependence in this case, in that the time intervals between repeat visits did not progressively increase.

In relation to Allegation 16, the Committee found that, whilst treating Patient B between 4 July 2000 and 13 June 2001, you exerted undue influence on Patient B in that you:

(a) Provided advice which placed Patient B in a position where he felt compelled to comply with your recommendations;

(b) Exaggerated the gravity of Patient B's condition and the therapeutic effects of treatment;

(c) Exaggerated the gravity of his family's conditions and the therapeutic effects of treatment;

(d) Attempted to reinforce the need to attend a lengthy course of treatment through the use of both group lectures and pre-payment to reduce total treatment costs in an inappropriate way, and exaggerated the consequences of failing to have regular chiropractic care.

And in relation to the allegations which we have found proved above, you are guilty of conduct that falls short of the standard required of a registered chiropractor, referred to as 'unacceptable professional conduct'.

SANCTION

Dr Farthing:

We have carefully considered all the sanctions available to us and wish to make it plain that we take a very serious view of this matter, mindful of our duty to protect the public, even though you are before us as a man of previous good character. We have decided to impose a Suspension Order on you for a period of 9 months, commencing in 28 days time [28 days from the date on which written notice of the PCC's decision is served upon Dr Farthing]. We strongly advise you to reflect upon the reasons for this Suspension Order. In addition, you would be well advised to pay careful attention to the particular aspects of your practice which have been found wanting by this Committee. We recommend that you take appropriate advice on the style of your practice, the use of Xrays and your record keeping, bearing in mind the Standard of Proficiency [for the Safe and

Competent Practice of Chiropractic and Code of Practice as published by the General Chiropractic Council in the United Kingdom. In this context you should be aware that there is power under Section 22(9) of the Chiropractors Act 1994 to extend the period of suspension, or make a Conditions of Practice Order, if you do not voluntarily accept this advice. Chairman of the Professional Conduct Committee

REASONS

The hearing in this case took place over eight and half days, during which the Committee heard oral evidence from:

· Three patients (A, B and C)

· The husband of Patient A

· Two expert witnesses (Dr Brown and Dr Stick)

· Dr Farthing

The Committee also considered many pages of written evidence, including reference materials relating to the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000, copies of the patients' notes, educational material provided to patients by Dr Farthing, as well as the statements of the witnesses, the expert reports of Dr Stick and Dr Brown and the statements of Dr Farthing. In relation to the charges involving X-rays (Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, & 13) which were found proved, the reasons for these findings were that Dr Farthing had failed to establish sufficient justification for any of the exposures prior to them being undertaken in that the records of such justifications were inadequate, both in relation to the requirements of the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000 and the Standard of Proficiency & the Code of Practice ("the SOP & COP"). The Committee did not accept the justifications for the Xrays put forward at the hearing by Dr Farthing and his expert witness, Dr Stick, believing them to be retrospective justifications and thus not in accordance with the Regulations, which require justification prior to the exposure. The evidence adduced pointed to these X-rays being taken as part of a pre-determined schedule rather than being justified by clinical need and, in any case, it was felt that the justifications put forward by Dr Farthing and his expert were insufficient to warrant the exposures. In relation to the charges involving record-keeping (Nos. 3 & 14) the reasons for finding the charges proved were that the notations used were insufficiently detailed to make care decisions and were not readily understandable by another chiropractor or other health care practitioner, as admitted by Dr Farthing during his evidence and as required by the SOP &COP. Dr Farthing tended on many occasions to rely upon his memory rather than written records and his explanation of what the written records meant was confusing and contradictory.

In relation to the charges of undue influence (Nos. 6 & 16) the reasons for finding the charges proved were that, when treating Patients A and B, the emphasis of the information given by Dr Farthing placed them in a position where they felt compelled to comply with his recommendations. It became clear during the hearing, when Patients A and B were giving oral evidence, that in light of this they honestly felt unable to question or disagree with the advice and treatment plan outlined by Dr Farthing. It also became clear that Dr Farthing had exaggerated the gravity of their respective conditions and the therapeutic effects of treatment, and that he had attempted to reinforce the need for a year's course of treatment through the use of mechanisms, such as group lectures and pre-payment to reduce the total treatment costs, in an inappropriate way, and that he had exaggerated and misrepresented the consequences of failing to have regular chiropractic care. In respect of these particular allegations the Committee preferred the evidence of Patients A, B and C over that of Dr . Farthing.

In relation to the charge of failing to act in the best interests of the patient (No. 4) the reasons for finding this charge proved were that it became clear that Dr Farthing had failed to reevaluate his treatment adequately when problems arose and were reported, and he had failed to refer Patient A to another clinician, as required by the SOP & COP.

In relation to the charges of failure to minimise the need for further treatment or to avoid dependence (Nos. 5 & 15) Dr Farthing had failed to keep an adequate record of continued reassessment at each visit or the provision of appropriate advice, as required by the SOP & COP and as admitted by Dr Farthing during his evidence. Such reassessment as was periodically carried out, in accordance with a pre-determined schedule, was inadequately recorded. The Committee did not accept that the subjective comments of the patients in questionnaires, put forward by Dr Farthing as one of the key aspects of his reassessment process, were able to be substituted for a proper clinical examination or the taking and proper recording of an ongoing case history.

Dr Farthing did not demonstrate adequate understanding or acceptance of the legal obligations in the UK in respect of the use of ionising radiation, set out in the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000. His mode of practice in these cases failed to show proper appreciation of the power imbalance in the doctor/patient relationship.

Dr Farthing also failed to demonstrate adequate understanding and acceptance of the binding obligations on all chiropractors in the UK laid out in the SOP & COP. These do not seek to proscribe the scope of practice but do define the minimum standards expected of a "reasonable" practitioner.

In accordance with the provisions of Rule 18(1)(a) of the Rules we must remind you of your right of appeal, under Section 31 of the Act, to the High Court of Justice in England & Wales against this decision of the Committee. Any such appeal must be made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date upon which this notice is served upon you.

Signed: Dated: 18 June 2003

Gregory Price

Executive Officer (Regulation)

Clerk to the Professional Conduct Committee

The Inside Story

The gentleman above, as I understand it, has been removed from the GCC for writing discriminatory information onto professional websites to create problems for some of the country's best chiropractors, like Dr. Farthing, who want to improve the health and wellness of our society.and not just patch it up.

The gentleman above is no longer an employee of the GCC. There has been very little comment made by the GCC about his quick and quiet departure. However, he was instrumental in provoking the complaints made about Dr. Farthing as the Executive Officer for the General Chiropractic Council (GCC).

It is strange how life is, but the truth and peoples' underlying motives will be proven in the end.

This brings to light the purpose of this important part of communication that I feel helps you understand the 'Inside Story' behind the suspension of one our country's most enthusiastic, passionate, outspoken and honest doctors, Dr. Christian H. E. Farthing.

Before I shed some light, or should I say darkness on Dr. Farthing's recent past dealings with the GCC, I would like to remind you of Dr. Mendelson, a world famous medical doctor who questioned the use, overuse and exploitation of drugs in medicine. He also exposed the truth behind vaccination. For his righteousness, he was ostracised within the medical establishment, but to this date, like many other men and women who have spoken the truth to help the community at large, Dr. Mendelson will always be remembered.

Dr. Christian Farthing is not a maverick or the 'ace' in a packet of cards, but due to his level of expertise and commitment to helping save our community from continued sickness at our own growing expense with the National Health Service, he will always express the facts and truth so you can make your own decision.

In the matter of Section 22 of the Chiropractors Act 1994 ("the Act")

And

The General Chiropractic Council (Professional Conduct Committee) Rules 2000 ("the Rules")

NOTICE OF FINDING BY

THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

OF THE GENERAL CHIROPRACTIC COUNCIL

Name of Respondent: Christian Hamilton Edward Farthing

Address of Respondent: Ideal Spine Centre

30 Whitstable Road

Blean

Canterbury

Kent CT2 9EB

Registration Number of Respondent: 00666

On 19 January 2004, in accordance with the provisions of Section 22(9) of the Chiropractors Act 1994, the Professional Conduct Committee ("the Committee") of the General Chiropractic Council met to review the Suspension Order currently in force against you. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 18(2) of the General Chiropractic Council (Professional Conduct Committee) Rules 2000 ("the Rules"), notice is hereby given of the

decision of the Committee.

DECISION & REASONS

The Committee has considered very carefully the evidence put before it today. It was very concerned that you, Dr Farthing, have not seen fit to respond to the invitation to submit evidence as to the changes in your practice which the Committee recommended you make in order to rectify the shortcomings identified at the hearing which resulted in your suspension from the Register.

The Committee wishes to remind you that, in order to protect the public, it recommended that you take appropriate advice on the style of your practice, the use of X-rays and your record keeping, bearing in mind the Standard of Proficiency and the Code of Practice as published by the General Chiropractic Council. We have not had from you any indication that our advice has been heeded and the tenor of your letter of 22 December 2003 indicated to us that your attitude is contrary to our recommendations. A suspension order is a very serious sanction intended to protect the public for its duration. We were concerned to hear in evidence from Mr Jay that you were practising as "spinal specialist" in a practise which is taking X-rays. In view of our duty to protect the public, and to safeguard the standing of the chiropractic profession, we now impose a further Suspension Order for the maximum extension available to us today - namely to run for three (3) years from 16 April 2004. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 18(2) of the General Chiropractic Council (Professional Conduct Committee) Rules 2000 we must remind you of your right of appeal, under Section 31 of the Chiropractors Act 1994 (as amended by Section 34 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002), to the High Court of Justice in England & Wales against this decision of the Committee. Any such appeal must be made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date upon which this notice is served upon you.

Please note that the decision of this Committee is a "relevant decision" for the purposes of Section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002

Signed: Dated: 19 January 2004

Gregory Price

Executive Officer (Regulation)

Clerk to the Professional Conduct Committee

It is my understanding that Greg Price was caught out providing anti-chiropractic information onto an internet site to adversely affect chiropractors. Greg Price is no longer a member of staff at the General Chiropractic Council. All I can say is, the truth always prevails.

 

As a chiropractor in Australia and being a member of an organization that includes some of the greatest chiropractors in the world, I see how great chiropractic can be for families around the world. More than 10 million people see chiropractor every year and this number is rapidly growing as they experience the many benefits of chiropractic care and refer their friends and families. We now need to change what chiropractic is in the UK. That will take time, but with the political unrest that exists at the moment within the chiropractic profession and level of dissatisfaction with the current regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Profession, it is only a matter of time.

 

The next step is for the Chiropractic Profession from around the world to change things in the UK. It is only when we create a health care system based on 'wellness' that people will truly be healthier. I will, within all my power to assist this process. In is your god-given birth right to be well, not just patched up through menial therapies. I do not want an amazing profession, like chiropractic, be reduced to the patch up care we get at present. The public deserve more and so do you and I.

 

If you have any questions, I am always available to be contacted regarding your health concerns. When you call, you will speak to one of my friendly Clinical Assistants, who will make sure I call you.

 

Yours for optimal health,

God Bless

Dr Christian H. E. Farthing

SPINAL SPECIALIST (UK)

CHIROPRACTOR (Australia)

Patients speak out