Neck-Disorders-and-Injuries Books

Murray Allen brings to the textbook world more nonsense from his experience as pseudo-researcher. Anyone interested in the phenomenon of whiplash injuries should avoid this shallow book.

Allen wrote an article for the journal SPINE (1995) discussing accelerations in low-speed automobile collisions and compared them to everyday benign activities such as skipping rope and plopping into chairs. He postulated that injuries were not possible and that injury cannot exist at low speeds.

Unfortunately for Dr. Allen, that article has been debunked in academic circles in medicine and engineering. The article is an example of what happens when you have medical editors reviewing articles about physics: they haven't got a clue.

Allen failed to understand the physics of whiplash by looking at the short bursts of acceleration caused by plopping into chairs and skipping rope. TWO factors must be present to determine the injury potential in whiplash accidents: acceleration AND delta V. Plopping, etc. have accelerations APPROACHING those of whiplash at low speeds (still not quite as high, Dr. Allen), but THERE IS NO DELTA V. Car crashes happen over several HUNDRED milliseconds, and in spite of Allen's use of language devised to confuse, his rope-skippng and chair-plopping delta V's are on the order of magnitude of only TENS of milliseconds. And that is a critical difference.

Allen also ignored the fact that vehicles weigh 2500 lbs. and more, that today's cars are HEAVIER (not lighter, as he implies) than the vintage World War II cars he talks about (Severy et al. research). Since in PHYSICS, Force equals Mass times Acceleration, or F = ma, Allen ignores the force of a 2500 lb. object hitting you versus a 50-85 lb. child hitting a chair or the ground (in cushioned sneakers no less). In addition, the epidemiological literature on whiplash is massive. Does he really think that whiplash doesn't exist at low speeds? Is the emergency room filled with rope-skippers and chair-ploppers? Are ALL of the people injured in collisions at low speeds faking? Why is it that several outcome studies show long-term disability and chronic pain YEARS AFTER the lawsuits are settled? Epidemiology proves that most injuries occur at speeds of 6-12 mph, whereas vehicle damage thresholds are higher. Doesn't Dr. Allen know anything about the physics of plastic (deformation and damage to vehicles) vs. elastic collisions (low-speed collisions where the damage from the energy of collision is transferred to the vehicle OCCUPANTS)? His "perturbations" study was TOTALLY BOGUS, and certainly naive.

And that means that Allen is one of two things: grossly undereducated in physics, biomechanics and the medicine of whiplash...or, perhaps was romancing the auto insurance industry who would love nothing more than to continue denying claims for real injuries. Take your pick. He is NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

Further, Allen claimed in that article that Severy found no injuries in his crash tests at UCLA in the 1950's. Did he even read Severy? A closer look at Dr. Allen's past writings will reveal that he draws conclusions from his own studies on whiplash he has no business drawing. That an article as weak as "Perturbations" could ever be published is a testament to journal editors' need to SELL journals, and to sell controversy with JUNK SCIENCE. If Allen has ever gone to court as an expert witness and used his article, he should realize that many physicists, hard scientists, medical professionals and whiplash victims are on to him.

I urge all whiplash sufferers to read the scientific literature on low-speed crash testing, especially works by Ono, Kanno, Panjabi, Brault, Siegmund, Croft, Freeman, and the many other real scientists who are telling the truth about whiplash. Injuries start at rear-end collision speeds of 2.5 mph. Surprised? The truth is in the literature.

You will not find the truth in Allen's book. Is he a lacky-boy for the defense attorneys who represent the insurance industry, or the industry itself? Is greed at the heart of such writing? One has to wonder.

I hope Dr. Allen reads this and changes his ways, if he hasn't since that AWFUL 1995 article. Otherwise, he might find himself a patient with injuries sustained in a low-speed rear-end collision with no one to empathize, and unable to sleep at night. In fact, I don't know how he can sleep now.

This book is no help to the millions of innocent victims of car crashes. The ideas in this book about whiplash are truly superficial. This book and the one by Ferrari are misusing the literature to fool people, and to help the auto insurance industry and their representatives. There is no reality here, just another perturbation of the truth.

Having treated numerous whiplash victims, and having observed the whiplash controversy from afar, I am continually amazed that some people will not only bring unfair criticism to books like this, but that they will use the opportunity to advertise themselves ("see more about me") so they can make even more money off the whiplash industry. I was rather pleased to buy Allen's book, as it adds fairness and balance to the controversy. I was somewhat surprised that he includes articles by Radanov, Bogduk and Croft, among others.

Interestingly, some people try to use this book to sell themselves to Plaintiff lawyers as hired gun able to deal with defensive 'experts' when they rely on, and vigorously defend Allen's article by using his own book to basically discredit his earlier article. Thanks to Freeman, Croft, Reiser et al's paper later in Spine, some Plaintiff experts have actually been able to reap huge financial rewards, and victimise patients and society at the same time, since they have been hired to serve Plaintiff lawyers and themselves only.

Again, Dr. Murray Allen has a balanced view of whiplash, just as the other international expert, Dr. Ferrari.

I wish that we could find a way to eliminate the 'money-seeking Plaintiff experts' from the academic and medicolegal pool. I get tired of haring the same arguments used for monetary gain and trying to make sure that expert testimony matches what the Plaintiff lawyer wants to hear. Fortunately, the vast majority of care givers do otherwise. I commend Dr. Allen for 'biting his tongue' and letting Dr. Croft have a voice where everyone else has stopped listening to the nonsense thereof. Now, if we just could get someone to wake up Lommell...

Having treated numerous whiplash victims, and having gone against numerous insurance companies, I am continually amazed at the defense's reliance on Dr. Allen's 'Pertubations' article from Spine. I was rather reluctant to buy his book, but in fairness and balance, I didn't feel my library would be complete without it. I was pleasantly surprised that he includes articles by Radanov, Bogduk and Croft, among others.

Interestingly, I am now able to use this book and the articles in it when I come up against these defensive 'experts' when they rely on, and vigorously defend Allen's article by using his own book to basically discredit his earlier article. Thanks to Freeman, Croft, Reiser et al's paper later in Spine, combined with this book, I have actually been able to embarrass these guys, and protect patients they have been hired to assail.

Again, Dr. Murray Allen has a jaded view of whiplash, just as the other incompatent, Dr. Ferrari. In context, based on the source, one can use this book as a tool.

I wish that we could find a way to eliminate the 'junk science' from the research pool. I get tired of having the same 10-15 articles used against my patients trying to 'prove' they couldn't be hurt. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the evidence shows otherwise. I commend Dr. Allen for 'biting his tongue' and including Dr. Croft after he was discredited by same. Now, if we just could get someone to wake up Ferrari...