Promoting the benefits of chiropractic care and highlighting incompetent chiropractic politicians.

Medicine is far more dangerous than chiropractic.

Sunday, January 31 2010 - Risk from Chiropractic

Zeno is angry because he believes chiropractic is bogus, he has made 600 complaints to the GCC and founded a new website Discover Chiropractic on which he

offers this advice; If you have a medical condition or think that you might, or are worried about your health in any way, consult your registered medical practitioner. You can check that your doctor is properly regulated and licenced to practice medicine in the UK by checking their details in the List of Registered Medical Practitioners held by the General Medical Council.”

 

Another tragic medical story.

A doctor who prescribed "potentially hazardous" levels of drugs to elderly patients who later died has escaped being struck off.

Dr Jane Barton will be allowed to continue working under certain conditions despite being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

She was accused of a series of failings in her care of 12 patients at Gosport War Memorial Hospital in the 1990s.

Relatives and the General Medical Council criticised the panel's ruling.

Family members of those who had died shouted at the fitness to practise panel when the decision was delivered in central London.

Iain Wilson, the son of Robert Wilson, one of the patients who died, shouted: "You should hang your head in shame."

The panel had previously heard that elderly patients were left in "drug-induced comas" after being over-prescribed painkillers and sedatives.

Throughout my career I have tried to do my very best for all my patients and have had only their interests and wellbeing at heart

Dr Jane Barton

Dr Barton was found guilty of putting her patients at risk of premature death.

But the panel said it had taken into account her 10 years of safe practice as a GP in Gosport and 200 letters of support.

 

 

#1 Andy Lewis on 2.01.2010 at 1:56 PM

yet again, so disappointing.

"Quack trick #39 - don't talk about that, talk about this - 'what-aboutery' "

Perhaps you ought to read Johann Hari in the Independent - 'How to spot a lame, lame argument'.

<i>As a rhetorical trick, it is simple. Anyone can do it, and we are all tempted sometimes. When you have lost an argument - when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?"

You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it - hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.

...

So whenever you hear the cry "But what about?!", you can reply: what about we ignore this crude attempt to change the subject, and focus on the subject in hand?

</i>

www.independent.co.uk/.../johann-hari-how

#2 Richard Lanigan on 2.01.2010 at 9:37 PM

Shit Andy, What can I say, you have me sussed, you can read me like a book "Quack trick #39 - don't talk about that, talk about this - 'what-aboutery' " . I understand now why you are so angry. I hang my head in shame having lost another argument to your superior knowledge of chiropractic even after five years at AECC. Its amazing how you know so much about me, how I think, how I practice which hand I use to wipe my arse. Is it OK with the sceptic council if I blog about other things, or should I remain obsessed with one area of health care as you guys seem to be

The above piece is a statement of fact. Are their sceptic rules what I can blog about now they have proclaimed you the “winner”. Chiropractic must be safer than medicine, 600 complaints about chiropractors claiming to treat colic and a few cat hairs on a clinics floor. They are the most damaging allegation skeptics can come up with about chiropractic. Here you have twelve people dying at the hands of a medical doctor and nothing to say except its a lame argument and "I am pulling Quack trick #39. Go figure! Lets call diverting the focus away from orthodox medicine Scep trick # 1.

As for Johann Hari, not a huge fan, if you search my name on the letters pages in the Independent you will see I have taken issue with a few of his articles. The Independent made my letter on Gerge Best one of their "letters of the year". Not trying to change the subject just trying to make the point I have a broad range of interests. I recently blogged about the snow, was that also a Quack trick?

#3 Paul on 2.02.2010 at 8:55 AM

Quack trick #133388734339 - diversionary tactic to talk about snow.

#4 Benji on 2.02.2010 at 9:26 AM

Richard, Its not a surprise things like this happen. Hundreds of millions of people use modern medicine to be treated. Indeed, modern medicine has also saved hundreds of millions of lives, and the treatments used are backed up by evidence. Interventions that are not usually have a plausible way in which they could work. Chiropractic, unfortunately, has never produced good evidence of its efficacy. Indeed, different practitioners have been shown to not even identify the same ailment, and recommend completely different courses of treatments.

I say unfortunately because unlike some, I do not have an issue with chiro per se. I am a tennis player (like your son I believe?), and have had some shoulder troubles. My doctor recommended chiro, and it seemed to help. Unfortunately a few month later it went again and I couldn't afford the sessions. Instead I went to 2 physio session spread out with some theraband routines to do in my own time. Now it is fine (touch wood). Why would I pay more if an equally effective treatment cost much less?

#5 Benji on 2.02.2010 at 9:26 AM

One other, thing, Is there any way of making this comment box any bigger!?Hard to keep track..

#6 Richard Lanigan on 2.02.2010 at 10:56 AM

Hi Benji,

All treatments used are not back up by evidence, In fact I have read various figures in medical journal putting it as low as 10%. Ultimately Medicine like chiropractic is an Art there are good and bad practitioners there are snake oil salesmen men in both professions. I dont have a problem with Andy thinking chiropractic is bogus, the evidence for certain conditions is weak and people are entitled to be critical of the chiropractic profession. But when they spread down right lies, I do have a problem with that. If all chiropractors agreed on subluxation theory their would be no problem with all these different diagnosis, many want to use medical terminology hence the confusion and I will do a posting relating to this to morrow.

Chiropractic is not the same as physiotherapy and you needed a good physio. It was dishonest of the chiropractor to make you think he was providing the same service as a physiotherapist which is free on the NHS. I would say to anyone if a chiropractor claims he is offering physiotherapy report him to trading standards. I have worked with lots of great physiotherapists and I teach swiss ball core stability classes in Esporta Kingston. I dont call that chiropractic or physiotherapy. Its just something else that helps people with bad backs

#7 Paul on 2.02.2010 at 12:12 PM

Hi Benji

David Eddy originally found to practice of medicine to be evidence based in only 5% of treatments. This is now believed to be between 10 -15%. The practice of medicine is not evidence based. Nor should it be. It is only one facet of practice. What about goal oriented care?

Hundreds of millions of people have used chiropractic. It has produced plenty of evidence of its efficacy: Meade Studies, BEAM Trials, to names two major UK studies. There is a wealth of strong evidence for spinal pain. Why was the Manga report not implemented?

My latest client told me today she had been diagnosed with pleurisy by her GP who didn’t even examine her nor ask her to turn around so he could see where she was pointing to when she pointed at the sore area of her back. She has sacro-iliac pain. She asked her GP should she go to a chiropractor to which he replied in a derogatory fashion. That was all the recommendation she needed.

It’s unfortunate that chiropractic wasn’t fully explained to you. It’s a fact that the colleges in the UK now churn out physical therapists with a qualification in radiology, radiography and joint manipulation. Find a good chiropractor and find out why many sports stars use regular chiropractic care.

#8 Colin Jenkins on 2.02.2010 at 4:47 PM

Richard, I have a friend at AECC now and from what I can gather the previous chiropractic USPs - like subluxation theory and a (thus implied) non-vaccination stance - are being replaced with a more 'evidence based' approach. Given this (even hypothetically if you like), do you think chiropractic can retain a unique identity or will (would) it be integrated/merged with say osteopathy...?

#9 Richard Lanigan on 2.02.2010 at 8:11 PM

Hi Colin,

In all my time at AECC and before I am not aware of Subluxation theory being taught there. They have always been pro vaccination and advised students to have the meningitis vaccine. The course has always been very medical and that was why John McTimoney started his college.They probably tell students this change is something new and progressive but when you get out in practice you realise this approach is foolish. With the medheads seeking prescribing rights I can not see UK chiropractic being anything but a branch of medicine in the future, like Osteopathy is in the states, thats the purpose of the GCC to medicalise chiropractic.

#10 Colin Jenkins on 2.02.2010 at 8:46 PM

Hi Richard, OK, Thanks. I know a guy who went to McT - but he had to do a short intensive course at AECC before he was able to set himself up (imposed by GCC?). But I don't know to what extent they tried to 'convert' him. I'm just an observer, but I can't shake the feeling that "chiropractic" as a label has a limited life...

#11 Nico Mendes on 2.03.2010 at 3:26 PM

In the UK maybe....not anywhere else.

#12 Paul on 2.03.2010 at 9:04 PM

"In the UK maybe....not anywhere else."

Would have to agree: the apathy of the profession is masking its death throws as it becomes medipractic.

Its a pity the profession in the UK lacks the vibracy and educational aspirations to be found in Spain.

#13 Benji on 2.05.2010 at 9:37 AM

Re Paul and the 10-15% figure. This is a common misrepresentation of the true figures.

A recent Cochrane review in the area reported that 13% of all "treatments" are based on good evidence. BY this it means extremely positive results with moderate to large effect sizes in RCT trial. 21% of all "treatments" are likely to be beneficial - i.e. RCT data produce positive results with low-moderate ES.

ALso, its not ethical to do an RCT on blood transfusion, for example, as its bloody obvious it works. There are plenty more interventions (knee replacements etc) that also fall into this category.

www.bmj.com/.../1459

Another way of looking at it is how much medical activity is evidence based. Tons of studies were done in the 90's looking at outpatients, their diagnosis, what treatment they were given, and wheteher that was based on evidence. Depending on the study & specialism these figures are between 50-80% (refs provided if you want to read them).

When a body of evidence shows things not to work, they are discarded. This unfortunately takes time. Things such as the above will always happen, there will always be terrible doctors, and things will go wrong. The errors need to be cut out, though this does not mean EBM and its philosophy is wrong.

Again, I don't have an issue with chiro. Unfortunately I have found the same benefit from cheaper and equally effective alternatives. I may even be fit enough to play at Devonshire park in the County championships at the end of the summer!