The Chiropractic profession needs to get its act together and establish a consensus view of chiropractic and promote spinal joint care.

March 22, 2011

P1010065_0002MEDICAL experts have called on Canberra to shut down a university chiropractic clinic aimed at children amid claims the theories behind the practice are "no better than witchcraft" and using it on children is akin to child abuse.

More than half a dozen experts, many of them professors with international reputations, have written to voice concerns about the clinic at Melbourne’s RMIT University, warning that chiropractic treatments for children’s conditions are useless, at best, and "may well cause serious harm".

Authorities such as cervical cancer vaccine inventor Ian Frazer, evidence-based medicines expert Chris del Mar and prominent clinician John Dwyer are among those who have backed the concerns.

Their interventions were made in support of a document sent to federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon by a Queensland resident, Loretta Marron, a long-standing campaigner for rational and evidence-based healthcare and regulation

n a 20-page submission, Ms Marron claimed the RMIT clinic was "teaching inappropriate, potentially dangerous techniques" and asked Ms Roxon to ensure the clinic was shut.

Professor Frazer wrote to Ms Roxon saying that therapies lacking evidence of effectiveness "should not be promoted or permitted to be delivered to those who are not able to judge for themselves whether they wish to receive them" but refrained from mentioning the RMIT clinic.

Other experts were more critical, with Professor Dwyer asking Ms Roxon to step in to "protect vulnerable babies and mothers from dangerous unscientific practices".

Ms Marron’s submission said at least one chiropractor working at the RMIT clinic claimed on their private-practice website to be able to treat a range of conditions, including "allergies, asthma, ‘growing pains’, headaches, ADD and ADHD", despite there being "no evidence that chiropractic works any better than placebo for these health conditions".

The submission also quoted David Colquhoun, a professor of pharmacology at University College London, that the "principles of chiropractics are no better than witchcraft" and the "idea that just about any disease originates from some problem in the spine is pure rubbish".

Ms Marron told The Australian she felt "ashamed that our universities, once deemed to be pillars of excellence and enlightenment, are letting the bean-counters who run them sell off their reputations for considerable profit by actively embracing subjects no better than witchcraft and voodoo".

Charlie Xue, head of RMIT’s School of Health Sciences, said the university "vigorously rejects allegations that its chiropractic training activities aim to maximise revenue".

Share Button

Tags: ,

42 Responses to The Chiropractic profession needs to get its act together and establish a consensus view of chiropractic and promote spinal joint care.

  1. Tommie Mondale on March 16, 2020 at 16:39

    Hey, Came across this page by accident but absolutely loving the content. Thanks.

  2. Anthony Addington on March 5, 2020 at 01:44

    This The Chiropractic profession needs to get its act together
    and establish a consensus view of chiropractic and promote spinal joint
    care. site has helped me many times in health problems.

    This book helped me to heal and feel better: Kiss you all!

  3. Fedup on November 22, 2011 at 13:36
  4. Fedup on September 6, 2011 at 11:08

    And of course we wouldnt want any woo in there would we, er what about this Blue Wode??

    “A revolutionary naturally sourced anti-inflammatory relief product, based on ancient Indian and oriental medicine, has been relaunched in Australia to safely help millions of arthritis sufferers”


  5. Fedup on September 6, 2011 at 11:06

    “If given the choice between a naturally sourced anti-inflammatory relief product and a NSAID product, I’m sure consumers will make up their own mind what is best for them.”Read that Blue Wode, infact read it several times then add the word chiropractic in there somewhere, anywhere.

  6. Fedup on September 6, 2011 at 11:03

    Don’t visit a chiropractor take these drugs instead.

  7. Fedup on July 5, 2011 at 10:39

    Just had a patient in who has been having to monitor his peak air flow 2 -3 times a day as his GP thinks he may have asthma, he has been doing this for the last 3 weeks, but 10 days ago he lifted a heavy gate and felt a pull/tear in his mid thoracics. Since then his peak air flow has gone down significantly. And his pain levels have gone up!  I have just adjusted his mid T’s, loads of audibles and asked him to monitor from today. I have also asked him to let me have a copy of his results with dates marked on, lifting gate, treatment day etc. I have always said that I don’t beleive chiropractic helps the disorder asthma it just helps with the breathing action. watch this space. Research project for anybody?

  8. Fedup on June 21, 2011 at 14:27

    I’m a McT, I’m sure most of you are aware of that and I view the McT tech as restoring skeletal symmetry, so this is sort of what I think I do, and why I dont give out execises.

    Effectiveness of a ‘Global Postural Reeducation’ program for persistent low back pain: a non-randomized controlled trial.
    Bonetti F, Curti S, Mattioli S, Mugnai R, Vanti C, Violante FS, Pillastrini P.
    SourceSection of Occupational Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Geriatrics and Nephrology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
    AbstractBACKGROUND: The aim of this non-randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of a Global Postural Reeducation (GPR) program as compared to a Stabilization Exercise (SE) program in subjects with persistent low back pain (LBP) at short- and mid-term follow-up (ie. 3 and 6 months).METHODS: According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 100 patients with a primary complaint of persistent LBP were enrolled in the study: 50 were allocated to the GPR group and 50 to the SE group. Primary outcome measures were Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcome measures were lumbar Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Fingertip-to-floor test (FFT). Data were collected at baseline and at 3/6 months by health care professionals unaware of the study. An intention to treat approach was used to analyze participants according to the group to which they were originally assigned.RESULTS: Of the 100 patients initially included in the study, 78 patients completed the study: 42 in the GPR group and 36 in the SE group. At baseline, the two groups did not differ significantly with respect to gender, age, BMI and outcome measures. Comparing the differences between groups at short- and mid-term follow-up, the GPR group revealed a significant reduction (from baseline) in all outcome measures with respect to the SE group.The ordered logistic regression model showed an increased likelihood of definitive improvement (reduction from baseline of at least 30% in RMDQ and VAS scores) for the GPR group compared to the SE group (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.7).CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a GPR intervention in subjects with persistent LBP induces a greater improvement on pain and disability as compared to a SE program. These results must be confirmed by further studies with higher methodological standards, including randomization, larger sample size, longer follow-up and subgrouping of the LBP subjects..

  9. rodmacmillan on March 31, 2011 at 14:11

    Nothing to do with the letter from the associations,complaints to members of parliament or those pesky foi requests then?

  10. Amit patel on March 31, 2011 at 13:48

    Im sadden to hear that Mrs Coats has resigned… all I can do is wish her all the best…

    Rod will you be sending some flowers? If so can I go halfs with you???

  11. Fedup on March 31, 2011 at 10:26

    im very well thank you, yeah we should meet up as I’m not that far from you. Say hello to Ollie for me. I like how he thinks but don’t always agree with him :-)

  12. Stefaan A.L.P. Vossen on March 31, 2011 at 08:20

    I don’t agree with his statement one bit, but I love the reasons why the comment exists (at least the reason I THINK it exists):
    -ability is variable
    -understanding of need/applicability is variable
    What I would like to see is a better understanding of what makes these things less variable, i.e. the rules, the protocols and teh pathways.
    You ok otherwise? I think we need to have a little chat sometime

  13. Fedup on March 31, 2011 at 07:55

    Do you agree with this statement stefaan?
    “I am a GCC Chiropractor and recognise that manipulation is over utilised and over rated as an intervention.”

    I would say he just can’t do it well enough because in his experience he’s not getting results and this is why he feels it’s over rated.

  14. Stefaan A.L.P. Vossen on March 31, 2011 at 06:56

    I absolutely love this argument as I think it comes to the very core of the issue: when to do what to get best results at the most cost-effective rate in both time and financial cost!
    All we need to do imo is to start THINKING about how to go about getting best results consistently.

  15. Fedup on March 30, 2011 at 14:22

    This comment on pulse regarding spinal manipulation for chronic back pain beggars belief. Either he’s a new grad that doesn’t really know what he is doing or he’s just not a very good chiropractor. IMO.
    Michael Maverick – Torquay | 30 Mar 11
    It’s always interesting to see how the pro and anti manipulation camps attempt to sway their critics.
    I am a GCC Chiropractor and recognise that manipulation is over utilised and over rated as an intervention. Those who hang on to the misguided belief that it is superior to other manual and non-manual interventions in the management of back pain in the face of evidence to the contrary are neither helping the development of their profession or providing their patients with alternate perhaps safer and more appropriate choices of treatment.
    I have to admit I believe that in many cases where benefits are claimed they are due to placebo effects etc. In the case of acute NSLBP patients they generally do not and perhaps shouldn’t receive manipulation. The natural history of the condition is the patients best friend.
    I think it is disingenuous for any practitioner to imply that manipulation is responsible for a patients improvment or for that matter encouraging the patient to believe this without considering the role of the natural history, placebo effects and regression to the mean. Patients need to be educated about the usual benign natural history of the complaint and encourage patients to redress inappropriate pain beliefs and behaviours instead.
    In the case of chronic low back pain I am afraid that in my experience, without due consideration to the inevitable psychosocial issues that accompany chronic pain, manipulation if appropriate plays only a subordinate role.
    I accept the two sides are never going to agree with each others overall viewpoint and think it might be more helpful if the anti manipulation camp accepted that not all Chiropractors and Osteopaths consider manipulation as the holy grail in back pain management and conversly the pro manipiulation camp need to recognise manipulation is just one of many interventions which have a potential beneficial role in back pain care. The question of safety and cost effectivness I leave for discussion in the future.”

  16. Andrew_Gilbey on March 29, 2011 at 21:02

    Good post CDC. I think the disease is called ‘life’.

  17. Richard Lanigan on March 23, 2011 at 23:15

    I did my masters dissertation on Informed consent for DTaP vaccine in 2003. 200 subjects, 76% of parents consented to the DTaP vaccine had no idea what it stood for, there was no information on side effects compared to the VIS in the US which state there was a very small risk of brain damage and death.

    In 2004 the DTaP was replaced in the UK by a “safer” five in one vaccine, no one was ever told of any risks associated with the original vaccine.

    Sally Clark’s son Harry died three hours after recieving his DTaP and her own medical experts would not contimplate the vaccine as a possible cause of death, Sally was convicted of murdering the boy, even though there were 30 unexplained “cot deaths” within hours after the vaccine in the UK over a number of years. This report was the principal line of argument in the second appeal. However the pathologist in the case had messed up anyway and Sally was released , but never recovered and died a few years ago.

    Yea chiropractors really take advantage of unsuspecting children and their parents. You want to care for kids read Rober Mendelsohns “How to bring up a healthy child inspite of your Doctor”

  18. Alanbinns on March 23, 2011 at 21:34

    Granted, but vontuese, forceps and ritalin don’t come with a consent form either. (neither did the strap and the cane back in my day.)

    I don’t treat kids, nor want to, but I’m torn between the laissez faire attitude to diet and exercise and the chemical straight jacket of ritalin.

    Best intentions are always emotive. I guess common sense is in the eye of the parents or social services, the beholder is just sitting on the sidelines.

  19. Richard Lanigan on March 23, 2011 at 20:59

    “speculation” is how people use research to apply to individuals in a clinical setting. The findings of a study may not apply to the individual who comes into your clinic for a variety of reasons, as I have explained.

    I can only say I did not attach as much importance to that study or any study as you seem to think I did. I am trying to make that point to chiropractors. not to build the entire professions credibility on a biomedical model. Avoiding that is probably the main reason why out of all the things I have written you cant find one example of something I have written which you can say is untrue or incorrect.

  20. Colin Jenkins on March 23, 2011 at 20:48

    Interesting. We perceive the same statements differently… Perhaps we can debate it in real time next time I think I see it happen.

  21. Stefaan A.L.P. Vossen on March 23, 2011 at 20:21

    That would be fair comment (re straw man) if it wasn’t for your (in my opinion incorrect) evaluation that I assume that you “generalised efficacy into real world effectiveness when in fact we have not – we are just tweeting an interesting result – a single result to put in the pot.” For you this stance of expression may be true, but I am sure you understand that when the commentary preceding and following on from these study declarations on twitter or otherwise (I have retweeted many studies to that tune myself) is anything but neutral and in fact is associated to scathing commentary like “quacks, Woo, taking money out of wallets”, etc (all factual quotes) about “chiros”, “chiropractic”, “back-crackers” etc. then it is clear to me, Richard and many others that the neutrality you purport to be central to the spreading of this information, is not actually there. If it was, I would indeed not have a leg to stand on with my stance that “generalisation of the study results into real-world effectiveness” is very much what is being done by certain so-called skeptics, despite your protestations that it isn’t.
    Edzard Ernst is one of the gravest offenders of this (although his stance is not the most flawed of the commentators, it is the one with the greatest visibility and social responsibility which multiplies the level of care he should (I think) take in expressing his opinions) and I do not believe for one minute that the reasons you give are the reasons he is not engaging, but rather that he could only engage with the issue in such a way as to invalidate some past commentary and opinions and be revealed as unscientific opinion masquerading as scientific conclusion. That, would not do his book-sales, his academic/public image, and his following of cronies much good…. That said all he would have to do to validate your statement is write that he “is not implying nor has implied that the conclusions from the studies reflect real-world effectiveness…

  22. Colin Jenkins on March 23, 2011 at 19:29


    Not really, no.

    I think you and Richard are both conflating efficacy and effectiveness and creating a strawman in which to attack skeptics.

    When a study finds that say ‘chiropractic manipulation(*) is no better than Strongbow for non-specific (cause unknown) lower back pain’ – it means just that – it’s a statement of efficacy in the context of the study. It does not imply chiropractors cannot help with NS lower back pain – it’s a single result in a highly controlled context,.

    Both you and Richard then accuse anybody of tweeting this result as being ignorant – because a chiropractor may decide not to treat based on an examination or perform an alternative treatment – because you can possibly determine causation and make a clinical decision. You assume we have generalised efficacy into effectiveness when in fact we have not – we are just tweeting an interesting result – a single result to put in the pot.

    In making such an assumption you have created a strawman – turned an efficacy statement into one of effectiveness (which is clearly a step to far – inappropriate generalisation) and then you knock it (the strawman you just created) down assuming this is what skeptics think – when in fact we don’t think anything of the sort.

    I’m not surprised Edzard Ernst has not engaged in your causation arguments – you are assuming skeptics are taking the result of out context – you are creating a strawman.

    (*)assume the clinician could have applied any manipulation technique he liked in the study .

  23. Skepticbarista on March 23, 2011 at 19:13

    Richard, Not agitated ….. Amused ;-)
    Some of the most ‘interesting’ research you choose to tweet out shows that for this condition chiropractic and ‘no treatment’ were equally as effective.
    And most of my tweets were asking if you agreed with the conclusions of the study you had tweeted. Particularly the part you left out, although I do accept twitters 140 character limitmeans you can’t get everything in – - that’s why I was asking for your opinion on the ‘no treatment’ conclusion ;-)

    “Skeptic Barista wants to take from this study chiropractic is no better than not having treatment which was part of the conclusion”
    > As you rightly say …. that was part of the conclusion.
    If the conclusions are to be accepted at all, then this statement is equally as valid as any other part of the conclusion! To only accept a part of the conclusion would have been cherry picking.

    “without considering that the adjustment may have helped people with spinal dysfuction but not those who may have other psychosocial factors contributing to their back pain.”
    > That statement is just pure speculation. It says nothing of that in the abstract of the trial, so you are guessing what may or may not have been seen.

    ……. And don’t even mention the Cranial Osteopathy study!
    I’m sure the GOsC and NCOR are well aware of that one :-D

  24. Richard Lanigan on March 23, 2011 at 17:59

    A Tweet allows 140 characters so you are limited to what you can say. After linking to the study. Skeptic Barista has accused me for the second time of “cherry picking” reseach, the other was Ernst reporting of a study about Cranial Osteopathy. I “made no mention at all of the fact that this study showed that doing nothing was just as effective as chiro” What skeptics dont understand about this conclusion is that, doing nothing is also an option for chiropractors, if subluxation is not present or the adjusments dont hold simply because the work the person does or their core muscles are weak.

    Let me say this now clearly. this study states what most GPs and Chiropractors know, the direction that NICE would point you in. Going to a chiropractor is a better option for work related injuries than orthodox medicine. The adjusment may not work but at least you wont get worse. Thats what the study says. Skeptic Barista wants to take from this study chiropractic is no better than not having treatment which was part of the conclusion, without considering that the adjustment may have helped people with spinal dysfuction but not those who may have other psychosocial factors contributing to their back pain. Whay cant these skeptics grasp that causality is important in determining eficacy of intervention. Whether someones gets worse speaks for itself, but is also relevant to cause.

    On Twitter if you find something interesting you can Retweet for others to read and make a short comment. If I attached the importance to it that SB thinks I was, I would have mentioned the study on this blog. Tweeting is great for winding up skeptics and SB seems to have been agitated this time, usually its Ernst or Blue Wode.

    It makes no difference to me if Skeptics want to argue that I “cherry pick” when the fact is I never use these studies to “prove” or support the things I say. Skeptics on the other hand tweet thousands of tweets every day. They scrape the barrel for examples of bad paractice and extrapolate from it chiropractic is dangerous, does not work, witch craft etc, with the warts they call tweets. As I said to David Colchoun yesterday in relation to his “witchcraft” comment, as I society we have more to fear from people who burn witches than the people claiming to be witches.

    So by all means call me a quack or a witch. Remember we are all Spartacus and its our divisions that makes us weak.

  25. Stefaan A.L.P. Vossen on March 23, 2011 at 17:42

    Efficacy is eroding, yes, but only in the context of the study and within the parameters defined within it. Which is why it is absurd to conclude from any of these studies (which look at manipulation) that their results can be transferred to the multi-tool package of chiropractors, osteopaths etc. The studies about real-life practice need doing, we agree about that, and then the studies can be used to dispel a few myths held by practitioners and skeptics alike. It would enable the improvement of standards and the application of protocols. Until then, there really is not much of an argument either way (other than saying: random manipulation is relatively useless).
    Wouldn’t you agree?

  26. Colin Jenkins on March 23, 2011 at 17:26

    I would say that where cause-unknown lower back pain studies are especially useful is in terms of effectiveness (as opposed to efficacy), in that they show treatment (I know) is not really justifiable if clinicians in the real world manipulate most people who turn up at their door with lower back pain.

    And yet in a chiropractic context, how can a clinician bounce unsuitable patients, if as you say the studies have not been done mapping causality to technique. Which brings us full circle and why the studies are useful.

    So while you are right, these studies cannot definitively say that there is not a cause hiding in the mix that can be manipulated effectively, they do provide useful data for effectiveness and increasing so for efficacy (eroding your argument) the more they are done and the more they are neutral, if indeed that is the case….

  27. Stefaan A.L.P. Vossen on March 23, 2011 at 16:29

    On this point CDC, I would add that this brings us full circle in the premise that chiropractors don’t treat disease but the reason why they don’t manage to stay well or return to well-being… There is a time and a place for this take on things and as life becomes less about survival and more about quality of life, this way of viewing things will gain in importance. DD and BJ’s ideas were expressed too early on in healthcare history for it to take solid ground but managed to frame the idea in a commercially viable way and in consequence it continued to exist. But as is often the case with great ideas, they got distorted (even within their own life-times and by themselves) into concepts incompatible with reality by delusion, self-delusion, greed and lack of discipline.
    I myself don’t wish to change anything about what I understand to be the seed of this idea but think it is worthwhile to bring it into the 21st century by looking at validating the protocols and the technologies as it is the way I would like to see the treatments my family and I are exposed to be validated.

  28. Stefaan A.L.P. Vossen on March 23, 2011 at 16:19

    I would like to add that “the skeptics” seem unable to answer one very important question on the validity of research studies as they currently exist:

  29. Richard Lanigan on March 23, 2011 at 16:02

    Exactly, however out of respect for colleagues I am sure they “back crackers”put as much effort into there adjusting skills as we do.

    This is what I always wanted from this web site getting people with different perspectives communicating and realising if we thought more about what we do rather than have Coats et al telling us what to do, the profession would be able to regulate itself. I have just had a nerologist on Twitter telling me it was biologic impossible for an adjustment to effect the ear. It did not seem to occur to him that the inner ear was innervated by the cochlear nerve which could be affected by spinal cord activity, or the middle ear could be drained by opening the Eustachian tube by adjusting the TMJ. “Philosophy” should not be an excuse for ignorance and if you dont know your stuff dont rely on Meade et al 1990 to justify what you can do for back pain. I would never use a study to prove anything I do.

    I keep asking the skeptics if they believe that spinal joint dysfuction can cause health problems. It can, they know it and we know it. Its when a few students do a study and the profession extrapolates a cure from this study and presents it as the “New Progressive EBM chiropractic that they start taking the piss.

    DD Palmer thought he had discovered a cure for deafness, deaf people came from far and wide Harvey Lillard was the only deaf guy who got his hearing back, but other things happened. Why cant we just look at what we do like going for a swim or having a massage. You usually feel better afterwards, by all means add whatever you want to your “package”, but lets all focus on providing the best spinal care available.

  30. Skepticbarista on March 23, 2011 at 15:20

    “Skeptic Barista was giving me grief this morning because I Tweeted a study which suggested going to a GP made back pain worse, while going to a chiropractor or doing nothing did not.”

    Actually Richard, my point was that your initial tweet (and subsequent ones) only acknowledged part of the conclusions from that study. You focused on the fact that it reports chiro was better than GP ….. you made no mention at all of the fact that this study showed that doing nothing was just as effective as chiro. Who then is doing the extrapolating!

    At no point did I argue against the findings of the study (I’ve only seen an abstract), only that you should acknowledge the full findings ……… not just the words that fit your world view.


  31. Skepticbarista on March 23, 2011 at 15:20

    “Skeptic Barista was giving me grief this morning because I Tweeted a study which suggested going to a GP made back pain worse, while going to a chiropractor or doing nothing did not.”

    Actually Richard, my point was that your initial tweet (and subsequent ones) only acknowledged part of the conclusions from that study. You focused on the fact that it reports chiro was better than GP ….. you made no mention at all of the fact that this study showed that doing nothing was just as effective as chiro. Who then is doing the extrapolating!

    At no point did I argue against the findings of the study (I’ve only seen an abstract), only that you should acknowledge the full findings ……… not just the words that fit your world view.


  32. Richard Lanigan on March 23, 2011 at 14:45

    I agree with Stefaan, although my interpretation of subluxation and dis-ease is different from yours. There is an assumption that all subluxation chiropractors are into this cook book chiropractic 3 times and two times etc and we are not. If you are any good you dont have to tie people into a long term contract, they recognise the benefits and know when the need an adjustment, or have their orthotics changed or but a new pillow etc etc

    My favourite times as a chiropractor was working in Cuba all I did was adjust people, they came to the Policlinic when they wanted just like chiropractors go to each other. I like to think my patients/clients know when they need an adjustment. If someone set out a “treatment plan” for a year I would laugh at them.

    In Cuba I would see between 50 and 80 people a day and all I would do was adjust, because my Spanish was not great. If I had any doubts about chiropractic and spinal joint care Cuba removed them. I have documented my times in Cuba on Video and will share them over the next few weeks. There are many mays to practice chiropractic, non of them should involve coercing money from people and bullshit.

    My views on prescribing are not born out of fundamentalism, they are born from the fact that our profession seem to be made up of careing people and a minority of snakeoil salesmen and I dont want Botox and prescription pads in the latters hands

  33. CDC on March 23, 2011 at 14:31

    It is like Richard said a long time ago, the sceptics are good. They make our colleagues who are out treating disease and symptoms really think about what they are doing.

    If you treat low back pain just because it is EBM, then you treat symptoms. And if you treat symptoms, then you treat disease. The problem the way I see it is that no one questions what disease the low back crackers are treating.

  34. Stefaan A.L.P. Vossen on March 23, 2011 at 10:00

    Hi DrChappy, I absolutely agree with the points you raise and would make one addition; in my opinion you are more of a principled and philosophically-rooted chiropractor than the people you refer to. What they do is use chiropractic scipture to validate their incompetence and greed in a way that religious extremists refer to scripture to wage war. My full support to your campaign

  35. drchappy on March 23, 2011 at 02:37

    I am a chiropractor and am quite disgusted by some of the claims that SOME chiropractors make. If you were really getting to the cause of the problem, why does it take 1 or more years of weekly visits to fix the problem?

    I am continually frustrated when people call chiropractic voodoo or witchcraft. The way SOME chiropractors treat their patients it would appear to be witchcraft, however this is not ALL chiropractors. many chiropractors work within the evidence based model of biomechanics and has many successes without scaring or using the “philosophy” to brainwash patients. To illustrate this point I will use a case I had last year. I was working within a hospital and was asked by the doctors to look at a patient who had come in with acute back pain. The patient was on morphine and was not able to move without excruciating pain. The doctors had exhausted any possible medical reason for this patients pain. I assessed the patient and found that a costo-transverse (rib attachment to the spine) joint was restricted. I manipulated this joint and within 2 hours the patient was virtually pain free and walking around without pain.

    I do not make any claims that I know that I cannot guarantee. I address the possible causes of the biomechanical problems such as posture, repetitive movements, muscular imbalances, prescribe exercises and refer for management from other health professionals.

    I find it quite ludicrous that some chiropractors profess to be holistic when all they do is adjust (manipulate), how can you be holistic when you are only looking at one aspect of the possible treatment for your patient?

    I also find it amusing that some chiropractors claim that the subluxation is the cause of dis-ease (a chiropractic term meaning that the body is not in a state of perfect functioning but it is not yet in a diseases state). The founder of chiropractic stated that trauma, thoughts and toxins were the cause of dis-ease. how can you be dealing with the thoughts and toxins when all you do is adjust your patients? So are you really getting to the cause of the problem.

    Some chiropractors claim that the body’s ability to heal and regulate itself (innate intelligence for chiropractors and homeostasis for some others) is capable of healing the body of everything including cancer, mental illness and so on, yet to have your subluxations removed you have to see a chiropractor. Surely something that heal cancer can also heal subluxations?

    I could go on but the novel I have written so far will suffice. I realise that I will get many chiropractors off-side with my comments and many will claim that I am not a true chiropractor. Just because I do not use the ‘philosophy’ of chiropractic as an excuse to over treat and brainwash patients does not not mean that I am not a chiropractor

  36. drchappy on March 23, 2011 at 02:17

    The article was referring to the fact that children can not make the decision to have chiropractic treatment or not, either legally or mentally.

  37. The Gregster on March 22, 2011 at 18:04

    A man after my own heart…… mmmmmmmmmmmmm…… love ya …. could not put it better myself ( well I did before:) )

    fancy meeting up for a coffee?

  38. Richard Lanigan on March 22, 2011 at 12:56

    “The spinal health care experts in the health care system”, is what the World Federation of Chiropractic stated we should aspire to in 2005. I think all chiropractors could sign up to that. The problems starts when you start talking about “experts” who are they, who should we aspire to be like, what works best. Egos and seminar spaces to fill come into play this was a large part of the reason I fell out with Tedd Koren who was a close friend for ten years.

    My philosophy is KISS, and focusing on “spinal joint function” the vast majority of chiropractors do that. Its not all the do, but its the one thing all chiropractors could agree about and that could be the starting point.

    Gets complicated when you start looking at the interventions, all sorts of techniques, advice, prescribing etc, etc. Many chiropractors are more attached to their technique than to their profession. All these interventions may work in different ways on something like back pain, put if the question was being experts in “Spinal health care” rather than back pain, the answers may be very simple.

    I consider myself an expert in what effects spinal health. I give ergonomic advice, I sell orthotics, I teach exercise classes, I sell pillows and I practice what I consider to be the fundamental principal of chiropractic. I analysis the spine for spinal dysfunction and correct it if I can, which hopefully allows “homeostasis” or “innate” to do its thing and heal damaged tissue.

    Skeptic Barista was giving me grief this morning because I Tweeted a study which suggested going to a GP made back pain worse, while going to a chiropractor or doing nothing did not. He is unable to see the big picture wishing instead to extrapolate from this study, that doing nothing is the same as going to a chiropractor, while my interpretation was going to a chiropractor for back pain is better than going to a GP.

    Having the confidence to do nothing, when spinal dysfunction/ subluxation is not present, is a fundamental principle of chiropractic the body has the ability to regulate and heal itself when there is no interference.

    I found this study interesting because, it states clearly you run the risk of being made worse going in the medical direction with back pain. An expert in spinal care would know that it is limited what you can do for some one who has back pain because they sit all day, are over weight, smoke, no core strength, pronate, sleep on their front and are depressed because they have no friends. You could try adjusting but its probably not going to make much difference but at least its not going to make them worse as Ernst likes to tell people.

  39. Colin Jenkins on March 22, 2011 at 11:15

    OK. The intention of my question was to give some indication as to the scope of the problem. What do you all have in common now as a base to work from… is it just something like ‘spinal manipulation’ or something with more meat on it..?

  40. Stefaan A.L.P. Vossen on March 22, 2011 at 11:02

    Hi Colin,
    I would propose we don’t look at how they are practicing but how they should be practicing: e.g chiropractors should not get involved with acute back pain as “innate intelligence should be given the chance to heal the body it made”, they should be looking at bite and gait routinely as “the subluxation on occasion is extra-spinal” and can’t be making claims of treating conditions as “chiropractic does not treat disease; it corrects the subluxation and lets innate do the rest”.
    Unless there are those who are arguing that chiropractic today has nothing to do with what the people who defined its basic premises intended it to be, which then leaves me to wonder why they still call it chiropractic…?

  41. Anonymous on March 22, 2011 at 10:28

    What are possible ‘highest common factor’ definitions that can be applied to say 95% of chiropractors practicing today?

  42. Alanbinns on March 22, 2011 at 10:00

    Burn them! Burn every single one of those ‘circa 1895′ chiropractors!

    I love the bit about ‘ to those who are not able to judge for themselves ‘. How condescending! Academia has a duty of care to those simpletons in the community. Noble sentiments indeed.


Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: