Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting

I couldn't agree more with this podcast. I am a Physician Assistant in orthopedics and have seen many patients with prior treatment by chiropractors. Just this week I had a patient with lumbar nerve impingement, treated with manipulation of the spine by a chiropractor. This made her pain much worse, prompting her to seek care from an orthopedic physician. Unfortunately, many people fear modern medicine and feel safer with chiropractic treatment when they would be better served by evidence based medical treatment.

Dylan, Tampa, FL
May 03, 2007 7:44am

Education is key-and this comes form a MEDICAL journal----"Manipulative therapy and physiotherapy are better than general practitioner and placebo treatment. Furthermore, manipulative therapy is slightly better than physiotherapy after 12 months."
-- British Medical Journal, Koes et al. (1992)

Terry, Orange City, FL
May 04, 2007 1:31pm

Yes, another jab at my profession..........because most of our patients are medical failures. It is country of free choice and drugs are not a choice of most of my patients.

Considering 100,000 visit hospitals from the side effects of NSAIDS and 20,000 die each year. Anywhere from 160,000-300,000 are KILLED in the hospital each year due to mistakes.

I am 50 years old, perfect cholesterol, blood pressure, etc. and on NO medications. Seems like I'm doing something right.

And my patients who want to live to 100 years old. You make the choice and try many doctors. One bad experience with a chiropractor doesn't make the whole group bad, unless you have brain washed eyes and ears.

Dr. Mike, Columbus, OH
May 07, 2007 9:19am

You know, you may be right about chiropractic as a science but not as medicine. I see a chiropractor has already written about all the horror and death associated with "real science" so I will leave it at that. But I would rather go to a chiropractor than a doctor anyday and twice on Sunday.

And, for the record, I think all chiropractors should stop doing those crazy neck adjustments. They are painful and don't do any good.

Jonathan Goodall, New York, New York
May 24, 2007 11:12am

I visited a chiropractor after a car accident with some back/shoulder pain. I felt great after each visit, and after a few visits, the pain was gone altogether. I still go every once in a while just to get my body realigned...

Aaron, San Antonio, Tx
May 25, 2007 10:14pm

Placebo. Some folk kill chickens to relive ailments.Works for them. When they dont die.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
June 07, 2007 2:39am

I enjoy your podcasts, but felt your episode on chiropractors left something to be desired. You imply that chiropractors have less training than physical therapists. You also presume that chiropractors do not receive training in anatomy. I believe both these assumptions are not correct. Perhaps you were not aware that most chiropractic schools require more training in anatomy than medical schools. Chiropractic schools require as much as 570 hours of training in anatomy, whereas medical schools only require 368 hours. Chiropractors also receive 305 hours of training in physiology whereas medical students only receive 142. Check out
http://www.chiroweb.net/chiropractic/research/chiropractic_education.html
for more information about required training and education.

You also implied that chiropractic care is less reliable because the theories and methodologies have evolved. This evolution based on new developments and discovery is the same process regular medical practitioners have undergone. Shall I remind you of leaching? You appear to fall into the same fallacy you complained of in the Revisionist Darwinism episode where you correctly identified the fact that changing theories based on new developments is not an indication of incorrect analysis.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Robert Nuddleman, San Jose, California
June 07, 2007 8:48am

Yes, Robert, you are wrong. I said pretty much the opposite of that. Here is the exact text:

"Chiropractic is relatively unique among alternative medicine systems because, although it was originally developed based on the purely mythical and supernatural conjecture of innate intelligence, the profession as a whole has evolved and generally accepted most anatomical discoveries of modern medicine."

This is the one thing that lifts chiropractic above most other alternative modalities. It just doesn't lift it quite as far as evidence based medicine.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
June 07, 2007 8:57am

What exactly is 'evidence based medicine'? When I look at the current medical system, I see prescription drug companies sending lobbyists and representatives to congress and to doctors' own offices. I see doctors over prescribing medication and possibly causing epidemics of influenza which we have no control over except to buy more medicine from the crooks who started it all.
Second, at any point in history if one looks at what was 'commonly known' to be accurate medical science, then surely some major ideas have changed over time. So, at any point in time, we are STILL wrong, since we are destined to further our knowledge and improve our way of doing things. Unfortunately, this 'scientific method' while extremely useful in determining statistical truth, is painstakingly slow.
However, a hypothesis which is never empirically tested does not have to be false. The concept of innate intelligence makes perfect sense to any careful observer. We are all born with body language, such as smiles and frowns, for example. And theoretically, the body should be capable of functioning properly on its own in accordance with the laws of evolution. So, adjusting a patient simply means restoring the natural balance and thus the ability to function properly, in all aspects. One cannot argue that nerves branching out of the spinal cord control every part of our body. From our modern perspective, innate intelligence is really a significant, yet undetectable movement of tissue.

Joe, Fredericksburg VA
July 31, 2007 11:35pm

You basically accuse chiropractors of practicing physical therapy based on second-hand accounts and anecdotal evidence?

Your readers should be skeptical.

Phill, San Francisco, CA
November 14, 2007 9:19pm

A chiropractor’s knowledge of human anatomy is akin to an astrologer’s knowledge of the cosmos. Which is next to nothing...

Aiden, Newport News, VA
December 10, 2007 12:57pm

I thought that your article was very thought provoking. Thank you.

Jack Rhider, Ukiah
December 16, 2007 11:17pm

Im confused, I'm 19 and i always have back pain, and i have depression... i'm not sure what to do if i should try it out or not. I'm lost.

michelle, ny
February 17, 2008 10:44pm

Michelle, I don't know if you will check this again but I would encourage you to talk to a legitimate physician before seeking treatment from a chiropractor.

If you would like more information, check out QuackCast's shows on the subject -

http://quackcast.com/spodcasts/files/7219a04d8d3b1302766cae8ea96f991f-9.html
http://quackcast.com/spodcasts/files/9995ad78c0fd284e02dfc46b91285a64-10.html

Tommy, Indianapolis, Indiana
March 11, 2008 6:02pm

Don't let a chiropractor touch your neck. I am injured as a result of a chiropractic adjustment. 2 discs are bulging (herniated) and pinching nerves. This is painful and the treatment will be long, expensive, and possibly require surgery. See your MD, get a referral to the proper specialist.

Cyndi, Harrisburg, PA
March 13, 2008 12:59am

You all are guilty of not seeking information about chiropractics. They go through the same riggers that Med students go through. They are just as educated and just believe in anoher form of healing. Those that pickon Massage therapy, its the oldest healing form. It was in the he Nei Ching (the firt book of medicine). If you have a serious issue seek your Primary care manager (DR) and then do research on you therapies. You should not always trust your Dr seek others advice and then make your decision. Most times Dr will want to cute you open, surgery and then you never have the full range of motion you once had.

Lisa, Clarksville, Tn
March 27, 2008 7:19am

I think this is some kind of propaganda against Chiropractors. I had terrible neck and arm pain for almost two years after an accident on a city bus. I went to 7 different medical doctors trying to find one that could tell me what was causing the pain, and fix it. After about 6 months I was hooked on the drugs each doctor prescribed. I had a prescription from three different MD's at one point. Which is great if your a drug addict. . So in retrospect, the MD's were drug dealers. I had to go through a very embarrassing intervention due to the drug addiction. Afterwards I discussed this with my Dr.at the time. He prescribed oxycotin instead of vicodin. I was recomended a Chiropractor that was about two blocks from my apartment. After one adjustment I felt probally 50% less pain. And over the next four months I started exercising again. My Chiropractor helped me with a nutritional pragram as well. Over the last year, I have lost 33lbs as a result and have had no problems with digestion. I learned that Chiropractors actually learn about ten times as much about nutrition that other doctors. I obviously recomend that you go to a chropractor. I'm glad I did. It has added "Life" to my years.

jani, los Angeles
March 28, 2008 12:33am

I know couple of hundreds of people who have been in neck manipulation and they all said it is a relief. None of them have had any problems. Most of them have received it more than once and most of them will go again when necessary because they know it is the best help.

Many athletes use it from Tiger Woods to Arnold Swarzenegger. Even many doctors use it. It has helped many.

Then I had two young friends who died mysteriously (broken blood vain in brain) without having any neck manipulation. Other was my 16yrs old cousine. So in my experience neck manipulation is very safe and very good treatment for some neck problems. And people die and if they die after neck manipulation, it might have nothing to do with manipulation because thousands of people just die even without it. How to tell what was the real reason?

manipulated and happy, Europe
April 15, 2008 5:27am

You are, of course, aware that your chiropractor bases his "medical knowledge" on the belief that all health problems are caused by an imbalance in a magical energy field?

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
April 28, 2008 9:18am

if you do not understand the ideas behind Palmer's innate intelligence, or magical energy field, or mindful soul, whatever you want to call it, IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT AND HAVE NOT FELT IT THAN YOU SHOULDNT PLACE JUDGMENTS. my suggestion is to go to any chiropractor with an open mind, body, and soul and then write an article on how its not real. you WILL feel it and understand how real it truly CAN BE. also, prescription medication is bad for our bodies because it is unnatural. when we discover the horrifying adverse side effects of common prescription DRUGS, those non-believers will finally believe in the amazing power of natural alternatives to MODERN medicine practices. LOVE LIFE!

D, denver, CO
May 01, 2008 10:52pm

dang.. i am writing a research paper on holistic therapy, and i couldn't help but read this. i totally agree with everything D from denver says. Pharmeceuticals are not the answer to our illnesses. popping useless pills is harmful to your body and your mind. Being wholesome in your eating habits, exercise, and medicine adds a certain vigor to your personage. Feel great about yourself and dont rely on modern medicine. It is a one way street that only leads to more pills and injections etc...

Derrick, Thousand Oaks, CA
May 06, 2008 10:35pm

wow, you have the most biased opinion i have ever heard against chiropractors. try going to one and see what they can really do before you right a bunch of crap against them

Derek, Chippewa, WI
May 26, 2008 3:45pm

Hi, Skeptoid!
I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the majority of your podcast, yet I feel there's a little more to the story.
I do agree that a lot of the metaphysical junk some chiropractors share with their clients is utter bunk, and I can't say I have seen any reason to believe that regular spinal adjustments can improve my digestive health, nor that vertebra number XX directly corresponds to the health of my genitals (as the poster in one chiropractor's office tells me).

However, I *can* say I've found no finer solution for back or neck pain than a chiropractor! I actually visit two different chiros from time to time (I still see my original doc every so often, although I have since moved and a new doc is more conveniently located to my house), and when plagued by back or neck pain, nothing gets me feeling well faster than a visit to one of them.

My original doctor would certainly be considered 'Straight', but when his metaphysical mumbo-jumbo was simply ignored, he provided wonderful relief from the neck pain which was plaguing me at the time. I still drop by for occasional adjustments when I get a kink in my back, and always enjoy the experience.

So, while I must agree that there's a lot of nonesense in some chiropractic offices, I have to assert that I think they're just the ticket when it comes to reliefing spine pain!

E.K., Seattle area, Washington
June 09, 2008 10:43am

I agree, E.K. But like I said, when chiropractors give useful back pain treatment, they're simply performing conventional (albeit unlicensed) physical therapy. If it's working for you, I suggest going to a DPT (Doctor of Physical Therapy) and getting the same treatment legally from a licensed & trained professional, rather than from someone who learned anatomy at a magic school.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
June 09, 2008 10:53am

to d denver and those who agree with the statements made above by denver. You say "IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT AND HAVE NOT FELT IT THAN YOU SHOULDNT PLACE JUDGMENTS" what is there to understand? there is no science to learn and understand merely the staements of those who "FEEL" better and the 'practitioners' who administer this beautiful placebo, take a pil and you'll get the benifits of science and a placebo. If you're back is sore or neck it's likely one of the thousands of muscles has been tweaked in some way and is pulling the bone out of whac, so in this instance yes get a massage and relieve the pain in a conventiaonal proven way aided by human touch, but if you feel depressed adn you're not sleeping well or you're kidneys failing dont' see one to fix it-you'll just be left broke. and yes alternative meds are natuaral, so is marijuana, cocain, popey and also st john's wart(which shouldn't be prescribed by non professionals becasue they don't fully comprehend the effects of this adn the implications it may have), do you even know where your everday drug 'asprin' came from? asprin is now a medically refined product of made from the bark and leaves of the willow tree-but now it's refined adn a prescribed dose and effect can be delivered-this is just one 'DRUG' of many that origionate from the organic world adn that have now been refined and reproduced without the harmful effects on the enviroment.

Dr. John Howard

John, Melbourne, VIC Australia
June 18, 2008 8:51pm

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Brian!
While I certainly have not - and will not - rule out a true physical therapist from the future of my medical care, I do want to add that (for good or ill) chiropractors have the advantage of oftentimes being cheaper and faster to get to, due to the US' fantastic private medical insurance system.

I can't speak for the system in other countries, but for me to get to a DPT, most plans I'm familiar with will require you to hit up a doctor, get a referral, pay their co-pay, and then visit the 'specialist' doctor for even *higher* co-pays. Friends and family in my area who have gone through that route have also had trouble getting time on a DPT's schedule, as there apparently aren't enough to go around.

Chiropractors are, by contrast, a dime a dozen and found in nearly every strip mall I can think of around here. While that's obviously NOT a ringing endorsement for the rigors of their training (heh!), they at least do offer quick relief, and are now covered by many insurance plans with a normal co-pay. Further, there is rarely a danger that an injury treated by a chiropractor will show up as a black mark (pre-existing condition) on your insurance history.

If it stops your pain, you can drop by a convenient location after work, and it's cheaper than a specialist - well, why not give it a try for minor complaints? Why bother with a more costly and challenging solution? =)

E.K., Seattle area, Washington
June 20, 2008 3:26pm

I think E.K. makes the point here Brian did not... that you get what you pay for, but sometimes you don't need a lot. If it's a minor pain, maybe a cheap person is sufficient- that said, aren't there cheaper alternatives out there for back and neck pain? Maybe a masseuse?

eric thorn, Seoul, ROK
June 22, 2008 1:28am

Read the negative responses to the article, I see they can be divided up into roughly three categories:

1. Anecdotal evidence. "I had back pain and then saw a chiropractor and now I'm fine!" While I'm happy for you, your story is of no value to me. For every success, how many failures are there?

2. Ignoring chiro, but dumping on medicine and the drug companies. This is the usual "bogeyman" approach used to vilify someone.

3. Accusations that the author doesn't "get" chiropractic. Well, I speak for most doctors in imploring someone to please give us a coherent theory of chiropractic.

It would be nice if any of you could refute specific parts of the article.

Tom DMD, Western PA
June 25, 2008 3:09pm

Brian,

I would like to make a correction to the podcast related to the chiropractic profession. Chiropractors must be licensed in the state that they practice in order to provide chiropractic services, just like a medical physician or physical therapist. They are governed by a licensing board and must follow a practice act that determines their scope of practice.

In regards to the DPT discussion, the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) is a recent phenomenon within the physical therapy profession. The majority of physical therapists still practicing have a bachelor or master degree in physical therapy. Although, I appreciate the promotion of the physical therapy profession, so be aware most practicing PTs do not have a DPT. The majority of DPTs are fairly recent graduates from an accredited physical therapy program so individuals will mostly likely be treated by a licensed PT without a DPT.

Finally, in regards to mobilizations/manipulations, this modality is not owned by any one profession. It is a treatment modality that falls under the practice act of several different professions, such as osteopathic medicine, allopathic medicine, chiropractic medicine, and physical therapy. However, the most recent research in this area published in peer-reviewed journals is being performed by physical therapists. So the reason that a physical therapist may use a manipulation technique is different from a chiropractor based on clinical prediction rules.

David Logerstedt, PT, MPT, SCS, Philadelphia, PA
July 01, 2008 9:36am

Chiro schools will take anyone who can sign their name. Then they brainwash them into believing that modern medicine is bad, chiropractic is good. Having been to a chiropractor, I know that they make you feel good after a massage and back-crack, but do nothing to medically fix the problem. Just ask how many patients have been told that they have one foot longer than the other.

Rodney, Davenport, IA
July 10, 2008 6:02pm

Wow, A lot of you guys seem to be quite ignorant to the subject. Nobody ever said if you go to the chiro that he will make the flu go away, however, he can straighten out your spine and cure your back aches. It takes a 6 year degree just like your legal doctor. How can you argue with that? Plus, my chiro is brilliant. He helped my mom with her health problems when nobody else could.

Jack, Indep, mo
July 11, 2008 10:38am

Brian,

Very interesting podcast -- thank you for all your work. I wonder whether you may have missed a small point on this one, though. You suggest that if I have an injury, I should see a licensed orthopedist or physical therapist rather than a chiropractor. However, I might argue that one of the benefits of chiropractors is that they are NOT licensed. Here's what I mean:

There's a plausible argument that the purpose of licensure for doctors and other professionals, while it is discussed in terms of public benefit, is really about protecting doctors from competition -- thereby limiting supply and driving up their pay. For many medical services, a fully trained doctor is not needed -- someone with the qualifications of a nurse could easily put in sutures, for example. Yet, due to regulation, we don't have that option. Maybe chiropractors are qualified to do what they do, maybe they aren't. I don't know. But I do know that I'm skeptical of the opinion on this issue of the state's regulators, who are generally influenced by the doctors they are protecting. (You should do a podcast on this travesty, by the way.)

There's plenty of quakery in chiropractic, I will acknowledge unhesitatingly, but this cat-and-mouse game about what it is they actually do is partly forced on them by a regulatory system that requires them to pretend they're not doing something they obviously are: providing medical treatment.

Caveat emptor.

Darin

Darin Johnson, Seattle
July 24, 2008 9:33am

I'm a DC with an emphasis on natural medicine which passes scientific muster. A competent DC is freeing up fixations, mainly of the spine, but also of the arms and legs. It's not esoteric or vague. If a joint is hypomobile for long enough it will effect the soft tissue and finally the nerves ( of which the autonomic nervous system is the most important) When the word SUBLUXATION was coined (1895 ), it was meant to represent a hypo(sub) joint (luxation). The roots are different. (i.e. lux vs. loc ). I'm always amazed at how angry people get when the subject of chiropractic and natural medicine come up. We are NOT aligning the spine, we're freeing it up. PT's would love to claim the rights and privileges of DC's. They should know how to free up the joints of the body to a greater degree than mobilization. They (the PT's) would have to admit that the DC's were right and I think that would stick in their craw too much right now. Good medicine is good medicine. I look forward to the future when the the truth will triumph.

Ezra Edgerton, DC, Boiling Springs, NC
August 06, 2008 12:26pm

ok, brief, and to the point, having, someone, with 'strength', adjust your body, for one helps, with many of your anatomical, areas, can, make your stools, go quicker, your level-headed, can, rise, so I may even go to school myself, at a school.
Nicholas :)

Nicholas M, Lakewood, Colorado
August 21, 2008 8:16am

Before you make a conclusion on chiropractic shouldn't you delve deeper into a chiropractor's education. Chiropractors have a strong background in anatomy,physiology,radiology and various musculoskeletal conditions. Far more education in these areas than your primary care doctor.

Go to your famiy doctor for back pain and see what happens. You will get referred to a PT or given pain meds. That's it! The chiropractor will diagnose and treat the patient with protocols that have been proven THROUGH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH in recent studies. Look them up!!

Manipulation has been proven to be effective for the relief of neck and back pain in many MEDICAL studies. Who manipulates the spine everyday for a living? CHIROPRACTORS!! Ask your medical doctor,osteopath or therapist for a adjustment. See what happens.

Chiropractic is not a cure for every ailment. But, it is effective for the relief of neck and back pain with associated upper and lower extremity radiculitis.

C. Smith D.C.

Dr. C Smith, Pennsylvania
September 14, 2008 6:38am

You say you won't encourage the argument against chiropractic of possible stroke due to chiropractic adjustments, and I understand your reasoning for that, but I think your analogy is inexact. Your pharmacist friend was most likely prescribing a medication for a real ailment when she made her unfortunate mistake. Medicine always has its risks, which is why all treatments must be evaluated through a risk/benefit analysis, and those risks may (though rarely) include taking the wrong medication or too much of the right one. We all take this risk with any prescribed or OTC medication. However, chiropractic adjustments offer risk with no plausible benefit, therefore, the risk of accidental injury is never acceptable, however remote it may be. So while the consequences of the pharmacist's error were tragic, it does not absolve the chiropractors from a practice that offers all risk with no benefit. Imagine a pharmaceutical that provided little or no benefit but carried the rare risk of a devastating stroke. Such a drug would never make it to market, regardless of how much patients liked it.

Matthew Akin, Saint Louis, MO
October 04, 2008 11:57am

Though I don't agree with a lot of things about chiropractic medicine, there is one thing that bothers me the most and is why I find physical therapy far superior. Though much of the manipulation done by chiropractors and physical therapists is similar (the manipulations done by PTs are not nearly as violent), the notable difference is care beyond manipulation.

If you go to a chiropractor with back pain, you will get manipulated, feel better, and come back in a week or two hurting again. If you go to a PT, you may or may not be manipulated, but you will also be given exercises to stretch and strengthen muscles that may be causing you pain. These are things that you can do at home that will slowly make you better so that you don't need to go to the PT after a while.

The lack of continuing care in order to actually heal the patient instead of temporarily making them feel better is a huge problem. Regardless of how effective the initial treatment is, the lack of trying to fix the underlying problems is unforgivable.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
November 01, 2008 5:18pm

To list Chiropractic care as a pseudo-science is dated. This discipline has gained legitimacy over the last several decades because of clinical trials, stringent regulation, and responsible practice. The largest reasons for it's lack of mainstream acceptance is that 1) people continue to view it, publicly, as something it is not and 2) many people don't accept that healing takes time.
So few seem to understand that it doesn't matter what the ailment, any and every treatment must go through its due course. The fact that a visit to any doctor rarely results in immediate relief of ailment upon exit begs to wonder why the most common complaint from people who have visited a DC only once tends to be "I tried it and didn't feel better afterward". All health care is ongoing, yet so many seem to think that Chiropractic is supposed to make them feel better with but one adjustment. There is little difference on this way of thinking and an assumption that one round of physical therapy will allow you to walk on a broken leg. All doctors should promote ongoing care, if they don’t seek someone better.
Chiropractic is a form of deep physical therapy that promotes and assists the body's ability to repair itself. It should not be thought of as a substitute to surgery, medications, and other health related disciplines when these things are needed. When Chiropractic might be a more appropriate avenue, most insurance providers seem to recognize its benefit. That should say something at least.

Dak Hoffman, West Amana, Iowa
December 05, 2008 2:33am

I find this American view of Chiropractic as a slightly anacronism. In Western and Northern Europe (Norway included) we have a different approach and generally Chiropracic care is seen as a normal cure for the typical back pain.

It is not considered as a sort of Quack treatment or alternative medicine. In Norway the National Insurance Scheme will cover a large part of your expences if you visit a Chiropractor (or a physical therapist for that matter). All though going to the doctor is the first choice for back pains, a lot of doctors would just refer you to a Chiropractor and perhaps write a prescription.

And when the Norwegian government recognises (and pays for)Chiropractic as a treatment with substansial benefits, I think that perhaps the American sceptic view of Chiropractic (which also was common here decades ago) should be reconsidered.

André Hill, Bergen, Norway
December 11, 2008 2:30am

Argument from authority, Andre.

Max, Boston, MA
January 01, 2009 9:48am

Thanks Brian for the great podcast. I agree with what you say regarding chiropractic, but feel you mostly ignore a very important question: are chiropractic adjustments beneficial? I have had a similar experience to E.K. and your volleyball friends. I was very skeptical of chiropractic, but after a series of adjustments I experienced very significant relief from neck pain and discomfort that had botherd me for years.

I agree that chiropractic "theory" is based on psuedoscience, and it is entirely possible that the same results could have been achieved by visiting another, better educated, better trained or better licensed health care professional. Despite these very real concerns with chiropractic, my personal experience has been positive. This is purely anecdotal evidence, but I think your poscast would have been better if you had provided some assessment of the current scientific or medical literature regarding the benefits of chiropractic treatment.

Jeff, Decatur, GA
January 02, 2009 7:11am

Why did I lose 5 minutes of my life reading this article??

I have been a chiropractor for 14 years.

I always find those who are overly critical of the profession so very stereotypical. Angry people who love to talk like an authority on something that they know precious little about.

For the record I am not a crusader for my profession.
I love what I do and I beleive that I have wonderful relationships with my patients based on results.
At the start of my care I ask what other modalities they have tried and generally this will include massage and physical therapy with little or no benefit. You see thats what keeps chiropractic in business. If the professions you mentioned had all the answers we would have been culled some time ago. Simply because in general we get no favours from the Medical profession and at this stage we dont want or need them.

After my recommended care that usually involves between 6 and 15 visits I make my care completely transparent by getting patients to fill out forms without any fear of reprisal.
Chiropractic works.

Last year without any exagerration I successfully treated reflux, bed wetting, arryhtmia, asthma, period pain, infertilty and migraine.

I see on average 100 patients a week.I do no marketing and all of my new patients are referred from satisfied clients.

Whenever I read articles such as these I always smile.
I smile because the person writing the article is subluxated.
You can tell.
They are so tense.

Michael Fordham, Sydney
January 14, 2009 2:00am

That's nice. So, got any double blind clinical trials to support a claim that chiropractic treatments heal asthma? I'll settle for any double blind studies for your other claims. Just so you know, most kids grow out of bed wetting. If I played ball with a kid with a bed wetting problem he would probably stop wetting his bed after a while. That does not mean me playing ball with him stopped the bed wetting.

Craig, Washington DC
January 17, 2009 11:58am

Yes, I am sorry I forgot to mention something that some of the skeptics might be interested in.

Every year when the final year students finish their second university accredited degree the have to complete a resarch project.

The study must be based on the effectiveness of chiropractic in some way.
Double blind, the methodology is highly scrutinized.

Chiropractic has been well aware of the perceptions for over 20 years. Thats why the powers that be want to make the profession transparent.

Can the same be said of physial therapy?
I have a lot to say about this topic as the medical profession and physio were highly critical of manipulation 20 years ago.

Now through research spinal manipulation is seen as the gold standard when treating spinal pain.

What do you know?
10 years ago physical therapists started learning manipulation.
They really are just catching up in my opinion.

For those who doubt this story check the research. You know, "the research" you claim makes chiropractic a sham.

Michael Fordham, Sydney
January 18, 2009 3:41pm

Who supervises these "studies" and where are the results? Other chiropractors?
Lets face it you are a chiropractor. You are not about to slag off your own belief system.
Where is the independent confirmation of your claim?

Chiropractic is magic, and as far as I am aware, magic is not on the syllabus of physiotherapy.
Bedwetting indeed.

Marius vanderlubbe, nullabour Plain, Australia
January 18, 2009 6:02pm

I am currently going through the application process for physical therapy school. Part of that process is logging several hours observing licensed PTs. I have observed several initial consults, and the most common thing I hear from patients about what they have tried to alleviate the problem is that they have been seeing a chiropractor for several weeks, months, (insert time frame) and they have seen no improvement.

The best example of this was a middle aged man who came in with trouble sleeping, a stiff neck, and pain down his left arm. He initially went to the hospital thinking he was having a heart attack. He then went to his chiropractor who diagnosed him with a subluxation. After two months of pain he was referred (by his doctor) to a PT. At that time, I had only logged about 25 hours of observation and already knew that lateral rotation of his head to the right would relieve his pain, which it did. Seven visits later he was discharged pain free, with tips to keep the incident from happening again and a list of simple exercises that could alleviate the problem if it ever arose again.

This might be a long shot, but I would guess that the people you had success with that didn't respond to PT were cases of neuropathic pain. When a definite source for pain is not known, any improvement is typically from psychological factors and not physical ones.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
January 18, 2009 9:57pm

So you're saying there is a study the provides evidence of the existence of subluxations? Something along the lines of say, 50 x-rays or MRI's of patients diagnosed with subluxations by a chiropractor not participating in the study using the published diagnostic criteria promulgated by your association. Then say another 50 who were not diagnosed with subluxations. Then, a group of other chiropractors, should identify the 50 with the condition, not select the 50 who were not diagnosed and the locations of the subluxation should be pretty much the same right?

Got any studies like that? Just get me the citation, I know how to find them.

Craig, Washington DC
January 19, 2009 12:17am

The above statement shows how little you know about the spine and diagnosing spinal pathology.

Even physiotherapists know that diagnosing from any film alone is infantile.
The criteria for working out where a subluxation exists is not reliant upon x rays.

It seems you Craig, beleive that diagnosis from a scan of some kind verifies spinal dysfunction.
Once again this is an incorrect assumption as the only validation for the use of spinal x rays or MRI scans is to validate pathology.

To me this is the way of thinking of a lot of GPs, not all.

Firstly, take a scan or an xray.
Give drugs to mask the cause until you get results from the scan.

Patient comes back with no pathology.
Another course of drugs and wait 6 weeks until see if pain is gone.
(all the while the real problem is getting worse, kind of like not treating a sprained ankle for 6 weeks)

Pain still there.
Send to physio.
Massage, mobilisation, exercises.
Then after 12 visits if pain still there referral to orthopaedic surgeon.
Most patients I see have already been through this procedure already.

And they get better.

They get better because I adjust subluxations.
No drugs,No surgery.
And my patients are genuinely appreciate.
Simply because they know what its like to get off the merry go round and get results with a preofessional who knows more about the spine than General practitioners and physical therapists.
Incidentally,I refer most patients with acute ankles and knees to physio

Michael Fordham, Sydney
January 19, 2009 4:22pm

Okay, so a group of chiropractors examines a group of patients and they should at the least do a better job than random chance at diagnosing subluxations, where they are on each patient and who doesn't have the condition at all. Anything published like that? Again, just the citation is fine.

Craig, Washington DC
January 20, 2009 11:51am

You seem really "fixated" on the existense of subluxation and I admit that that was the original argument put forward. Albeit, this was also veiled by an extreme bias towards every therapy besides chiropractic in managing simple spinal pain.

I can only say to you this.
From my experience the Vertebral Suxlation Complex is very real.
It is tangible.

The one fudamental question that you are asking is "are subluxations easily quantified".

The answer is "I am not sure".

All I can say to you is this.
What I thought was a subluxation 14 years ago and what I think it is now is very different.
As my understanding of the body has improved over that course of time, so has my ability to diagnose and heal

So if you want to use inter practitioner relibality as a means of determining if it exists I dont think that that is a reliable indicator.

One should take into account thermographic studies of the spine, trophic changes, motion palpation and neurological signs in order to determine the existence of a subluxation. It is not esoteric at all.
But based on the subjective methodology is the analysis fool proof?
No.

However, this does not mean that it does not exist?

It just means our current technology has not yet 100% validated its existense.
The earth was not always round!!

The nervous system is highly complex and dynamic. We are minnows in unlocking its secrets.

15 years ago if you said the brain was plastic you would have been a heretic.

Michael Fordham, Sydney
January 20, 2009 4:33pm

We're not even to the point of asking if a subluxation is quantifiable, we're still on whether or not they exist. If the condition existed, trained chiropractors, using the same diagnostic criteria should do better than random chance diagnosing patients with the condition, patients without the condition and put the location of the subluxation in the same place.

I'm not asking for foolproof, just better than random chance and repeatability.

Craig, Washington DC
January 20, 2009 11:46pm

We're not even to the point of asking if a subluxation is quantifiable, we're still on whether or not they exist

quote.

the above statement makes no sense at all.

Michael Fordham, Sydney
January 21, 2009 2:30pm

That's nice, so about those studies?

Craig, Washington DC
January 22, 2009 9:32am

What Craig is saying makes perfect sense for two reasons.

First, if a group of radiologists were to be given X-rays of 20 hands, 10 of them having subluxations, they would be able to correctly diagnose the X-rays (presence and location of injury) better than random chance. A general practitioner could do the same thing if presented with 20 patients. Yet you, a chiropractor, are admitting that a patient given to multiple chiropractors could be given completely different diagnoses from these people. That is a problem.

Also, you can know something exists before you know how to quantify it. Darwin came up with the theory of evolution long before there was adequate knowledge to quantify it. Since there was no current knowledge of genetics, DNA, or microbiology, he could not quantify change, but he could convincingly show that animals did change over time. He needed to prove that his process existed before people bothered to study it in depth and quantify its properties.

The same applies to a chiropractic vertebral subluxation. If no imaging technique can be used to show them, and chiropractors cannot accurately diagnose them, then you cannot prove that they exist, much less quantify them.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
January 22, 2009 11:27am

The only way you are going to get the answer you are seeking is to ask 100 chiropractors with at least 10 years experience if subluxations exist.

For the upteenth time, chiropractors are the only ones qualified to diagnose the much debated "existence" of subluxations.

Subluxations are not diagnosed from x rays.

Michael Fordham, Sydney
January 24, 2009 10:13pm

So what you are saying is that there are no studies that show evidence of the existence of subluxations.

It's funny that the American Chiropractic Association states that subluxations can diagnosed with x-rays and MRI's for the purposes of billing Medicare. Medicare would by the US publicly funded health care system for people over 65 for those not in the US.
Here's the link.
http://www.acatoday.org/content_css.cfm?CID=1217

So are all the chiropractors submitting MRI's and X-Rays as proof of subluxations committing fraud? If we showed the x-rays to a group of other chiropractors would they put the subluxations in the same place as the diagnosing chiropractors?

Craig, Washington DC
January 25, 2009 2:25am

I cannot speak for The American Chiropractors Assosciation.

I am not represented by them.
I dont really care what they may or may not endorse.

As an Australian I refer my patients every week for spinal x rays and MRI studies.

These services help me to diagnose what is wrong with the patient.

I do not need these films to determine if a patient has a subluxation.
The show pathology and to some degree spinal biomechanics.

I have demonstarted many times what the criteria is for determining a subluxation but you simply cannot acknowledge the criteria.

You are looking for proof that cannot be established using a scan or xray that does not show motion.

If you find some technology that demonstates abberant motion of the spine coupled with inflammatory changes and nervous system interference then we might be on the same page.
Unfortunately, at this point in time that technology does not exist.
If you can find this technology and it shows that spine does not do this then I will give up my job and become a physio.

You cannot prove that I am wrong, therefore I should be afforded the chance that I may be right!

Michael Fordham, Sydney
January 25, 2009 4:44am

"You cannot prove that I am wrong, therefore I should be afforded the chance that I may be right!"

Wow, that statement betrays a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. I don't have a hypothesis here, you do.

No studies then? That's okay I've got one.
Just copy and past the name into pubmed.

"Chiropractic: a critical evaluation."

This study concludes that chiropractic medicine "are not based on sound science" on sound science and that, "With the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition."

A leading chiropractic researcher associated with the World Chiropractic Alliance wrote that "subluxation syndrome, the traditional chiropractic concern, is a theoretical (i.e., hypothetical) notion". Thats from their 2006 convention.
https://jvsr.com/researchupdate/detail.asp?ID=565
Here's a great article by a chiropractor lamenting the fact that there is very little research on subluxations and many of his fellows seem to be afraid of evidence based chiropractic.
Gee, why no research into subluxations?

Craig, Washington DC
January 25, 2009 1:20pm

because they dont have the technology yet!!

This is getting really boring.

Michael Fordham, Sydney
January 25, 2009 2:31pm

Damn straight, Michael.
"I know subluxations exist because the technology to detect them hasn't been invented yet."
Don't yell strawman, because it simply isn't. No exaggeration required.
Michael, that big covered plate that Craig just gave you, have a guess what is under the cover. Here's a clue. Don't try to sit down.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
January 25, 2009 9:15pm

"You cannot prove that I am wrong, therefore I should be afforded the chance that I may be right!"
-Michael Fordham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"The argument from ignorance, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is false only because it has not been proven true."

Max, Boston, MA
January 26, 2009 8:49am

Here's the general consensus of the research on chiropractic: May have some value for treating lower back pain. There is no evidence to suggest that either, subluxations exists (we're talking the kind chiropractors claim to treat not hip or ankle subluxations). There is no evidence that spinal manipulation has any beneficial effect on any medical condition other than possibly lower back pain. Chiropractic is dangerous for two main reasons. About 55% of patients who see chiropractors report adverse reactions. 15% of those reactions are labeled severe. Going to a chiropractor to treat conditions besides lower back pain causes a delay in treatment or patients abandon sound treatment options in favor of a non efficacious treatment.

Chiropractic is a drain on health care dollars that could be better spent on treatments shown to work through sound research practices.

I would encourage anyone to read the studies. PUBMED is a searchable database of research studies used by the medical community and free to the public. Questia.com in a pay to read database or peer reviewed journals and has an excellent selection to read on this subject.

Craig, Washington DC
January 26, 2009 9:12am

Just for the record Craig what is your stance on acupuncture?

I am sure your quest in luring people away from my profession has had such far reaching effects that I may as well close my doors now and go back to study another quasi medicine.

Michael Fordham, Sydney
January 27, 2009 1:38am

While I would certainly welcome your unemployment I have no illusions about my ability to get the general populace to think rationally. However, if one person does the responsible thing and actually research the topic before they subject themselves or worse their children to the machinations of your kind and they see this, I call that a win. It's up to you how you justify your deception (either to the public or yourself I offer no opinion as to which except that you do one or the other). If it were me I would chose not to make my living exploiting the suffering of others.

This will shock you. As there are is no evidence that acupuncture has any beneficial effect at all (beyond a brief placebo effect) and there is some indication in the research that chiropractic may have some benefit for certain types of lower back pain, I'd say you are doing marginally less harm in your current job.

Craig, Washington DC
January 27, 2009 8:57am

thanks for replying Craig.

Here are two sites I would like you to peruse at your own leisure.

The first is about Iatrogenesis.
Do you know what that means Craig?
It means that doctors killed over 225,000 people last year in the US.

I will supply the wikipedia link, as the general public might trust that site more than your angry, crazy ranting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis

or

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Number-3-Killer-in-America-is-Iatrogenesis&id=124398

So as far as chiropractic being dangerous well according to the research Medical doctors and physical therapists caused more serious harm to patients last year attempting spinal manipulation than chiropractors.

And please Craig, just because you have heaps of time to research objectively I would love you to check out this site which bookshelfs heaps of chiropractic research.

http://www.chiro.org/

Rock on brother!!!

Michael Fordham, Sydney
January 28, 2009 2:15am

Michael,

What on earth does iatrogenesis have to do with the efficacy of chiropractic care? The comparison makes no sense at all. Iatrogenic deaths include mistakes in surgery, fatal drug interactions, infections caught in hospitals, etc. They are not the result (at least the vast majority) of doctors manipulating spines. And guess what, if a chiropractor kills a person while manipulating a neck, that is an iatrogenic death.

You might claim that chiros are not responsible for the vast majority of these deaths, and I would hope not. Chiros can't perform surgery, prescribe drugs, don't have hospitals. This is where the real risk in medicine lies and is where the accidental deaths are going to occur. No one ever died during a knee jerk reflex test.

Also, do you honestly think that the 225000 deaths caused by medical mistakes overshadows the millions that are saved by antibiotics, vaccines, surgery, etc? I agree that we should work to get that number as low as possible, but as long as we are taking risks in order to save lives, some lives are going to be lost.

Finally, nothing discussed in your post or mine has to do with the efficacy of chiropractic care. The first couple studies on the site you linked to compared chiropractic efficacy to that of acupuncture, impressive. Where is that study where multiple chiros see the same set of patients and come up with the same results for in whom a subluxation exists and where it is located, using any methods necessary?

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
January 28, 2009 10:46am

I am not an anti medical chiropractor. Far from it, although I know some chiropractors who have extreme views towards the broad medical fraternity.

I guess these feelings have been cultivated by my colleagues for two main reasons.

a) the unfounded assertion the SMT is dangerous and that it cannot help patients in any capacity besides spinal pain.

b)doctors are being manipulated by drug companies. Symptom based care without looking towards true health and finding legitimate CAUSES of disease. Stress, diet, lack of exercise etc.

There has been a real shift towards wellness care in Australia sponsored by the Government as they see education in health is far less expensive than controlling disease.

If you have any idea about the over prescription of medications and I am guessing that you do you would appreciate the LONG TERM ramifications. Super bugs, Hormonal treatments link with cancer and pain management with vascular sequalae. The list goes on.

You didnt go into too much detail at chiro.org becuase you will find plenty of research based articles validating the claims of chiropractors.

The reason I brought up Iatrogenesis is because of the persistant crusade against the safety of chiropractic.

Hemorrhagic stroke from taking aspirin carries a risk of approximately 1 in 3000.

Stroke from chiropractic manipulation is broadly considered to be well over one in 1 million.

You do the math and tell me which is safer.

Isnt aspirin safe?

Michael Fordham, Sydney
January 29, 2009 4:09am

Aspirin is a thoroughly studied drug with solid evidence of efficacy. Chiropractic care has no compelling evidence that it is effective at anything other than relieving some lower back pain. If there is a one in a million chance that a witch doctor waving a stick above my head will injure me, it is not worth the risk, because there is no reason to believe that it can do anything beneficial.

Second, no doctor worth his salt is willing to treat only symptoms. The problem is that treating causes often requires the patient to change their lifestyle. Sadly, the majority of patients don't want to do this, and would rather take a pill instead. A patients unwillingness to change cannot be blamed on the doctor.

Finally, I did browse the site for a while, but it is oddly organized and hard to navigate. I didn't find any paper that impressed me, or anything that caused me to change my mind about chiropractic care. I also didn't find the one thing I was looking for, a double blind study giving evidence that multiple chiropractors can consistently and accurately diagnose subluxations in multiple patients. If there is some research that you think is particularly convincing, please link to it so that I can look over it.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
January 29, 2009 7:34am

If I take an aspirin, I'm taking a risk but I'm also likely, based on a large body of evidence going to get some relief. Going to a chiropractor is a worthless risk because the treatments have not been shown to treat anything except possibly some lower back pain.

As for that site. I found it amusing. It's a "you're awesome" party for quacks. I didn't find double blind studies. In fact there seemed to be a lot of case studies along the lines of "I saw a kid and treated him for bed wetting, he got better." I guess chiropractic colleges aren't big on the scientific method.

Any more luck finding some evidence that subluxations exist?

Craig, Washington DC
January 29, 2009 9:13am

you bullies do not want to open your mind to the possibility that there is more to health than pills and surgery.

Sorry but it has become really monotonous responding to you guys because quite simply you have an agenda and your mind is shut tight.

Peace out.

Michael Fordham, Sydney
January 30, 2009 4:49am

Close minded is being confronted with evidence that you're doing more harm than good and ignoring it. Chiropractors, acupuncturists and homeopaths aren't special. If you're going to take a person's health and safety in your hands it's your responsibility to do the studies and produce evidence that what you're doing is safe and effective.

Craig, Washington DC
January 30, 2009 11:13am

How exactly have we been close minded? You haven't given us any evidence and want us to accept your claims based on your word alone. All we are asking for is a few properly conducted studies. That is not being close minded, that is requiring evidence before believing something on faith alone.

You, on the other hand, came to this forum with claims of miraculous cures. You provided no evidence to back up your claims and can't answer questions that should be relatively simple. Then when you are exposed to an opposing viewpoint, you simply plug your ears and run away. How exactly is that being open minded?

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
January 30, 2009 12:29pm

I would like to point out that Australia is a nation built on solid foundations of secular rationality. Like every other nation, we have our share of nonsense, as exemplified by Michael from Sydney.
Closed minds? Good one Mikey. How many times have we heard that old chestnut?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
January 30, 2009 5:01pm

Records from insurance and court cases have consistently shown that chiropractic is one of the safest portal of entry health care available. Although no healthcare procedures are 100% safe, chiropractic stands on its record of safety.

To receive the doctor of chiropractic degree, candidates must complete extensive undergraduate prerequisites and four years of graduate-level instruction and internship at an accredited chiropractic institution. Comprehensive knowledge of all systems of the body and diagnostic procedures enable the DC to thoroughly evaluate a patient, address disorders relating to the spine and determine the need for referral to another health care provider.

Tom, Dallas, TX
February 01, 2009 8:12pm

Do chiropractics end up in court a lot?

Max, Boston, MA
February 01, 2009 11:40pm

It's still an unnecessary because there's no attendant benefit to taking the risk. There is some contradictory evidence that chiropractic may help some lower back pain. Other than that, seeing a chiropractor has never been shown in clinical trials to have any beneficial effects.

Craig, Washington DC
February 02, 2009 11:27am

I just want to thank you for exposing the "quackery" that is chiropractics. I am a physical therapist with a DPT degree (Doctor of Physical Therapy), and it infuriates me when people go to chiropractors and act like they are doctors!

Do I agree that chiropractic work can temporarily relieve pain? ABSOLUTELY. The problem though is that chiropractors are calling their work "medically significant," when in reality it is only a "feel-good" science. What I mean by this is that all the manipulation and cracking that chiropractors do feels great and is relaxing, but will NOT help your medical problems. For example, if you have a back problem and you go to a chiro to get it cracked, you may leave the place feeling great! The problem is that your medical disability is still there and the pain has only temporarily been relieved; thus the reason people have to keep going back to chiropractors. On the otherhand, if that same person comes to me (a physical therapist), my responsibility is to strengthen that persons back to completely relieve pain and cure the problem CAUSING the pain. Chircopractors CAN NOT CURE THE CAUSE OF PAIN, they can only make it temporarily FEEL BETTER. Its like cracking your fingers, it feels good but it wont cure/prevent the tightness that you feel in your fingers.

Dan, Orlando
February 11, 2009 6:53pm

Chiropractic is a minority in health care. As such people base their beliefs of the whole field on one story a friend of a friend told them. First of all, Chiro manipulation has been researched and found as the #1 treatment for headaches. Including any allopathic treatments. Neck adjustments absolutley do not have a high risk for stroke. They carry the same risk as turning your neck does. That lie came from a round table discussion from neurologists and a hand raise tally. No research whatsoever. Look it up. I completely understand that alternative medicine is odd to a lot of people. But do your own research, don't just listen to what an MD says. They have a financial stake in putting Chiropractic down.

Johnny, Midwest
February 18, 2009 8:36am

Johnny,

You are wrong. The only thing chiropractic may and note we say may here help is lower back pain. There are no large clinical double blind studies that would support chiropractic as a cure for headache.

Craig, Washington DC
February 18, 2009 10:46am

"First of all, Chiro manipulation has been researched and found as the #1 treatment for headaches. Including any allopathic treatments."
Johnny, Midwest

Then all you have to do, is provide the evidence. Show the research results.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
February 18, 2009 7:24pm

Lott CM.
Student Health and Wellness Center, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY 42101, USA.

Congress has approved the commissioning of chiropractors in the various medical branches of the armed services. Currently, the Department of Defense is conducting a 3-year demonstration program at 10 military sites in which chiropractors are hired on a contractual basis to treat military personnel. This paper presents a brief history of chiropractic and a discussion of a major court case involving the AMA and other professional medical associations. A survey of legal, professional, and organizational issues that must be resolved prior to, or in conjunction with, the full integration of chiropractic in the armed services health care delivery system (if directed by Congress) is included. Prompted by the identified issues, recommended policies and actions are offered to ensure that this alternative health care service is effectively utilized by patient beneficiaries.

PMID: 8990836 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

This article was taken from PubMed. If you are a healthcare professional, you will know that this one of the most revered medical journals.

Ryan, Ormond Beach
February 19, 2009 5:07am

The fact that Congress is foisting quacks upon the military is not proof of its efficacy. If I were a proponent of chiropractic I would not be encouraging anyone to go poking around PUBMED.

Craig, Washington DC
February 19, 2009 9:53am

Last time I checked, chiropractors are liscensed for PT in addition to manipulation

Ian, Anchorage
February 26, 2009 8:13pm

PubMed is not a medical journal, its a system for searching the medline database along with some other databases. Further, I doubt you read the article; Military Medicine (the actual medical journal in this case) does not appear to be a widely published journal. The abstract you cite simply says congress has approved the commissioning of chiropractors and reviews the legal and organizational issues involved, it says nothing of the efficacy of the treatment.

Alex, Iowa City
March 03, 2009 11:18am

Dunning,

It is apparent that you are choking on the manhood of many a physical therapist. It is also apparent that you even further enjoy servicing those with a DPT. What is even more apparent is that you are mystified by buzz terms like evidence based medicine. Google "Chiropractic and Hypertension" this study was published in peer reviewed journals and presided over by medical doctors who were astounding to find that upper cervical spinal manipulation is more effective at reducing high blood pressure than double drug therapy. With the added bonus of no side effects chiropractic is the right choice for health and wellness.
Also keep in mind that PT's are desperate to enter the spinal manipulation arena. If you knew anything about PT other than details on their manhood then you would know that the DPT program was conceived in response to claims that regular PT's did not have enough education to perform spinal manipulation.
All you have to do is look at the legislation in the State of Arkansas these things are a matter of public record. PT's and DPT's serve a wonderful purpose many of societies ails are solely due to inactivity. However they are not chiropractors and no amount of tired legislation is going to elevate them to the status of chiropractors in the minds of the millions of chiropractic patients world wide.
For those of you who wonder why the author of this blog is incapable of thinking for himself google Wilk Vs the AMA. TRUTH

Chance Norman, Your Neighborhood
March 18, 2009 1:31pm

"However they are not chiropractors and no amount of tired legislation is going to elevate them to the status of chiropractors in the minds of the millions of chiropractic patients world wide."

And what status is that? Quack status?

Marvin, BRONX
March 18, 2009 4:22pm

Marvin,
The etiology of small minded people referring to chiropractors as "quacks" comes directly from the American Medical Association.
Until 1974 the AMA had a "committee on quackery" which was established specifically to undermine chiropractic.
There was an anti-trust suit waged against the AMA for this reason. In 1987 AMA was found GUILTY of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and that it had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade to "contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession."
Judge Getzendanner issued a PERMANENT INJUNCTION against the AMA under section 16 of the Clayton Act to prevent such future behavior.
Class is dismissed Marvin.
Do yourself a favor and read the study I referred to in my previous post on "Chiropractic and Hypertension" What this study proves is the essence of chiropractic.
The nervous system is the master system of the body.
The nervous system controls and coordinates the functions of all other body systems.
As proven by this study the chiropractic adjustment has a direct effect on nervous system function, a properly maintained neuro-musculo-skeletal system has an enormous effect on optimal physiological function in the human being.
There would be over 100 years worth of such credible studies were it not for the AMA's boycott which prevented its member physicians from associating with chiropractors and doing research for the common good of man.
Sorry, I only get 1500 characters.

Chance Norman, Conway, Arkansas
March 19, 2009 9:44am

Crelin, E.S. 1973. A scientific test of chiropractic?s subluxation theory. American Scientist, September/October, pp. 574-80.

Ernst, E. and P.H. Canter 2006. A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99(4): 192-96.

Goertz, C.H., R.H. Grimm, K. Svendsen, and G. Grandits. 2002. Treatment of hypertension with alternative therapies (THAT) study: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Hypertension 20: 2063-2068.

Keating, J.C., K.H. Charlton, J.P. Grod, S.M. Perle, D. Sikorski, and J.F. Winterstein. 2005. Subluxation: Dogma or science? Chiropractic & Osteopathy 13(17): 1-10.

Plaugher, G., C.R. Long, J. Alcantara, A.D. Silveus, H. Wood, K. Lotun, J.M. Menke, W.C. Meeker, and S.H Rowe. 2002. Practice-based randomized controlled-comparison clinical trial of chiropractic adjustments and brief massage treatment at sites of subluxation in subjects with essential hypertension: Pilot study. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 25: 221-39.

Here are a bunch of studies that say, among other things chiropractic treatments do nothing for hypertension.

Craig, Washington DC
March 19, 2009 12:19pm

this experience has been wonderfull, my back hasn't felt this good in years!:)i myself want to be a chiropracter when i grow up and get a diploma!:)

Annie, missoula
April 23, 2009 1:05pm

Skeptoid listeners may be aware of the disgraceful libel action brought by the British Chiropractic Association against the physicist and writer Simon Singh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh).
A petition against the use of libel to stifle scientific comment is available at http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php

Tom Snow, Gold Coast Australia
June 14, 2009 10:38am

I've been seeing a chiropractor for years. I periodically experience back pain significant enough to inhibit me from working or enjoying life. Symptoms include limited mobility, extreme soreness, and muslce spasms.

I've seen conventional medicine doctors on multiple occasions, but they have yet been unable to provide a prognosis. The best they can offer is to prescribe pain medications and muscle relaxants. While this approach is helpful, it will take days for my body to recover using this approach, and it's often difficult to even see a conventional medicine doctor when the symptoms erupt.

On the other hand, if I see a Chiropractor, and I've seen several different ones, they will perform the manipulations near the affected area and the response is undeniable. I experience instant relief, and within an hour or so, I'm back to normal.

Perhaps there is a physical therapy regime that would provide the same relief, but conventional medicine has been unable to point me to such therapy.

Furthermore, my current and past insurance covers Chiropractic visits, which indicates to me it's an effective treatment for some issues.

While I agree that one should be skeptical of any practitioner, particularly the holistic aspects and "energy" terms, I think you do your listeners a disservice to outright dismiss chiropractic in favor of an industry which limits itself primarily to pharmaceuticals for pain treatment.

Jason R. Coombs, Washington, DC
June 20, 2009 7:05am

It kills me when I hear people actually vouch for this anti-intelligent, anti-evidence based, cult-like form of pseudomedicine they call chiropractic. It was created by a guy who bullshitted people to make a buck. Here, I have a great idea. When I hum around your body, any disease you have will disappear because God hears that humming and makes your pain go away. I have no evidence, proof, or science to back myself up...but im just gonna go with it anyways.

How chiropractic works is the same way cracking your fingers work. Sometimes your fingers will feel tight and sore, and then cracking them makes them feel all better. Of course an hour later that pain comes right back. Why? Because cracking them temporarily relieves pressure and pain. You are not actually CURING, PREVENTING, or PHYSICALLY changing anything about your fingers...only temporary relieving pain from cracking them. This is how chiropractic works. If you have back pain the crack you, make you feel temporarily better, and then your pain comes right back. The only way to get rid of pain is by PHYSICAL THERAPY or other medical interventions that CURES the source of the problem and thus prevents you from experiencing anymore pain. I had chiro work done when I had scoliosis when I was little. Did it feel good? Hell yea. Did it fix my problem? Hell no. it only temporarily relieved my pressure. Physical Therapy cured me of my issues tho. Learn what chiropractic is all about so you can make a SMART decision.

Dan, Florida
July 08, 2009 8:08pm

I'm torn, and here's why. I understand that chiropactic is essentially based on pseudo-science and only offers similar benefits to physical therapy. So, if you have a medical condition like the above writer, Dan, (scoliosis), I think standard medical care is the best.

But, and here's the rub, when I strained my right lower back area several years ago,(and it was just a muscle strain-no disc involvement) I tried both standard medical treatment-with physical therapy and chiropractic. (I tried standard first-to make sure I hadn't seriously injured myself) Then I did chiro six weeks later because I was desperate. The chiro flat out worked better. After the manipulation my muscle pain immediately left and stayed away for two weeks. A return visit 2 weeks later-and permanent relief. So I have to say that I understand the appeal of chiro. But again, not for serious medical ailments.

Debra, Michigan
July 13, 2009 1:01pm

i had a sore back from lifting a weight, this wasnt just a mild pain it really did hurt me quite a lot when bending in certain positions. if i have someone lift me up from behind with their hands comming up under my arms and around my chest so that i am lifted off the ground, it makes my back click and it totally fixed my back. i could bend again and there was no more pain. i have no idea if this has anything to do with chiropractice but it deffinately worked for me! i think it somehow put my spine back into the proper space.

Simon Clotworthy, Auckland New Zealand
July 13, 2009 11:17pm

The problem is not arguing that chiro is ok for back problems. The problem is that medically undertrained non-doctors are manipulating the neck/spine to treat problems that have nothing to do with the neck/spine (don't tell me that your chiro doesn't, very many do and I'm talking about them). Many Chiro's are treating infants' neck and spine to cure collic. This is just criminal. Properly blinded and sized studies have had the same problem showing efficacy that similar studies have had with acupunture, homeopathy etc.

For those with stories how Chiropracters have helped you should remember the evidential standards and where anecdotes fall in this standards. Also look up the term "Post-hoc ergo propter hoc
" and realise that people have exactly the same stories but using crystal healing, prayers etc.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 18, 2009 4:53pm

Jason - that you believe doctors are poor at treating back pain says nothing about chiropractic.

If you are going to compare physical treatments then compare it with physiotherapy - that is the conventional alternative, and usually very effective.

Neil, London
July 22, 2009 2:47pm

you read a few articles, call it research and therefore think your judgement on chiropractics is going to be more accurate than those who have studied the form of health care fore many years. This article is incredibly biased towards the history of chiropractic science, which was unsafe, however like all health care, Chiropractics has evolved. If you look at the old methods of amputation and claimed that this is what all surgery today was like, people would laugh at you. Yet to assume that chiropractics hasnt evolved is extremely naiive. I think you should have more faith in those who have studied the effective health care methods, as they are clearly more qualified to have an opinion on the safety and success of chiropractics.

Anna, Sydney
August 25, 2009 2:01am

Charles darwin married his close cousin and a few of his kids died because of it, according to Brian in this situation where the creator of an idea is flawed in some way everything that spawns from that idea should be immediately dismissed. I guess that means we can´t teach evolution in school as long as Brians alive and able to write. I am very impressed by all the references and how notably educated you are in the medical and related fields, but don´t take my word for it check his credentials out for yourself.

Ian, Canada
August 28, 2009 8:36pm

"and there isn't so much pesky "anatomy" to learn"

You obviously do not know the amount of anatomy class hours in a chiropractic curiculum vs. a medical school curriculum.

"The most common injury is a stroke following neck manipulation."

That is completely unfounded and untrue. It is not the most common injury associated with chiropractic care.

Your report here is biased and filled with many inaccuracies.

Kimbo, Brooklyn
September 22, 2009 7:20pm

For another opinion

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), adverse drug reactions from drugs that are properly prescribed and properly administered cause about 106,000 deaths per year, making prescription drugs the fourth-leading cause of death in the U.S.

An estimated 7.5 million unnecessary medical and surgical procedures are performed each year, writes Gary Null, PhD., in Death by Medicine.

A 1995 report by Milliman & Robertson, Inc. concluded that nearly 60 percent of all surgeries performed are medically unnecessary, according to Under The Influence of Modern Medicine by Terry A. Rondberg.

Also, please refer to the landmark court case of Wilk vs. AMA

One small fact:

No one has ever died or had a stroke from a Chiropractic treatment

Chiropractic is not perfect but neither is medical science

The answer may be for DC’s and MD's to respect each other's knowledge /experience, and perform their art of healing in concert with the goal of the patient's care and healing in mind. They both have a record of helping to restore good health.

Mike, Kansas City
October 15, 2009 5:26pm

"Chiropractic is not perfect but neither is medical science."

The difference is that medical science is based on research and its procedures are tested.

"No one has ever died or had a stroke from a Chiropractic treatment."
Really, I just read about woman killed by chiropractic treatment:
-------
Fatal Adjustments
How Chiropractic Kills
by J. D. Haines, MD

When Kristi Bedenbaugh wanted relief from a bad sinus headache, the 24 year-old former beauty queen and medical office administrator made the mistake of consulting a chiropractor. An autopsy performed on Kristi revealed that the manipulation of her neck had split the inner walls of both vertebral arteries, resulting in a fatal stroke.

The chiropractor’s violent twisting of her neck caused the torn arterial walls to balloon and block the blood supply to the posterior portion of her brain. Studies confirmed that the blood clots formed on the two days she received her neck adjustments.

Kristi died in 1993. Four years later, South Carolina’s State Board of Chiropractic Examiners fined the chiropractor $1000 and sentenced him to 12 hours of continuing medical education in the area of neurological disorders and emergency response.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-10-21#feature

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
October 25, 2009 10:28am

I've seen this before and it can't possibly be taken at face value as this man is not himself an expert. However, the biggest problem with your argument was made clear while I was studying for critical thinking, an introductory philosophy class. You make a fallacious appeal to ignorance in saying that because chiropractors have yet to establish a scientific basis for their theories, that they do not have a basis is science. Besides; to really evaluate a claim please analyze both sides. and to the last commentator: be aware that more americans die from prescription drugs each year due to missprescription, overdoes etc.; I would be a lot more terrified of the average medical doctor. Malpractice ensurance for a doctor is about 12 times the cost as that of a chiropractor - just think about it.

natasha, canada
November 01, 2009 3:19pm

I'd like to know how and where you do your research on chiropractic. To say that there is no medical or scientific basis for chiropractic care voids any and all statements that you have made. There is reliable and valid data from medical studies spanning the last 50 years with recent increased emphasis on chiropractic manipulations and their risks and benefits. For you to dismiss the overwhelming scientific data you reduce the validity of your own argument down to nothing.

Mike, Delaware
November 04, 2009 11:24am

Since you apparently are an expert in the field of modern medical science, I would be interested to know your credentials (MD,DO,DC etc.) and medical license number. I only question this matter due to the fact that all too often, some layperson, whom is not trained at the doctorate level, stands in their own ignorance and claims to know more than they actually do about the training of various healthcare practitioners and play the my doctor can beat up your doctor game. Certainly I don't presume that this posting is yet another example of such pontifications, hence the reason I've requested your credentials sir.

Grant, Annapolis/MD
November 04, 2009 2:09pm

Their was a time when people were burned at the stake for saying the world was round and we are not the center of the universe. Time will tell. Are you the grand inquisition. You failed, but you are entitled to your opinions.

Chris, Morgantown,WV
November 05, 2009 4:28pm

"There is reliable and valid data from medical studies spanning the last 50 years with recent increased emphasis on chiropractic manipulations and their risks and benefits. "
Mike, Delaware

Then show us the money.
Cite a couple CREDIBLE studies that indicate any real medical benefit to chiropractic beyond PT.

I found at least one abstract that says, "The concepts of chiropractic are not based on solid science and its therapeutic value has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt."

http://www.jpsmjournal.com/article/S0885-3924(07)00783-X/abstract

(Journal of Pain and Symptom Management)

For simplicity, I'd recommend the Wikipedia entry on Chiropractic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic

It's got no end of references, and the general consensus seems to be that chiropractic has limited meaningful use as treatment for much beyond perhaps lower back pain.

"Malpractice ensurance (sic) for a doctor is about 12 times the cost as that of a chiropractor-" natasha, canada

Probably because an MD has more responsibility, and can perform more actual treatments than a DC, including surgeries and prescribing medicine, and sees a higher volume of patients which increases the risk potential.

Simple numbers say an MD who sees 25-30 people a day with a variety of symptoms has a greater chance of making an error. The risk is multipled if they're performing surgery.

A chiropractor just has to avoid breaking the patient's neck or causing a stroke.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
November 10, 2009 4:43pm

Grant,

You said you study critical thinking. I would like to remind you then of the logical fallacy of Argument From Authority. Someone's credentials, or lack thereof, have no bearing on their claims and arguments. Those are either correct or not, supported by evidence or not.

Brian might indeed be completely wrong in his claims. If that is the case argue those claims. I would like to remind you of the fallacy of Ad Hominom Attacks. In good critical thinking we argue for or against claims not against the people making them. If you have evidence or arguments against the article written by Brian Dunning, present them please.

Shahar lubin, Ha-Noi, Vietnam
November 10, 2009 8:14pm

Chiopractics has changed a lot with modern medicine and I honestly don't think that you have experienced a good chiopractor which makes all the difference. There is always going ot be a bad chiopractor out there just like there is bad doctors. I think that you need to be more open-minded because I know that my chiopractor has made me a lot healthier and I feel great.

Sara Young, Okeana, OH
December 08, 2009 3:48pm

"I know that my chiopractor has made me a lot healthier and I feel great."

How has the chiropractor made you "healthier?" What conditions did he/she treat? Headache, back pain, cancer, diabetes, sinus infection?

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
December 08, 2009 7:28pm

These arguements are so childish, as a Licensed PTA who has been in practice over 11 years, I can tell you there are MDs that should not be practicing, as well as PTs. So should these professions be bad mouthed? We in rehab medicine have been seeing changes in healthcare, one of these changes is Functional Medicine. Has any one of you heard of functional medicine? Coventional medicince, as practiced most MDs focuses on symptoms, without regard to the whole patient. This means you focus on their DNA makeup, familial history, habits, diet, and spirituality. When was the last time a mainstream physician practiced this? I can tell you this is the true gold standard by which healthcare is heading. And I can tell you Chiropractors, not all but alot, likewise MDs and DOs are heading in this direction. I've worked with competent MDs, DOs, and Chiros. And guess what, they all work well...look at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. They have Chiros on staff...what does that tell you...it speaks for itself. Real clinicians don't compain about other fellow clinicians. We all have something to add to the table of healthcare.

garavito, Chicago
January 17, 2010 12:32am

"I can tell you there are MDs that should not be practicing, as well as PTs."

Which says nothing about how useless chiropractic is.

"When was the last time a mainstream physician practiced this?"

The last time I went to my doctor with anything more serious than the flu or other easily diagnosed ailment. No doctor is going to go through all of "... DNA makeup, familial history, habits, diet, and spirituality..." when it's something that can be easily diagnosed. Just with conditions that require more examination.

"And I can tell you Chiropractors, not all but alot, likewise MDs and DOs are heading in this direction."

Which doesn't mean anything if a chiropractor can't do anything more useful than pop my back and neck, perform essentially unlicense PT, or sell me 'supplements'. They still can't diagnose or treat any real ailments that require actual medicine or treatment.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
January 19, 2010 7:39am

Chiropractic manipulation is being taught under the Maitland Mobilization...different name same practice...why is it taught because it works. That means something happens when you hear that "pop", both disciplines teach the same physiological outcomes from this "pop", and they site similar studies. Why are they DCs at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago? With regards to DPTs, the APTA has a vision of Direct Access. What are you going to say when PTs want incorporate varying treatments without MD/DO involvement? With regards to no doctor going thru all these tests...you're right, they should just treat the symptom right...not other underlying causes that functional medicine will incorporate. "Which doesn't mean anything if a chiropractor can't do anything more useful than pop my back and neck, perform essentially unlicense PT, or sell me 'supplements'. They still can't diagnose or treat any real ailments that require actual medicine or treatment"...according to who...you?, I personally know chiros working with mds in a family practice setting because they are trained as primary care physicians, and these mds will be more than happy to have their patients seen by the chiros they work with. As far as supplements. Have you read any literature from the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association..look at some studies..many MDs and PhDs, and some DCs promoting your "supplements"

garavito, Chicago
January 19, 2010 10:27am

"Chiropractic manipulation is being taught under the Maitland Mobilization...different name same practice...why is it taught because it works."

On what? No evidence suggests manual manipulation works for anything beyond treating minor lower back pain.

"That means something happens when you hear that "pop"

Yeah, gases dissolved in the synovial fluid (mostly carbon dioxide) are liberated and quickly fill the empty space. That's why there's a 'pop.' It doesn't treat anything, and contrary to what you've always heard, won't cause arthritis. So what?

"...and they site similar studies."

Studies of what? Nothing's really happening.

"...according to who...you?"

Any medical licensing board. DCs are not physicians. They don't really practice medicine.

"I personally know chiros working with mds in a family practice setting because they are trained as primary care physicians..."

The DCs are primary care? Why? They can't even prescribe antibiotics. They can't legally perform surgery, they can't really do anything since spinal mainulation doesn't have any effect on disease or disorders.

"Have you read any literature from the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association.."

"Nutraceutical"? It's a marketing word designed to make BS supplements seem scientific.
It has no scientific meaning, and the so-called supplements don't have to go through the same rigorous testing as actual medicine.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
January 19, 2010 4:55pm

My suggestion to you is to look up the studies regarding the physiology of the "pop"...may I remind you that these are taught at osteopathic discipline, physical therapy discipline (through the Maitland technique), and the chiropractic discipline. Again they are the same.
"Any medical board" again they don't claim to be MEDICAL doctors...Check whose considered a primary care PHYSICIANS in Illinois, it's MDs, DOs, and DCs.
To be a physician one shouldn't have to prescribe anything...there are many ailments or disease that can be treated conservitably, without chemicals. Should we load the body with drugs first? Should we operate first? Sorry, from a physical therapy standpoint, conservative is usually the best plan with minimally negative outcomes. With regards to "nutriceutical" and the ANA, this is an association started the the MEDICAL UNIVERSITY of South Carolina College of PHARMACY...it must be BS studies with fancy words...by the way supplements also include vitamins...there is much research out on the benefits of them, again look this stuff up. Do vitamins affect DNA, yes, Cancer, yes, immunology, yes, psycology, yes, neural tube development yes...and many more.. research yourself.
No comment regarding APTA's vision with PTs direct access, circumventing MDs/DOs/DCs. No comment for the Nationally Renowned Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, and their employment of Chiropractors. No comment on MDs utilizing Chiropractors, in Illinois, in a family practice setting.

garavito, chicago
January 20, 2010 8:19am

"No comment regarding APTA's vision with PTs ... in a family practice setting."

Probably because of a limited number of characters available, but since you seemed concerned...
The APTA's 'vision' seems questionable. The RI of Chicago is wasting time and money with Chiros, because there's nothing DCs can actually do that a PT or MD can't. And, frankly, I'd say the same thing about MDs in IL using chiros. The fact that they bought into the scam doesn't make it any more legitimate.

Any legitimate research regarding 'supplements'(including vitamins) suggests little effectiveness unless you have a severe deficiency. If you're in good general health they do little more than wallet extraction with no measurable benefit.

""Any medical board" again they don't claim to be MEDICAL doctors..."
If you're refering to DCs, then I certainly hope they aren't considered 'medical doctors'. They aren't doing medicine.

"To be a physician one shouldn't have to prescribe anything..."

But, you should be ABLE TO, if the treatment calls for it. How is a DC going to treat a bacterial infection, or ANY kind of infection for that matter, with manipulation? How is a DC going to treat ANYTHING effectively by popping your back or neck and taking x-rays?
I've already listed stuff in a previous post that an MD can do that a DC can't, and it barely scratches the surface. What can a DC do that an MD can't? That a Nurse Practitioner can't? Or Physician's Assistant?
I see 0 need for DCs.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
January 21, 2010 7:24pm

I'm not concerned, just merely using one example on your one-sided judgement of a profession...based on purely outdated subjective data. Again, your use of "legitimate" is hazy...I gave you the website regarding the "nutriceuticals", it's legitimate. Regarding RIC, "wasting time", not!!!...again more subjective opinion. Chiros, well educated ones, like well educated, DOs, MDs,PTs,PTAs,OTs,OTAs...etc...can provide evidenced-based, custom tailored care (within their scope)to patients and contribute to the overall healthteam. Wether you see a need or not, they're there. BTW you mention Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants...do you not think the American Medical Association initially frowned on those groups, feeling threatened they would loose business...it's all about money...the piece of the pie...not whether or not they provide good care...personally I feel a Physician Assistant, if thoroughly trained and experienced..should be able to sit for the USMLEs, but the can't..why? "Mainstream medicine" has always tried to control other goups not a part of their's. Thats the real "scam."

garavito, chicago
January 29, 2010 8:47am

Garavito, that's perhaps the silliest and least logical argument I've ever seen on this forum. The AMA incorporates all legitimate medical professions. If a new area of medicine arose, they would not "feel threatened" by it, they would welcome it into their membership. The AMA's funding comes from its members. How would they benefit from shunning potential members???

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel
January 29, 2010 10:31am

"..."legitimate" is hazy..."

If you prefer something more specific, how about "science-based medicine"?

"...can provide evidenced-based, custom tailored care (within their scope)"

"Evidence-based" & "within their scope" are the point. The DCs scope isn't evidence-based and is limited to popping things and taking x-rays. That can't actually treat anything, and they can't do anything that anyone with actual science-based medical training can't. NPs and PAs have a broad scope (with MD supervision) because they'd have actual SCIENCE BASED training.

"...not whether or not they provide good care..."

That's the point. DCs can't provide MEDICAL care. What disease can DCs treat that an MD can't? What surgical procedures? As near as I can tell, DCs can't event set and cast a broken bone. What the hell good is a DC as a medical care provider?

Let's try a little thought experiment...
After a natural disaster like, oh I don't know, an earthquake in Haiti, medical professionals rush to aid. An MD can do triage, perform surgery, set broken bones, stitch and bandage wounds, give meds, and provide other trauma care.
A DC can rush to ... ?

As for my "...purely outdated subjective data..." your best response would be to provide some well-documented data to counter it. Good luck.

"do you not think ... threatened they would loose (sic) business..."
PAs and NPs proved themselves.

Chiro has had over 100 years. It's still ineffective for anything beyond maybe joint pain and lower backache.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
January 29, 2010 10:56am

"scienced-based" so you are saying the nutriceutical research being done at the Medical University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy is not scienced based enough for you??? Maybe you should do the research then. "The DCs scope isn't evidence-based and is limited to popping things and taking x-rays. That can't actually treat anything, and they can't do anything that anyone with actual science-based medical training can't. NPs and PAs have a broad scope (with MD supervision) because they'd have actual SCIENCE BASED training." Sorry Again In Illinois they are considered primary care... Funny again like I stated earlier...this is what PTs are learning as well in the new DPT curriculum. Maitland Mobilization...its science based...its ok for PTs not DCs..
"PAs and NPs proved themselves" yes I agree with good lobbying. If not the AMA would have never let them. Again my comment on a PA being given the abiltiy to sit for "your best response would be to provide some well-documented data" funny I already gave you some clues as to where you need to do research for YOURSELF. but you wont..."Good luck." with that.

Let's try a little thought experiment..."medics" in the military are not MDs, however they do all the things above..maybe the shouldn't they're not MDs. If you ever need an ambulance are you not going to accept the help of the medic...or should you wait for the MD...

What do you say about NDs...they're getting a lot of media lately...and the AMA is on 'em as well

garavito, chicago
January 29, 2010 2:12pm

"..."medics" in the military are not MDs..."

Do you understand the concept of logic? Military medics, like EMTs (ambulance crews) are still TRAINED to manage trauma care and provide first aid. Their function is to keep the patient alive and treat immediate, life-threatening injuries until the patient is eventually placed under the care of an MD at the base or hospital as the situation allows.
If anything, your example further clarifies how little use DCs would be in treating actual emergency medical situations.

"Sorry Again In Illinois they are considered primary care... "

Which still makes no sense, since they can't actually treat anything.

""PAs and NPs proved themselves" yes I agree with good lobbying."

They proved themselves by being able to actually treat patients. If anyone has managed to survive purely on the basis of lobbying rather than evidence it's the practitioners of pseudoscience like chiropractic and naturopathy. (see the Wiki entry listed below)

"...where you need to do research for YOURSELF."

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your position. If you can't, that's not my problem.

NDs? More CAM BS. The AMA doesn't acknowledge them because of naturopathy's "reliance on and its association with UNPROVEN, DISPROVEN, and other controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings."
(emphasis mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathy

The only ones supporting CAM are CAM practitioners.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
January 30, 2010 8:32pm

So let me get this straight...

If you are not qualified to perform triage, surgery, or prescribe meds (many of which DON'T have real long term studies or get pulled because of serious, often lethal side effects) then you're not a "real" doctor.

So if that is YOUR definition of a doctor then DC are not "real" doctors. Fortunately for the English speaking public you don't edit the dictionary and i have a feeling you don't even read one because if you did you would see the following:

Webster's definition of a doctor is "a qualified practitioner of medicine; a physician" and their definition of medicine is "the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease (in technical use often taken to EXCLUDE surgery)"

So based on the facts, DC's are physicians, doctors and practice medicine.

DC, Chicago, IL
February 02, 2010 7:46am

"If you are not qualified ...then you're not a "real" doctor."

No, if you don't actually practice medicine then you're not a physician (commonly referred to as a doctor). My argument is, and always has been, that DCs do not practice medicine.

"Webster's definition of a doctor is "a qualified practitioner of medicine; a physician" and their definition of medicine is "the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease (in technical use often taken to EXCLUDE surgery)""

Which excludes DCs because they do not practice medicine. Chiropractic has no basis in science, can not treat any disease or disorder, and serves no function. It is the remnant of a 19th century pseudoscience that should have died out by now.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
February 02, 2010 9:10am

"Let's try a (silly) little thought experiment...
After a natural disaster like, oh I don't know, an earthquake in Haiti, medical professionals rush to aid. An MD can do triage, perform surgery, set broken bones, stitch and bandage wounds, give meds, and provide other trauma care.
A DC can rush to ... ?"

A physical therapist can do? A Podiatrist can do? A proctologist...?

apples/oranges

GH, NH
February 02, 2010 9:57am

Even though a podiatrist or proctologist is specialized, they still have a physicians medical training and have done rotations in a variety of disciplines as part of that training. If needed, they can perform trauma care as a physician.
A DC, who claims to be a doctor, has not had the same physicians training.

But, if that's a problem for you, let's try a simpler experiment...

What legitimate, diagnosed medical conditions can a chriopractor treat using chiropractic that any other physician can't treat (probably more effectively) with legitimate, science-based medicine?

If you want a real apples and oranges comparison, I'd point to the science-based, evidence-based principles of legitimate medicine versus the pseudoscientific principles of subluxation in chiropractic as an example.
One works, the other is 19th century magic.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
February 02, 2010 10:25am

So at what point does skepticism become dogma?

Do you know anything about functional medicine?

Have you ever looked into the basis of all RCTs?

If you had you'd see that our all mighty science has VERY strict rules as to how they can test and verify the efficacy of pharmaceuticals. This is a great thing and has saved millions of lifes.

If you dig deeper you would see that these medications are tested individually and ALL co-morbidities have been excluded from analysis.

I'm not preaching that all pharmaceuticals are bad, but how many people do you know that only take 1 medication. Most people over the age of 45 are on multiple scrips many of which have counterproductive interactions.

It is your right to be critical of chiropractic medicine, I just don't understand how that same vision is unable/unwilling to see similar cracks in your 'real' medicine

DC, Chicago, IL
February 02, 2010 11:49am

"...science has VERY strict rules as to how they can test and verify the efficacy of pharmaceuticals. This is a great thing and has saved millions of lifes."

Which is why scientifically tested drugs are different from supplements and other CAM that slide by on legislation rather than efficacy.

"I'm not preaching that all pharmaceuticals are bad, but how many people do you know that only take 1 medication. Most people over the age of 45 are on multiple scrips many of which have counterproductive interactions."

Which is why a doctor will ask you during an exam, "Are you on any medications or supplements?"

None of that addresses the efficacy of chiropractic, nor does it address my earlier question...

What legitimate, diagnosed medical conditions can a chriopractor treat USING CHIROPRACTIC that any other physician can't treat (probably more effectively) with legitimate, science-based medicine?

Science isn't perfect, but I'll take it over 19th century pseudoscience any day.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
February 02, 2010 12:59pm

Dunning, least logical and silly? Are you in denial that AMA has always tried to control access to health care. AMA "incorporates legitimate professions" really..that's why they try to control them??? Last I checked they had their own organizations to represent their interests which the AMA wont. Uh..can u say.. APTA,ACA,APAA,APA,ACNP etc..Here's some reading for you...
-http://techdirt.com/articles/ 20070620/052049.shtml
--How The AMA Preserves The Status Quo In Medicine
-http://mises.org/story/1749 How Medical Boards Nationalized Health CareMises Daily: Friday, February 25, 2005 by Henry Jones
-AMA Targets Nursing Doctorate and ND Licensing: Old Boys v.the Emerging Medical Matriarchy? Written by John Weeks
Tuesday, 08 August 2006
-http://www.healthcare2point0. com/Hx_WestMx_AMA19th-21stCentury_Aug09.htm
-http://www.assessmentpsychology.
com/doctor.htm
-October, 2008 - VOL. 7, NO. 5 October, 2008 News and Analysis: AMA Escalates Its Campaign Against the Advancement of Other Healthcare Professions...and more

Lewayne,
Do I understand logic??? You further proved my point on how ALL clinicians can provide care..not just MDs. Re: proof..uh..take some CEU courses to get your proof. I keep telling you about Maitland Moblization..here you go..
http://www.ozpt.com/res1.html
Last time I gave you the Medical University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy site..it was
"BS" so I bet this'll be BS too..you speak science based, I give u sites and you argue????

garavito, chicago
February 02, 2010 6:23pm

I always wondered what was up with chiropractors. Thanks for the research!

Abby, Austin, TX
February 17, 2010 9:13pm

so explain why my doctor has told me to go see a chiropractor. (note that she did not tell me to see a specific chiropractor- no kickbacks occurring here.)

Jeff, Duluth
February 27, 2010 11:58pm

""so explain why my doctor has told me to go see a chiropractor.""

Why don't you ask her? The rest of us don't know her, so it's not like we can help you.

Safe-Keeper, Norway
March 11, 2010 11:01am

A "Straight" chiropractor is a disaster, but a decent "Reform" chiropractor can be a life saver, and much quicker and cheaper than getting a mis-alignment fixed by a general MD. Just make sure the one you're going to is actually a certified doctor.

Really, when you think about it, many branches of medicine were based in pseudoscience (or homeopathic, at best) at some point in history, and many of them still have their pseudoscience branches. Like with many things, it depends on the person.

Nick, Madison, Wisconsin
March 22, 2010 9:32pm

Nick, I think the point is that you really don't have a misalignment. That's what the podcast is about; they tell you you have something wrong when you don't.

And your comment about medicine coming from pseudoscience? That's the point! It evolved past those roots - it changed with new discoveries. That's how we know it's science, and that's what Mr. Dunning said.

Chiropractic is stuck in the dark ages, just like homeopathy.

Joseph Bozeman, Norman, OK
April 06, 2010 9:04am

Had you REALLY reasearched the topic, you would see chiros have MORE education than MDs. You also omitted any reference to quantum physics which is the science of chiropractic and the subluxation; a science way beyond the comprehension of closed minded MDs whose only course of action is to dumb us up with drugs.

Mark Severance, Mundelein, IL
April 09, 2010 9:50am

You're kidding me Mark. Where and HOW is Chiropractic based on Quantum Physics in ANY fashion (as you state: "You also omitted any reference to quantum physics which is the science of chiropractic and the subluxation")? I have to see the proof showing this.

Cam, Thunder Bay
April 09, 2010 12:57pm

Apparently you are a highly UNEDUCATED person. Mark is correct in that chiropractors have more of an education than MD's. Where the two break apart is that chiropractors believe the body was made to naturally heal itself, when it is in proper alignment, instead of resorting to surgical procedures or drugs. It is sadly obvious that anyone who has negative things to say about a chiropractor has either never been to a good one or is intensly jealous of someone that is competent enough to help people with their bare hands instead of a scaple or medication. People like you really discust me. Your perception is distorted and your sarcastic attitude is attributable to your lack of knowledge and self worth. If you have to resort to bashing anothers profession, which you apparently know little about, to make yourself feel better, maybe you need to contact that medical doctor for your "proper diagnosis" and some prescription medications...I think you need it. Of course, you will delete this, as I am sure in your pathetic little existence, the opinion of someone who is more educated than you are in chiropractics would be considered "useless." Why not post personal attacks? So it is ok for you to attack ALL chiropractors but no one can contradict you...figures.

Chiro Supporter, Tallahassee
April 13, 2010 3:50pm

""Apparently you are a highly UNEDUCATED person. Mark is correct in that chiropractors have more of an education than MD's. Where the two break apart is that chiropractors believe the body was made to naturally heal itself, when it is in proper alignment, instead of resorting to surgical procedures or drugs.""

Yes, in some chiropractors' world, surgery or "drugs", be it "natural" or "conventional", is not necessary. This must sound very alluring to many people. It does not, however, mean chiropractic has more merit than "conventional" medicine.

If I say that chiropractic is not necessary because your body can be healed with acoustic waves, and that all you have to do is clap your hands and you'll be cured... am I a better source of treatment than a chiropractor?

Øyvind, Norway
April 14, 2010 11:22am

"Apparently you are a highly UNEDUCATED person."

Starting a real debate with an insult is a great way to make yourself look like a fool. If you can't make your points with facts and reasoning, you will not be taken seriously. You the rag on him for insulting the chiropractic profession before once again acting childish and insulting?

Grow up.

Justin, Maine, USA
April 15, 2010 6:22am

I used to see a Chiropractor before I knew what was up. I don't necessarily think it's bad if you go to one who is also a LPT, but if you're going to do that, why not just go to the licensed physical therapist, and skip the magic and chance of a stroke.

And just a quick note for Mark, my Chiropractor has HAD back surgery. Seems when a patient fell off his table and he tried to catch him, he herniated a disc in his back, and those CAN'T heal by themselves, so he had surgery to correct it.

So, to sum up, Physical Therapy, under the guidance of a physician, good. Chiropractic, not so much. Embrace what small parts of the "care" a chiropractor will give you (rest, ice, muscle relaxers, massage, stretching and strengthening exercises) and forget the rest.

Peter, Evansville
April 15, 2010 11:29am

Here's what happens when we're skeptical of Skeptoid...

Chiro Education:
http://www.drgrisanti.com/mddc.htm
(This chart is available widely on the internet, from chiro schools and from the dept. if education) I wish MDs got as much "pesky" anatomy training as chiros.

The statement the VBA is 'the most common side-efect' of a manipulation is horribly false. The journal SPINE is the foremost authority in peer reviewed literature for the medical and chiropractic communities. Follow this link to the abstract from their 2008 study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204390

Obviously when you include completely false information on such integral issues to your overall argument, your entire piece is negated. Not that you care. You obviously didn't care enough to research anything.

Chuck, Las Vegas, NV
April 23, 2010 12:10pm

Chuck, that study was produced AFTER this podcast. Your characterization of the Chiro training is also very incomplete to the point of being false.

You obviously didn't care enough to research anything.

Brandon, Falconer NY
April 23, 2010 6:17pm

You brought up just enough fact to sound credible. However, most of your story is just made up from your own imagination. Your prejudice is obvious and it has jaundiced any real effort to a fact based discussion on Chiropractic.

You did not research subluxations, adjustment or anything else throughly. You gave your opinions it would appear.

Srraight, mixer are such old and outdated terms. Did you get that out of your Reader's Digest issue 1968?

What IS a reform chiropractor anyway? I have never heard of it.

Do real background research and fact checking and MAYBE you could be credible. Since you haven't it is not worth anymore of my time.

Dr. John, Northridge CA.
June 09, 2010 4:32pm

I don't have much to add to this debate. It's one of those issues that gets more maddening as you read more about it. I think this is in large part due to to the scattered perspectives of chiros themselves, some of whom seem reasonable, some of whom embrace patently unscientific practices like applied kinesiology and acupuncture.

I'd like to recommend a 2007 episode of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, which features an interview with chiropractor David Seaman, who expresses his hope that the profession can be reformed to be scientifically based. It's long and in-depth, and those of you who aren't familiar with SGU host Dr. Novella will appreciate his characteristically even-handed and cordial way of dealing with controversial issues.

Here's the URL. The interview begins about 38 minutes in.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=88

David, Bloomington, IN
June 15, 2010 6:25am

Wow, criticizing Chiro seems to touch a nerve.

Robert Clary, Tillsonburg Ontario Canada
June 15, 2010 10:07am

"Wow, criticizing Chiro seems to touch a nerve."

Protection of one's livelihood is a powerful motivation - even moreso when your whole career/profession is at stake.

And who can blame these guys? The demand for their services is still there, and so the profession will continue to operate.

Until then, why waste everyone's time on this topic?

Anthony Despoja, Adelaide
June 16, 2010 6:48pm

I do appreciate the need for those invested in Chiro to stand up for their profession. However, I cannot help but notice that while they tout the many benefits of chiro, they have provided few if any references to large controlled independent studies of its effectiveness. Tout hours trained and so forth, anatomy learned etc, but show me several independent results in clinical trials.

DPT studies on effectiveness are out there. Other medical interventions are studied all to bloody hell and either are shown to work or dont by large clear results. The larger your study is, the more precise your results. So yes tell me to trust in my body, behold the beauty of the energy, life force, subluxwhatevers, etc. I get all that.

But also show me studies I can rely on showing me this works for the general population as a whole from independent sources and I might take it up. In fact prove to me its scientifically and medically sound and I shall become one of Chidos champions. Until then, I remain sceptical too :D

Cam, Thunder Bay
June 17, 2010 8:57am

I agree with you Cam. FYI - I wouldn't see a chiro in a fit. My point being is that people still see them for whatever reason. Maybe its for the same reason they go and see fortune tellers, even those guys are bound to get it right sometimes.

Anthony Despoja, Adelaide
June 17, 2010 6:28pm

@ Anthony

I fully agree. My whole thing is people can do whatever they choose to do. However they should educate themselves about their choices as well, and this is where studies and podcasts come into play. Choose what ever we may, but lets know if it really does what it does or not. Thats why bite sized episodes like this are made, and why they are necessary. Does Brian get everything precisely right every single time? Nope. Are there places where he can be justifiably and hotly debated? Absolutely, all over the place. But just like he says, dont trust his word (and I am not saying this to you but others) go research it for yourself. ESPECIALLY if these subjects really get our goats. Even handed research to really objectively weight the evidence on any topic is always the best way to go. Debate here makes our brains go around :D just as it should!

Cam, Thunder Bay
June 18, 2010 9:33am

Iatrogenic Disease.

James, San Jose, CA
June 21, 2010 3:32pm

Better late than never!
Brian makes the point that things can go wrong in medicine and surgery (of which I am a practitioner) as well as during chiropractic treatment. There is an important difference though, and it revolves around risks and benefits. Everything we do in life involves a risk - even crossing the road - but most things have a definable benefit. That is, getting to the other side. In surgery, although the risks are present, the benefits are demonstrable, tangible, measurable, real. We can and do tell patients quite openly about the chances of success vs chances of complications. If something goes wrong, then patients are aware, and have accepted those risks by undergoing treatment. If you undergo chiropractic treatment, then you're exposing yourself to risks, without any reproducible and demonstrable benefit. To use my previous analogy, it's like walking into the middle of the road and standing there. You're not getting anywhere, but you're still taking the risk.
John

John, Auckland, New Zealand
July 23, 2010 1:28pm

First off if anyone is interested in an extending debate or has questions about chiropractics my number is 214-868-5544. Feel free to text me. All of the people on here who are against chiropractics are simply naive about what they do. Many of the methods Brian mentioned are outdated as he said way back in 1985 when medicine itself was in the dark ages. only 5% of subluxations are actually due to a bone pressing on a nerve causing interference to the system. 95% are due do a VSC or Vertebral Subluxation Complex which is different from an orthopedic subluxation. It entails a malposition of the bone at articular junctions that causes an inflammatory process to occur leading to swelling and edema that causes nerve dysfunction. Second chiropractors do study physiotherapy for 8 months and take four national board examinars tests and state licensure tests so are skills are real and regulated. As for scientific proof. Many studies have been performed but not double blind clinical trials like orthodox medicine wants due to the fact it is difficult to give someone an adjustment without knowing they got one not to mention unlike the AMA the ACA and NCA are not large groups that have millions of dollars to throw around to fund studies. only 15% of conventional medicine has been reseached to the extent they want chiropractics to be and only 1% of the research articles performed are scientifically sound. Once again text me if any further quesitons are out there.

Lawrence Brookman, Dallas, TX
July 27, 2010 11:53am

@Lawrence

You wrote that, “All of the people on here who are against chiropractics are simply naive about what they do”. Man, that is one heck of a sweeping generalisation!

ANyway, can you answer this: is there an agreed upon definition of VSC? Or do you think it might vary between countries and even within countries? What about the GCC in UK, who say there is no evidence for the subluxation theory?

The extent to which there is or is not evidence in support of proper medicine is not relevant here! We are discussing whether chiropractic is supported by proper quality evidence.

As far as I am aware, there is no good evidence to support chiropractic spinal manipulation over proper medicine for anything. Any other things chiropractors do are done by others. So why on earth does chiropractic exist?

Andrew Gilbey, Palmerston North, NZ
August 03, 2010 6:30pm