ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags chiropractic

Reply
Old 8th October 2009, 05:17 AM   #1
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Crticism of Chiropractic

There is an old thread in another subforum on this topic http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=85436

I started this one because I think it is more appropriate in this subforum, and to provide a place to post on chiropractic, in general, outside of the thread on BCA vs. Singh. Also, I recently acquired an article featuring chiropractors critical of their business.

Jaroslaw P. Grod, DC, David Sikorski, DC, and Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD "Unsubstantiated Claims in Patient Brochures From the Largest State, Provincial, and National Chiropractic Associations and Research Agencies" Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics Volume 24 • Number 8 • October 2001 pp. 514-19
Quote:
Conclusion: The largest professional associations in the United States and Canada distribute patient brochures that make claims for the clinical art of chiropractic that are not currently justified by available scientific evidence or that are intrinsically untestable. These assertions are self-defeating because they reinforce an image of the chiropractic profession as functioning outside the boundaries of scientific behavior.
That is straightforward. Since the publication is not readily available, I will quote some of the objections to claims:
Quote:
A prophylactic or health-maintaining effect of manipulation has not been experimentally demonstrated to date.

The value of “regular check-ups” by chiropractors is also unknown.

The effects, if any, of spinal subluxations upon athletic performance have not been scientifically validated.

The disease-producing and pathology-producing effects of subluxation-complex, if any, have not been demonstrated experimentally.

Adjusting has not been experimentally demonstrated to alter vertebral alignment or “nerve pressure”; such effects, if possible, have not been shown to influence neuritis.

Currently available experimental data do not justify any claims for the value of chiropractic care in populations of children.

The “causes of chronic pain” that may respond to manipulation have not been established.
That article fits nicely with: "Improper Claims on Chiropractic College Web Sites" http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/webclaims.html

When a chiro claims to have a chiropractic-subluxation free practice, one must ask why they spent so much time "studying" that fairy tale: Association of Chiro Colleges statement http://www.chirocolleges.org/paradig..._practice.html
Quote:
Chiropractic is concerned with the preservation and restoration of health, and focuses particular attention on the subluxation.

Last edited by JJM; 8th October 2009 at 06:33 AM. Reason: Fix link
JJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2009, 06:07 AM   #2
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,905
The article is available online:
www.journalchiroed.com/2003/JCEFall2003Sikorski.pdf

The best thing about this study is that it was conducted by chiropractors.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2009, 06:12 AM   #3
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
"The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2009, 06:17 AM   #4
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Fixed link.

http://www.journalchiroed.com/2003/J...03Sikorski.pdf
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2009, 06:23 AM   #5
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
The article is available online:
www.journalchiroed.com/2003/JCEFall2003Sikorski.pdf. ...
The link does not work. perhaps the period (full stop) at the end is the problem because I pasted the whole thing and it worked. Thanks, that was a different, and useful, article. ETA: fls fixed it.

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey View Post
"The page cannot be found ..."
Thanks, I noted that and will look for its replacement.

ETA current link is now in my original post.

Last edited by JJM; 8th October 2009 at 06:35 AM.
JJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2009, 06:36 AM   #6
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,905
Originally Posted by fls View Post
Thanks fls. I tried fixing it by cutting and repasting but that did not work. I figured someone smarter than me could make it work.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2009, 06:53 AM   #7
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
Thanks fls. I tried fixing it by cutting and repasting but that did not work. I figured someone smarter than me could make it work.
I'm just hoping for some geek cred.

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2009, 10:15 AM   #8
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,905
Originally Posted by fls View Post
I'm just hoping for some geek cred.

Linda
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2009, 11:20 AM   #9
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Quote:
End of an Era: FCER Decides on Self-Liquidation
http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/m...e.php?id=54144

FCER is the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research. Founded in 1943,
Quote:
Over the foundation's history, volunteers contributed more than 33,000 articles and helped fund over 152 randomized, controlled trials concerning chiropractic manipulation ...
So, why are chiros arguing, today, that they have no research that definitively supports their claims because of a lack of money? Even the claims to treat acute, low back pain are a bit shaky (according to the latest Cochrane review, which requires a subscription in most of the USA).
JJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2009, 01:13 PM   #10
Blue Wode
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,304
It's interesting to note that as the FCER is closing down, the Foundation for Chiropractic Progress (FCP) has received approximately $650,000 in pledges to help with its mission “To increase the public awareness of the benefits of chiropractic”.
http://www.chiro.org/wordpress/?p=1151

The words 'very few' seem to have been omitted from its mission statement.
__________________
ebm-first.com
What alternative health practitioners might not tell you.

https://twitter.com/Blue_Wode
Blue Wode is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2009, 01:49 PM   #11
jasonpatterson
Philanthropic Misanthrope
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Space, The Final Frontier
Posts: 2,556
There are tons of chiropractors around here, and our local paper has a weekly Ask the Experts column that includes one. There was an ad yesterday in which the chiropractor was offering to treat mental disorders (anxiety and depression, specifically.) I am always amazed that this stuff is legal.
__________________
Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold.
Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself.
- Shel Silverstein

Last edited by jasonpatterson; 8th October 2009 at 01:50 PM. Reason: It was barely written in English the first time...
jasonpatterson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2009, 02:33 AM   #12
Blue Wode
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,304
For those who may have missed it, at the end of last month Jeff Wagg wrote an interesting article looking at CAM practitioners and vaccination. It's accompanied by a short video of a questionable chiropractic presentation:

No Vaccine Against Greed
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...nst-greed.html

Here's snippet from the article:
Quote:
One of the things that's always puzzled me about the anti-vax movement is why people are motivated to rail against something with so much supportive evidence. Sure, there are legions of misinformed parents who think they're helping society by decrying the vaccination conspiracy, and there are certainly those that have experienced personal loss due to the very, very, rare negative side effects of vaccination. But Chiropractor Dr. Chad Rohlfsen [the chiropractor who features in the video] illustrates in abundance what I think might be the primary motive for anti-vaccine rhetoric, and that is pure, simple, banal greed.

Seems those assumptions may not be too far off the mark.
__________________
ebm-first.com
What alternative health practitioners might not tell you.

https://twitter.com/Blue_Wode
Blue Wode is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2009, 06:40 AM   #13
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
There is news on chiropractic. Four of them went looking and could not find any evidence for the existence of the "subluxation" that is the centerpice of their work! This is news, despite the fact that we have known it for decades, because it is an admission from the chiros. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3022

According to the Association of Chiropractic Colleges
Quote:
Chiropractic is Concerned with the preservation and restoration of health, and focuses particular attention on the subluxation.
http://www.chirocolleges.org/paradig..._practice.html
JJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2009, 07:58 AM   #14
Blue Wode
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,304
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
There is news on chiropractic. Four of them went looking and could not find any evidence for the existence of the "subluxation" that is the centerpice of their work! This is news, despite the fact that we have known it for decades, because it is an admission from the chiros. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3022

According to the Association of Chiropractic Colleges http://www.chirocolleges.org/paradig..._practice.html

Don't be surprised if chiropractors claim in their defence that the authors only went looking for one type of subluxation...
Quote:
Subluxation Synonyms and Metaphors
By P. L. Rome

The following 329 terms either relate to, are synonyms for, or have been used or cited in connection with describing a subluxation or aspects of a VSC. The use has been in chiropractic, medical and osteopathic papers. There are in fact 371 terms, including the 42 on the sacroiliac list.

Aberrant motion
(Ab)normal articular sensory input
Abnormal dysfunction
Abnormal fixation
Abnormal instantaneous axis of rotation
Abnormal mechanics
Abnormal motion or position
Abnormal muscle function
Abnormal nervous system function
Abnormal spinal function
Altered intervertebral mechanics
Altered joint structure and function
Altered nociceptive and proprioceptive input
Altered regional mechanics
Arthropathic
Abnormal function
(Ab)normal joint mechanics
Abnormal joint motion
Abnormal motion or position
Abnormal muscle function
Abnormalities of range of motion or coupling
Abnormal nervous system function
(Ab)normal regional sympathetic tone
Abnormal restrictive barrier in or around joints
Abnormal spinal function
(Ab)normal structural relationship
Acute joint locking
Acute locking
Adverse mechanical tension of the nervous system
Altered alignment
Altered joint motion
Altered nervous system movement
Altered physiological function
Apophyseal subluxation
Arthron (extremity joint subluxation -- see also "vertebron")
Articular derangement
Articular dyskinesia
Articular juxtaposition
Biomechanical distortion
Biomechanical impropriety
Biomechanical insult
Biomechanical stress
Blockage
Blocking
Bony displacement
Bony maladjustment
Bony lesion
Cervical joint dysfunction
Changes of the dynamic segment
"Changes of thoracic segments"
Chiropractic lesion
Compensatory structural subluxations
Comprehensive lesion
" ... compromise proper function"
Deconditioned syndromes
Deviation of the bodies
Errors of static or motor mechanics
Facet joint syndrome
Facet synovial impingement
Facilitated spinal system
Facilitated subluxation*
Functional pathology
Functional subluxation*
Chiropractic subluxation
Chiropractic subluxation complex
Comprehensive lesion
" ... compromise proper function."
Delayed instability
Deformation behaviour
Degenerative dynamic segment
Derangement
Derangement of the opposing joint surfaces
Discoradicular conflict
Disorder of the disc
Disrelationship of the facets
Displacement
Disturbance in the mechanico-dynamics
"(vertebrae) ... don't move enough, or they move too much."
Dynamic forceps
Dynamic segment
Dysarthric lesion
Dysarthrosis
Dysfunctional joint
Dysponesis
Dystopia
Dysfunctional segments
Engagement of the spinal segment in a pathologic reflex chain
Erratic movement of spinal articulations
Excursion (Conley) = ("Wandering from the usual path." -- Taber's)
Facet imbrication
Facet joint dysfunction
Facet syndrome
Facilitated segment
Facilitative lesion
Fanning of interspinous space
Fixation
Fixed vertebra
Focal tenderness
" ... force other joints to move too much."
Functional block
"(subluxations) ... force other joints to move too much."
Functional compromise
Functional deficit
Functional defects
Functional derangement
Functional and structural changes in the three joint complex
Functional disturbance
Functional impairments of motion
Functional spinal lesion
Functional subluxation*
Gravitational (im)balance of joints (with) reduced chronic, asymmetrical forces
Harmful dysfunction of the neuromusculoskeletal system
Hyperaemic subluxation
Hyperanteflexion sprain
Hypermobility
Hypopmobility
Hypokinetic aberration*
Impairment
(Im)properly direct(ed) coordinated, (in)harmonious motor programming
Inability of the segment to articulate about its new axis
Incomplete luxation
Incomprehensible pattern of symptoms and clinical findings when compared to with examination of mechanical lesions in the extremities
Instability of the posterior ligament complex
Interdiscal block
Internal joint derangement
Internal vertebral syndrome
Intersegmental instability
Intersegmental subluxation
Intervertebral blocking
Intervertebral disrelationship
Intervertebral dysfunction of the mobile segment
Intervertebral joint subluxation
Intervertebral obturations
Intervertebral subluxation
Joint bind
Joint disturbances
Joint dysfunction
Joint immobilization
Joint "instability"
Joint movement restriction
"Just short of a dislocation"
Kinesiopathology
Kinetic intersegmental subluxation
Kinetic subluxation
Lesion
Less than a locked dislocation
Ligatights
Localised/referred pain
Locked
Locking
Locked subluxation
Locks up and restricts motion
Lose their normal motion or position
Loss of elasticity
Loss of joint movement
Loss of juxtaposition
Loss of segmental mobility
Low back dysfunction
Malalignment
Maladjustment (of a vertebra)
Malposed vertebra
Mechanical interferences
Mechanical malfunctioning
Mechanically infringe
Manipulatable joint lesion
Manipulatable lesion (adjustable subluxation!)
Mechanical derangement
Mechanical disorder
Mechanical dysfunction
Mechanical instability
Mechanical irritation of the sympathetic ganglionic chain
Mechanical musculoskeletal dysfunction
Mechanico-neural interaction
Metameric dysfunction
Mild pubic diastasis
Minor derangement
Misalignment
Misalignment of the fibrocartilaginous joint
Motor unit derangement complex
Motion restriction
Movement restriction
Multisegmental spinal distortion
Musculoskeletal dysfunction
Myopathology
Nervous system impairment by the spine
Neuro-articular dysfunction*
Neuro-articular subluxation*
Neuro-articular syndrome*
Neurobiomechanical
Neuro-dysarthric
Neuro-dysarthrodynic
Neurological dysfunction
Neurodystrophy
Neurofunctional subluxation*
Neuro-mechanical lesion*
Neuromuscular unit
Neuromuscular dysfacilitation
Neuromuscular dysfunction
Neuropathology
Neuropathophysiology
Neurospinal condition
Neurospinal distortions
Neurostasis (Wilson)
Occult subluxation
Offset
Orthokinetics
Ortho-spondylo-dysarthrics
Osteological lesion
Osteopathic lesion
Osteopathic spinal lesion
Osteopathic spinal joint lesion
Pain and debility without recognisable pathology
Painful intervertebral dysfunction ("PID")
Painful minor intervertebral dysfunction ("PMID")
Palpable changes
Paravertebral subluxation
Partial dislocation
Partial or incomplete separation
Partial fixation
Partial luxation
Pathogenic interaction of spine and nervous system
Pathophysiological mechanics
Pathologically altered bradytrophic tissue
Pathologically altered dynamic segment
Pathomechanics
Pathophysiology
Perverted function
Physiologic displacement
Physiologic lock the motion segment
Positional dyskineria
Posterior facet dysfunction
Posterior joint dysfunction ("PJD" -- see "three-joint complex"!)
Posterior joint syndrome
Post-traumatic dysautonomic
Prespondylosis
Primary dysfunction
Primary fibromyalgic syndrome
Pseudosubluxation
Putative segmental instantaneous axis of rotation
Reflex dysfunction
Reduced mobility
Regional dysfunction
"Relative as absolute lack of space within the intervertebral foramen"
Residual displacement
Restricted motion
Restriction
Restriction of unisegmental mobility
Reversible with adjustment/manipulation
Sagittal translation (Conley)
Sectional subluxation
Segmental dysfunction
Segmental instability
Segmental movement restriction
Segmental vertebral hypomobility
Semiluxation
Simple joint and muscle dysfunction without tissue damage
Shear strain distribution
Slight luxation
Slightly luxated
Slightly misaligned vertebra
Soft tissue ankylosis
Somatic dysfunction
Spinal dysfunction
Spinal fixation
Spinal hypomobilities
Spinal irritation
Spinal joint blocking
Spinal joint complex
Spinal joint dysfunction
Spinal joint malfunction
Spinal kinesiology
Spinal lesion
Spinal mechanical dysfunction
Spinal pathophysiology
Spinal segmental facilitation
Spinal segmental instability
Spinal subluxation
Spine restriction
Spino-neural conflict
Spinostasis (Wilson)
Spondylodysarthric lesions
Sprain
Stable cervical injury of the spine (see also "instability" above)
Static intersegmental subluxation
Static subluxation
Strain
Strain distribution
Structural abnormalities
Structural derangement
Structural disrelationship
Structural intersegmental distortion
Structural lesions
"Stuck"
Subtle instability
Sub-luxation
Subluxation
Subluxation complex
Subluxation complex myopathy
Subluxation syndrome
Subluxes
Three joint complex
Tilting of the vertebral body
Tightened, deep, joint related structures
Total fixation
Translation
Unresolved mechanical tension or torsion
Unstable lumbar spine
Unstable subluxation
Vertebragenous syndromes
Vertebral derangement
Vertebral displacement
Vertebral dysfunction
Vertebral dyskinesia
Vertebral factor
Vertebral genesis
Vertebral induction
Vertebral lesion*
Vertebral pathology
Vertebral subluxation
Vertebral subluxation complex
Vertebral subluxation syndrome
Vertebrally diseased
Vertebroligamentous sprain strain
Vertebron (see also "arthron")
Wedged disc
Zygopophyseal pathophysiology

42 Terms for a Sacroiliac Subluxation

Abnormal pelvis biomechanics
Altered sacroiliac mechanics
Changed motor pattern (in muscles)
Change in relation
Displacement
Disturbed normal relationship
Distorting the normal mechanics
Downslips (see also "upslips")
Dysarthria
Dysarthric syndrome
" ... effect on body mechanics"
Instability of the pelvic joints
" ... irritation of the nerves is possible ... "
Joint binding
Joint dysfunction
Joint lesion
Joint motion restriction
Joint slip
Joint syndrome
Limitation of motion
Malposition
Malrotation
Mechanical dysfunction
Misplaced
Misplacement
Motions are restricted
Partial luxation
Primary dysfunction
Restrictions
Rotatory slips
Shear dysfunction
Shear mechanism
Slight luxation
Slip
Slipping sacroiliac joints
" ... stick at the limit of normal motion ..."
Strain
Strain and laxity
Tilts (anterior, posterior)
Upslips (see also "downslips")
Vertical slipping of the innominate on the sacrum


Synonyms
59 Synonyms or Metaphors for the "Spinal Adjustment"
Arthral alignment
Atlas therapy
Biokinetic remediation
Bone setting
Chiropractic manipulation
Chiropractic manipulative therapy
Corrective spinal care
Disengage
Diversified-type force application to release the segment at its articulation
Facet adjusting
Fix
Flexion distraction manipulation
Functional restoration
Gentle adjusting
Gently relieve the locked subluxation
High velocity facet adjusting
Human readjustments
Joint manipulation
Low force/amplitude manipulation
Manipulation
Manipulative surgery
Manipulative therapy
Manipulatory
Manual adjustment
Manual cavitation
Manual medicine
Manual reflex neurotherapy
Manual therapy
Manual treatment
Mechanical treatment of the nerve centres.
Mobilisation
Neuro-mechanical spinal chiropractic management
Neuromechanical correction*
Neurotherapeutic
Neurotherapy
Orthokinetics
Orthopedic orthokinetics
Osteopathic manipulative therapy
Osteopathic osteological adjustment
Physiatry
Physical medicine
Readjustment
Reconstructive measure
Reduced
Reduction
Reduction of dislocation
Release of intraarticular pressure
Replacement
Repositioning
Restoration of mobility
Slipped into place
Specific mobilization
Spinal adjustment
Spinal manipulative therapy
Spinal manual therapy
Spondylotherapy
"Springing the spine"
Vertebral adjustment*
Vertebral medicine

* Unreferenced

Reference

Rome PL. Usage of chiropractic terminology in the literature -- 296 ways to say "subluxation." Chiropractic Technique 1996;8:1-12.

Indeed, the UK chiropractic regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Council claims that there is scientific evidence for "the many interpretations" of 'subluxation':
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=uk

__________________
ebm-first.com
What alternative health practitioners might not tell you.

https://twitter.com/Blue_Wode

Last edited by Blue Wode; 12th December 2009 at 07:59 AM.
Blue Wode is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2009, 01:00 PM   #15
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
@Blue Wode, that is a distressing list. However, it does not disentangle the cases where (for example) "spinal dysfunction" is offered as an alternative to "subluxation" which would have been found in the search. In other words, I think the terms would often have been linked ("the spinal dysfunction also known as the subluxation"). Also, we are talking about the "official" term of the ACC, if we deviate from that we deviate from their "paradigm."
'
But, yours is a good catch- we will have to be ready if it comes up.
JJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2009, 01:52 PM   #16
Dogdoctor
Canis Doctorius
 
Dogdoctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,786
I am sure that even chiropractic schools cannot agree on how to accurately diagnose is a subluxation.
__________________


Dogdoctor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2009, 04:26 PM   #17
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
Originally Posted by Blue Wode View Post
the General Chiropractic Council claims that there is scientific evidence for "the many interpretations" of 'subluxation'
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
However, it does not disentangle the cases where, for example...
You cats have such a dry sense of humour.
BillyJoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2009, 04:42 PM   #18
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,289
I used to work in a chiropractor's office. When there was no one around I used to read the various publications that the chiro subscribed to. There was (and is) an enormous amount of bickering and infighting among the leading lights of chiropractic about how to define a subluxation, how much "philosophy" to include in their training and public presentations, and on and on. It seemed disingenuous, to say the least, to be claiming to treat subluxations on the one hand while on the other bickering about how to define the term. If you don't have an objective definition of a subluxation, how can you possibly claim chiropractic is effective in treating it?
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2010, 01:31 PM   #19
Blue Wode
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,304
Could chiropractic be doomed in the UK?

Quote:
That chiropractic can improve the spine and nervous system — whether or not they shun the dreaded ’subluxation’ word — is a universally held belief amongst chiropractors and central to their practice. Although there is no good independent evidence for the existence of subluxations — and some evidence that they don’t exist and do not have any effect on nerve function — there can be little doubt that, without such beliefs, chiropractic does not have a leg to stand on.

It is difficult to imagine how you could describe chiropractic without claiming it improves spine and nerve function.

So what would happen if these claims were undermined by, say, the ASA [Advertising Standards Authority] declaring that such claims have not been substantiated?

That is exactly what the ASA have said.

In my complaint, I doubted that the advertiser could justify the claims that chiropractic could improve the function of the spine and nervous system. The ASA have told me that they expect the advertiser to remove all the claims about conditions, serious or otherwise, not on their approved list and that:
This also applies to the claim that chiropractic is able to improve the function of the spine and nervous system, so we would expect the advertisers to also remove this claim.
A claim about improving the function of the spine or nervous system is treated just like a claim about colic or asthma: they are not on the list, therefore they are not allowed.

However, this is not something new or a new interpretation of their guidance:
…this has been the CAP/ASA position for some time. It is based on substantiation we have seen from the Chiropractic community, independent expert advice and previous adjudications.
A chiropractor making such a claim would be contrary to ASA guidance — and this has been the case for some time. And since ASA guidance forms an integral part of the GCC’s Code of Practice, it would seem that chiropractors are in a bit of a pickle.

http://www.zenosblog.com/2010/01/discover-chiropractic/
__________________
ebm-first.com
What alternative health practitioners might not tell you.

https://twitter.com/Blue_Wode
Blue Wode is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2010, 02:52 AM   #20
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Chiropractors question the existence of subluxations: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3022
JJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 04:29 AM   #21
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Originally Posted by Blue Wode View Post
Two new articles have just been published in the journal Chiropractic & Osteopathy which are relevant to this thread: ...

Commentary on the United Kingdom evidence report about the effectiveness of manual therapies
http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/18/1/4


ETA. Page 77 of the pdf of the report says that it was funded by the GCC:
http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content...-1340-18-3.pdf
The first thing I noticed was the standard, chiro "bait and switch" ploy. That is probably why the report is titled "Effectiveness of manual therapies" [italics added] rather than referring to "chiro therapies." You might think this is an evaluation of chiro practices; but it includes manipulation performed by PTs, masseurs, and reflexologists (and, probably, doctors).

The problem is that chiros usually claim superiority and different techniques from those employed by PTs and doctors. Moreover, it illustrates the chiro notion that they can substitute for PTs; for which they lack proper training. When chiros are not detecting and adjusting "subluxations" they are trying to emulate other fields. Note that they often re-name and re-define "subluxation"; but it is all the same.
JJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 04:47 AM   #22
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,391
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
The first thing I noticed was the standard, chiro "bait and switch" ploy. That is probably why the report is titled "Effectiveness of manual therapies" [italics added] rather than referring to "chiro therapies." You might think this is an evaluation of chiro practices; but it includes manipulation performed by PTs, masseurs, and reflexologists (and, probably, doctors).

It doesn't always work:
Quote:
In relation to the chiropractic treatment of IBS we noted the evidence provided included a 2007 randomised controlled pilot study relating to osteopathy and another randomised controlled study where results involving the treatment of IBS with osteopathy were described as "promising"; we noted, however, that those studies referred to osteopathy, not chiropractic.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 07:21 AM   #23
Blue Wode
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,304
'Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report'

IMO, the General Chiropractic Council's (GCC) newly published report http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content...-1340-18-3.pdf doesn’t seem to have a great deal to do with ‘chiropractic’.

For example, the Background section on page 2 says that the report is “a summary of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment” The chiropractic ‘bait and switch’ http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1516 doesn’t seem to be addressed, nor do valid concerns about the apparent high frequency of under-reporting of serious complications http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/7/330

Page 15 is particularly interesting. It includes a look at the Hancock et al study (published in the Lancet in 2007), and states that: “Hancock et al found spinal mobilization in addition to medical care was no more effective than medical care alone at reducing the number of days until full recovery for acute LBP. This study had a low risk of bias.” Since the GCC report looks at the scientific evidence for manual therapy, it makes one wonder why, when the Lancet study was originally published, the GCC was up in arms about it, protesting that it didn’t address the effectiveness of ‘chiropractic’:
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_fil...ment9Nov07.pdf

Indeed, both the GCC and the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) wrote to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in an attempt to elicit a public apology from three newspapers for saying that the study showed that chiropractic was ‘a waste of money’. See here
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_fil...0(Website).pdf

You can read about the BCA’s complaint, and the outcomes of both complaints, on pages 6 and 7 of the GCC’s March 2008 newsletter here:
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_fil..._GCCNews23.pdf

Now here's a summary of the Lancet study, with a link to its full text at the end of the quote…
Quote:
Patients with acute low back pain receiving recommended first-line care do not recover more quickly with the addition of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy.

-snip-

The spinal manipulative therapy given in this trial included a range of low-velocity mobilisation and high-velocity manipulation techniques done by physiotherapists with postgraduate training in manipulative therapy. A systematic review of spinal manipulation concluded that there is no evidence that high-velocity spinal mobilisation is more effective than low-velocity spinal manipulation, or that the profession of the manipulator affects the effectiveness of treatment.

Assessment of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, in addition to recommended first-line treatment for acute low back pain: a randomised controlled trial Hancock MJ et al; Lancet:370:1638-43 (2007)
http://www.acatoday.org/pdf/Lancet_A...ain_Nov.07.pdf

…and this is what the Consumer Health Digest newsletter, published by the National Council Against Health Fraud, had to say about the study:
Quote:
Doubt cast on value of spinal manipulation and NSAIDS for acute back pain.

Australian researchers found that neither spinal manipulation or the drug diclofenac hastened recovery of acute low-back pain patients who had been properly counseled by their primary physician and prescribed paracetamol for pain relief. The study involved 240 patients who received either (a) diclofenac plus spinal manipulation, (b) diclofenac and sham spinal manipulation, (c) spinal manipulation and a placebo pill, or (d) sham manipulation plus a placebo pill. About half recovered within two weeks and nearly all recovered within three months.

[Hancock MJ and others. Assessment of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, in addition to recommended first-line treatment for acute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 370:1638-1643, 2007]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...RVAbstractPlus

Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Paracetamol is a pain-reliever marketed in the United States as acetominophen or Tylenol. An accompanying editorial noted:

**Systematic reviews had concluded that NSAIDS and spinal manipulation were more effective than placebos. However, the patients in the reviewed studies did not have optimum first-line care, and the apparent benefit was not large.

**Advice to remain active and prescription of paracetamol will be sufficient for most patients with acute low back pain.
[Koes BW. Evidence-based management of acute low back pain. Lancet 370:1595-1596, 2007]


http://www.ncahf.net/digest07/07-47.html

Page 73 of the GCC’s report is also interesting. It cites a systematic review of adverse events associated with paediatric spinal manipulation. However, that review failed to include the harms listed at the end of this summary:
Quote:
Adverse events associated with chiropractic care of children. A systematic review has identified 34 cases in which spinal manipulation in children was associated with adverse events. [Vohra S. Adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation: A systematic review. Pediatrics 119(1) January 2007, pp. e275-e283]

Fourteen of the cases involved "direct" events in which the treatment was followed by death, serious injury, symptoms requiring medical attention, or soreness. The rest involved "indirect" events in which appropriate diagnosis was delayed and/or inappropriate manipulation was done for serious medical conditions such as meningitis.

The reviewers commented that despite the fact that spinal manipulation is widely used on children, pediatric safety data are virtually nonexistent.

This type of review cannot determine how often adverse events occur. That would require a prospective study with active surveillance. The article did not consider harmful aspects of chiropractic care that are far more common than the reported events. These include (a) decreased use of immunization due to misinformation given to parents, (b) psychologic harm related to unnecessary treatment, (c) psychologic harm caused by exposure to false chiropractic beliefs about "subluxations," and (d) financial harm due to unnecessary treatment.

http://www.ncahf.org/digest07/07-14.html

The first harm (a) is a particular concern when you consider that only one out of 16 UK chiropractors who responded to this survey advised in favour of the MMR vaccination:
http://www.dcscience.net/schmidt-ernst-vaccine-2003.pdf

For those interested, there’s more discussion on the GCC report at Chirotalk http://chirotalk.proboards.com/index...ad=4685&page=1

and at Zeno’s blog http://www.zenosblog.com/2010/02/the-gccs-plethora/

Also, watch out for a Guardian article on it on Monday by Martin Robbins http://layscience.net/node/956


[NB. The information above also has some bearing on the GCC’s newly published revalidation document. You can read a scanned copy here: http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/C-170210-04a.pdf ]
__________________
ebm-first.com
What alternative health practitioners might not tell you.

https://twitter.com/Blue_Wode

Last edited by Blue Wode; 27th February 2010 at 07:24 AM.
Blue Wode is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:40 PM   #24
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,391
Originally Posted by Blue Wode View Post
Since the GCC report looks at the scientific evidence for manual therapy, it makes one wonder why, when the Lancet study was originally published, the GCC was up in arms about it, protesting that it didn’t address the effectiveness of ‘chiropractic’:

Did they still have promotion of chiropractic as part of their remit when they made the complaint?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:51 PM   #25
Blue Wode
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,304
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Did they still have promotion of chiropractic as part of their remit when they made the complaint?

Yes, but remember that the Lancet study said this:
Quote:
The spinal manipulative therapy given in this trial included a range of low-velocity mobilisation and high-velocity manipulation techniques done by physiotherapists with postgraduate training in manipulative therapy. A systematic review of spinal manipulation concluded that there is no evidence that high-velocity spinal mobilisation is more effective than low-velocity spinal manipulation, or that the profession of the manipulator affects the effectiveness of treatment.

Assessment of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, in addition to recommended first-line treatment for acute low back pain: a randomised controlled trial Hancock MJ et al; Lancet:370:1638-43 (2007)

http://www.acatoday.org/pdf/Lancet_A...ain_Nov.07.pdf
__________________
ebm-first.com
What alternative health practitioners might not tell you.

https://twitter.com/Blue_Wode
Blue Wode is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 10:36 PM   #26
Soapy Sam
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 28,751
"The spinal manipulative therapy given in this trial included a range of low-velocity mobilisation and high-velocity manipulation techniques done by physiotherapists with postgraduate training in manipulative therapy. A systematic review of spinal manipulation concluded that there is no evidence that high-velocity spinal mobilisation is more effective than low-velocity spinal manipulation, or that the profession of the manipulator affects the effectiveness of treatment"

"Included" or the much misused "comprised"? If the trial therapy was only given by one profession, it's invalid to conclude that it makes no difference what profession applied it. I'm prepared to bet , were the same techniques of HV spine snapping applied by (say) marine commandos, the results might be rather different.
Seriously I don't follow the argument there, unless the second sentence "A systematic review..." bears no relation to the events decribed in the first sentence.
It's a bit opaque.
Soapy Sam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 10:51 PM   #27
borealys
Critical Thinker
 
borealys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Blue Wode View Post
Don't be surprised if chiropractors claim in their defence that the authors only went looking for one type of subluxation...
Well now, I only skimmed that list, but one item on it jumped out at me.

They're seriously claiming that dysarthria is a form of "sacroiliac subluxation"?

Dysarthria is a motor speech disorder. Actually, it's a family of motor speech disorders, which can have numerous causes, absolutely none of which have anything to do with the sacroiliac joint. It's a head and neck disorder, for crying out loud! Couldn't they at least have blamed it on a subluxation a little higher up in the spinal column?
__________________
You could say to the universe, this is not fair. And the universe would say: Oh, isn't it? Sorry. -Terry Pratchett

Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight. -Bruce Cockburn
borealys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2010, 04:07 AM   #28
Blue Wode
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,304
Originally Posted by Soapy Sam View Post
"Included" or the much misused "comprised"? If the trial therapy was only given by one profession, it's invalid to conclude that it makes no difference what profession applied it. I'm prepared to bet , were the same techniques of HV spine snapping applied by (say) marine commandos, the results might be rather different.

Seriously I don't follow the argument there, unless the second sentence "A systematic review..." bears no relation to the events decribed in the first sentence.

It's a bit opaque.

Soapy, the problem centres on a lack of standardisation which allows confusion to prevail to chiropractors’ advantage. Spinal manipulation is not *real* chiropractic, but chiropractors will shout from the rooftops when a positive study for spinal manipulation is published. However, when a negative study for spinal manipulation appears, they are usually quick to condemn it as not being representative of ‘chiropractic’. Veteran chiropractor, Samuel Homola describes the problem in this article:
http://jmmtonline.com/documents/HomolaV14N2E.pdf

Snippet –
Quote:
The reasons for use of manipulation/mobilization by an evidence-based manual therapist are not the same as the reason for use of adjustment/manipulation by most chiropractors. Only evidence-based chiropractors, who have renounced subluxation dogma, can be part of a team that would research the effects of manipulation without bias…

As I warned in Bonesetting, Chiropractic and Cultism, if chiropractic fails to specialize in an appropriate manner, there may be no justification for the existence of chiropractic when there are an adequate number of physical therapists providing manipulative therapy. Many physical therapists are now using manipulation/mobilization techniques. Of the 209 physical therapy programs in the US, 111 now offer Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) degrees. Some of these programs have been opened to qualified chiropractors.

According to the American Physical Therapy Association, “…Physical therapy, by 2020, will be provided by physical therapists who are doctors of physical therapy and who may be board-certified specialists. Consumers will have direct access to physical therapists in all environments for patient/client management, prevention, and wellness services. Physical therapists will be practitioners of choice in patients’/clients’ health networks and will hold all privileges of autonomous practice…”

It matters little who does spinal manipulative therapy as long as it is appropriate and evidence-based. There can be cooperation between chiropractors and other practitioners of manual therapy if everyone works under the common denominator of science and if treatment methods are standardized.

It’s important to note that although the GCC’s report is on the effectiveness of *manual therapies*, it fails to make an explicit distinction between the type of manual therapy offered by chiropractors (with its pseudoscientific underpinnings) and that offered by other manual therapists who are much less mired in quackery (if at all).
__________________
ebm-first.com
What alternative health practitioners might not tell you.

https://twitter.com/Blue_Wode

Last edited by Blue Wode; 28th February 2010 at 04:08 AM.
Blue Wode is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2010, 04:57 AM   #29
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by Soapy Sam View Post
Seriously I don't follow the argument there, unless the second sentence "A systematic review..." bears no relation to the events decribed in the first sentence.
This.

It's a statement made in reference to a different study (i.e. a systematic review).

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2010, 10:44 AM   #30
DrFrankmeister
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 24
JJM

I am responding to your comments drawn from Dr. Joe Keating's 2001 article:

1. A prophylactic or health-maintaining effect of manipulation has not been experimentally demonstrated to date.

I'd like to draw your attention to this article, published the year before Joe wrote his comments:
Maintenance Care: Health Promotion Services Administered to US Chiropractic Patients Aged 65 and Older, Part II
J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000 (Jan); 23 (1): 10–19
Available in the LINKS Section of Chiro.Org

The important points from this article are:

A: The cost of health care for patients receiving MC in this study was far less than that for patients of similar age in the general population, despite the doubling of physician visits (chiropractic visits vs. medical visits). The greatest difference in health care costs with patients receiving maintenance care was in the areas of nursing care and, especially, hospital care. This reduced need for hospital and nursing home services has recently been corroborated by the research of Coulter et al. [Review the Coulter et al statistics]

B: Chiropractic patients receiving maintenance care, when compared with US citizens of the same age, spent only 31% of the national average for health care services and reported a 50% reduction in medical provider visits.

C: The health habits of patients receiving maintenance care were better overall than the general population, including decreased use of cigarettes and non-prescription drugs. Furthermore, 95.8% believed the care to be either “considerably” or “extremely” valuable.

2. The value of “regular check-ups” by chiropractors is also unknown.

The last article discusses "maintenance" (aka wellness, aka asymptomatic) care, and does find significant differences between chiropractic patients and their matched peers.

3. The disease-producing and pathology-producing effects of subluxation-complex, if any, have not been demonstrated experimentally.

I presume that you are not a doctor, so I'll keep these comments simple. The classic explanation of the subluxation complex is:

Kinesiopathology, or loss of alignment and/or motion irregularities (the 739 and 839 and the 737 ICD-9-CM codes), Neuropathology, which occur due to compressed or facilitated nerve tissue (the 722-24, 353 ICD-9-CM codes), Myopathology, or soft tissue changes due to muscle and ligament damage, involving spasm, muscle weakness/atrophy and development of myofascial disorders (the 728-29, 847 ICD-9-CM codes), Histopathology, or the pre and post inflammatory changes that result as sequela to the primary soft tissue damage, progressing from edema to congestion of tissue to eventual remodeling (the 719, 782 ICD-9-CM codes), and Pathophysiology, or the degeneration and/or fibrous tissue formation which are the inevitable outcomes of poor management of the other components (the 732-39, 723 ICD-9-CM codes).

There is significant (though unrelated) studies that demonstrate each of these processes. They are too extensive to list here, but much of this material is archived on the Chiro.Org website in the Research and LINKS Sections:

The LINKS and Research Section are both available at Chiro.Org


4. Adjusting has not been experimentally demonstrated to alter vertebral alignment or “nerve pressure”; such effects, if possible, have not been shown to influence neuritis.

You seem to be relying on relatively ancient chiropractic theories for your critique, because of the use of the term "nerve pressure". Chiropractic has been shown to reduce radiculopathy, and radiculopathy has been shown to evolve from irritated facet joints. Please refer to the Radiculopathy Page.
Available in the LINKS Section of Chiro.Org

5. Currently available experimental data do not justify any claims for the value of chiropractic care in populations of children.

Wrong! There has been negative results in trials on colic and asthma, but the results for low back pain, thoracic spine pain, neck pain, and headaches has been positive. I'd like to quote a passage from a newly published article:

"numerous claims made by chiropractors over the years, based on their clinical observations, have not stood up to critical analysis and the results of studies often suggest that these observations are due to placebo or the natural course of the disorder rather than the actual treatment. This has been true of a vast number of medical treatments. A recent Special Issue of The Spine Journal on Evidence Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain listed over 200 treatments currently being offered patients with low back pain, most of which are offered by medical physicians [3]. Of these, less than 10% have a reasonable body of support based on high quality clinical trials. The greatest research support was for therapies commonly used by chiropractors including the manual therapies, education and exercise."

"Commentary on the United Kingdom evidence report about the effectiveness of manual therapies"
Chiropractic & Osteopathy 2010 (Feb 25)


The conclusions from this extensive review are:

"Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute,
subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache;
cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several
extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is
effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for
cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration,
and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica,
tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders,
fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal
manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to
sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an
antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding
the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective
for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation. Massage
is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain.
The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia,
myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In
children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic. "

"Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report"
Chiropractic & Osteopathy 2010 (Feb 25)


This article, in particular, addresses the difference between clinical experience, opinion, and verifiable, reproducible, and measurable results in a clinical trial.

I understand that you (like myself) have opinions, but this study helps us to distinguish between our perhaps-biased opinions and the realities of scientific conclusions.

I certainly have issues with the asthma trials published in the past, primarily because they ignore the fact that both the placebo and active treatment groups improved in symptoms compared with controls. The conclusion was wrong, because it was based on the premise that the "placebo" had no effect.

Today researchers are becoming more aware of the "non-specific" effects of care generated by the "laying on of hands" and the sense of hope generated by the distinctly different way in which a chiropractor interacts with a patient. I have collected a variety of articles on this topic:
The Problem with Placebos/Shams
In Chiro.Org's Research Section

Our website (Chiro.Org) is devoted to collecting articles about chiropractic, from case studies through randomized trials. Over time, we will all better understand why chiropractic is so loved by clinicians and patients alike. Meanwhile, I see patients improve every day in my office when other forms of medical treatment had left them suffering. It is that joy I experience every day that helps he maintain my perspective when I read the negative comments posted on the anti-quack and science-buff nay-sayer websites.

I hope you will find these articles informative.

Warmly,

Frank M. Painter, D.C.
Frankp@chiro.org

P.S. This website prevented me from posting URLs to the pages I quoted above, but each section of the Chiro.Org website have their own Search Tools, so they can easily be found, if you are interested.
DrFrankmeister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2010, 12:56 PM   #31
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by DrFrankmeister View Post
JJM

I am responding to your comments drawn from Dr. Joe Keating's 2001 article:

1. A prophylactic or health-maintaining effect of manipulation has not been experimentally demonstrated to date.

I'd like to draw your attention to this article, published the year before Joe wrote his comments:
Maintenance Care: Health Promotion Services Administered to US Chiropractic Patients Aged 65 and Older, Part II
J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000 (Jan); 23 (1): 10–19
Available in the LINKS Section of Chiro.Org

The important points from this article are:

A: The cost of health care for patients receiving MC in this study was far less than that for patients of similar age in the general population, despite the doubling of physician visits (chiropractic visits vs. medical visits). The greatest difference in health care costs with patients receiving maintenance care was in the areas of nursing care and, especially, hospital care. This reduced need for hospital and nursing home services has recently been corroborated by the research of Coulter et al. [Review the Coulter et al statistics]

B: Chiropractic patients receiving maintenance care, when compared with US citizens of the same age, spent only 31% of the national average for health care services and reported a 50% reduction in medical provider visits.

C: The health habits of patients receiving maintenance care were better overall than the general population, including decreased use of cigarettes and non-prescription drugs. Furthermore, 95.8% believed the care to be either “considerably” or “extremely” valuable.

2. The value of “regular check-ups” by chiropractors is also unknown.

The last article discusses "maintenance" (aka wellness, aka asymptomatic) care, and does find significant differences between chiropractic patients and their matched peers.
The only conclusion which can be drawn from this study is that people who choose to visit a chiropractor tend to be quite different from the general population. It should be quite obvious that this group would tend not to include those who already are undergoing treatment and care related to medical conditions. If you exclude from your sample those people most likely to require hospital care, of course you will see a below average utilization of that care, even if you do nothing useful for them over the course of the next few years.

Also, you posted this study in response to the comment that "a prophylactic or health-maintaining effect of manipulation has not been experimentally demonstrated to date". This was an observational study, not an experimental study, so I have to wonder why you bring up something which cannot be considered a valid response.

Quote:
3. The disease-producing and pathology-producing effects of subluxation-complex, if any, have not been demonstrated experimentally.

I presume that you are not a doctor, so I'll keep these comments simple. The classic explanation of the subluxation complex is:

Kinesiopathology, or loss of alignment and/or motion irregularities (the 739 and 839 and the 737 ICD-9-CM codes), Neuropathology, which occur due to compressed or facilitated nerve tissue (the 722-24, 353 ICD-9-CM codes), Myopathology, or soft tissue changes due to muscle and ligament damage, involving spasm, muscle weakness/atrophy and development of myofascial disorders (the 728-29, 847 ICD-9-CM codes), Histopathology, or the pre and post inflammatory changes that result as sequela to the primary soft tissue damage, progressing from edema to congestion of tissue to eventual remodeling (the 719, 782 ICD-9-CM codes), and Pathophysiology, or the degeneration and/or fibrous tissue formation which are the inevitable outcomes of poor management of the other components (the 732-39, 723 ICD-9-CM codes).

There is significant (though unrelated) studies that demonstrate each of these processes. They are too extensive to list here, but much of this material is archived on the Chiro.Org website in the Research and LINKS Sections:

The LINKS and Research Section are both available at Chiro.Org
I am a physician. You have simply listed established medical conditions without establishing any connection between them and something you call a 'subluxation complex'.


Quote:
4. Adjusting has not been experimentally demonstrated to alter vertebral alignment or “nerve pressure”; such effects, if possible, have not been shown to influence neuritis.

You seem to be relying on relatively ancient chiropractic theories for your critique, because of the use of the term "nerve pressure". Chiropractic has been shown to reduce radiculopathy, and radiculopathy has been shown to evolve from irritated facet joints. Please refer to the Radiculopathy Page.
Available in the LINKS Section of Chiro.Org
Again, you reference observational, rather than experimental research. All this demonstrates is that many people with radiculopathy show improvement in their symptoms with conservative treatment - something we already knew. None of these studies allow you to conclude that chiropractic in general or treatment directed at something you call subluxation complexes, alters that outcome.

Quote:
5. Currently available experimental data do not justify any claims for the value of chiropractic care in populations of children.

Wrong! There has been negative results in trials on colic and asthma, but the results for low back pain, thoracic spine pain, neck pain, and headaches has been positive. I'd like to quote a passage from a newly published article:

"numerous claims made by chiropractors over the years, based on their clinical observations, have not stood up to critical analysis and the results of studies often suggest that these observations are due to placebo or the natural course of the disorder rather than the actual treatment. This has been true of a vast number of medical treatments. A recent Special Issue of The Spine Journal on Evidence Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain listed over 200 treatments currently being offered patients with low back pain, most of which are offered by medical physicians [3]. Of these, less than 10% have a reasonable body of support based on high quality clinical trials. The greatest research support was for therapies commonly used by chiropractors including the manual therapies, education and exercise."

"Commentary on the United Kingdom evidence report about the effectiveness of manual therapies"
Chiropractic & Osteopathy 2010 (Feb 25)


The conclusions from this extensive review are:

"Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute,
subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache;
cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several
extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is
effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for
cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration,
and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica,
tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders,
fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal
manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to
sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an
antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding
the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective
for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation. Massage
is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain.
The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia,
myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In
children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic. "

"Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report"
Chiropractic & Osteopathy 2010 (Feb 25)
This evidence report does not support your assertion that the use of chiropractic in children is evidence-based. For one thing, that report was directed at manual therapies, not solely chiropractic therapies, so the included therapies are not directed at the idea of 'subluxation complexes'. And, more importantly, there were no uses in children that were supported by evidence.

Quote:
This article, in particular, addresses the difference between clinical experience, opinion, and verifiable, reproducible, and measurable results in a clinical trial.

I understand that you (like myself) have opinions, but this study helps us to distinguish between our perhaps-biased opinions and the realities of scientific conclusions.

I certainly have issues with the asthma trials published in the past, primarily because they ignore the fact that both the placebo and active treatment groups improved in symptoms compared with controls. The conclusion was wrong, because it was based on the premise that the "placebo" had no effect.

Today researchers are becoming more aware of the "non-specific" effects of care generated by the "laying on of hands" and the sense of hope generated by the distinctly different way in which a chiropractor interacts with a patient. I have collected a variety of articles on this topic:
The Problem with Placebos/Shams
In Chiro.Org's Research Section
The effects attributed to placebo are fairly mundane. Most of the effects simply represent biases inherent in choosing a study population, such as regression to the mean, which means that those effects are present even if you do nothing. The remainder of the effects represent small, clinically insignificant changes in reports of subjective perceptions, with changes in pain the best established alteration. Even then, the average improvement tends to be below the threshold which is considered by patients to be clinically relevant.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/344/21/1594

I appreciate the idea of taking an evidence-based, rather than opinion-based approach to chiropractic, but then I have to wonder why you failed to use an evidence-based approach when addressing the criticisms.

ETA: Just to be clear, I did go to chiro.org and look at the articles you referred to. Your directions were clear and the articles were easy to find. The JREF forum blocks links until you have 15 posts in order to block spammers from flooding the forum with links.

Linda

Last edited by fls; 1st March 2010 at 01:10 PM.
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2010, 04:07 PM   #32
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
There is little left for me to add.
Originally Posted by DrFrankmeister View Post
JJM

I am responding to your comments drawn from Dr. Joe Keating's 2001 article: ...

4. Adjusting has not been experimentally demonstrated to alter vertebral alignment or “nerve pressure”; such effects, if possible, have not been shown to influence neuritis.

You seem to be relying on relatively ancient chiropractic theories for your critique, because of the use of the term "nerve pressure". ...
A minor point: "nerve pressure" was Keating's term, not mine.
Originally Posted by DrFrankmeister View Post
... "Commentary on the United Kingdom evidence report about the effectiveness of manual therapies"

http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/18/1/3 [JJM]
"Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report"
Chiropractic & Osteopathy 2010 (Feb 25) ...
That review is not about chiropractic, and it is difficult to sort through all the original sources. However, it is clear that what counts for favorable evidence does not pass muster in scientific circles.

For example, they claim the evidence for chiro treatment of enuresis (bed wetting) is inconclusive but favorable. That is their summary of two papers: *Reed WR, Beavers S, Reddy SK, Kern G: Chiropractic management of
primary nocturnal enuresis. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1994, 17: 596-600.


Leboeuf C, Brown P, Herman A, Leembruggen K, Walton D, Crisp TC:
Chiropractic care of children with nocturnal enuresis: a prospective
outcome study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991, 14: 110-115.

The latter (1991) study was un-blinded and uncontrolled, and concluded that chiro did not work. The former (1994) was tiny, and the treatment and control groups were not closely matched; and the treatment and control groups were not statistically different after treatment. Maybe you can explain how this is interpreted as "inconclusive" and "favorable."

The review is rife with such over-enthusiastic interpretations of literature, and non-chiropractic references. Aside from low-back pain, there is little support for chiropractic.
JJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2010, 04:40 PM   #33
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 46,130


Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 1st March 2010 at 04:42 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2010, 06:26 PM   #34
zeno2712
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 168
I think I'll join you, Rolfe.

zeno2712 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2010, 07:05 PM   #35
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
want some garlic butter for that popcorn?
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2010, 02:25 AM   #36
Blue Wode
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,304
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
...they claim the evidence for chiro treatment of enuresis (bed wetting) is inconclusive but favorable. That is their summary of two papers: *Reed WR, Beavers S, Reddy SK, Kern G: Chiropractic management of
primary nocturnal enuresis. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1994, 17: 596-600.


Leboeuf C, Brown P, Herman A, Leembruggen K, Walton D, Crisp TC:
Chiropractic care of children with nocturnal enuresis: a prospective
outcome study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991, 14: 110-115.

The latter (1991) study was un-blinded and uncontrolled, and concluded that chiro did not work. The former (1994) was tiny, and the treatment and control groups were not closely matched; and the treatment and control groups were not statistically different after treatment. Maybe you can explain how this is interpreted as "inconclusive" and "favorable."

The review is rife with such over-enthusiastic interpretations of literature, and non-chiropractic references. Aside from low-back pain, there is little support for chiropractic.

Indeed. One has to wonder about the impartiality of the review. It’s worth noting that its lead author, Gert Bronfort, serves on NCCAM's National Advisory Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NACCAM): http://nccam.nih.gov/about/naccam/roster.htm

For those not up to speed with NCCAM, this is what the Skeptics Dictionary recently had to say about it:
Quote:
“We've been waiting for 16 years for the NIH to announce some major breakthrough in health care that has emerged from NCCAM. Unfortunately, most of the "alternative" research is driven by faith, hope, and ideology rather than science. As Dr. Wallace Sampson noted: the NCCAM "is the only entity in the NIH [among some 27 institutes and centers] devoted to an ideological approach to health”….. $2.5 billion spent, no alternative cures found…”

http://www.skepdic.com/NCCAM.html

This is also interesting:
Quote:
“Dr. Bronfort was recently commissioned by the British General Chiropractic Council to report on the evidence for chiropractic care. The Council and the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has come under intense public scrutiny and pending litigation due to a large number of false-advertising claims filed against field practitioners. The purpose of the report was to help sort out what can and cannot be claimed about the effectiveness of chiropractic care, particularly manual therapies. The report is expected to be published in a peer-review journal in late 2009 or early 2010.

Drs. Bronfort and Evans [a co-author of the GCC’s Evidence Report] were keynote speakers at the British Chiropractic Association Conference held in Wales, England, in October 2009.”

http://www.nwhealth.edu/nwtoday/research1109.html

Tell your friends.
__________________
ebm-first.com
What alternative health practitioners might not tell you.

https://twitter.com/Blue_Wode
Blue Wode is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2010, 03:49 AM   #37
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,391
Originally Posted by Blue Wode View Post
Quote:
$2.5 billion spent, no alternative cures found…”

http://www.skepdic.com/NCCAM.html

Well, since "cures which cannot be demonstrated to work" is a pretty good working definition of what they've been asked to investigate...
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2010, 01:11 PM   #38
DrFrankmeister
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 24
There's been an interesting collection of responses to my posting to JJM:

1. The most egregious comment was the claim by "blue wode" that NCCAM spent $2.5 billion (LOL!) in 17 years. That was the total budget of NIH for all 27 instuitutes. The first year (1993?) the total alt-med budget was #1 million. WOW! I'm not sure how much clinical research you've done, but most trials I've seen budgets for were in the range of 1/4 to 1/2 million each, so how far would a million go?

2. I truly appreciated Linda's response. Your first point that The only conclusion which can be drawn from this study is that people who choose to visit a chiropractor tend to be quite different from the general population. may or may not be true. And it is a prospective study.

As for your comments about the "subluxation complex", I didn't realize you expected me to "prove" it's existence. I'd prefer to leave that to the NIH and the research centers at our colleges.

Observational versus experimental: Until the mid 90's MDs were blocked by the AMA and various other named medical sociaties from teaching, or conducting research with my profession. We were blocked access to any federal grant money to do research, and in fact the first 5 or 6 million granted to my alma mater Palmer college (in the late 90's) was primarily devoted to improving the infrastructure for research, and for funding some students to complete PhD study in epidemiology and public health. This is NOT a complaint....it's just background. Any research published and conducted previous to that was 100% funded by our federally un-subsidized schools. This is unheard of in the medical world, paying out of your own pocket to fund research.

Even so, there has been some good work done, and there's plenty more to do.

As your comment "This evidence report does not support your assertion that the use of chiropractic in children is evidence-based. For one thing, that report was directed at manual therapies, not solely chiropractic therapies," I never said it was solely about chiropractic. Do you have compelling proof that neck pain, low back pain, or headaches in children is uniquely different than that experienced by aldults? I believe that was the point I was trying to make.

I'm happy you found the website easy to utilize. Sadly, many of our materials are abstract only, but any articles that offer free accsess are clearly marked.

I had to give up half my lunchbreak to type this, so that's it for now.

Warmly,

Frank M. Painter, D.C.
Frankp@chiro.org
DrFrankmeister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2010, 01:44 PM   #39
Here_to_learn
Master Poster
 
Here_to_learn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,401
Originally Posted by DrFrankmeister View Post
Any research published and conducted previous to that was 100% funded by our federally un-subsidized schools. This is unheard of in the medical world, paying out of your own pocket to fund research.
One would hope so - at least I would hope that it would be the other way around - the research to verify that something actually works would come before teaching students about it.
Here_to_learn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2010, 01:55 PM   #40
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
Originally Posted by Here_to_learn View Post
One would hope so - at least I would hope that it would be the other way around - the research to verify that something actually works would come before teaching students about it.
And still they have nothing honest to show for it.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.