It is no surprise that the vertebral subluxation has not been proven by a double-blind, randomized controlled study, nor do I think it ever will be.
Then again, most of modern medical procedures haven’t been proven either. In this day and age of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), I’m not convinced much of what IS out there (allopathic, homeopathic, naturopathic, or chiropractic) CAN be backed up by the gold standard double-blind, randomized controlled study.
In fact, the gold standard research studies typically cost millions of dollars, so conducting these types studies for everything out there is just not financially possible.
How this Applies to the Vertebral Subluxation
When we talk about a vertebral subluxation, we are speaking of a bony misalignment of a vertebra that results in increased pressure near the spinal cord or spinal nerve. This pressure results in an interference to the communication between the nervous system and the body.
When I have a vertebral subluxation, I can feel it all over and it is not fun. But that is subjective to me. Subjective results don’t prove much of anything in research. Honestly, I don’t know how we would go about proving the existence of the vertebral subluxation in a randomized double blind study short of conducting Nazi-like experiments. I’m not a research scientist so I couldn’t begin to know. Maybe someone reading this could fill me in.
But does that mean we should abandon what our identity has been for the last 114 years? That, however, is exactly what the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) has done in the UK. Chiropractors in England are now breaking the law when they mention the term vertebral subluxation. You can read their statement here.
Let me digress by covering a group of people called skeptics. By skeptic, I mean the type of people that believe EVERYTHING the WHO, FDA, and Big Pharma say, claiming these groups are a part of the “scientific medical establishment.” They believe that any and all “alternative health care” is bogus, unscientific, and dangerous, unless proven otherwise in a double-blind, randomized controlled study.
For example, skeptics believe in the following as part of the scientific medical establishment: Swine flu vaccine, Gardasil vaccine, Prozac, Vioxx, Celebrex, Children’s Tylenol, Hepatitis B vaccine at birth, Silver nitrate in the eyes at birth, Viagra, Ritalin, Percoset, Vicodin, removing tonsils, etc. And this is just off the top of my head!
There isn’t anything safe or scientific about those things outside of the manufactured research the beneficiaries of the said treatments, drugs, or vaccines put out there. I guess you could call me a reverse skeptic. I don’t trust groups like the WHO, FDA, and Big Pharma. I don’t think they are scientific at all. I think they are corrupt and they are ruining the health of our nation, as well as the world. Read this, this, and this for some examples.
How does this apply to the GCC’s decision to outlaw using the term “vertebral subluxation” in practice? Skeptics in the chiropractic profession are doing their best to take down their own profession, which will eventually lead to an assimilation of chiropractic into medicine, similar to the osteopathic profession. The chiropractic skeptics make up groups like the GCC, American Chiropractic Association (ACA), Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE), most state boards, and the majority of chiropractic college faculties.
This group of people would love for the Chiropractic profession to be relegated to musculoskeletal disorders only, namely just neck and back pain. This means that it would be illegal for chiropractors to address anything but the region of the body in pain. But hey, at least New Mexico chiropractors can prescribe low-level painkillers to help with that neck and back pain, right?
The sad thing is that this group of chiropractic skeptics are the minority. So, why are they getting what they want? Why is the majority sitting on their hands letting this happen?
It’s time the majority of chiropractors actually start standing up for themselves, or there won’t be a separate and distinct chiropractic profession to be a part of in the future.
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
Brandon,
As you may know, this situation seems to be the result of a lawsuit that was recently settled by the British Chiropractic Association. In short, an anti-chiropractic article in The Guardian led to a 2 year battle in which the British Chiropractic Association filed a lawsuit against the author.
I am not convinced that it is the minority of chiropractors that are skeptics.
In my view, the problem is that the majority of the chiropractic profession today is trying to practice in a medical paradigm. We attend chiropractic colleges that are ashamed to use the word “chiropractic” in it. The term subluxation has been distorted to “vertebral subluxation complex”, adjustment has been morphed into “spinal manipulative therapy”. Many chiropractors I know use nutrition, physical therapy, medical diagnosis, take insurance, etc. in order to serve their “patients” with all the tools they were supplied with when they were taught how to be chiropractors. When I attended National, if someone wanted to learn Upper Cervical or Gonstead, or AK, it was not offered as a part of the college curriculum.
Is it any wonder that the main point of chiropractic, our “raison d’etre”, is in jeopardy?
You make some good points Marc. You would know, having attended National.
Thanks for telling it how it is Brandon. Sadly what is really happening is everyone is playing into the hands of the people who want to control our lives and our health but people are blind to the fact!
I appreciate Chiropractors like you who are ready to stand to be counted. My favourite quote is that our forefathers were jailed so that true ChiropracTORS would be able to offer the world health by a truly unique system.
I am just the chiropractors wife!!!
If I may say so, I suspect you may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The purpose of RCTs is to rest empirically, rgardless of theories. whether or not chripractic works in alleviating particular conditions. This is quite possible, for example the Olafsdottir trial showed conclusively that chiropractic manipulation was no more effective at relieving infantile colic that simply having the nurse hold the crying baby for a similar length of time.
The demonstration of the existence or otherwise of “subluxations” is a quite different question. It does seem very odd to the outsider that, after 100 years of trying, a “bony misalignment” has not been detected reliably by any imaging method. Are you quite sure that it was not just a product of Palmer’s imagination? That, at least, seems now to be the concluion of the UK’s General Chiropractic Council.
As an Upper Cervical Chiropractor, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that with specific upper cervical x-rays we can absolutely prove the “bony misalignment” component of the vertebral subluxation. Upper Cervical Chiropractors do this on a regular basis by using headclamps to take out any movement by the patient, universal bony landmarks and exact measurements to quantify how much of a misalignment exists. It’s the basis of what I, and many other Upper Cervical Chiropractors do on a daily basis.
Having 4 kids of my own and having seen other chiropractors experiences with children with infantile colic, I completely refute the results of that study. Just in my own kids, I have seen the results that an atlas adjustment can have on a very fussy, very angry baby. I completely question the method, competency, and results of that study, to be very frank.
If you set foot in any competent chiropractor’s practice, you will witness a vastly different outcome with various types of patients with various types of symptoms experiencing great results with chiropractors who focus on removing the VERTEBRAL SUBLUXATION.
If chiropractors had the resources and money that Big Pharma had, I would bet any amount of money that the vertebral subluxation would be a proven phenomenon and a household word. Instead of trying to band together and prove what we do, those who occupy the seats of organizations like the GCC have chosen to take the easy way out so they can finally be accepted by the so-called “scientific medical establishment.” So we are left with a handful of researchers to try and prove what we do, when companies like Pfizer have 10,000 researchers at their disposal. Pretty big difference, don’t you think?
http://www.upcspine.com/anatomy6.htm
Brandon
Are you aware of confirmation bias?
There are rather obvious solutions to the problem you see about funding chiro research, but I do have to wonder why no one seems to be doing the serious research required to validate the treatments.
Zeno,
I will absolutely admit to being biased. Having had a number of bad experiences with the allopathic route and a number of phenomenal experiences with chiropractic, as well as nutritional and homeopathic changes on a smaller level, I have no problem admitting that. Not to mention, I am also a chiropractor. Accusing me of being biased toward chiropractic is not really an insult, in case that’s how you meant it.
I have no regard for “skeptics” and the accompanying mindlessness when it comes to doing things that organizations like the AMA, WHO, FDA, or Big Pharma tell you to do, while at the same time ignoring the corruption and numerous conflicts of interests behind those groups and their “scientific advice.” Skeptics have their own confirmation bias.
Having said all that, I will tell you that chiropractic is NOT a treatment for anything. It’s sole purpose is to restore function to the body. If restoring that function by way of a specific adjustment results in some symptoms subsiding, great. But that is not my goal, nor the goal of other “straight” chiropractors. So in that sense, I agree with you. We should not be advertising we can cure symptoms, because we don’t.
Unfortunately, I am in no way connected to WHO, Big Pharma or any other such organisation and I get no reward whatsoever for commenting on blogs. Of course, you may not to believe me and you may continue to have no regard for what I say – that’s your choice, but it is somewhat irrational – unless you have some evidence that what I am saying is incorrect?
And I don’t ignore the faults of Big Pharma either – everyone should be open to considered criticism, particularly where people’s health is concerned – I just happen to be focusing my attention on AltMed at the moment.
Of course, any faults any of the organisations you mention have does not affect the efficacy or otherwise of chiropractic.
Talking about the important issue of people’s health, there is the question of the evidence and who is best placed to make unbiased judgements of the efficacy of chiropractic. Whilst I have no doubt you believe what you do is effective and I’m sure you have many satisfied customers, the telling question would be: assume there was an absolute mountain of independent, robust evidence that chiro manipulations did not affect any condition anyone had or that it restored proper function – would you still rather believe what you think you see (taking confirmation bias into account), or would you accept that independent evidence? If you wouldn’t accept that independent, robust evidence, what does that say?
If there was sufficient, robust evidence that chiropractic did not affect any condition ever, and nothing proving it did, I would not be in chiropractic, nor would chiropractic still be in existence. That, however, is not the case.
Take preventing cancer, for example. Shark cartilage was big about 10-15 years ago, until it was proven it does not help prevent cancer. I do not take shark cartilage for that reason. There is evidence that a plant-based diet CAN prevent cancer, so I eat a plant-based diet.
That is not the case with chiropractic. There is sufficient evidence that chiropractic works. See Upper Cervical Subluxation Complex: A Review of the Chiropractic and Medical Literature by Kirk Eriksen, DC. Over 1200 studies validating chiropractic in that textbook.
In a gold standard, double blind study, an upper cervical adjustment was proven to have an affect on blood pressure, reducing it by an average of 14 points in a controlled group for up to 8 weeks. Just google “high blood pressure, NUCCA” and you can see for yourself. Chiropractors have known this relationship between a C1 adjustment and a reduction of blood pressure, literally, for decades. This relationship wasn’t proven until this study came out in 2007.
Right now in Italy, there is a study being conducted regarding the relationship an upper cervical chiropractic adjustment has on MS symptoms. It won’t be out for a couple of years yet, but preliminary results have been astounding. Again, something upper cervical chiropractors have known for decades, though it is just being studied now.
You may see all that as confirmation bias; I see it as validation of what I do. I have NEVER seen a “mountain of evidence” that chiropractic doesn’t work. I have seen a lot of propaganda the AMA put out in the 1970s to destroy the threat chiropractic posed. Skeptics have been running with that propaganda ever since. Don’t get me wrong, I know there are studies that show chiropractic is ineffective in some cases… just the same as medicine.
Scientists once thought the world was flat and anyone who thought otherwise was labeled a heretic or lunatic or both! Could it be that science is still trying to catch up?????? Can we trust their evidence????????
I suspect the evidence that can really be trusted is from people who received Chiropractic care – Chiropractic clinics everywhere have books filled with testimonials. Interesting how patients always send those they love to see the Chiropractor after they themselves get helped.
Brandon
I do see that as cherry picking the evidence, but it would be helpful if you could cite the trials (preferably with a URL) you are relying on so there is no confusion about which ones you mean.
There is a problem – particularly highlighted by the Italian study you mention – that the results of studies not yet completed, peer reviewed or published, cannot be used to back up what is currently happening.
When I look at the totality of quality evidence, I see no justification for the majority of the claims I see made by chiros. The best evidence is for the treatment of LBP using spinal manipulation, but even there, it’s not particularly convincing and no better than several other treatments.
I don’t agree with everything in the Bronfort Report (compiled by chiros, of course) and it is certainly flawed, but it clearly states what they found robust evidence for and what they did not – anything not mentioned, they found no evidence for. I’d like to know what you think of it.
Karen
You ask if we can trust scientists. Apart from the fact that the Bronfort Report wasn’t written by scientists, but by chiropractors, independent trials are the only way to determine what works, what doesn’t work and what just appears to work. Relying solely on whether self-selecting customers feel that chiro helped them simply tells us that it is something that perhaps should be studied. But it tells us nothing about whether it really does work or not.
The issue seems to be whether we need independent trials: we certainly do. Would you trust an auto manufacturer if he said he had tested their new product and it was the safest model? No, you wouldn’t take their word for it and you’d want to see independent evidence of their claims before parting with your dollars. Same goes for chiro: there needs to be independent evidence that it works – and that evidence needs to be robust and repeatable.
As far as I can see, there is no such independent evidence. According to Bronfort, there is, at best, flimsy evidence for chiro for a small handful of conditions.
Here’s a link to the blood pressure study:
http://www.nuccra.org/themes/nuccra/images_new/pdf/Hypertension2007.pdf
The conditions in the Bronfort report look consistent with everything I’ve ever seen. From personal experience, my oldest daughter has had several ear infections. Each time, I gently adjusted her C1 vertebrae and within an hour it subsided. I’ve adjusted other kids the same way and the same thing happens. I’ve seen other chiropractors adjust kids with ear infections the same way and the same thing happens. There might not be a RCT to prove it to you yet, but there is such a thing as proof via experience.
As I said above, I do not and will not advertise myself as someone that can cure asthma, or ear infections, or back pain, or colic, or fibromyalgia. I focus on restoring proper function to the nervous system, regardless of the symptoms. That being said, I know and have witnessed and/or experienced those symptoms alleviating through specific chiropractic care, and not a general manipulation. Big difference.
Here’s what you need to consider: Look at the adjusting methods being used and the chiropractors using them. A thoracic manipulation is way different than a specific C1 adjustment. A full spine chiropractor practices much differently than an upper cervical chiropractor. Apples and oranges essentially. Just the same as an OB/GYN is different from a neurosurgeon. Two totally different practices.
In the study I linked to above, no one’s back was cracked and the adjustment on the C1 vertebrae is so gentle that most people don’t even feel it. That study, though a pilot, definitely reinforces the idea that a chiropractic adjustment has a direct impact on nervous system function, considering autonomic functions are controlled in the brain stem, blood pressure being one of those functions.
Here’s an example of what I see happening, which falls in line with what Karen said above. Once upon a time, Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that doctors wards in hospitals had 3x the fatalities of midwives wards. He realized it was because doctors were not washing their hands, that the women in the hospitals were contracting puerperal fever during childbirth via the doctors. This was very fatal at the time. When he introduced his new idea, he was ridiculed and laughed at and treated with hostility. That was the 1840s. It wasn’t until 1910 that proper hygiene started being taught to health care providers in New York. You can look that up for yourself.
The point is, science needs to catch up with chiropractic. It is happening too slowly for my taste, due to lack of researchers in chiropractic, as I mentioned above. But it is beginning to happen.
Skeptics that claim chiropractic has no value have never experienced chiropractic, nor do they even understand what chiropractors do. They only look at the research and the numbers without taking into account the adjusting methods or chiropractors doing the research.
Take a mother and father who haven’t slept in nights due to a crying screaming baby. They take their baby in to a chiropractor, the baby gets adjusted and is calm, happy, and sleeps through the night afterward. I’ve SEEN/EXPERIENCED this firsthand. Would you tell these parents that chiropractic doesn’t help infantile colic whatsoever according to the research? That it’s in their head? That the chiropractor tried some funny business on them even though they were in the room watching? I answered your questions so please answer these. Would you really tell these parents these things, parents that know their child better than anyone else on the planet?
There is more to life than living only based on what has been proven in a controlled environment by scientists in a lab far away. And there is more to life than spending it trying to discredit a profession that truly does help people in a conservative fashion.
I am sure we can trust as many scientists as we can trust chiropractors Zeno, however trusting their research is different, their research is based on “evidence” which is extremely limited as it does not and cannot (at this stage) measure “life force” or “innate intelligence”. I know you will say these do not exist either, but how does a baby know when to be born, a plant know how to germinate and grow, a cloud to form – or any other daily activity in the universe? I all ready know what science has to say about this, but because science has shown to be flawed because it can only show evidence conceived and perceived by a human brain. A scientists brain is small, very small when compared to the intelligence in the universe. I prefer to put my trust in the power that created the universe, which created your life and mine since that intelligence is far above any research or evidence and has had millions of years to perfect it!
Also I want to know if science is the “b” all and “end all” why is it that there is always new research, new discoveries? If science knew everything there would be nothing left to discover then it would be a very boring life for scientists. Take the new discovery of epigenetics. Science once thought that genes determined our course in life. Now it has been discovered that lifestyle affects the gene, which of course affects our health! So science has been telling people things that condemn them to believing they are pre-disposed to ill health – their evidence was based on what they knew – a very limited perception. Thankfully, there are some souls in the universe who have allowed their minds and hearts to open sufficiently to put their trust in something much bigger than their own human minds and it is working very nicely……………….and our patients love it and they keep telling more people!
Talking about independent evidence – how is it that every day we have new patients come to our clinic telling us they have been everywhere, including their medical doctor but they continue to get worse – and hey presto after seeing our chiropractors they get better. I guess that evidence is not sufficient. Certainly if it happened one time, or a few times, what if it happened thousands of times over the last thirty three years?????
Is that sufficient evidence?
Brandon
You said, “science needs to catch up with chiropractic”, yet the subtitle of your website talks of the ‘Science of Chiropractic’.
Which is it? I see those as difficult to reconcile.
I gave you an example of science catching up with chiropractic with the NUCCA-hypertension study. I was looking into the number of good studies relating to chiropractic (you say there aren’t any), and I have to be honest… you have either not looked very hard, or you are being disingenuous with the readers of your blog. To propose that there aren’t any reliable studies is just not true. Seems like confirmation bias to me.
I don’t care what your profession is, whether your a janitor or whatever else you mentioned on your about page, but I will say there is a big difference between being an armchair skeptic and being a chiropractor who actually helps people and sees a big difference with patients day in and day out.
Brandon
I’m not sure I would have said there were no “good studies relating to chiropractic”: can you point out where I’ve said that so I can see the context?
Many of the studies that have been done on chiro are certainly of poor methodological quality and therefore any conclusions must be treated with extreme caution.
I’m still not convinced by what you say about the science. Even if science is – as you claim – catching up with the NUCCA study (I’ve not have time to read it yet), that still leaves a huge amount of chiropractic practice and chiropractic claims that are not (yet?) backed up by science. Do you not agree that, even if you do believe you are helping your customers (and I don’t doubt that is what you do believe), it is disingenuous to claim that there is such a thing as the ‘science of chiropractic’ as if it was all robustly backed by science?
The key words are: Arm-Chair
At the end of the day, the only one one who truly knows in the clinical sense, is the clinician who sees the subjective and objective changes within the patient.
What percentage of the change is based on the intervention alone, the psychology of belief, and the therapeutic nature of just speaking about one’s problems is never going to be quantified completely on a case by case basis.
Meta-analysis of a large number of cases are the only thing that might be able to come close. But only in research of high quality, which means these days, in laboratory conditions, these laboratory conditions themselves may alter outcomes, either positive or negatively.
And then the only thing this analysis gives us is percentages. Yes, patients with X who receive Y can reasonably expect Z to occur, or not. When the Y is simply pharmacy, then this model makes more sense than when Y is a series of interpersonal interactions between two human beings over an artificial time span.
It is in these gray areas that skeptics thrive. They get to read and parse the data and pretend like they know what happens clinically because they Google keywords on Pub-Med.
Doctors then disagree with the accuse of pseudo-knowledge, when they, themselves have never touched a patient. When the have never had a parent of a child come into them and say, “Thank you, you gave me my son back.”
Should I, in those moments, respond to my patient: “Well, that’s great for your son. But just so you know, the peer-reviewed literature on this experience is sparse, so I suggest we both not tell anybody….
..It might make an internet skeptic upset.”
Zeno: Read the NUCCA study in its entirety when you get the chance.
Since you didn’t say “no good studies related to chiropractic,” find me an example of a good pro-chiropractic study that you approve of.
We’re starting to get into semantics here. You may not have said that verbatim, but you CERTAINLY implied that. Maybe not as strongly here, but you have on your own blog. For example:
Would you, then, accuse me of trying to make a fast buck from the vulnerability, gullibility and scientific ignorance of others when, for some reason, they have actually gotten better from chiropractic? Would you claim that I, myself, have been a victim of chiropractors trying to make a fast buck from my vulnerability, my gullibility, and my scientific ignorance, even though I have gotten better from chiropractic? Just tonight, my one year old daughter was incredibly fussy and cranky. I checked her, found her C1 misaligned, and adjusted her. She giggled within 15 seconds after not having done that all afternoon. Would you claim I was praying on her vulnerability, gullibility, and scientific ignorance? Would you call me one of the “worst excesses of quacks” you speak of? I’m actually very interested in your answers to these questions.
All you are saying is the same thing that the AMA’s Committee on Quackery said back in the 1960s-1970s, which ultimately resulted in them losing an antitrust lawsuit to 4 chiropractors for an illegal boycott of chiropractic. The director of that committee, H. Doyl Taylor, said in recorded testimony in 1987, that even though he had been in charge of the Committee on Quackery for 11 years, he did not “know a chiropractor from an antelope.” It’s nothing new or original what you’re saying. And obviously not well researched.
I’ll admit there are flaws in a number of chiropractic studies, (such as using general osteopathic manipulations for ear infections… like I said, big difference in methodology used… I’m not a believer in adjusting a child in that manner… not very gentle at all) but there are a number of studies that validate chiropractic greatly. As I said before, the Upper Cervical Subluxation Complex by Kirk Eriksen, DC has over 1200 studies in it, chiropractic and medical, validating what we do.
Dr. Ward: I couldn’t have said it any better.
Brandon
I have started to read through the NUCCA study. And the many criticisms of it, so it will take some time to digest. However, it is clear that it is a pilot study, very small and low-powered and it would appear to score low on any quality measure. I note that this study would not have been included in the Bronfort Report (subtitled: Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report) because it falls well below their inclusion criteria. Is there really nothing better? Then again, if there was, presumably it would have been included by Bronfort?
The study is about treating hypertensive patients, but I note that many claims of efficacy for a large variety of medical conditions are made on, say, the website of the National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association. Can you tell me if there are trials ongoing for all these other conditions? If not, why not?
Do you agree that it is wrong to cherry pick the studies that appear to support chiropractic and do you think it is better to look at all the quality studies in the round before coming to a conclusion that anything is of benefit to particular patients for particular conditions?
I’m not sure why you chose to quote my blog post about the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (aka OfQuack). They are a voluntary organisation that ‘regulates’ aromatherapists, reiki practitioners, etc and has absolutely nothing to do with chiropractors.
I am well aware of the dangers of confirmation bias and experimenter bias; that it why clinical trials need to be very carefully designed to ensure any results really are as a result of the intervention and not – inadvertent or otherwise – the bias of the participants. One problem appears to be is that many chiropractors are just not aware of what constitutes good evidence.
There is some limited evidence that visits to a chiropractor can help if you have lower back pain. However, the evidence is that it is no better than other interventions and certainly not the ‘miracle cure’ expounded by some chiropractors. However, as you can see from the Bronfort Report there isn’t exactly a plethora of good evidence for the majority of the other conditions frequently claimed by chiropractors and in many cases there is zero or even negative evidence. In many cases, he had to dredge studies into osteopathy to come up with anything at all.
Yes, we need more research in chiropractic. That is something we both agree on. The chiropractic profession is notorious for not doing enough research and passing the buck when it comes to research (I will agree that the Bronfort report is evidence, though it is consistent with everything I’ve heard, seen, and experienced… but the research he picked to back it up was not chiropractic but osteopathy). The reason being is that most people get into chiropractic to help people, not to research. There isn’t exactly top dollar waiting for a chiropractic researcher. Obviously this has to change, and it is changing, though very slowly.
NUCCA is working on a number of other studies currently. Look up the Upper Cervical Research Foundation. The link is in my sidebar. The hypertension study is currently being replicated on a larger scale as we speak. I don’t have time to give you example after example.
Sure it is wrong to cherry-pick studies. However, the studies I have seen that I believe validate chiropractic, I have either experienced or witnessed myself. You have no experience with chiropractic, so obviously you feel I am cherry-picking. I have experience, and what I see is complete confirmation of that experience.
For the sake of not going around in circles anymore (simply because I am busy and have spent too much time debating this thread… essentially we keep saying the same thing to each other), I will simply quote Dr. Ward from above:
Zeno if you have time perhaps you would like to read the following – not research, but a testimonial handed in to our clinic yesterday by a grateful patient. It’s responses like these that keeps the profession growing with millions of new patients each year. Kerrie had all ready been down the medical route taking pharmaceuticals which had been approved through research – read what that did to her!! It’s miracles like this (as far as the patient is concerned) that reminds us that evidence is what patients experience…………
“I first consulted Chiropractic Life in April this year as I suffered with chronic tiredness, constant headaches, relentless IBS symptoms, heartburn and indigestion on a daily basis. All of my bones, joints and muscles were extremely painful. My neck and shoulders were the worst – I had a constant burning pain in my neck, shoulders and back and a stiff neck more often than not, along with a constant pain in my right arm. I was highly stressed, very depressed and found it impossible to get a decent nights sleep as I would wake up every couple of hours, despite the fact that I was SO tired I could cry! Every morning when I woke up, I felt like I had been run over by a truck and all my bones were broken. Basically, it was ruining my life. I became the total opposite to how I have always been. I had neither the inclination nor energy to socialise at all. I felt stressed, depressed, anxious, panicky and very negative
I had been going to my doctor for a couple of years with all these symptoms. I had various different types of tests including having my vitamin levels checked, blood tests and bone scans but the results all came back as normal. I was seen by an orthopaedic doctor and a rheumatologist who eventually diagnosed me with FIBROMYALGIA. This was around 4 years ago now.
I was told that there was no known cause or cure for FIBROMYALGIA and that I just had to accept it! I was then told that the only course of treatment available was anti-depressants (which acted as a sedative to aid with sleep) and high strength painkillers. I was given AMITRIPTYLINE, NORTRIPTYLINE, TRAZADONE HYDROCHLORIDE, 600mg IBUPROFEN, DICLOFENAC, CODRYDAMOL, COCODAMOL and SLEEPING TABLETS. None of them made any difference whatsoever to my sleeping patterns or pain relief. I stopped taking the painkillers as they didn’t even help with the headaches, let alone anything else. The only thing they did was make me feel light-headed and nauseous. I was then put on MIRTAZAPINE which helped slightly with the sleeping but I’d still wake up several times throughout the night. I am currently still taking these but intend to stop taking them ASAP when I have had a few more adjustments.
My symptoms had been getting steadily worse and I was just not willing to accept that I would have to live the rest of my life in this way. To me, this wasn’t ‘living’ at all. On bad days I even wished that I simply did not exist. I began trawling the internet everyday in the hope that I would find a ‘miracle’ cure. Frankly, it had got to the point where I would have quite happily rolled around naked in stinging nettles if I thought I may get just one pain-free day or a decent nights sleep!! I then found a story that a husband had written about his wife who had suffered with FIBROMYALGIA for 15 years who eventually consulted a chiropractor for help. She was told that her neck bone was out of place, had a course of chiropractic adjustments and gradually started to feel better until she was totally pain-free and back to normal.
I looked up chiropractors in my area and saw that Chiropractic Life had been voted the ‘most loved chiropractic clinic in the UK’ and rang for an appointment immediately! I was a bit nervous at first but when I arrived I found the office to be very well presented and clean with a very relaxing atmosphere and the staff were really friendly and helpful.
Richard examined me and took some x-rays and we discovered that the bone in my neck was completely out of place. He told me that the neck has a natural curve in it to support the weight of the head and sometimes, when traumatised this can become straight. Mine had gone beyond straight and was actually curving the opposite way to how it should be!
When I began my chiropractic care I was a bit worried that it may hurt, especially considering the pain I already had but Richard assured me that he would be very gentle and that it wouldn’t hurt. He made me feel very relaxed and I trusted him immediately.
I have been having adjustments for a couple of months now and I have not had a single headache since the very first one. After a couple of visits I had no more pain in my neck, bones or muscles. The daily heartburn and IBS symtoms have also disappeared. After a few more, my sleep improved and the chronic tiredness and depression seemed to slip away also!
I would HIGHLY recommend chiropractic to ANYBODY who is suffering from ANY type of health problem that cannot seem to be resolved. I can honestly say that is is, by far, the BEST MONEY I HAVE EVER SPENT! In fact, my 21 year old daughter has noticed such a difference in me that she booked in with Richard for a consultation and is due to start her course of treatment soon. I’m so happy that she is going to be enjoying the benefits from her age and I only wish I had started mine years ago! I will continue to come for regular check-ups for the rest of my life, now that I can see what a difference it has made.
I feel like a new person! I decided to stop smoking a couple of weeks ago which I could never have done before my treatment for fear that I may actually die of stress! I am much happier, have lots more energy and view things in a much more positive way. All of my family and friends have commented on the changes in me and how pleased they are to have me back to my usual, happy & healthy self!
I cannot thank Richard and Karen enough for all their help, understanding, support and kindness and will continue to ‘spread the word’ about chiropractic whenever the opportunity arises!
Much love and best wishes to Richard, Karen and all the staff at Chiropractic Life to whom I will be eternally grateful.” Kerrie xxx
Brandon
Yes, Brontfort relied heavily on trials of osteopathy in his attempt to justify chiropractic and I can only assume that a report on purely the evidence for chiropractic would have been a very thin document indeed.
Do you think he neglected any robust chiropractic studies? If so, which ones and would they have passed the inclusion criteria?
Regarding Ward’s quote, it’s not skeptics that have to be convinced. In the UK, it is the statutory regulator who lays down the rules about what chiros can claim and do – they are supposed to be there to protect the public; something they have yet to do effectively.
I agree it would have been thin, no doubt. We need more research, obviously. I know a study done with chiropractic on otitis media (real chiropractic, mind you) would prove very positive indeed.
I don’t have time currently to cross reference studies, but I’m sure he did, based on what little I looked at on your site.
As far as protecting the public, this is where I laugh. Protecting the public from chiropractic? Are you serious Zeno? What about the phony swine flu pandemic that the WHO conjured up so Big Pharma could make another round of billions? Or bird flu, of which the Bush Administration claimed over 200 million Americans would die, yet only 100 people worldwide had died as of 2006? What about the Gardasil vaccine that has injured over 8000 people? What about an unsubstantiated procedure such as removing tonsils or surgically implanting tubes in the ears of children to treat ear infections? What about the all the fraudulent research that was behind the approval of Celebrex and Vioxx, allowing billions to be made before the threat couldn’t be swept under the rug anymore?
This right here Zeno, is exactly why I question your intentions, and the intentions of internet skeptics all around. Big Pharma and many modern medical organizations are conjuring up drugs and procedures a millions times more dangerous than chiropractic, as evidenced by the testimonial above. Yet, you direct negative efforts against alternative medicine because they produce very little research by mainstream medical standards. I would take my chance with any form of alternative medicine any day of the week before I turn to drugs or surgery.
Where is the skepticism for modern medicine? I would say with all the new diseases popping up left and right, the increasing cancer, diabetes, etc., the hospital death rates across the world, the amount of money spent on unnecessary surgeries, etc., etc., etc., someone should be there to protect the public from unproven medical procedures long before they get to chiropractic, which is completely noninvasive.
You make some respectable points Zeno, but when you bring up someone needing to protect the public from chiropractic, despite the small examples I just mentioned, your credibility gets thrown out the window with me. You put yourself in the same sentence as Stephen Barrett, MD, of who I have zero respect.
Direct your efforts to something that will actually save people’s life. Chiropractic is not going to kill or maim or harm the masses like so many unnecessary medical procedures out there. To think so is asinine.
It seems more research is always needed.
“I know a study done with chiropractic on otitis media (real chiropractic, mind you) would prove very positive indeed.”
Surely that is blind faith? Should you not wait until independent evidence is available?
Your protestations about Big Pharma are, in part, founded, but irrelevant to this discussion. What they do or don’t do or could do better does not affect the evidence base for chiropractic.
The problem still remains: there is no robust evidence for the vast majority of claims made by chiropractors and scant evidence even for conditions like lower back pain. And of course, the risks of adverse effects are not zero, particularly from upper cervical manipulations. More research is certainly needed there, but I don’t see much focus on that either.
But protecting the public is far more than protecting them from any such harm: it’s also about ensuring they have the full and independent knowledge with which to make informed choices about their health. Don’t you agree that is a laudable aim? After all, one of the issues with Big Pharma is biased trials giving misleading conclusions about some drugs: trials should be independent so that patients can be given reliable information with which to make fully informed choices regarding their healthcare. If you agree that is a good thing for conventional medicine, surely the same must apply to chiropractic?
I can make no comment on unnecessary medical procedures in the US or elsewhere: we have, thankfully, a completely different healthcare system in the UK.
And please, there is no need to try to tell me where I should or should not be directing my efforts.
“In the UK, it is the statutory regulator who lays down the rules about what chiros can claim and do – they are supposed to be there to protect the public; something they have yet to do effectively.”
What I find interesting about the history of chiropractic claims for what chiropractic may or may not be able to help, given the proper conditions, is the relatively narrow symptomatic scope with which chiropractors paint their practices.
Yes, there are statements regarding chiropractic as a cure for dis-ease, but they must be read within the context of the historical and philosophical framework in which they appear. Skeptics, both inside and outside of our profession constantly take these statements out of context in order to create a straw man to knock down. Where these statements appear in recent history, they pertain to the vitalist (not just chiropractic) notion that poor health and death require the body to lose the ability to adapt to internal and external stresses. The cause of all disease (pathology) then is actually dis-ease, a lack of ability to properly adapt to external and internal stress. Therefore the cure for all disease (pathology) is the restoration of proper adaptation to stress, removing dis-ease within the body, allowing the body to heal itself. However it may happen.
Wound debridement might be a really good example of removing dis-ease in order to help the body heal from disease.
Where such lack of adaptation is related to mis-communication mediated by a nervous system interference influenced by spinal motion and alignment, we are speaking about the chiropractic “cure” for dis-ease. Which sometimes can have dramatic effect on pathological processes, and hence, symptoms.
But to get back to my main point: as much as skeptics want to paint vitalist chiropractors as snake-oil salesmen, there are relatively thick lines which most chiropractors scribble within.
For example, a pediatric chiropractic practice will emphasize the need for chiropractic help for children with asthmatic symptoms, recurrent otitis media, and colic. (What Singh was attacking.) They will also state that changes in other atopic immune issues, learning capacity, and behavior may also been seen, with the caveat that the child’s environment and nutritional status are critical as well.
But you have to really go looking for chiropractic “treatment” of rickets, malaria, ependymomas, or bacterial vaginosis.
That’s because, clinically, we see a pediatric response mediated by the nervous system with the former cases, all the time. Not 100% of the time. Perhaps not even 65% of the time. But enough for it to make a difference for some kids, and the parents who really deserve to know. And often times told by chiropractors who have seen these responses in their own children.
It’s a clinical experience! Which matters, last time I checked, with the hierarchy guiding Evidence Based Practice.
This is, in fact, the same kind of logic that medical doctors use for the off-label application of pharmaceuticals, which many companies encourage. Which is tolerated and accepted as a part of medical practice, knowing that it takes the science years to catch up and document what what the clinicians see everyday in their practice.
So it goes with chiropractic care. Except you can’t patent the chirality of an adjustment and make 80 billion dollars off of it. So there’s zero corporate interest in it. And almost zero private funding of research.
Which makes me think, in the end, there’s going to be little interest in an effective statutory regulation once this whole thing blows over. There’s not big enough corporate interest to drive the policy of even the most paranoid anti-chiropractic skeptic.
Nor really, the public threat enough to require it.