Recently, Dr. Christopher Kent responded to the GCC’s ridiculous ruling on the vertebral subluxation. Below are some excerpts. You can read the entire response here.
“A straw man argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.1 A handful of chiropractors representing the radical fringe of the profession, and a self-described cadre of skeptics, are suggesting that the term and concept of vertebral subluxation be abandoned. They erroneously claim that subluxation-based chiropractic is based on the antiquated monocausal theory espoused by early chiropractors, or the limited model of intraforaminal nerve-root compression. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the literature knows this is not true.
The VSC Guidance document states, inter alia, that the vertebral subluxation complex is not supported by any clinical research evidence that would allow claims to be made that it is the cause of disease or health concerns. Chiropractors do not claim that VSC is the cause of disease (emphasis added). Had the sentence ended with the cause of disease, there would be no issue. However, by using the term any, and adding health concerns, the statement is falsified. Furthermore, the inference that a chiropractor who acknowledges VSC believes that it is the cause of disease is untrue.
Use of the adjective any in relation to evidence, and failure to define health concerns places the GCC in an utterly indefensible position. The existence of a single piece of evidence linking VSC to a perceived health benefit falsifies the statement. The World Health Organization3 defines health as follows: Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The Definition has not been amended since 1948. Therefore, any clinical research evidence
supporting a relationship between VSC and physical, mental, or social well-being falsifies the statement.”“Holmes, et al.,26 are even harsher in their criticism of evidence-based health sciences (EBHS): “EBHS comes to be widely considered as the truth. When only one method of knowledge production is promoted and validated, the implication is that health sciences are gradually reduced to EBHS. Indeed, the legitimacy of research designs comes to be questioned, if not dismissed altogether. In the starkest terms, we are currently witnessing the health sciences engaged in a strange process of eliminating some ways of knowing. EBHS becomes a ‘regime of truth,’ as Foucault would say – a regimented and institutionalized version of ‘truth.’ … The ossifying discourse that supports EBM is the result of an ideology that has been promoted to the rank of an immutable Foundation for Vertebral Subluxation – June 15, 2010 3 truth and is considered, in learned circles, as essential to real science.”
The authors further note, “The all-embracing economy of such ideology lends the … disciples a profound sense of entitlement, what they take as a universal right to control the scientific agenda. By a so-called scientific consensus, this ‘regime truth’ ostracizes those with ‘deviant’ forms of knowledge, labeling them as rebels and rejecting their work as scientifically unsound.”
Again, to read it in full, click here.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Can you explain what is meant by Vertebral Subluxation Complex in this context? I have come across so many different definitions that it is difficult to make sense of Dr. Kent’s arguments. It seems that the discord between these two articles stems from a difference in terminology.
Nathan, I think that’s the point. The GCC is using a flawed definition to substantiate their argument and Dr. Kent is calling them out on it.
Ok, they’re using a flawed definition. My question is what is the correct definition? In my ten years researching chiropractic schools & the profession, I haven’t found anyone explain to me
1) what exactly is a vertebral subluxation
2) what evidence there is that it causes nervous system dysfunction (let alone the physiological mechanism by which it could do so)
Dr. Kent says that “any clinical research evidence supporting a relationship between VSC and physical, mental, or social well-being falsifies the statement.” And yet I didn’t see him produce “a single piece of evidence linking VSC to a perceived health benefit.”
Nathan, the vertebral subluxation is a misalignment of a vertebra that will place stress or tension on the spinal cord or spinal nerves. http://theatlasoflife.com/2009/03/31/upper-cervical-subluxation-neurology-explained/comment-page-1/#comment-3090
The vertebral subluxation complex (VSC) is the all encompassing effect throughout the body stemming from a vertebral subluxation itself. The VSC is made up of 5 components:
1.) Spinal Kinesiopathology
2.) Neuropathophysiology/Neuropathology
3.) Myopathology
4.) Histopathology
5.) Pathophysiology/Pathology
If you want more evidence, get Upper Cervical Subluxation Complex by Dr. Kirk Eriksen. Also you can check out the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research. http://www.jvsr.com/index.asp
The NUCCA-hypertension study showed a clear connection between C1 misalignment and decreased autonomic nervous system function (hypertension). http://theatlasoflife.com/2010/06/29/high-blood-pressure-not-with-upper-cervical-chiropractic/