MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

Since several years, there has been an increasingly vociferous movement within the chiropractic profession to obtain limited prescription rights, that is the right to prescribe drugs for musculoskeletal problems. A recent article by Canadian and Swiss chiropractors is an attempt to sum up the arguments for and against this notion. Here I have tried to distil the essence of the pros and contras into short sentences.

 1) Arguments in favour of prescription rights for chiropractors

1.1 Such privileges would be in line with current evidence-based practice. Currently, most international guidelines recommend, alongside prescription medication, a course of manual therapy and/or exercise as well as education and reassurance as part of a multi-modal approach to managing various spine-related and other MSK conditions.

1.2 Limited medication prescription privileges would be consistent with chiropractors’ general experience and practice behaviour. Many clinicians tend to recommend OTC medications to their patients in practice.

1.3 A more comprehensive treatment approach offered by chiropractors could potentially lead to a reduction in healthcare costs by providing additional specialized health care options for the treatment of MSK conditions. Namely, if patients consult one central practitioner who can effectively address and provide a range of treatment modalities for MSK pain-related matters, the number of visits to providers might be reduced, thereby resulting in better resource allocation.

1.4 Limited medication prescription rights could lead to improved cultural authority for chiropractors and better integration within the healthcare system.

1.5 With these privileges, chiropractors could have a positive influence on public health. For instance, analgesics and NSAIDs are widely used and potentially misused by the general public, and users are often unaware of the potential side effects that such medication may cause.

2) Arguments against prescription rights for chiropractors

2.1 Chiropractors and their governing bodies would start reaching out to politicians and third-party payers to promote the benefits of making such changes to the existing healthcare system.

2.2 Additional research may be needed to better understand the consequences of such changes and provide leverage for discussions with healthcare stakeholders.

2.3 Existing healthcare legislation needs to be amended in order to regulate medication prescription by chiropractors.

2.4 There is a need to focus on the curriculum of chiropractors. Inadequate knowledge and competence can result in harm to patients; therefore, appropriate and robust continuing education and training would be an absolute requirement.

2.5 Another important issue to consider relates to the divisiveness around this topic within the profession. In fact, some have argued that the right to prescribe medication in chiropractic practice is the profession’s most divisive issue. Some have argued that further incorporation of prescription rights into the chiropractic scope of practice will negatively impact the distinct professional brand and identity of chiropractic.

2.6 Such privileges would increase chiropractors’ professional responsibilities. For example, if given limited prescriptive authority, chiropractors would be required to recognize and monitor medication side effects in their patients.

2.7 Prior to medication prescription rights being incorporated into the chiropractic scope of practice worldwide, further discussions need to take place around the breadth of such privileges for the chiropractic profession.

In my view, some of these arguments are clearly spurious, particularly those in favour of prescription rights. Moreover, the list of arguments against this notion seems a little incomplete. Here are a few additional ones that came to my mind:

  • Patients might be put at risk by chiropractors who are less than competent in prescribing medicines.
  • More unnecessary NAISDs would be prescribed.
  • The vast majority of the drugs in question is already available OTC.
  • Healthcare costs would increase (just as plausible as the opposite argument made above, I think).
  • Prescribing rights would give more legitimacy to a profession that arguably does not deserve it.
  • Chiropractors would then continue their lobby work and soon demand the prescription rights to be extended to other classes of drugs.

I am sure there are plenty of further arguments both pro and contra – and I would be keen to hear them; so please post yours in the comments section below.

62 Responses to Should chiropractors have the right to prescribe medicines?

  • Apart from obvious safety concerns, it’s the legitimacy’ argument that would most concern me I think.
    We know that quacks, keen to be seen as part of proper medicine, have moved from calling themselves ‘alternative’ – they don’t want to be seen as ‘alternative’ to anything- through ‘complementary’ and now to ‘integrative’. They tried to become involved alongside real doctors in the treatment of ebola, desperate for the white coats and the reflected glory. It would be a disastrous move to allow them even this apparently thin wedge. Surely it’s obvious that they wouldn’t have the slightest intention of stopping at that point.

    • It seems as though our friend Barrie is a bit paranoid of losing turf…and patients. Don’t worry, Barrie. There will be plenty of patients for you to see as baby boomers age. “Reflected glory”? Please choose the proper words if you wish to deliver a proper insult…you’ll appear less foolish. Furthermore, are you really so dull minded to believe that anyone willing to help Ebola patients would have motives other than service to the sick? I doubt that self-immolation would be pursued only for “glory.” You really need to think before you type to avoid being blatantly exposed as a zealot for medical protectionism. Hint, you’ve already been exposed via your meritless rants.

      • If Alternatives want to serve or assist they should, but if they want to practice medicine they should go to a real medical school and complete a real internship and residency. Should they also be allowed to teach in public schools or practice law or drive a bus without appropriate training as well? They certainly succeed as magicians and charlatans.

    • Barrie Lee Thorpe – one assumes that in referring to quacks you mean all disciplines of CAM practitioners. The term complementary and not only alternative was certainly around 40 years ago when I started using complementary therapies. I don’t know the validity of Chiropractors prescribing drugs, but I do know the ones I have consulted have made a real difference to my health; and incidentally in the 40 years of using these therapies not one has mentioned vaccination. I sometimes despair at the level,of accusations on this blog towards anyone other than in the mainstream category of medicine. This bias serves no purpose to people’s health.

      However, Integrative medicine seems to be alive and kicking : I took a friend for her radiotherapy treatment recently – the hospital, staff, service was first class – NHS at its best; a few metres from this unit was a Cancer Support unit – staff and ambience calming and supportive; the disciplines you find so abhorrent on this blog were offered – Reiki, Acupuncture, Reflexology, Pranic Healing etc. The leaflet explains these therapies support, with permission from the medical doctors, their recovery. There is no advocation of ‘either/or’ but an ‘add on’ if required. Sounds good to me.

      Having spoken to three pregnant young women recently, I learnt that at their ‘midwife antenatal information ‘ talks, the speakers (all appeared to be older, experienced senior midwives at three different hospitals): I requested all the detail because I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the integrative approach was recommended, ie complementary therapies such as homeopathy, acupuncture, reflexology before using drugs.

      Despite the constant denigration of complementary medicine on this blog, not to mention the commenters, the integrative approach is buoyant; and I have not met one quack in the past 40 years – is that a record? Before the sceptic club reach for their keyboards, it is a rhetorical question and I am well aware of the response. Thank you again Professor Ernst for allowing the platform for my comment: unfortunately, it appears us pro CAM commenters are scarce on your blog.

      • A – I think that your comments are pretty self-explanatory really.
        All I might add is that I myself have been using ‘food’ for much longer than 40 years, and it has made a ‘real difference’ to my health also. However, unlike the case with CAM, there is plenty of evidence as to why that would be.
        Your superficial anecdote gives us no indication as to what would be the state of your health had you NOT used any of these wingwang treatments. It’s just your say-so.

        • Of course Barrie was incapable of explaining the willingness of many in the medical community to advise the use of various CAM procedures. Instead ol’ Barrie provided his typical dullard’s response. His opinon, devoid of substance as it was, is “just his say-so.” No surprises there!

          • Logos-Bios-
            Of course I’m unable to explain why many in the medical community are willing to endorse CAM. Any intelligent person would be, including my medical friends. Many otherwise intelligent people are voting for Trump, or treating cows with homeopathy. Some people are idiots, some occasionally choose idiocy. Beyond that, what’s your point?

        • Well I’ll be………Barrie admitted he didn’t know something: that is, why many MD’s endorse and refer to CAM providers and to chiropractic physicians. Perhaps those MD’s are more nuanced than you in their understanding of chiro rehabilitation and allow themselves(and their patients) practical experiences with chiros in particular. Perhaps they care enough about their patients to refer them for a trial of CMT before sending them off for a fusion. Literally dozens of patients with persistent mechanical LBP who have failed conservative pharmceutical intervention and PT have been referred to me in 2016 by area GP’s and PM&R docs; most of the patients improve with CMT and in-office rehab. Therefore, I continue to receive referrals from these medical professionals who care more about their patients than their financial turf and self-images.

          I’m impressed that Barrie has conceded that he didn’t know something…..astounding!

          • Logos-Bios
            I say, what an interesting use of the word ‘nuanced’.
            Would they be considered ‘nuanced’ if they also took on board voodoo or bloodletting?
            Nonsense is still non – sense. T’s as false a use of the word as the use of the idea of ‘balanced opinions’ is false.
            As to my lack of knowledge in certain areas-I’m like everybody else in this respect. I never claimed there were things I don’t know.
            I don’t know why a small percentage of proper doctors believe in idiocy. I don’t know why Conan Doyle believed in fairies. I don’t know why Fred Hoyle didn’t believe in natural selection.
            In addition, I don’t know how acupuncture works. Or chiropractic. Or reiki. Or homeopathy. Or prana.Or reflexology.
            But then there’s a lot of us who don’t, including the people who practise them, and the gullibles/naifs/unlearned who allow themselves to be fleeced.
            There are many areas of life in which ignorance-in its original Latin sense-is the most intelligent option.

        • “There are many areas of life in which ignorance-in its original Latin sense-is the most intelligent option,” states Barrie. I see that Barrie subscribes to, and even epitomizes, this statement to the point where he consciously refuses to learn about that which he does not know. Yet he will still proffer drivel relative to such subjects in which he has nominal understanding. Go figure!

          • Logos-Bios-
            There is nothing to be gained from studying nonsense like homeopathy, ‘chiropractic’, and other similar delusions in order for one’s criticism to be valid.
            As Christopher Hitchens says, ‘That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence’.

          • That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

            He was right, but I can’t help but wonder if it is the right thing to do. It seems clear that Iqbal is mentally challenged to such a degree he/she/it should probably be sent to a closed institution for her/his/its own protection, but I like to think (wishful thinking)? that at least some quack lovers have a properly functioning brain and are merely misinformed. These people have a fundamental right to education (I think), and merely dismissing quack idiocies would not serve them well.

            In any case, it seems obvious that Iqbal is at least as brilliant as Dr. Charlene Werner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_y4-z-kDqQ

            I think we owe it to such exquisite intellects to create a closed section in a closed mental institution exclusively for them and equally desperate cases to protect them from our brutish reality-based thinking. Although the context is different, Ward Ruyslinck’s The reservation could serve as a blueprint.

          • Bart-
            I post the wonderful ‘Dr’ Charlene Werner clip every now and then on my FB page.
            As so often, the comments underneath are the cherries on the cake.
            While I appreciate the liberal side of your views, as to educating people rather than sidelining them, I do worry, as I’ve said before, that they are in many cases uneducable. Many homeopaths.chiropractors/reflexologists are not the fluffy, well-meaning hippies or pretend doctors that they’d like us to see, but have slipped way over to the insane, conspiracy theory end, at which point any kind of reasoning is futile. It’s like arguing with any other religious. I do it for fun, just to let these wallies know there is some opposition out there, not with any real belief that many of them are capable of rational thought. I was surprised that Obama chose to engage with them when he produced his ‘Long Form’ birth certificate to prove he was born in Hawaii. The response was ‘Well they’re in on it as well’. They won’t let you win. You’ll know of course the Natural News site, but obviously there are others such as Neon Nettle, where Hillary Clinton is routinely called ‘Killary’, and on which some insane woman -a qualified nurse as I recall-said that any doctor who refused to prescribe dandelion root and other nonsenses to children in order to treat cancer should be put in front of a firing squad. The fact that Clinton has said that some of these sites should be closed down merely adds to these people’s ‘New World Order’ lunacies.
            As to Iqbal -he is indeed a piece of work, as they say.

          • Barrie,

            I fear you are right. You remind me of something Sister Gerda, my very first customer and who was the principal of a highly respected school at the time and a dear friend, told me several decades ago: that there comes a time one simply has to accept the unacceptable: that some people are not worth the effort, usually because they lack the intelligence necessary to learn.

            I am afraid I am projecting my own desire to learn on fruitcakes like Iqbal and am consequently puzzled when their reactions aren’t what I expected.

            So there. Iqbal is an idiot or a charlatan, quite possibly both. I am not going to waste any more energy on this individual, at the very least not until he starts conversing rather than impersonating a primitive version of Eliza.

          • Yawn……Barrie and Bart continue to “rant on” in their “circle jerk” of ignorance. Nothing new of substance has been dispensed from the computers of these dolts; they do seem to amuse themselves by attempting to engage in sesqiupedalian discourse, hoping that such might fool readers into assuming they are knowledgeable about chiropractic. Note to B and B: your sophomoric blather is comical, not convincing.

          • Logos-Bios
            I have never pretended to be knowledgeable about ‘chiropractic’-itself a silly made-up word- or indeed any other circus tricks or similar made-up nonsense like homeopathy or reflexology.
            There’s nothing there about which to be knowledgeable.
            Indeed most of the ‘advice’ to ‘chiropractors’ that I’ve seen would seem to be along the lines of ‘How to enlarge your practice’.
            I think the most amazing- and revealing-one related to the advice a chiropractor was to give to any mythical old woman who might ask how much her chiropractic ‘treatment ‘ was likely to cost, and whether she would have to continue with it until the end of her life.
            The advice was that-with a soothing chuckle-the ‘chiropractor’ should answer ‘No. Only as long as you want to remain healthy’.
            The rest of your silly post is rather abusive, and I shall ignore it.

          • Note to B and B: your sophomoric blather is comical, not convincing.

            I am sorry for that. What would convince you?

  • The medical profession became regulated in order that patients would not be taken advantage of, quacked, gulled, defrauded.
    Anybody wishing to have the priveleges of being a registered medical practitioner has to become registered.
    Simple.

    Chiropractic is an “outgrowth of magnetic healing” in which “vital functions are performed by ‘innate intelligence’ in health and disease.”
    “Chiropractic is founded on different principles than those of medicine.”

    Those are the words of D.D.Palmer who devised and invented ‘chiropractic.’

    Should chiropractors have the right to prescribe medicines?
    Yes – providing they train to be, qualify as and become registered medical practitioners.
    (As many dentists, some nurses and a few physiotherapists do).
    That is how patient protection is effected and standards of medical practice are maintained.
    Any step to weaken this important patient protection is retrogressive and to be deprecated.

    • @ Dick Rawlins

      “The medical profession became regulated in order that patients would not be taken advantage of, quacked, gulled, defrauded,” claims Dick. The 1970’s brought us news that HRT(estrogen) caused uterine cancers. Drug makers circumvented this issue by adding progestin….and profits soared! One of Wyeth Pharma’s medical quacks, the esteemed Dr. Robert Wilson, M.D., was a great proponent of HRT(he was paid handsomely for his “ethical” contributions to the science of HRT bebefits). The drug maker financed all of the medical quack’s relevant book-writing expenses as well as those of the quack’s research foundation. Once it was discovered that these products might help osteoporosis, marketing increased almost exponentially to physicians’ offices. Despite there not having been any real scientific evidence at the time that HRT prevented heart disease or stroke, marketers for the quack-supporting Wyeth(and other drug makers) stormed the offices of physicians within the “medical profession so that patients would not be taken advantage of, quacked, gulled, defrauded.” Not coinicidentally, the prescribing of the products increased substantially.

      It has been evinced that the greatest influence on physicians’ prescribing practices is their drug reps; how scientific a way to gather information about chemicals doctors will be prescribing for their patients! it’s unfortunate for the women in the 90’s who suffered CV problems and breast cancer resultant to their “modern medicine” recommendations, based strictly on observational studies and no RCT’s BTW. Oh well, the physicians and the drugmakers made money…all is good! There was the thalidomide debacle in the mid-20th century and the HRT disaster within the last quarter of a century, both orchestrated by modern medicine. It seems that patient protection and maintenance of medical standards is going well.

  • Prof Ernst,
    whilst I do not always agree with you, thank you for writing such an interesting article.
    I would like to add to your discussion that in many countries General Practitioners are retiring at a greater rate than being replaced from medical schools. General practice is no longer considered to be an attractive profession within medicine. Less than 2% of Auckland University Medical School graduates would consider a career in General Practice, It does not have the allure it used too. In New Zealand 40% of all G.P.’s practicing will retire in the next 10 years and there will be an incredible shortage of G.P.’s. There are a number of different profession within the healthcare systems who have a primary care scope of practice. Chiropractors included. I have many patients who are G.P.’s and specialists and they lament about dealing with the aches and sprains that people present with and clog up their clinics, that can be managed well by chiropractors, physiotherapists and osteopaths. That would leave them available to treat the more important health issues that do not come within the definition of neuro-musculo-skeletal complaints. In NZ the healthcare professions judges are not the regulatory boards, e.g. medical council, chiropractic board or the physiotherapist society, but the Health and Disability Commissioner.
    Finally, I ask you. Who and what are Chiropractors alternative too? Medial practitioners, who prescribe Panadol that has yet to be validated in the treatment of low back pain, NSAID’s that have a high incidence of heart complications and stomach ulcers, Physiotherapy that uses totally unverified and non-evidence based treatment modalities such as exercises, TENS, Ultrasound, Shortwave diathermy etc.?
    There are some very progressive universities teaching chiropractic in the world. In countries such as Great Britain, Switzerland, Australia, Canada and Denmark. Often these courses are affiliated to medical schools.
    So, please consider the potential shortage of G.P.’s, how to fill that gap and what is best for the patients with evidence based care.

    • where there is a shortage of GPs, we need to identify the causes, do something about them and beef up the numbers of GPs. more chiros or prescription rights for them cannot be the solution.

      • Prof Ernst. I did not say that, “more chiros or prescription rights for them cannot be the solution”, but inferred that this could be part of the solution, as long as it comes within the scope of practice and is done safely. How does one make General Practice attractive and “sexy” enough for medical school graduates? A difficult problem. Money is not the solution.

  • Personally, I have no problem with limited prescribing privileges for chiropractic physicians as long as those who wish to acquire them recieve proper education and a to-be-determined internship of sorts in an approved PM&R university/residency setting. It should be remembered(or studied by those on this site who are uninformed regarding the ethical responsibility of chiros to refer patients for whom meds are possibly necessary) that it is a simple act to instruct a patient to see his pcp for meds while that patient is in the acute phase of his injury; ergo, prescribing rights are not really necessary.

    I have to smile when I read such disingenuous comments regarding chiropractice as being practiced as it was during the 1800’s by D.D. Palmer. Of course Ricky, an advocate of the profession which, in the past, countenanced the use of bloodletting and leeches for the treatment of UTI’s and other conditions, neglected to mention that professions (thankfully) evolve. One could also mention the rampant use of thalidomide as a “cure” for morning sickness by medical professionals. The result? An estimated 20,000 disfigured babies, 50% of which died. Of course the drug has been rediscovered over the last quarter of a century to have some value in treating leprosy…go figure. Ricky certainly could have mentioned that chiropractic has evolved from primitive beginnings(as has modern medicine, which I do respect, BTW) but he instead chose to insult it in a semi-subtle manner. However, he didn’t choose the high road as per usual.

    • One could also mention the rampant use of thalidomide as a “cure” for morning sickness by medical professionals. The result? An estimated 20,000 disfigured babies, 50% of which died.

      That is a nauseating misrepresentation of what actually happened and is happening. While inadequately informed use of the product has caused unnameable suffering, better informed use is now saving lives, and the experiences of the past have led to draconic safety measures surrounding its use, including withholding it from women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, which can be seen as giving a woman the choice between (1) getting a baby and dying or (2) becoming better.

      That’s what (medical) science is about: we learn from our mistakes, we don’t deny them or sweep them under the carpet.

      • “A nauseating misrepresentation of what actually happened and is happening,” stated Bart. Perhaps this is so, but people on this site should be accustomed to negative “spinning” of reality as it is so often applied to chriopractic. Why the outrage when such is applied to medicine?

        • but people on this site should be accustomed to negative “spinning” of reality as it is so often applied to chriopractic

          Could you give a few examples of the “negative spinning” of reality as it is so often applied to chiropractic? With the evidence to back it up? I am certain Prof. Ernst will be even more ecstatic than I will be when presented with solid evidence instead of hollow self-serving commercial claims.

          Why the outrage when such is applied to medicine?

          Simple. Medicine is the best we have to keep people alive and healthy and cure them or improve quality of life. Negative spinning of that reality increases the probability that people will be driven into the arms of the quacks, who are not the best we have to do what medicine tries to accomplish.

          There is a big difference between stating what does not work, what is dubious, what is unknown and “negative spinning”. The first must – not should – be public knowledge. The second is ethically criminal.

          • You hopefully are smart enough to find the copious examples of “reality spin” in regard to most of the comments about chiropractic on this site.

            I agree that medicine is indeed the best we have for curing the sick and improving quality of life. Why did you think it necessary to state this? One of my closest college friends is a GP. My daughter is a med-peds resident. My wife is a PT. My youngest daughter will be studying nursing. I have great respect for medicine and for its fair-minded physicians. This being said, it is a spurious position taken by you, one who is blatantly ignorant of the practice of chiropractic(including diagnosis, BTW), to imply that chiropractice has not positively evolved, especially over the last 35 years. You ignore the many deaths and disfigurements resultant to quack-like practices of using thalidomide for morning sickness and instead retreat to “better informed use”(dare I say “evolved thought”) of the product in an obvious attempt to spin the debacle in a more positive manner. Perhaps you might have been a good politician; just kidding….we already have too many pols who spin facts to suit their desires and prejudices.

          • “You hopefully are smart enough to find the copious examples of “reality spin” in regard to most of the comments about chiropractic on this site.”
            you obviously aren’t.

          • Edzard re-posted a statement of mine and then added a three-word insult. Brilliant! It’s apparent that he tries to stick up for his like-minded, non-nuanced buddies who apparently don’t have the chops to substantively stick up for themselves regarding this topic. Please do regale the forum with a more-than-three word comment next time, Edzard. Your prattle is indeed amusing.

          • You sound like a theologian. Do yourself and your brethren and the rest of us a favour, and answer the question instead. Let me repeat it here:

            Could you give a few examples of the “negative spinning” of reality as it is so often applied to chiropractic? With the evidence to back it up? I am certain Prof. Ernst will be even more ecstatic than I will be when presented with solid evidence instead of hollow self-serving commercial claims.

          • Bart, Please read just about any of Dick Rawlins’ comments. His derisive, insultory, misleading pablum will give you copious examples.

    • Re the postings of Logos-Bios:
      I am unclear how pointing out the fundamental belief system of chiropractic is an insult.
      If a practitioner does not share the beliefs of DD Palmer (or at any rate, those he promulgated) just what do chiropractors believe?

      And why, if they want the privileges of being regarded as ‘doctors’, prescribing as ‘doctors’ and practising as ‘doctors’ (even to the extent of telling patients they are ‘doctors’), have they not qualified as doctors?

      What is it about regulated Conventional Orthodox Medicine (COM) to which chiropractors take exception?

      If they became registered as medical practitioners, chiropractors could then practice as they wished, within the bounds of their competence and subject to professional medical regulations. This would mean they would have to obtain fully informed consent from patients, and this would mean that patients would be told about the lack of evidence for ‘subluxations’ and benefits of their adjustments. So be it.

      Pointing out that ‘medicine’ is regulated in order to protect patients is not an insult.
      It is a given that ‘medicine’ evolves, I do not need to repeat that.
      Tu quoque is a logical fallacy.

      In what way is chiropractic now practiced that is different from in the 1860s?
      I only mentioned Palmer because it was he who put forward the idea (and devised the name) – most health care practitioners (including osteopaths) moved on and have put his concepts behind them. Why have some modern practioners decided to take up these anachronistic practices?

      I suppoort chiropractors prescribing, as long as they qualify and become registered medical practitioners.
      I reiterate – as many nurses, dentists, physios and lay people have done.
      That is how standards are maintained, raised (slowly) and patients are protected.
      And what is wrong with that?

      • And what is wrong with that?

        They would need to study, make efforts, learn how to deal with such sordid things as evidence, responsibility, accountability, standards of care, and so much more. In short, there are plenty of things wrong with that!

        When one follows the QuackPath, one’s most difficult decision is to decide on rates. How much can one ask for nonsense and actually get it?

        It is so much better to follow the way of quack. For the practitioner, anyway.

      • Richard,

        I don’t have a problem with DCs, DOs, and NDs qualifying then becoming registered medical practitioners with the right to prescribe medicine.

        My deep concern is, what mechanisms are currently in place to prevent these already ‘doctors’ from prescribing, say, a course of dietary supplements (DCs, DOs, and NDs) or a course of homeopathy (NDs) for disease treatment and/or disease prevention? My deep concern is based on the warnings raised by the courageous Britt Hermes:

        Naturopaths should not treat children
        http://edzardernst.com/2016/04/naturopaths-should-not-treat-children/

        Naturopaths: rubbish at healthcare, excellent at character-assassination
        http://edzardernst.com/2016/06/naturopaths-rubbish-at-healthcare-excellent-at-character-assassination/

        DCs are already given carte blanche to: wring the necks of babies and young children; perform intimate examinations of teenagers and adults; rent a room to camists of their choosing, e.g., an acupuncturist.

      • Dear Richard, I essentially have already stated what you wrote in your last paragragh. Why did you compose it as though you were sharing new material with me?

        Chiropractic was founded in 1895; it didn’t exist in the 1860’s.

        Do you disagree that chiropractic has progressed over the last century with respect to scientific investigation into why it benefits some disorders and why it does not help other ones?

        Are you unaware of the significant changes which have occurred in the last decade relative to the procedures which are utilized in many chiro offices, including active rehab, pain management procedures(performed by medical specialists as well as PM & R’s)m and others?

        Regarding the dogmatism of “subluxations,” I have stated I have never treated or diagnosed them. Of course one of your “bros” on this site stated that I was “queer” and not a proper chiropractor; Ol’ Geir should stick with his perverted thoughts about women’s private parts since at least those he has shared with the forum are amusing. More to the point, subluxations(as originally discussed by D.D. Palmer) simply are not ascribed to much of anything in the US. It’s interesting, however, that PM&R doctors diagnose “segmental dysfunction” about as often as do chiros.

  • I’m appalled. What the article suggests is turning these quacktitioners into a profession that already exists: orthopaedics. Orthopaedists are genuine doctors who have specialised in MSK disorders. Medicine has finally reached a stage where it has evidence and science as core principles. Do we really need believers of a delusion-based cult, to treat patients? It sounds to me they are taking the “playing doctor” game a bit far. If chiropractors want to treat patients – with or without medication – they always have the option of becoming orthopaedists.

    • Bart either doesn’t read very well or else his comprehension is remedial at best. Where did he come up with this article’s suggesting chiropractic physicians become orthopedists? The thesis of the article regarded potential prescribing rights for chiropractic physicians. In his zeal to lob an insult toward the chiropractic profession, Bart instead exposed himself as poorly comprehending tool who is unable to focus on a fairly straight-forward article. Nothing new here……

      • Where did he come up with this article’s suggesting chiropractic physicians become orthopedists?

        Maybe the frequent mention of MSK gave this tool that impression, maybe the suggestion that chiropractors should be given the right to prescribe medication gave this tool that impression. Maybe an article written by one of your brethren gave this tool some hints as well: http://edzardernst.com/2013/10/twenty-things-most-chiropractors-wont-tell-you/

        And maybe this tool should be less polite: your brethren want to have orthopaedists’ status without going through the gruelling studies that lead to that title, i.e. they are rightly called quacks.

        • Bart-
          I say sir! Do steady on! These quack chaps can be quite sensitive!
          They like dishing it out but can react rather aggressively when countered.
          He may storm off in a huff, miffed at how this site isn’t, as he’d thought, a place ‘where different alternative therapies could be discussed’, to quote one woman from a while back.
          Anyway, I can’t help feeling a little jealous.
          ‘Tool’ indeed. I’ve just got to the level of being called ‘dim’ and ‘dumb’. Both of us have a road to travel before we get to be called ‘wanker’ by a qualified doctor, as EE was.

          • They like dishing it out but can react rather aggressively when countered.

            That is one constant I have noticed with quacks, and in that sense they are very similar to religionists. They almost always answer questions with other questions and empty blather or accusations and insults, and when they actually do provide an answer, they are almost always demonstrably wrong, usually ridiculously wrong.

      • Where did he come up with this article’s suggesting chiropractic physicians become orthopedists?

        Maybe the frequent mention of MSK gave this tool that impression, maybe the suggestion that chiropractors should be given the right to prescribe medication gave this tool that impression. Maybe an article written by one of your brethren gave this tool some hints as well: http://edzardernst.com/2013/10/twenty-things-most-chiropractors-wont-tell-you/

        And maybe this tool should be less polite: your brethren want to have the orthopaedists’ status without doing any of the boring things like studying and investigating what works and what doesn’t and waste time with such sordid things as evidence.

        There is consequence to what your brethren want however: their income will be lower. A lot lower. Genuine physicians make a lot less money than genuine quacks. But then, this tool thinks consequences are not generally what chiropractors seem to be worried about.

        • Nice try, Tool. I note that you failed to demonstrate where in the article about which we’ve been commenting is there a reference to chiros becoming orthopedists. Kick back, have a drink, clear your mind(?), and re-read the article s l o w l y. You will then hopefully discover your mistake.

          Neither a GP nor a chiro could attain orthopedist status without becoming an orthopedist him-/herself. Organized chiropractic does not have orthopedist equality on its agenda.

          I had to smile when I read your reference to Edzard’s piece which included opinion by Dr. Preston Long. Dr. Long is what is known as a professional consultant to insurance companies(yes, we still have these in the USA). People of his ilk exist as paid hacks for payors and give contra-patient opinions regarding services, diagnostics, surgeries, and treatment. There are medical hacks as well as chiropractic hacks which are ruining the doctor-patient relationship in America. Such opinions regarding anything chiroractic are spurious at best, meretricious at worst. A consultant’s allegiance is to the insurance companies which pay his salary, not to patients. Of course uninformed folks like you are pleased to jump onto the bandwagon without investigating a consultant’s background; such a tendency is sometimes referred to as confirmation bias.

          • Organized chiropractic does not have orthopedist equality on its agenda.

            Nor did I say or even imply so. Please do read what people say.

            People of his ilk exist as paid hacks for payors and give contra-patient opinions regarding services, diagnostics, surgeries, and treatment.

            Well then, please provide the evidence that shows him to be wrong.

    • Re BBVB’s post of 8th at 0621:
      I did!
      (From being a lay man).

      • Re BBVB’s post of 8th at 0621:
        I did!
        (From being a lay man).

        [laff]
        You did it the hard way. Why not follow the Path of Quack? It is so much easier, and you get to pontificate about everything, especially stuff you don’t know the first thing about, which is essentially everything if you obey the principles of natural healing. And patients, well, they’ll die anyway, won’t they? Who cares whether it is sooner or later and with less or more pain?

        Maybe we should all take an example from Saint Mother Teresa who had the wisdom to know that suffering is great and wonderful, as long as she doesn’t have to go through it herself. Let’s go back to prayer and offering goats and drinking ultra-diluted nettle juice!
        [/laff]

        • Bart suggested prayer and offering goats and drinking ultra-diluted nettle juice….hilarious. Perhaps he is suggesting a return to pre-“evolved ” medicine’s justification of using leeches and bloodletting to treat UTI’s? Does he think that medical physicians were quacks then, but not now? You just can’t make this stuff up! LOL

          • It really would be helpful to an understanding of the issues if Logos-Bios (whoever he, or she, is) could tell us if he/she is a chiropractor, and if so, why a chiropractor and not a medically qualified doctor.
            Otherwise the suggestions of other postees that quackery is lurking may have to be seriously considered.
            Thank you.

    • Bart, Please re-read your own comments. You have stated that chiros(i.e. organized chiropractic) per this article wish to morph their profession into orthopedics. When your erroneous claim was proven farcical, you denied having stated or implied same. Please reflash your past, posted prattle to your brain before you post gibberish paradoxical to your own previous comments. Most of your commentary is painfully dull to read once, let alone twice.

      • You have stated that chiros(i.e. organized chiropractic) per this article wish to morph their profession into orthopedics.

        I did not. I am not responsible for your inability to understand the English language, but this inability is certainly indicative of your intellectual abilities. I am sorry about that, but whether or not I like this is irrelevant. Reality has its rights. I suggest you start looking for a good teacher.

        • You forget your previously posted drivel quite readily, Bart. Have you been partying a little bit too much recently? Cheers!

          • You forget your previously posted drivel quite readily, Bart. Have you been partying a little bit too much recently? Cheers!

            Since I haven’t posted any drivel, and assuming you are being honest, I have only an indirect answer for your problem: seek help from a qualified psychiatrist. That’s not me.

  • There does seem to be a style of comment/insult from quackers which they have in common with, say, creationists. Accusations of ‘drivel’, ‘impoliteness’, ‘bad manners’, ‘intellectual immaturity’, ‘anger’, ‘aggression’, ‘incompetent use of English’, and all this on top of a refusal to back up their own beliefs with any genuine evidence.
    For the second time in my life, I recently had a woman ask me, when I politely questioned her quackbelief, ‘Are you calling me a liar?’

    • ‘Are you calling me a liar?’

      Quacks have problems with the concept of lying. They seem to think it is something done only by non-quacks. Even Sir Humphrey, in all his brilliance, finds it difficult to explain the concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8keZbZL2ero

    • It seems that many Alternatives have Narcissistic Personality Disorders(and some with more severe forms that would diagnose them as a Narcissistic Neurosis or Psychosis, depending on the degree of severity with or without hallucinations. They all seem to have delusions). I thought you were describing D. Trump at first. I also wonder how many applied to a medical school and were denied acceptance before going down the road to deception.

    • Perhaps Barrie should recount his posts to me over the past few days. Essentially what he ascribed to me has been epitomized by his own posts. Hilarious oversight by a man who should be happy that a woman, any woman, might converse with him for any reason.

      I’m still awaiting an adequate answer as to why loons on this site believe chiropractic treatments are more dangerous than bariatric surgeries.

      • Does this even make sense to anybody?

        • I’m sorry you were unable to comprehend my clearly written post, Barrie.

          Impoliteness, bad manners, etc are characteristics of your posting style when responding to me.

          You mentioned that a woman had recently spoken to you. As incredible as this was for me to believe given your snarky persona, I suggested that you should consider it a happy day that a woman would actually engage with you.

          Chiropractic treatments are less dangerous than bariatric surgeries even when the latter are performed adequately. Do you disagree?

          Do you understand now?

          • probably also less dangerous than bungee jumping – and just as therapeutically useless!

          • Homeopathic treatments have no ill effects as well. No wonder. Water rarely does, except in cases of drowning, or flood damage, or getting into the electrics.
            This strange obsession you have re communications with women is starting to become a little creepy, in addition to its po-faced, humour-free immaturity.

          • Impoliteness, bad manners, etc are characteristics of your posting style when responding to me.

            For someone who is as rude as they come, this should be unsurprising.

            Chiropractic treatments are less dangerous than bariatric surgeries even when the latter are performed adequately.

            You forget one not entirely unimportant element of the equation: chiropractic treatment is only useful to the quack performing it. That shifts the balance somewhat, and it is not in the favour of chiropractic.

          • Poor Bart B….it’s apparent he still doesn’t understand my previous post. Of course he has problems with many facets of comprehension; no surprises here.

            I love Edzard’s bizarre comment. Where did anyone claim that bungee jumping was therapeutic? Perhaps Edzard was attempting to be Don Rickles again…..and failing! He is amusing, though, albeit unable to consistently follow the topics discussed in recent posts.

  • Faith healers, palm readers, chiropractors and any other alternative “healer” should never be allowed to prescribe prescriptions, give iv treatments or perform surgery without a medical degree. This is not a turf war but an ethical duty to guarantee basic training in a reputable medical institution. Taking some science courses or a weekend cme and reading about it not enough, even if you have a strong political lobby.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer the following: *

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories