MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

We had HOMEOPATHS WITHOUT BORDERS and now, I suggest, we acknowledge a similar organisation which could aptly be called CHIROPRACTORS WITHOUT SCRUPLES. This remarkable text from NATURAL NEWS explains it all, I think:

START OF QUOTE

The following chiropractors are speaking up to inform the public about the dangers of vaccines.

Dr. David Jockers, D.C.

Vaccines are one of medicine’s prized attempts to improve human performance. They use artificial laboratory derived medical technology to produce an immune response within the body in hopes it will lead to a long-term positive antibody response.

The vaccine ideology is based on the belief that people are created with inferior immune systems that are unable to keep up with the demands of the environment and need modern technology in the form of man-made vaccine formulations in order to bolster immunity.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, “The following substances are found in flu vaccines: aluminum, antibiotics, formaldehyde, human aborted fetal apparatus (dead human tissue), monosodium glutamate (MSG), and thimerosal (mercury).” Many of these same ingredients are in childhood vaccines. They are all very toxic for human physiology and have a track record for insulting the body’s immune system.

I would prefer to trust the innate ability of the body to overcome infectious microorganisms and I will fully support my body through healthy diet and lifestyle along with natural supplements and proper spinal alignment. I absolutely reject the idea that injecting a group of toxic, immune insulting chemicals into my bloodstream will improve someone’s long-term immune response.

Nancy Tarlow, D.C.

When you inject chemicals into your body that are toxic, there will be an effect. It may not be obvious at first. A child might have a fever that the doctor says is “normal”, but it isn’t. A fever or screaming could be that the brain is swelling and causing damage. The real problem is that children cannot convey to us how they feel. It’s not like an adult who can tell us that they felt great prior to a vaccination but then started having health problems.

Dr. Haroot Tovanyan, D.C.

I am a doctor of Chiropractic and I primarily work with autistic children.

Every single parent in my practice that has an autistic child has the same story. Child was born normal; child was developing normal. Child went in for their 12-month, 18-month, normal usually 24 or 36-month shots and regressed. This may be anecdotal, but when you hear it over and over and over again, there’s something to be said. These are children that have severe neurological issues. They’re not verbal; 8-10-year-old children that are still wearing diapers.

I have a quadriplegic niece in my family who received 4 shots, a total of 10 vaccines in 1 day. She was born normal. She developed normal until about a year and a half. At a year and a half she received 4 shots, 1, 2, 3, 4, and she … This was 1990 when they started doing multiple vaccines and they also quadrupled the number of shots that you’re normally receiving. She basically regressed. She’s a vegetable. I mean, she became a quadriplegic. Nowhere in nature would your child go to get exposed to let’s say 6 or 7 or 8 or 9, or in the case of my niece, 10 viruses and bacteria at the same time.

In nature that just doesn’t happen. They don’t co-exist like that. It’s not natural to put a combination of vaccines, combinations of viruses and bacteria that just don’t belong together or don’t co-exist in nature in a vial and inject it into a child and expect them to be healthy. The CDC schedule has never been tested for safety. There have never been double-blind studies. It’s never been tested for synergistic effect. They’ve refused to study un-vaccinated versus vaccinated.

END OF QUOTE

On this blog, we have discussed the issues related to chiropractic and immunisations repeatedly (for instance here, here, here and here).

In case you wonder about the origins of this odd and unethical behaviour, you best look into the history of chiropractic. D. D. Palmer, the magnetic healer who ‘invented’ chiropractic some 120 years ago, left no doubt about his profound disgust for immunisation: “It is the very height of absurdity to strive to ‘protect’ any person from smallpox and other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison… No one will ever pollute the blood of any member of my family unless he cares to walk over my dead body… ” (D. D. Palmer, 1910)

D. D. Palmer’s son, B. J. Palmer  provided a more detailed explanation for chiropractors’ rejection of immunisation: “Chiropractors have found in every disease that is supposed to be contagious, a cause in the spine. In the spinal column we will find a subluxation that corresponds to every type of disease… If we had one hundred cases of small-pox, I can prove to you, in one, you will find a subluxation and you will find the same condition in the other ninety-nine. I adjust one and return his function to normal… There is no contagious disease… There is no infection…The idea of poisoning healthy people with vaccine virus… is irrational. People make a great ado if exposed to a contagious disease, but they submit to being inoculated with rotten pus, which if it takes, is warranted to give them a disease” (B. J. Palmer, 1909)

We are often told that such opinions have all but died out in today’s chiropractic profession. But is this true? I see precious little evidence to assume this to be true.

Today the anti-vaxx notions of chiropractors are mostly expressed in a less abrupt, more politically correct language: The International Chiropractors Association recognizes that the use of vaccines is not without risk. The ICA supports each individual’s right to select his or her own health care and to be made aware of the possible adverse effects of vaccines upon a human body. In accordance with such principles and based upon the individual’s right to freedom of choice, the ICA is opposed to compulsory programs which infringe upon such rights. The International Chiropractors Association is supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory vaccination laws, providing an elective course of action for all regarding immunization, thereby allowing patients freedom of choice in matters affecting their bodies and health.

Yes, I do realise that some chiropractors now acknowledge that immunisations have been one of the most successful interventions in the history of medicine. Yet, far too many others still vehemently adhere to the gospel of the Palmers, and statements like the following abound:

Vaccines. What are we taught? That vaccines came on the scene just in time to save civilization from the ravages of infectious diseases. That vaccines are scientifically formulated to confer immunity to certain diseases; that they are safe and effective. That if we stop vaccinating, epidemics will return…And then one day you’ll be shocked to discover that … your “medical” point of view is unscientific, according to many of the world’s top researchers and scientists. That many state and national legislatures all over the world are now passing laws to exclude compulsory vaccines….

Our original blood was good enough. What a thing to say about one of the most sublime substances in the universe. Our original professional philosophy was also good enough. What a thing to say about the most evolved healing concept since we crawled out of the ocean. Perhaps we can arrive at a position of profound gratitude if we could finally appreciate the identity, the oneness, the nobility of an uncontaminated unrestricted nervous system and an inviolate bloodstream. In such a place, is not the chiropractic position on vaccines self-evident, crystal clear, and as plain as the sun in the sky?

So, the opinions by chiropractors cited above seem more the rule than the exception. NATURAL NEWS is not normally one of my favourite publications; on this occasion, however, I am thankful to the editor for alerting us to what I might call CHIROPRACTORS WITHOUT SCRUPLES.

25 Responses to ‘Chiropractors Without Scruples’

  • I rarely disagree with Edzard’s analyses, but here I (probably) do.
    ‘Scruple’ definition: ‘a moral or ethical consideration or standard that acts as a restraining force or inhibits certain actions.’

    In the case of the chiropractors cited, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt – unless there is evidence to the contrary. I assume that they are not dishonest – acting without scruple, without moral compunction, and for their own self interest, and I assume they are not seeking to take advantage of the gullible and vulnerable, and to defraud them.

    I am taking it they genuinely and sincerely believe what they say and are, in the cited quotes, expressing nothing more than their faith. Certainly not knowledge or understanding of science.

    So chiropractors are faith healers. But does that mean that, although clearly foolish and ignorant of modern medicine, they have no scruples? I am not so sure. Metaphysicians will have to answer.

    • even though I like your idea that they are faith healers, I think that without ‘a moral or ethical consideration or standard that acts as a restraining force or inhibits certain actions.’ the thing is that, even if they honestly believe in anti-vaxx propaganda, as clinicians, they have a moral and ethical duty to be well-informed about the evidence… and, as anti-vaxers, they are violating this duty.

      • I agree with that.

        Doctors (MDs) are expected by ethics (UK GMC) and by law (Montgomery case in UK) to obtain fully informed consent before undertaking treatment of a patient.

        Clearly, that entails telling the patient of the nature of the faith and the evidence for beliefs held.
        My guess is that no chiropractor does this.
        (And doctors should not promulgate their faith in any event).

        On that basis I join with Edzard in challenging that (most) chiropractors are behaving immorally, unethically and unscrupulously.

        • I agree that DC’s should educate their patients as to the necessity of vaccines as such have been scientifically proven to improve public and individual health. As doctors, they should give their patients current information regarding vaccines and, if said patients are reasonable, the patients should choose the vaxx route.

          I do not support absolute requirements that require immunizations, as patients should have individual rights to protect(or risk) their health sans government intervention. The concept of individual choice is one of the few issues in which I agree with the ICA.

          I agree with Richard that the above-noted DC’s likely don’t lack scruples; but they do seem to lack common sense when it comes to the well researched value of vaccines.

          • @Edzard
            “they have a moral and ethical duty to be well-informed about the evidence… and, as anti-vaxers, they are violating this duty.”
            Agreed! Looked at the evidence and totally support vaccination! Call out these BS merchants whenever they post anti-vax rubbish and they block and boot me from their forums! They do not like to have the evidence pointed out to them! They only like to associate with people who confirm their bias!
            If patients ask for my advice I tell them that I am not an expert and to talk to their doctor who is! Also I tell them that I support vaccination and my entire family are up to date with our vaccinations!
            @Richard Rawlins
            Informed consent is a common law requirement here in Australia for all health care professions! Is there not a similar legal requirements in the UK? Whenever I get a new patient who has seen a faith based chiropractor I tell them that I do not practice that way and why! In my informed consent I discuss diagnosis, prognosis, care plan, rehab, lifestyle advice and reasonable time frames to achieve results! Some walk but the majority respond to treatment, follow advice, do their rehab and I discharge!

          • @Logos-Bios on Tuesday 27 December 2016 at 18:05

            “I do not support absolute requirements that require immunizations, as patients should have individual rights to protect(or risk) their health sans government intervention. The concept of individual choice is one of the few issues in which I agree with the ICA.”

            So you believe in the individual’s right to choose whether to endanger the lives of others?

            “I agree with Richard that the above-noted DC’s likely don’t lack scruples; but they do seem to lack common sense when it comes to the well researched value of vaccines.”

            I call it incomprehensible stupidity and probably stems from the marvellous education chiros are supposed it get. Obviously, it does not include basic science or critical thinking.

  • Edzard’s rhetoric again epitomizes a logical fallacy, Argumentum Ad Verecundium. Suggesting that anti-vaxx DC’s “vehemently adhere to the gospel of the Palmers” in regard to immunizations is wildly conjectural, even for Edzard. I wonder if Edzard would claim that every anti-vaxx professional(or lay person) would necessarily be Palmer followers? As usual, Edzard expediently assumes waayyyy too much in his zeal to disparage a paramedical profession.

    • PSEUDO-medical would be a better choice than para-medical (although one entry for the prefix para gives “abnormal” as a meaning and I would accept that).

      Can you demonstrate that Ernst is wrong, that is, do you have evidence that the opposite is true?

      • @Darwin Well, Edzard did not prove his implication that anti-vaxx chiros are opposed to immunizations because they are “adhering to the Palmer gospel.” Most practicing DC’s don’t know the first thing about the history of the Palmers. They likely oppose vaccinations for other reasons.

        My attempting to disprove Edzard’s logical fallacy would be illogical….and a waste of time. Would you like to demonstrate that Edzard was correct?

      • Yes! Pseudo-medical or Anti-medical, or non-medical better labels chiropractors. They are not physicians and certainly not doctors of medicine. Like their brethren alternatively trained health care mimics(ND,HD,Acupuncturists, faith healers, witch doctors and other magicians) they seem to believe in unscientific faith healing, often with some witch craft and snake oil measures to magically convince their clients. At best they offer some Physical Therapy modalities with a lot of extra whip cream for show and money. It is enlightening however to see that at least some, as L-B admits, accept the obvious value of vaccines but they should all leave damn babies necks alone.

        • @Cox

          Chiropractic physicians are legally required to diagnose in the USA. Mainstream DC’s perform myriad labs, imaging, electrodiagnostic, as well as other scientifically proven procedures to arrive at correct diagnoses. To claim that DC’s, of which I am one, are witch doctors is a reductionist judgment based in your ignorance and bias.

          Tell me, Cox, do you consider the practice of off-label prescribing by practitioners of “modern medicine” to be one of pseudo-scientific practice? Many, if not most, of such practices are not counetanced by sound scientific justification, at least not the level of scientific justification that you and other of Edzard’s acolytes advocate for paramedical disciplines such as Chiropractic. Just curious………

          Be well

    • @Logos-Bios on Tuesday 27 December 2016 at 18:32

      “Edzard’s rhetoric again epitomizes a logical fallacy, Argumentum Ad Verecundium. Suggesting that anti-vaxx DC’s “vehemently adhere to the gospel of the Palmers” in regard to immunizations is wildly conjectural, even for Edzard.”

      From where else would they get it?

      “I wonder if Edzard would claim that every anti-vaxx professional(or lay person) would necessarily be Palmer followers? As usual, Edzard expediently assumes waayyyy too much in his zeal to disparage a paramedical profession.”

      Paramedical? hahahahahaha Yep, hospitals are full of them, as are ambulances? lolololol

      • Frank, Surely you can imagine other sources of anti-vaxx propaganda than D.D Palmer. I would guess that most anti-vaxxers have never even heard of him unless they happen to be DC’s or students of chiropractic history. I graduated 30 years ago and was taught about the benefits of vaxx, not that they should be dissed. “Where else would they get it” you asked. A simple Google search will provide copious sources of anti-vaxx garbage with no references or relationships to D.D. Palmer.

        Since you jumped into my conversation with Cox, perhaps you would like to offer your thoughts regarding the pseudo-scientific practice of off-label prescribing? I didn’t think so. You wish to avoid inconvenient truths about “modern medicine.”

        Be well

        • @ Logos-Bios on Thursday 29 December 2016 at 16:49

          “Frank, Surely you can imagine other sources of anti-vaxx propaganda than D.D Palmer.”

          Yes, however, this blog is about chiropractors who are actively anti-vaccination. You are right though and there may be other reasons;
          1. chiro education is very poor, and/or
          2. entry standards to chiro courses are low, and/or
          3. chiro is not a science-based discipline so chiros are not taught about research, and/or
          4. chiro is an unregulated, unmanaged, unnecessary practice that endangers public health.

          “I would guess that most anti-vaxxers have never even heard of him unless they happen to be DC’s or students of chiropractic history.”

          Isn’t that what this blog is about; anti-vax chiros? Either they learnt about the Palmer crooks in their course or they are morons?

          “I graduated 30 years ago and was taught about the benefits of vaxx, not that they should be dissed.”

          This illustrates one of the many problems with chiro; poor regulation of standards, if indeed there are any.

          ““Where else would they get it” you asked. A simple Google search will provide copious sources of anti-vaxx garbage with no references or relationships to D.D. Palmer.”

          I repeat;
          Isn’t that what this blog is about; anti-vax chiros? Either they learnt about the Palmer crooks in their course or they are morons?

          “Since you jumped into my conversation with Cox”

          I didn’t realise you were having a private conversation with Dr Cox, nor did anyone else. By-the-way, s/he is a doctor while you are not.

          “perhaps you would like to offer your thoughts regarding the pseudo-scientific practice of off-label prescribing? I didn’t think so. You wish to avoid inconvenient truths about “modern medicine.””

          Another logical fallacy from you? How unusual?

          In your faffing about with the worried-well who are in a bit of discomfort, did you cure any of their diseases, conduct any surgery to remove a bullet, diagnose diabetes and prescribe insulin, stitch up a wound, lance a large infected area to drain a large volume of pus, excise a basal cell carcinoma, or put on a glove to feel for a swollen prostate? No, I didn’t think so. Have you ever lanced a boil? Err, no, because you are qualified and are not allowed.

          • @Frankentool

            Tool stated:

            1. chiro education is very poor, and/or
            2. entry standards to chiro courses are low, and/or
            3. chiro is not a science-based discipline so chiros are not taught about research, and/or
            4. chiro is an unregulated, unmanaged, unnecessary practice that endangers public health.

            Chiropractic doctors are well trained in the basic sciences; feel free to look up their basic science curriculum. Many chiropractic physicians are involved in research as are the chiro colleges. Chiropractic is VERY regulated in the USA, and treatment protocols must follow national guidelines and best-evidence insurance-company standards which typically are supervised by MD’s; otherwise chiropractic physicians are not remunerated for their services. Tool, you really should know something(anything) about a topic before you lob detritus into a conversation.

          • @Frankentool

            Your juvenile, rhetorical question regarding non-chiropractic procedures served no purpose other than to call attention to the differences in invasive care and conservative care. Do note that manual prostate examinations are regularly performed by many DC’s(and by me) as part of physical exams. Surgical procedures in most states are not within the chiro scope of practice. Also, in case you are ignorant(likely you are) of chiropractic prescription privileges, such privileges would not be representative of “conservative”(i.e. chiropractic) healthcare as the ACA and most colleges view it; thus they currently don’t exist for the most part in the US.

        • to logos: If off label treatments are used, most physicians would base that on validated scientific post marketing studies, weighing benefits versus risks, and based on evidence, not experimentation. You should not be allowed to perform a rectal exam on males or females, and if it is “legal” per political lobbyists that does not make it ethical or medically appropriate. Bus drivers are not allowed to fly airplanes without APPROPRIATE training. Why did you become a chiropractor as opposed to a Physical Therapist?

  • @Frankentool

    The tool stated, “I didn’t realise you were having a private conversation with Dr Cox, nor did anyone else. By-the-way, s/he is a doctor while you are not.” It’s unfortunate that Tool hasn’t realized what the “D” stands for in D.C. Perhaps in Tool’s case the “D” in M.D. stands for dreg or dullard? Plesase do enlighten the forum, Tool.

  • @Frankentool

    Conspicuous was your retreat from discussing the pseudo-scientific practice of off-label prescribing; no surprises there.

    Be well always

  • @Logos-Bios on Saturday 31 December 2016 at 20:04

    “Conspicuous was your retreat from discussing the pseudo-scientific practice of off-label prescribing; no surprises there.”

    You are a boorish troll;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use
    https://www.ahrq.gov/patients-consumers/patient-involvement/off-label-drug-usage.html
    https://www.nps.org.au/australian-prescriber/articles/off-label-prescribing-6
    http://www.nps.org.au/media-centre/media-releases/repository/Off-label-prescribing-what-does-it-mean

    I do understand you. You are totally and utterly envious of REAL doctors; those who treat REAL conditions because they have received REAL training in REAL anatomy and have received a REAL qualification, while you are a… [CENSORED].

  • In Virginia D.C.’s and M.D.’s are all licensed under the same board the VA Board of Medicine. It seems the an overwhelming majority of the disciplinary actions are against M.D’s. Read for yourself.

    http://www.dhp.virginia.gov/medicine/newsletters/BoardBrief69.pdf

    Whoever posted this comment feels like a very small person inside. Small people like to make others feel small. People like you can no longer hide behind your title with the access to information now available.

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