MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

On this blog, we have often discussed the risks of spinal manipulation. As I see it, the information we have at present suggests that

  • mild to moderate adverse effects are extremely frequent and occur in about half of all patients;
  • serious adverse effects are being reported regularly;
  • the occur usually with chiropractic manipulations of the neck (which are not of proven efficacy for any condition) and often relate to vascular accidents;
  • the consequences can be permanent neurological deficits and even deaths;
  • under-reporting of such cases might be considerable and therefore precise incidence figures are not available;
  • there is no system to accurately monitor the risks;
  • chiropractors are in denial of these problems.

Considering the seriousness of these issues, it is important to do more rigorous research. Therefore, any new paper published on this subject is welcome. A recent article might shed new light on the topic.

The objective of this systematic review was to identify characteristics of 1) patients, 2) practitioners, 3) treatment process and 4) adverse events (AE) occurring after cervical spinal manipulation (CSM) or cervical mobilization. A systematic searches were performed in 6 electronic databases up to December 2014. Of the initial 1043 articles thus located, 144 were included, containing 227 cases. 117 cases described male patients with a mean age of 45 and a mean age of 39 for females. Most patients were treated by chiropractors (66%). Manipulation was reported in 95% of the cases, and neck pain was the most frequent indication for the treatment. Cervical arterial dissection (CAD) was reported in 57%  of the cases and 45.8% had immediate onset symptoms. The overall distribution of gender for CAD was 55% for female. Patient characteristics were described poorly. No clear patient profile, related to the risk of AE after CSM, could be extracted, except that women seemed more at risk for CAD. The authors of this review concluded that there seems to be under-reporting of cases. Further research should focus on a more uniform and complete registration of AE using standardized terminology.

This article provides little new information; but it does confirm what I have been saying since many years: NECK MANIPULATIONS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SERIOUS RISKS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE AVOIDED.

37 Responses to New review confirms: neck manipulations are dangerous

  • I’ve posted before, so I’ll make this short. I had been receiving spinal adjustments for over a year for sciatica. Neck adjustments were part of the treatment for tension headaches. After a tendon transfer surgery, I had pneumonia from the anesthesia and had breathing problems. But, they never went away and it was discovered I had a paralyzed diaphragm. I,ended up having a phrenic nerve graft on the left side of my neck, as the nerve had been,damaged. The surgeon thinks the nerve w
    as damaged by the neck adjustments and the anesthesia put my body into a low matabolic state, which shut down the damaged phrenic nerves conducting movement to my diaphragm, which helps us with full inhalation. So, I strongly recommend not having your neck cracked by a chiropractor! It’s been over three years since this happened to me and my breathing has only improved marginally.

    • Thank you for sharing, Very interesting.
      Perhaps your surgeon would like to write a case history and submit it to the Journal of subluxation research. This sort of story would be enthusiastically accepted by most Chiropractors and perhaps change the treatment approach of .0001% of them. Just as this new review will undoubtedly have far-reaching affects on the profession….
      If only Chiropractors would begin adopting really effective and proven therapies like Moxabustion and Reiki stories like yours could be avoided.

    • An excellent comment to make an important point!

      First of all, this is a textbook anecdote, with a finding that is, as clearly stated, unconfirmed (and how could it have been confirmed, since it would be necessary to conduct tests after every spinal adjustment session to be sure). There is no denying in having to be fair when balancing the available pieces information. There are, however some VERY IMPORTANT observations to be made at this point.

      Confer, for example, homeopathy, which consists of SOLELY POSITIVE anecdotes. Also, chiropractic, to my experience, also consists of largely POSITIVE anecdotes. Anecdotes should not just be dismissed. It is always interesting to read and see what might be there to make from them. A first weighing of the available volumes (massive) of anecdotes for any modality is necessary, to see where new anecdotes fit and how the distributions go. So…

      With respect to HOMEOPATHY, anecdotes are usually POSITIVE. Negative anecdotes are INEXISTENT, because the only possible outcomes are INDIFFERENT or POSITIVE (at least, when using over 12C remedies, that is). In VERY RARE cases, anecdotes may be negative, and, with respect to homeopathy, these are almost always due to coincidental events, and even more rarely, due to direct homeopathic harm (undiluted poison etc.).

      With respect to chiropractic, anecdotes are also, by default, positive or neutral. Either people see improvements, or they don’t. Headaches usually resolve, sometimes muscles relax and blood flow is intensified, skin gets warmer and a cosy feeling of relaxation secretly placebo-transforms into positive anecdotes.

      However, when something goes wrong, with respect to both modalities, people are so lost in attempts to diagnose and treat, that they never wonder why it occured in the first place. And, of course, there are all those alternative treatment practitioners of ALL kinds and modalities, that constantly teach and preach that people should be wary of conventional medicine, avoid it, and that whatever has gone wrong is probably ascribable to conventional medical interventions. This IS malpractice!

      When a treatment modality, such as those above, consists of such a HUGE volume of positive anecdotes, suspicions arise. Either there is true effectiveness, or there is true marketing and make-believe. In light of this huge volume, NEGATIVE anecdotes are FAR more important than positive ones because they impart small (unfortunately) quanta of rationality against blind faith. In medicine, it is typically sought to maximize benefit, while minimizing harm, and negative outcomes must NOT be ignored. In conventional medicine, far too many negative outcomes seem to be constantly reported. This is NOT to say that conventional medicine produces more harm than benefit (a CLEAR weighing of the evidence would be necessary for that). But it DOES go on to say, that honest attempts to improve modalities are based on negative outcomes JUST AS MUCH (if not more) as on positive outcomes.

      In short, negative anecdotes deserve more attention than positive ones for a modality that only fancily showcases positive anecdotes everywhere, and reliable evidence nowhere (textbook alternative medicine). So, in light of your anecdotal report, Mr. Cole, I must say I am very sorry, and feel very worried about “chiropractice”…. Even if it wasn’t caused by the neck adjustments, which I have a sad hunch it was, your anecdote is consistent with a fairly significant line of evidence, and, as such, further strengthens the proposition to look further into the dangers of neck manipulations and potentially legally enforce ascription of appropriate disclaimership to this modality, wherever/however practiced.

      Apart from all the above, nerve injuries take a really long time to recover (to the extent possible). I wish you the best.

  • Thank you for informing me of this systematic review publication. Please inform the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency(AHPRA) of its conclusions. In the meantime, I will continue stating to patients before treatment while obtaining their informed consent that, according to AHPRA, the risk of cervical manipulation is “real but rare.” So rare that in my 33 years in practice, I had not one catastrophic event or malpractice claim brought against me. Just last week I attended to a 12 year old who has constant headaches, I stated what I wrote above to her and her registered nurse mother and performed cervical manipulation providing the first relief of headache pain in two years for this child.

    Let’s not forget that a 100 people die each day in the USA from an opioid overdose due to their desire to get pain relief. Chiropractic management using advanced manipulative techniques and evidence based spinal remodelling practices and procedures for the correction of abnormal spinal displacements provide a biomechanical answer to many of the proven deaths caused every day by the unnecessary bio medical prescription of pain relieving opioids.

    • ” in my 33 years in practice, I had not one catastrophic event”
      how can you know that?
      YOU CANNOT!!!
      A dissection might have occurred to dozens of your patients a few days after you treated them.

      • Considering that I’m insured for $20 million dollars, and I live in one of the most litigious nations in the world, I’m sure I would have been advised by a previous patient or their lawyer during my 33 years in practice. Trust I am clear.

        • No, you are not clear Mr. Epstein
          You have not addressed the salient concern, that of delayed presentation of stroke post neck manipulation.
          Of course you may be one of those chiropractors who is light-handed when it comes to neck-wringing and your clients therefore been spared the terrible trauma of cervical vascular injury. But that does not apply to all and every chiropractor. The question was how you, as one that purports to be a professional, can claim you have not caused injury to any patient. Your response (you have only made an evasive, conjectural reply) indicates clearly that you have not preformed any follow-up and therefore not made sure you know your client’s outcome and ruled out, as far as possible, delayed signs of adverse events. That you have been spared litigation is not proof that no one has been injured at your hands, whether serious or not.

    • advanced manipulative techniques and evidence based spinal remodelling practices and procedures for the correction of abnormal spinal displacements

      This passage describes well the terrible delusion chiropractors live under.
      I seem to recall asking you Mr Epstein how you feel confident to state that none of your patients have suffered a serious complication. Did you e.g. follow up on the outcome of all cervical manipulations, namely those who never returned?
      I am not aware of a reply?

      • It is my policy to contact every patient after performing their first chiropractic manipulation intervention. They have all replied back to me so it appears they lived through the experience. Patients do cease care for the following reasons.
        1. Their complaint has resolved.
        2. Their complaint did not resolve.
        3. They cannot afford my care.

        • Where is your audit published or recorded Mr. Epstein? If you perform proper audit, this should be publicly available, either by your own publication or as part of a national or regional quality assurance system.

          If it is true that you contact your clients after the first intervention, that is insufficient to rule out events caused by repeat trauma to the vasculature. As has been elaborated on here by many (James explained the postulated mechanisms of injury recently if memory serves me right), the full intimal tear may often be the result of repeat trauma. Many case histories support this theory.

        • Since you value the safety of patients, there is a very simple and effective means to make a strong case that could also lead to a systematic piece of evidence about the safety of the procedures (though I am afraid it would be a piece of NEGATIVE evidence in the end).

          If you are so professionally unsparing with extra ionizing radiation for unnecessary X-ray scans, you may as well render a bit of necessity into the radiation. How about performing a relevant angiography of imporant vessels in the proximity of the manipulated regions POST-intervention, say, weekly? This way, you will not only show “legal” interest into the safety of patients, but medical (familiar word?) interest as well. You can also charge it as a safety procedure and in the end, you will have a very strong piece of evidence (though it wouldn’t help you much). You would then have the patients’ medical doctors evaluate the angiograms and allow them to continue as long as no clear harm has been done. Also, follow-up should be carried out for at least 1 month post-intervention, whether it was succesful or not.

          Is this not an interesting follow-up protocol? Do chiropractors follow such a protocol or ANYTHING like that (EXCLUDING subjective patient reporting) to monitor potential dangers arising from their practices? NOT performing proper follow-up for evidence-supported potential dangers of various interventions is a professional and ethical misconduct.

          (Disclaimer: Such a protocol would definitely raise the risk of malignancy and incidence of cancer if implemented for the typical chiropractic treatments that last many weeks, months, or even years. Unless a protocol is established that is safer than that AND more reliable than subjective patient reporting, the chiropractic intervention should be rendered potentially dangerous with evident risks that cannot be outweighed by any benefits whatsoever and plain soft-tissue massage is to be preferred).

    • Are we talking medicine here? Spinal remodelling refers to the remodelling of the spinal vertebrae? Hand-performed remodelling? I thought it was a biological process.

      -What could be a potential mechanism for the headache relief of that 12 year old boy?
      I have relieved unilateral tension headaches from friends multiple times by gentle and careful massage of the sternocleidomastoid along its total length. At other occasions, I have relieved tension headaches by massaging the splenius muscles. I have also found the temporalis to provide relief upon gentle massage in various occasions.

      I understand that tension headaches might be caused by, among other things, moderate muscle spasticity (hypertonia) in the proximity of the neck, creating tension and irritating various nerves. Other occasions may have to do with high intracranial pressure (intracranial hypertension).

      -Is there an explicable need for cervical manipulation, whatever that means?
      From what I understand, it’s fingers here and there… every bit of “special manipulation” typically applies pressure here and there. It’s stress (Physics)… normal (perpendicular) and shear (cross-sectional) stress. Applying shear stress to tissues of all kinds can only lead to problems, not absolution of problems. And in cases of hypertension, pressure here and there can only be expected to exacerbate the tension.

      A proposed damage mechanism is the following:
      -Shear stress is applied to arteries by compression from surrounding hard tissues. The various layers of arteries are composed of typical stuff… collagen, elastin, smooth muscle… these things can be damaged.
      -By locally applying (“unknowingly” counts as well) shear stress at some location on an artery, the tissue, at the microscopic level, undergoes damage and the structures lose part of their resistance. Remodelling (at the BIOLOGICAL LEVEL, not the “spinal remodelling” thing thrown around) takes place, so that the damage can be repaired and the natural, resistant form of the structure can be restored.
      -Remodelling can only proceed so fast, however (and it is very slow, considering, for example, the turnover rate of collagen). HOWEVER, the artery is under constant stress due to conducting blood under significant pressure. In this sense, the artery resistance undergoes degeneration at some rate due to ongoing stress from performing its function.
      -Thus, it repairs itself with a rate A, while being stressed at a rate B.

      Under normal conditions, repair rate is very low, corresponding to a relatively low stress rate (excluding hypertension or other pathologies) that may potentially slightly supersede the repair rate, but for a healthy artery, nothing goes wrong, because its condition can already withstand the increased loads. So, it slowly wears and tears over time, but it is strong enough to begin with, and withstands the process for many decades. Damaging an artery brings it closer (potentially MUCH closer) to its failure point (talking about brittle failure, i.e. fracture, as in “dissection”). Thus, the stress rate may be exceeding the slow regeneration rate and the failure point is reached earlier, not immediately, but soon after.

      Im simple words, potential damage to an artery, during a chiropractic session, suddenly brings the material condition much closer to the failure point. After going AWAY from the session, with WHATEVER symptoms may be perceived as relieved, blood doesn’t stop flowing. It does flow and the artery keeps getting stressed. Only now, the fact that the stress rate is higher than the remodelling (reparation) rate starts playing an important part. It may take a few days to a few weeks to reach the failure point if no intervention takes place. Imagine having a dissected artery three weeks after a chiropractic session. It is too difficult to establish the correlation AND get anyone to believe you. It is also impossible to decide to blame it on the chiropractor. It could be described as “a disaster waiting to happen”.

      Now, with respect to the “nerve damage” story, things are correspondingly frightening in the “regeneration” department.

      • Quite. The only folks actually qualified to twist necks like that are Royal British Commandos.

      • Spinal remodelling relates to global alignment and not individual vertebrae. Non-surgical spinal remodelling involves the use of specific types of traction and exercise and not just hand or mechanical assisted manipulation. I refer you to the link of tested evidence and science based procedures proven to non-surgicially realign an abnormally aligned spine. https://idealspine.com/what-is-cbp/

        • IN DECEMBER 1980, CHIROPRACTIC BIOPHYSICS® OR CBP® TECHNIQUE, WAS ORIGINALLY NAMED BY DRS. DONALD HARRISON, DEANNE HARRISON, AND DANIEL MURPHY FOR “PHYSICS APPLIED TO BIOLOGY IN CHIROPRACTIC”.

          That® is® indeed® what® happens® when® you® have® your® research® done® by® lawyers® instead of by scientists.

        • Mr. Epstein

          Spinal remodelling relates to global alignment and not individual vertebrae. Non-surgical spinal remodelling involves the use of specific types of traction and exercise and not just hand or mechanical assisted manipulation. I refer you to the link of tested evidence and science based procedures proven to non-surgicially realign an abnormally aligned spine.

          Tissue remodeling (any tissue) requires (very) prolonged mechanical traction/compression. Think orthodontic braces for example.
          The intermittent jerks and thumps involved in DD Palmer’s invention of a set of theatrical tricks have no possibility of producing tissue remodeling. Any research of such methods is equivalent to research in homeopathy, i.e. total lack of prior probability. This is often referred to as tooth-fairy science.
          If other techniques such as bracing and prolonged traction are involved, this should not be confused with chiropractic methodology.

          • You are absolutely incorrect as Chiropractic methodology does include bracing and prolonged traction for the following reason. 1
            1. Traction procedures are invented by chiropractors and published in the peer reviewed scientific literature and are now being further tested by other health practitioners, mainly physiotherapists from Cairo University.
            2. Trademarks are applied to procedures or techniques in order to legally protect the original author from intellectual property theft.
            3.There is no other way to predictably correct or reduce abnormal spinal displacements which are not caused by spinal deformity. Bracing for deformity(scoliosis/hyperkyphosis) is the only way the maintain or reduce in many cases. Again chiropractic is at the forefront of developing novel methods of bracing for spinal deformity. Here is the link http://www.sydneyscoliosisclinic.com.au/our-team/

          • Wrong Mr. Epstein.
            You obviously lack insight into genuine medicine.
            1. Traction and bracing were not invented or developed by chiropractors. If some practitioners of chiropractic, claim to have invented new methods of using these modalities and are using these to treat real ( or fake) medical problems, then they are stepping out of their scope into another field, that of orthopedic medicine. This has nothing to do with the set of theatrical tricks that make up the “chiropractic show” and were invented by an uneducated charlatan and continue to be marketed without evidence of utility with the pretense of treating medical problems via imaginary mechanisms (i.e. subluxation and inate intelligence)

            2. Irrelevant to the topic

            3. See point 2.

            Please keep the discussion on topic, which is trauma caused by chiropractic (neck) manipulation, not traction or bracing, which are not chiropractic.

        • Nice, so spinal remodelling is a newly invented term then, to refer to spinal alignment. Why call it spinal remodelling then, rather alignment? Why resort to a fancy term? (QUESTION 1).

          I jumped over to the website: https://idealspine.com/what-is-cbp/ and get the overall idea. It is the application of analytical geometry and vector calculus to the human spine. Great for analysis, but it hugely disregards the “physics” of the elements, as I find out. It appears to be interesting (potentially) for diagnostic reasons, but ONLY that far. When it comes to management, I see the usual chiropractic exaggerations, not to mention NOTHING that physical therapy cannot manage anyway. When the spine does not exhibit the naturally expected curvature locally, this almost NEVER happens without an underlying reason. Thinking that you can simply push things into place is a misunderstanding. When there are structural defects, nothing can be pushed into place just by pressing here and there.

          Also, visiting (finally) the website http://www.epsteinchiropractors.com/, I can’t help but wonder what the need for such a spectacular web design is (QUESTION 2). Visiting https://www.fanta.com/, it bears more resemblance to the first one than meets the (ignorant?) eye.

          Taking a look at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280103 and I quote:
          (1)”Chiropractic was defined by D.D. Palmer as “a science of healing without drugs”.”
          Then, what catches my eye from http://www.epsteinchiropractors.com/ is (I quote):
          (2)”Our purpose is to provide immediate nonsurgical and drug-free chiropractic attention to spinal caused health conditions as well as ….”.

          From (1), it appears that chiropractic is BY DEFINITION drug-free… (AND nonsurgical for that matter, otherwise it would be DANGEROUS). Why, then, restate obvious redundant facts with large letters? (QUESTION 3).

          In https://www.fanta.com/, I read on the bottles, “CAFFEINE FREE”. In a very long time, most flavors of Fanta products never had any caffeine in them. Furthermore, https://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm194317.htm states that:
          (3) “The Nutrition Facts Panel on food labels is required to include recommended dietary information for nutrients. Caffeine is not a nutrient. It is a natural chemical found in such items as tea leaves, coffee beans, and cacao (used to make chocolate). If caffeine is added to a food, it must be included in the listing of ingredients required on food product labels.”

          So, from (4), it appears that the “Caffeine-free” sign is COMPLETELY unnecessary. Why then, restate obvious, redundant facts with large letters (QUESTION 3, revisited)?

          The answer to Questions 1, 2 and 3 is, of course, MARKETING… when things are unproven (alternative term for “ineffective”), it usually requires some art and information-flood to convince people. Desperate folks would fall more easily for full-screen color pictures and big letters stating obvious facts, making void points that usually appeal to emotion. To make my point even more CLEAR, check out a medical service website that does NOT employ marketing tricks to attract people: http://www.artclinic.com/. This is a private clinic with many surgical services. Even at http://www.artclinic.com/plastic-cosmetic-surgery, where they describe the procedures, the site is as simple and elegant (let alone decent) as possible. As for before-after pictures, they have them linked in a different location/page. Imagine, then, what if the “artclinic” page were built as per the standards of the 2 aforementioned websites. One would definitely expect the cover page to be flooded with boobs (to say the least).

          To come closer to the point, Chiropractic Biophysics has been around for a few decades. I think a nice INSIDE criticism has been carried out that can be read at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1839992/ from which I quote (not out-of-context):
          –“In conclusion, we find neither support for the CBP protocols of care, nor merit in the technique comparisons drawn in this study”.
          –“We would also recommend that future systematic reviews involving CBP or any other technique system use conventional systematic review standards and not be undertaken by anyone with a vested interest in the outcome”.
          –“We do not think the public interest is best served by the proprietors of trademarked technique systems implying the protocols they think best for their own methods applies more generally, fay, to “structural rehabilitation”. We do expect these proprietors to conduct the clinical research demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of their procedures, but independent reviewers should be entrusted with the responsibility of reducing evidence like this to clinical guidelines and best-practices protocols. When and if technique system proprietors take issue with the opinions and methods of independent reviewers, they retain the right to make their own views known, just as Oakley has recently done [26].”

          ([26]: http://www.idealspine.com/pages/ajcc_october_2005_its_pauls_opinion.htm)

          Now, I would have skipped the quotes if I weren’t afraid that some people that need to will not take the (little) time to read the paper. Let me also remind at this point that the paper was published in the Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association…

    • “Let’s not forget that a 100 people die each day in the USA from an opioid overdose due to their desire to get pain relief.”
      You present this datum as if it’s somehow the fault of medicine: these are overdose deaths in drug addicts and their desire is to get a high, not pain relief.

      • Wrong! In most of the world, the number one Years with Disability is back and neck pain with most addicted opiate users initially medically prescribed with opiates. Solutions are now being reviewed by the US Food and drug administration because of the Opiate Crisis. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM557071.pdf

        • most addicted opiate users initially medically prescribed with opiates.

          That’s a fine claim. Do you have any evidence?

          • The following link will provide you with the evidence regarding opiate addiction for chronic pain and the imminent national emergency declared by the US government.
            https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM557071.pdf
            Read page 4 Section B1 “Healthcare practitioners should understand that most of the opioids available for misuse and abuse in the community originate from prescriptions from individual patients.” In addition on page 3, Section II Chiropractic(Spelled incorrectly) is listed as playing an important role in the management of acute and chronic pain.

          • Please Mr. epstein!
            Once again, what does opiate use have to do with the topic? Opiate overuse is a problem, no one is disputing that. But it is a topic for another forum.
            As chiropractors and other purveyors of improbable practices like to argue, the FDA can be wrong and in adding DD Palmer’s bag of tricks to suggested measures for chronic pain, they most likely are very wrong.

            Chiropractic manipulation is not and can not be substantiated by any shortcomings of medicine. It lacks both evidence and prior probability for its purported efficacy. Your argument is therefore irrelevant and invalid. It is a classic tu quoque fallacy, which someone who likes to flaunt the “Dr.”-prefix should know not to use in lieu of proper, factual argumentation.

          • The following link will provide you with the evidence regarding opiate addiction for chronic pain and the imminent national emergency declared by the US government.
            https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM557071.pdf

            I was hoping for something more clever than this forcing of an open door. No one is denying that opiates, and just about any treatment – medical or not — can be misused and abused. Just look at what a scalpel can do in the wrong hands. Also, this statement implies that patients are the source of opiates used by drug addicts. So, if anyone is to blame here, it is dishonest or malevolent patients and/or doctors, not evil medicine. In addition, as Bjorn said earlier: you are trying to confuse the issue at hand. Even if medicine were the most evil and malevolent discipline that ever existed, that does not make chiropractic benign and efficient. It is not.

        • Please do not clutter the discussion with off topic matters. We are discussing chiropractic methods and practice. Opiate overuse is certainly a problem but any shortcomings or problems in medicine are irrelevant to the question of whether chiropractic methods and means are efficacious or safe.
          Trying to derail the discussion in this manner does not contribute anything.

    • These are the conditions not-a-doctor Epstein ‘treats’;

      Fibromyalgia
      Low Back Pain
      Neck Pain
      Headaches
      Arthritis
      Scoliosis
      Whiplash
      Dizziness

      Any doctors (real ones, not crackpot chiro or any other charlatan) wish to comment on the suitability of chiro to any of these, particularly fibromyalgia and scoliosis?

      • And this is the one condition for which his treatments are effective:

        Fat Wallet Disorder

        I am unware of any other conditions, but I may have missed them.

        • “FWD- Fat Wallet Disorder” has been added to my collection of important and useful terms. Thank you for introducing it.

      • If you have a concern on what I list on my website as conditions I can treat, please file a complaint with the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency. I will get back to you at the end of their investigation. You may notice that in regards to scoliosis, I state that it can only be effectively co- managed with bracing and I recommend the Sydney Scoliosis Clinic as my referral base.

        • LOL….”conditions I can treat”. Interesting choice of words considering, at least in the US, DCs are not legally (and certainly not educationally) qualified to ‘diagnosis’ any diseases since they CANNOT actually treat anything but subluxation (which only exists in metaphysics).
          Your contention of ‘treating’ via the bait & switch tactic which is Chiropractic, is to suggest to the uninformed, undereducated and constitutionally gullible that “your nervous system is impeded by misaligned vertebrae (or the more sophisticated-sounding “global posture alterations and altered spinal curves”) and thus ANYTHING you suffer with is invariably within the purview of my ‘Chiropractic treatment’….since “I” unimpair your CNS.
          Voila’…..”bait”: ill informed gullible people getting transient ‘relief’ from skin, joint and muscle receptors & placebo/care-giving effects…..and the “switch”: telling said gullible marks that their CNS, immune system and physical health will be demonstrably and dramatically enhanced….IF they can afford it!
          And of course proffering the gullibles’ alreay exsistent willingness to confuse temporal correlation with causation. Voila’ again!

        • If you have a concern on what I list on my website as conditions I can treat

          Treating is not the issue. You can treat any and all conditions. Everyone can. Getting demonstrable results that outweigh the risks is what is important, and the only demonstrable results chiroquacks have is that their victim’s wallets are thinner after the treatments. A swindler is a swindler, even more so if he/she puts Dr. in front her/his name.

      • I really feel like commenting, but I will let the knowledgeable speak for themselves:

        https://youtu.be/FHKr3PQm3d8?t=94
        Really, one only needs to watch the video until 2:14… this is THE description of how chiropractic totally CAN change your life!

        Demo excerpt from the video: “[…] for every decade [of subluxation] it takes a year to correct it […] which makes sense […]”

        Brief background explanation:
        This is a video project (apparently) created for the course CHPM 2605 (check https://catalog.life.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=4&coid=2729), which is offered in the FIFTH QUARTER of the Chiropractic Curriculum of the Life University, where Dr. Michael Epstein received his official training, possibly around 1982. Maybe the course was not available back then, noone can know for sure. It is expected, however, that some marketing courses DID exist.

        The course is titled:
        “Practice Development I: Personal Marketing”,
        which should be more than evident with respect to what it concerns.

        As for the description in the video, it really falls TOO short of ethics. After searching around, it appears there are too many videos for this course on youtube (are they expected to upload them on youtube as the standard mode of hand-in?). One thing that immediately catches attention with respect to these new-patient-simulations is a “standard expectation” for x-ray exams… many of these. Another thing is… well, there are many more things to comment, but I believe the simple explanation provided in the video link (from 1:34 to 2:14) above makes a truly marvellous catch-all description of chiropractic. Ironically, it appears that the talking style is also tailor-made for such a vivid description of chiropractic.

  • Frank Odds,
    Do you have a peer reviewed reference, or any reference for this statement?

    “…….. these are overdose deaths in drug addicts and their desire is to get a high, not pain relief.”

  • A lot has been published by CBP since 2006. Numerous RCTs now provide support for a number of CBP protocols.

Leave a Reply

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

Please answer the following: *

Gravityscan Badge

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