No, I kid you not!
This abstract was actually published in the leading chiro-journal. The authors include three professors from the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Research, Toronto, Canada. Its title is impressive but made my alarm bells ring a bit:
A Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Chiropractic Care for Headaches With and Without a Self-Acupressure Pillow.
And the actual texts does not disappoint those looking for of pure pseudo-science:
The purpose of this study was to determine if the addition of a self-acupressure pillow (SAP) to typical chiropractic treatment results in significantly greater improvement in tension-type and cervicogenic headache sufferers.
METHODS:
A pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted in a chiropractic college teaching clinic. Thirty-four subjects, including tension-type and cervicogenic headache sufferers, 21 to 60 years of age, male or female, completed the study. Group A (n = 15) received typical chiropractic care only (manual therapy and exercises), and group B (n = 19) received typical chiropractic care with daily home use of the SAP. The intervention period was 4 weeks. The main outcome measure was headache frequency. Satisfaction and relief scores were obtained from subjects in the SAP group. Analysis of variance was used to analyze the intergroup comparisons.
RESULTS:
Owing to failure of randomization to produce group equivalence on weekly headache frequency, analysis of covariance was performed showing a trend (P = .07) favoring the chiropractic-only group; however, this was not statistically significant. Group A obtained a 46% reduction of weekly headache frequency (t = 3.1, P = .002; d = 1.22). The number of subjects in group A achieving a reduction in headaches greater than 40% was 71%, while for group B, this was 28%. The mean benefit score (0-3) in group B of the use of the SAP was 1.2 (.86). The mean satisfaction rating of users of the SAP was 10.4 (2.7) out of 15 (63%).
CONCLUSION:
This study suggests that chiropractic care may reduce frequency of headaches in patients with chronic tension-type and cervicogenic headache. The use of a self-acupressure pillow (Dr Zaxx device) may help those with headache and headache pain relief as well as producing moderately high satisfaction with use.
Where to begin?
Perhaps it is best, if I simply concentrated on the bizarre research question: is chiropractic care plus the largely uncontrolled use of an ‘acupressure cushion’ better than chiropractic care alone? To savour the lunacy of it, we need to consider that:
- chiropractic is not plausible;
- chiropractic care is not proven to be effective for headaches;
- acupressure is not plausible;
- acupressure is not proven to be effective;
- a self-administered acupressure cushion is also unproven and even less plausible;
This, I fear, renders the study one of the most nonsensical trials I have seen for a very long time. To make the bonanza in pseudo-science complete, the article is supplemented with a most bizarre conclusion about the effectiveness of chiropractic (which, of cause, cannot be examined in a trial of chiro vs chiro).
All this leads me to fear that:
- the best journal of chiropractic is rubbish;
- a professorship in a chiro school may not mean that the professor has the slightest idea about research methodology;
- chiropractors will try to squeeze a conclusion that is favourable for their trade even out of a dead horse.
62 Responses to Chiropractic ineptitude camouflaged as research
Leave a Reply to Bill Kusiar Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
This is comedic gold. Chiropractors testing a product which is intended to relieve them of some work (dollars), and they find it works because of some study in stupidity.
This is the Dr Zaxx website;
http://www.abestweb.com/forums/showthread.php?130347-New-ARC-Merchant-Dr-Zaxx
How anyone could read this and not see the charlatanism and exploitative nature is beyond me. Are chiropractors a special brand of stupid?
No, chiropractors are a special type of dishonest and devious, who hope to bamboozle the confused and gullible with white coats and apparently scientific research: but what an insult to those of ven average intelligence!
‘Chiropractic Journal’?
These are house magazines copying the page layout of scientific journals and pretending to be the same.
I’m starting to think that perhaps many of these alt med people really do know how to conduct research, because they seem to very adapt at avoiding anything that might disprove their work. If they were really ignorant as they pretend to be, given the myriad variations on research methodology that they go through, pure chance would dictate that at least one of them would sooner or later happen to conduct a blinded randomized controlled study that was actually capable of returning a genuine result.
Professor Ernst: I wonder, have you thought of contacting any of these authors and challenging them about their apparently garbage research?
I rarely do that and always hope that they learn about my post and post a comment.
What a shame. I know Howard Vernon very well, and he is a fine academician worthy of even your respect.
and how can you accord this with pseudo-research of this nature?
I’m not a researcher and so I’m not a good judge of the work. What I do know is something of the calibre of the lead Author who I am confident is familiar with research methods.
are you aware that you just formulated a classical fallacy ???
well done!
Well, it appears Bill Kusiar is this person (http://www.churchstreetclinic.com/team/bill-kusiar) who has been a chiroprtactor for 38 years. I do wish posters who have a vested interest would declare that interest.
According to his profile,
“Bill Kusiar, D.C., is a 1977 graduate of The Anglo-European College of Chiropractic (AECC) in Bournmouth.
Immediately on qualifying he joined The Shrewsbury Chiropractic Clinic practising with his Father for the next 13 years. During this time he developed a close working relationship with the Oswestry Orthopaedic Hospital where he was a Research and Clinical Associate in the Dept for Spinal Disorders.
In 1989 he left Shrewsbury and took up a full-time academic post at the AECC lecturing in Orthopaedics and helping develop computerised case history simulations in spinal disorders for the University of Rochester, USA.”
Bill is truthful when he says he is not a researcher NOW, but less truthful when failing to tell of his research experience. He has also posted here before in the same belligerent manner.
Please educate me
Any academically rigorous treatment of chiropractic will start form the basis of the mechanism of action. For anything other than low back pain, this is pretty much absent. Testing how it works for various implausible indications is no different from testing how well homeopathic placebos “work” in different contexts: it does not address the fundamental research question which needs answering, it just adds to the pile of chaff that needs to be blown away in order to address those questions.
I’m sure you’ll enlighten me.
A good place to start with regards to Howard Vernon is here:
http://www.researchgate.net/researcher/16364084_Howard_T_Vernon
Chiropractic researcher worthy of your support!
@Critical_Chiro
Are you suggesting we start a collection for sending him to a course in basic research methodology and ethics?
“A good place to start with regards to Howard Vernon is here:
http://www.researchgate.net/researcher/16364084_Howard_T_Vernon
Chiropractic researcher worthy of your support!”
If he is such a gun researcher, why did he participate in such a ridiculous project as this? The assumption that acupressure works wasn’t addressed, only assumed, and that some pillow will miraculously apply the necessary pressures at the right points (as laughable as that is) when sleepers move, and, finally, to come up with such stupid conclusions?
And you are pinning your hopes on the recognition of the scientific basis of chiropractic on this?
Frank Collins: I wasn’t aware I’d been hiding my identity and certainly Professor Ernst is aware of my being a Chiropractor. Anything else you would like to know about me ?? I’d be more than happy to oblige I have nothing to hide…unlike some who hide behind pseudonyms. As regards being a Researcher I have done a very small amount of research many years ago and that as a member of a small team which was investigating the physiology of the Sacroiliac joint. I’m not sure how you make out I’m untruthful and as for belligerent I think my comments pale into insignificance compared to the vitriol poured out by others.
@Bill Kusiar,
“I wasn’t aware I’d been hiding my identity and certainly Professor Ernst is aware of my being a Chiropractor.”
Many people provide a link in their name so others can easily determine their “interest”.
“Anything else you would like to know about me ?? I’d be more than happy to oblige I have nothing to hide…unlike some who hide behind pseudonyms.”
“I’m not sure how you make out I’m untruthful and as for belligerent I think my comments pale into insignificance compared to the vitriol poured out by others.”
Juxtaposed and self-explanatory.
“As regards being a Researcher I have done a very small amount of research many years ago and that as a member of a small team which was investigating the physiology of the Sacroiliac joint.”
So small that you chose, nonetheless, to make a point of it in your bio; “where he was a Research and Clinical Associate in the Dept for Spinal Disorders.”?
Seemingly so small you made the point above; “I’m not a researcher and so I’m not a good judge of the work.”?
So small you learnt nothing about how research is conducted?
Perhaps I should add disingenuous to your attributes?
Yet, you sought to dive in to this thread about “research” conducted on a product “designed to give CST while sleeping”? Do chiropractors give their support to all other forms of alt-med simple because it is alt-med? The prof has written about CST to point out a basic fact; it is a nonsense because the cranial joints do not move. Björn Geir has posted about his experience with the cranium, many of which he has cut open and affirmed, categorically, they have no movement.
Despite this, you say “What I do know is something of the calibre of the lead Author who I am confident is familiar with research methods.”. As the prof then said; “are you aware that you just formulated a classical fallacy ???
well done!”.
I reiterate; “Are chiropractors a special brand of stupid?”.
@ Collins: and more garbage and vitriol spews forth.
Bill,
You started in this tread with a strange request (“Professor Ernst: I wonder, have you thought of contacting any of these authors and challenging them about their apparently garbage research?”), followed with a logical fallacy, and it seems you are going to finish with another.
Despite the ludicrous nature of the supposed research, based on a device to treat a condition that does not exist, you piped up to support the researcher on the basis, “I know Howard Vernon very well, and he is a fine academician worthy of even your respect”. Real scientists critique the nature and conduct of the research, not accept it because Joe Bloggs is a good bloke. do you not understand this simple precept of real science?
You embellish your CV n your web page, but when asked about it, you give a disclaimer, noting its insignificance. Do you see the credibility gap growing?
You have fiddled around with people’s backs for nearly 35 years without credible evidence your treatments actually do anything, apart from line your pockets from the gullible. Do you see further slippage?
Yet, when these things are pointed out, you resort to the favourite of charlatans, the Ad hominem. One of us is a shyster and I know it isn’t me.
Bill?
Prof Ernst, in regard to good quality and ethical research, would you consider Shaun Holt to be a good researcher? If so, why? If not, why not?
You do not seriously want me to reply to such questions, do you?
Yes, I do. He is a colleague of yours. You have written articles with him. You are judged by the people you associate with. So, please answer the question…..,
Prof Ernst, in regard to good quality and ethical research, would you consider Shaun Holt to be a good researcher? If so, why? If not, why not?
Prof. Ernst
you have written articles with Shaun Holt. He claims to be a medical researcher and has published his research in the NZ Medical Journal.
His primary area of research has been Complementary Medicines, including chiropractic.
It is a simple question that you have to answer, and should not take too much effort on your behalf.
“In regard to good quality and ethical research, would you consider Shaun Holt to be a good researcher? If so, why? If not, why not?”
If you cannot or refuse to answer that, then perhaps other members of this group could do so on your behalf.
I have given you my answer: I do not answer daft questions of this nature
Prof Ernst
Sociologist Professor Kevin Dewes of Victoria University in New Zealand described your research colleague, Shaun Holt as being deceitful.
Is this a good summary and description of your Shaun Holt?
Shaun Holt is a medical researcher. He has written articles with you.
NZMJ 17 October 2008, Vol 121 No 1284; ISSN 1175 8716 Page 103
URL: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/121-1284/3323/ ©NZMA
You are very critical of the research by Howard Vernon, but how does it compare to the deceit adopted by Shaun Holt in his research published in the NZ Medical Journal?
Prof Ernst said:
Indeed. But the fact GibleyGibley does not understand why it’s a daft question is most revealing.
Which research of Holt are you talking about?
Does it matter? He is either ethical and honest and does good research, or he doesn’t. Could you answer the question, as Prof. Ernst refuses to?
“Prof Ernst, in regard to good quality and ethical research, would you consider Shaun Holt to be a good researcher? If so, why? If not, why not?”
Yes, it does matter. It is the quality of work, the results and the conclusions that matter, not some average assessment of the character of a person. That is not to say that if somebody consistently produces questionable work that an assessment of their future papers is made in that light but just asking for such an assessment without data is futile. For example, Montagnier produced excellent work on identifying HIV as the causative agent of AIDS. That work still stands and is not downgraded because of his ridiculous claims of transmitting DNA identity by radio. Neither is that later work given more credence because of his earlier work, it just means his claims are examined and not immediately dismissed as ridiculous.
So I ask again, which work are you referring to?
Ah. You’re forgetting the cult of personality that abounds in altmed circles.
A fundamental point to remember is that chiropractic is not a treatment, chiropractic is a profession. Chiropractic care refers to whatever treatment and/or advice a chiropractor offers to a patient and incorporates a breadth of treatment options, a number of which are shared with other physical therapies. Therefore, to make a statement such as “chiropractic is not plausible” is not only erroneous and misleading, it implies that all other physical therapies are also implausible. Is that the intention?
So, what is it that makes the chiropractic ‘profession’ different from, say, the osteopathic ‘profession’?
The differences, or similarities between the chiropractic, osteopathic or physiotherapy professions is not the point. The point is that each is a profession, not a treatment and it is therefore a false premise to describe any or all as not being plausible.
David said:
No, that was entirely the point of my question – it had no other. I am very interested in the answer:
What is it that makes the chiropractic ‘profession’ different from, say, the osteopathic ‘profession’?
I beg to differ.
“Chiropractic” is a term, which is essential to clearly identify the methodology and theory initially fabricated from nothing by an uneducated magnetic healer and still marketed as a healing panacea. It is important not to confuse it with other manipulative therapy modalities, many of which are, in contrast to chiropractic, based on proven and scientifically sound principles. Doctors are not medicine. Even if you sometimes see references to “the medical profession”, that is also a confusion of terms.
@ Bjorn
Can you explain how another manipulative therapy modalities differ from a chiropractors modalities?
Also what type of manipulative therapy modalities are based on proven and scientifically sound principles?
Of course I can, as anyone who has genuinely studied the matter and even tested.
But I do not have to outline it here for you. It is quite well explained (with references) in two Wikipedia articles on “Spinal manipulation” and on “Spinal adjustment”. You can do your own research using these as a starting point.
@ Bjorn
Well if you can explain it, then go ahead. I think it is better to read your original thoughts on the difference between another manipulative therapy modalities and a chiropractors modalities?
Did you answer my second question?
p.s My conclusion would be that there is no difference between a “spinal adjustment” and “spinal manipulation” when using a HVLA technique
I am not sure what happened when my unfinished comment suddenly went in twice without the chance to edit either one… Anyway here is my comment again:
@AN…
Either you are daft or you are a simple troll. There is no reason for me to write an essay to answer your impertinent questions when the information is there for you to read on line. I gave you two leads where you can look up information on Wikipedia. In at least one of them there is clear reference to the definitions of a chiropractic society.
What is known about the efficacy or lack of it is addressed as well.
@ Bjorn
I am not being disrespectful when i am asking my questions. I just want to read you views on the issue you raised, which was the difference between another manipulative therapy modalities and a chiropractors modalities. I have read the information you highlighted and more but that is not the same as reading your interpretation of it.
OK – I will ask you another question then. Is there a difference between a chiropractor performing a HVLA spinal manipualtion and a osteopath performing a HVLA spinal manipualtion and a physio performing a HVLA spinal manipualtion? If there is what would the difference be?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVLA. In the first case the practitioner calls himself
“chiropractor, the next ” osteopath” and the third “physiotherapist”. Other differences are due to chance, preference, and attitude.
@ Bjorn
So, in your opinion are they all using a modality that is based on proven and scientifically sound principles?
No. Did you not read my reply? I explained the difference between the examples of “practitioners” you gave and pointed to a starter source of information.
There you can find out that HVLA simply means High-Velocity-Low-Amplitude.
The following is not intended to feed the troll whom I am not addressing but for the audience who come here in search of information and enlightenment (and for me to hone my rhetoric).
“AN other” is confusing terms. HVLA is only one form of physical manipulation. AFAK it has little use in physiotherapy or medicine and is mainly used by quacks to impress the subject. In my native language we use the noun “Hnykkur” for an HVLA manipulation, or “adjustment” as chiropractors (read: chiro-quacks) call it. “Hnykkur” means litterally a thump or a jolt and the corresponding verb is to “hnykkja”. Chiropractors are thus known as “thumpers” or “jolters”. This is quite descriptive for what their . I tried it myself for some months and know very well what it is and what it isn’t (The only improvement was in his bank balance). I can assure the audience chiropractic adjustments is pure theater. There is small evidence for the utility of chiropractic adjustment in uncomplicated LBP and I (and many others) suspect that is an inadvertent effect of the chiro’s non-HVLA manipulation when (s)he rotates the body into a “pretzel” in preparation for the HVLA “thump”. Thereby (s)he rotates the spine and this may sometimes have a beneficial effect in acute LBP. I know of several physicians who use this trick in acute lumbago and my physical trainer uses it and teaches self-exercises based on it.
As has been explained ad nauseam here in this blog and is talked about in the (imperfect) WP article I referred to, HVLA thumping on the cervical spine and even in some circumstances on other parts, can be hazardous.
´Who´ applies HVLA does not matter so much as ‘what’ it is applied for. When it is applied to imaginary problems with imaginary effect mechanisms as is generally the case with osteopaths and chiropractors, it is quackery. Chiropractors for example advertise that they can cure or alleviate anything from Appendicitis through infertility to Zoster with adjustments. They presume this works through mechanisms that never have been confirmed, the so called “subluxations” (not the real one’s but imaginary spinal one’s that have never been confirmed with X-ray’s or any other objective method. The benefit/risk ratio is virtually non-existent as far as chiropractic HVLA is concerned because the potential for harm is there but close to no benefit.
If a physiotherapist applies HVLA adjustments to similarly non-existent or erroneously defined problems, then (s)he is delving into quackery as well. (Alas they do, and not only chiro-adjustments but stupidity as cupping and acupuncture as well)
Otherwise, careful knowledgeable manipulation of joints for mobilisation of adhesions and strictures or other problems where it has proven orthopedic indications, is AFAK never performed as HVLA thrusts. This is the field of genuine physiotherapy.
I came to think of one of the purest demonstrations I have ever come across, of “chiropractic” make-believe. I tried to edit it into my previous comment but am not sure I succeeded.
This is pure comedy and illustrates the most abject form of chiropractic, the “pediatric” variety. One does not know whether to laugh or cry when seeing this kind of fraudulent abuse, which cannot be excused by ignorance and delusion.
Here it is:
https://youtu.be/TjrQVB0tG1g
@Bjorn
I think I saw a lot of head lice drop out around 0:42, though maybe I’m just delusioning. That mini pneumatic drill gizmo has to be good for something!
@ Bjorn
Thanks for answering my questions. I do agree with some points (and will come to those), but the confusion about terms needs to clarified.
HVLA is manipulation and not one form of manipulation. There is mobilisation (LVHA) and then there is manipulation.
Even in one of the wikipedia pages (that you highlighted) it states “Because of its distinct biomechanics, the term high velocity low amplitude (HVLA) thrust is often used interchangeably with manipulation. In addition, it states manipulation can be distinguished from other manual therapy interventions such as joint mobilization by its biomechanics, both kinetics and kinematics.
There are different ways of performing HVLA (aka manipulation) but it is still just manipulation not mobilisation.
I do agree with you that there is an element of theatre to manipulation (whoever is performing it) but that can be said of all other forms of manual therapy. A study by Professor J Michael Menke found that (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24480940) in acute low back pain only 3% of the variance seen in clinical outcome could be ascribed to treatment. In chronic low back pain this figure was 32%. No specific provider group (physio, chiro, osteo) demonstrated superior effects to the others. Therefore non-specific factors were the biggest effect on outcomes.
I agree with you in relation to risks and there is a convincing case for the abandonment of HVLA (manipulation) of the cervical spine.
I agree with you that there are treatments within chiropractic (and other therapies), as your video demonstrates, which are ludicrous and stupid and should be viewed as such by all providers of manual therapy.
I completely agree with you that it doesn’t matter too much who is performing the HVLA (along as they have appropriate training), it is the intent or reason behind why they are using HVLA. Chiropractic’s subluxation and Osteopathic’s rule of the artery are perfect examples of applying a treatment to imaginary problems
The benefit / risk ratio for HVLA is there regardless of who performs it.
It is possible to practice manual therapy without relying on manipulation (HVLA) and just using mobilisation. Therefore form your experience of physiotherapy, this may seem true. However, physiotherapist do use HVLA (manipulation). In the USA, physical therapists have beensuing manipulation since the 1920’s. In Australia, a study looking into the use of cervical manipulation and mobilisation by physiotherapists (I think 26 physios) found that 77.6% chose to only use passive cervical joint mobilisation. However, cervical manipulation was used in 20.2% of treatments, and was delivered to 42% of patients at some time in their management.
The above is not attempt to annoy Bjorn, whom I am addressing but also for the audience who come here in search of information and hopefully look to critique my view so I can learn from them.
Chiropractors make claims of treatment that are constantly found to be untrue. Trying to get around this major flaw of chiropractic by claiming it is a profession appears to be a combination of the no true Scotsman and argument from authority fallacies.
“chiropractic is a profession.”
Profession, as in;
“a declaration of belief in a religion.”
http://www.chiro.org/Plus/History/Persons/PalmerDD/PalmerDD's_Religion-of-Chiro.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_David_Palmer#Palmer.27s_beliefs_and_philosophy
(As an active spiritist, D.D. Palmer said he “received chiropractic from the other world”[8] from a deceased medical physician named Dr. Jim Atkinson.[9]
According to B.J. Palmer, “Father often attended the annual Mississippi Valley Spiritualists Camp Meeting where he first claimed to receive messages from Dr. Jim Atkinson on the principles of chiropractic.”[10][11]
In his book, The Chiropractor (published posthumously, 1914), Palmer described the situation:
“The knowledge and philosophy given me by Dr. Jim Atkinson, an intelligent spiritual being, together with explanations of phenomena, principles resolved from causes, effects, powers, laws and utility, appealed to my reason. The method by which I obtained an explanation of certain physical phenomena, from an intelligence in the spiritual world, is known in biblical language as inspiration. In a great measure The Chiropractor’s Adjuster was written under such spiritual promptings.” (p. 5)”[11]
He regarded chiropractic as partly religious in nature. In a letter of May 4, 1911 he said:
“… we must have a religious head, one who is the founder, as did Christ, Mohamed, Jo. Smith, Mrs. Eddy, Martin Luther and other who have founded religions. I am the fountain head. I am the founder of chiropractic in its science, in its art, in its philosophy and in its religious phase.”[8]))
or this;
“a paid occupation, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification.”
such as used in relation to doctors?
Sorry, it is obviously a rhetorical question.
“Therefore, to make a statement such as “chiropractic is not plausible” is not only erroneous and misleading, it implies that all other physical therapies are also implausible. Is that the intention?”
Who would have thought a chiropractor would use logical fallacies; Argument from Authority and Sweeping Generalisation?
The only thing I can say nice about this post is that it reminds me to ask to be removed from the editorial list of JMPT; I have been meaning to do that for years, as I have not reviewed anything for the journal for a long time. Other than that I must say SHAME ON YOU EDZARD. You should consider reading the literature at least a little bit before you make a fool of yourself (again).
Prof. Ernst, I think you have just been gazumpt and outplayed by someone far better qualified than you.
Gibley,
It is now obvious you are a Kiwi chiropractor.
Only a chiro would say this, “Prof. Ernst, I think you have just been gazumpt and outplayed by someone far better qualified than you.”, for example. Only a chiro would have the lack of understanding to compare the profs qualifications unfavourably against Bove’s.
Come on, tell us where you phaff about pretending to be a doctor?
Do you treat kids based on this nonsense;
http://chiropractors.asn.au/membership/membership-benefits/item/146-chiropractic-faqs#References
“Is chiropractic care appropriate for children?
chiropractor with patientSince significant trauma can occur at birth, many parents choose to have their newborns checked for any spinal health related problems. Later, learning to walk, riding a bicycle, and other childhood activities can cause spinal health related problems.
While a bandage and some comforting words can help a skinned knee, the potential underlying structural damage to the child’s spine, skull, pelvis and extremities is the unique domain of a chiropractor.
Many childhood health complaints that are brushed off as “growing pains” may be able to be traced to the spine. Regular chiropractic checkups may be able to identify these problems and help avoid some of the health complaints seen later in adults. Naturally, Chiropractic adjusting procedures are modified to a child’s spine, particularly babies.”
Or, perhaps, you offer treatments based on the, ta da, SUBLUXATION;
http://chiropractic.org.nz/expect/
“The major purpose of the examination is to analyse the condition of your spine and nervous system and how it is functioning, locate any areas of subluxation, and rule out any contra-indications. If your case is not suitable for chiropractic care you will be advised accordingly and referred to the appropriate health care provider.”
and,
”
The Adjustment
The process of correcting subluxations is called an adjustment. Chiropractic adjustments are not necessarily the same thing as manipulations (although some chiropractors may use that term). Adjustments can range from the classic dynamic thrust through to very light forces and contacts, along with instrument and table-assisted delivery.”
It seems as Kiwi chiros have found the totally elusive subluxation; would you care to tell us when you found your first, or even your last?
Hello Frank.
I am a chiro who in the first week in practice had a 76 year old male patient see me for sudden weight loss and low back pain. He had seen his G.P for this and referred to a physio. The patient had lytic mets.
I am the chiro who had a patient referred to him by a local G.P. who found a fractured C4-5, and anterior shift. I am the chiro who, this year, had a 12 year old boy to see him for acute pain in the femur. Had seen the G.P. and physio. I referred him for immediate evaluation and emergency CT for suspected Ewings sarcoma.
I am the chiro., who last year referred two patients to the hospital for fractures of the cervical spine that had been missed by their own G.P., emergency department in the hospital, and physio. I am the chiro who weekly sees medical practitioners, nurses and other healthcare providers as patients.
@Gibley,
Before I respond to your post, I have a question. Do you ever wonder why the prof does not censor the posts, even your hounding of him about Holt, or the “admonition” by Hove almost directly above?
“I am a chiro who in the first week in practice had a 76 year old male patient see me for sudden weight loss and low back pain. He had seen his G.P for this and referred to a physio. The patient had lytic mets.”
What’s your point?
“I am the chiro who had a patient referred to him by a local G.P. who found a fractured C4-5, and anterior shift.”
Ditto.
“I am the chiro who, this year, had a 12 year old boy to see him for acute pain in the femur. Had seen the G.P. and physio. I referred him for immediate evaluation and emergency CT for suspected Ewings sarcoma. I am the chiro., who last year referred two patients to the hospital for fractures of the cervical spine that had been missed by their own G.P., emergency department in the hospital, and physio.”
Ditto.
So there are some crap doctors in the socialist utopia that is Unzud? Big deal. Five people out of how many are treated (fleeced) by you is no great recommendation.
“I am the chiro who weekly sees medical practitioners, nurses and other healthcare providers as patients.”
The only thing this says is that some people in the medical field don’t know much about chiropractic, and, possibly, you have a very soothing or amenable manner. None of this justifies the existence of the religion of chiropractic (oh, except for the financial health of your wallet).
Do you treat kids, as I asked above? Do you believe in subluxations, as outlined above?
Gibley,
In fact, I will go further.
You make the great claim of saving five people’s lives over how long? Surgeons, such as Björn Geir, cut people open on a daily basis to save and improve their lives, while you phaff about with a lot of the worried well.
Please, if you are going to make claims, make them substantial?
@FrankCollins
http://chiropracticaustralia.org.au/practice-policies/
https://www.coca.com.au/about/policy-statements/
Been a member of both for 20+ years!
Not surprised.
http://chiropracticaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Vertebral-Subluxation-Complex-Policy.pdf
“The term vertebral subluxation was coined late in the 19th century at the foundation of the chiropractic profession. Like all theories in health care, our understanding of the term has evolved over the last 120 years. Today, it is best described as a biomechanical lesion affecting the range of motion of one or more vertebrae and which is amenable to spinal adjustment or manipulation.”
Can’t even get a consistent definition in a one page PDF.
http://chiropracticaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EBP-Policy.pdf
“Chiropractic Australia recommends that all clinical procedures should be based on biologically sound theory and where possible supported by sound scientific evidence.”
Strangely, the prof hasn’t come up with much in the way of good evidence after more than 20 years of looking. I wonder why?
http://chiropracticaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Paediatric-Care-Policy.pdf
“While the treatment of adults remains the majority of chiropractic practice, chiropractors commonly attend to the care of infants and children.”
Why? Because there is a quid in it. The proposition that children, particularly babies, need chiropractic care is one of the biggest crocks (frauds) of all time.
http://chiropracticaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Vaccination-Policy.pdf
“Vaccination, along with any medical intervention, involves risk to a minority of individuals. Chiropractic Australia supports the right of the individual to refuse vaccination but as primary contact practitioners, chiropractors have a special responsibility to themselves, their patients and the public at large, in the prevention and control of vaccine preventable diseases. Therefore, Chiropractic Australia endorses the Guidelines for the Control and Prevention of Infection in Healthcare (2010) of the National Health & Medical Research Council , including the recommendations on immunisation for health workers.”
Recognises the right of the individual to refuse? Thankfully, governments are taking away the dubious “right” chiropractors support.
The COCA policies are essentially the same (bullsh1t).
Only in the alt-med mind does this make sense.
@Geoff,
“The only thing I can say nice about this post is that it reminds me to ask to be removed from the editorial list of JMPT; I have been meaning to do that for years, as I have not reviewed anything for the journal for a long time.”
Why haven’t you done it then? Laziness or the perceived prestige, given it is a “Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) is dedicated to the advancement of chiropractic health care.”? Though why anyone would think being associated with a journal, dedicated to the religion of chiropractic, confers prestige is well and truly beyond me. I do not understand the mind of the alt-med.
” Other than that I must say SHAME ON YOU EDZARD. You should consider reading the literature at least a little bit before you make a fool of yourself (again).”
Err, he did, which may well explain this thread. It mystifies me how anyone can think some device, premised on treating conditions based on a mode of treatment which has no foundation in fact, can be anything other than nonsense? CST is nonsense because the cranial joints don’t move. Acupuncture and acupressure are fabrications, yet they combine to treat conditions based on some silly research by chiropractors?
Seriously Geoff, do you believe this nonsense?
I did wonder why he had not reviewed anything for a long time. Apart from refusing to review anything I cannot think of a reason which is complimentary either to the magazine or himself.
@Frank Collins
Is this Bull@#$% ??
“The chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex is an historical concept but it remains a theoretical model. It is not supported by any clinical research evidence that would allow claims to be made that it is the cause of disease.”
And this
“Other than in the context of the promotion of public health, vaccination and immunisation are outside the scope of chiropractic practice. Patients or members of the public who seek advice on specific aspects of vaccination and immunisation should be referred to an appropriately trained health professional, such as a general medical practitioner.”
And this
“The best available evidence is either inconclusive or does not support the use of manual therapy for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal conditions in children [1,2]. In COCA’s view it is inappropriate to provide treatment that has been shown to be ineffective or where there is insufficient evidence to support its use when other available treatment options have been demonstrated to be beneficial.”
And this
http://chiropracticaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Interprofessional-Practice-Policy.pdf
and this
http://chiropracticaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Diagnostic-Radiology-Policy.pdf
Bruce Walker who helped found COCA may be of interest to you:
http://profiles.murdoch.edu.au/myprofile/bruce-walker/
Another chiropractor at the forefront of reform that should be supported!