I have often criticised papers published by chiropractors.

Not today!

This article is excellent and I therefore quote extensively from it.

The objective of this systematic review was to investigate, if there is any evidence that spinal manipulations/chiropractic care can be used in primary prevention (PP) and/or early secondary prevention in diseases other than musculoskeletal conditions. The authors conducted extensive literature searches to locate all studies in this area. Of the 13.099 titles scrutinized, 13 articles were included (8 clinical studies and 5 population studies). They dealt with various disorders of public health importance such as diastolic blood pressure, blood test immunological markers, and mortality. Only two clinical studies could be used for data synthesis. None showed any effect of spinal manipulation/chiropractic treatment.

The authors concluded that they found no evidence in the literature of an effect of chiropractic treatment in the scope of PP or early secondary prevention for disease in general. Chiropractors have to assume their role as evidence-based clinicians and the leaders of the profession must accept that it is harmful to the profession to imply a public health importance in relation to the prevention of such diseases through manipulative therapy/chiropractic treatment.

In addition to this courageous conclusion (the paper is authored by a chiropractor and published in a chiro journal), the authors make the following comments:

Beliefs that a spinal subluxation can cause a multitude of diseases and that its removal can prevent them is clearly at odds with present-day concepts, as the aetiology of most diseases today is considered to be multi-causal, rarely mono-causal. It therefore seems naïve when chiropractors attempt to control the combined effects of environmental, social, biological including genetic as well as noxious lifestyle factors through the simple treatment of the spine. In addition, there is presently no obvious emphasis on the spine and the peripheral nervous system as the governing organ in relation to most pathologies of the human body.

The ‘subluxation model’ can be summarized through several concepts, each with its obvious weakness. According to the first three, (i) disturbances in the spine (frequently called ‘subluxations’) exist and (ii) these can cause a multitude of diseases. (iii) These subluxations can be detected in a chiropractic examination, even before symptoms arise. However, to date, the subluxation has been elusive, as there is no proof for its existence. Statements that there is a causal link between subluxations and various diseases should therefore not be made. The fourth and fifth concepts deal with the treatment, namely (iv) that chiropractic adjustments can remove subluxations, (v) resulting in improved health status. However, even if there were an improvement of a condition following treatment, this does not mean that the underlying theory is correct. In other words, any improvement may or may not be caused by the treatment, and even if so, it does not automatically validate the underlying theory that subluxations cause disease…

Although at first look there appears to be a literature on this subject, it is apparent that most authors lack knowledge in research methodology. The two methodologically acceptable studies in our review were found in PubMed, whereas most of the others were identified in the non-indexed literature. We therefore conclude that it may not be worthwhile in the future to search extensively the non-indexed chiropractic literature for high quality research articles.

One misunderstanding requires some explanations; case reports are usually not considered suitable evidence for effect of treatment, even if the cases relate to patients who ‘recovered’ with treatment. The reasons for this are multiple, such as:

  • Individual cases, usually picked out on the basis of their uniqueness, do not reflect general patterns.
  • Individual successful cases, even if correctly interpreted must be validated in a ‘proper’ research design, which usually means that presumed effect must be tested in a properly powered and designed randomized controlled trial.
  • One or two successful cases may reflect a true but very unusual recovery, and such cases are more likely to be written up and published as clinicians do not take the time to marvel over and spend time on writing and publishing all the other unsuccessful treatment attempts.
  • Recovery may be co-incidental, caused by some other aspect in the patient’s life or it may simply reflect the natural course of the disease, such as natural remission or the regression towards the mean, which in human physiology means that low values tend to increase and high values decrease over time.
  • Cases are usually captured at the end because the results indicate success, meaning that the clinical file has to be reconstructed, because tests were used for clinical reasons and not for research reasons (i.e. recorded by the treating clinician during an ordinary clinical session) and therefore usually not objective and reproducible.
  • The presumed results of the treatment of the disease is communicated from the patient to the treating clinician and not to a third, neutral person and obviously this link is not blinded, so the clinician is both biased in favour of his own treatment and aware of which treatment was given, and so is the patient, which may result in overly positive reporting. The patient wants to please the sympathetic clinician and the clinician is proud of his own work and overestimates the results.
  • The long-term effects are usually not known.
  • Further, and most importantly, there is no control group, so it is impossible to compare the results to an untreated or otherwise treated person or group of persons.

Nevertheless, it is common to see case reports in some research journals and in communities with readers/practitioners without a firmly established research culture it is often considered a good thing to ‘start’ by publishing case reports.

Case reports are useful for other reasons, such as indicating the need for further clinical studies in a specific patient population, describing a clinical presentation or treatment approach, explaining particular procedures, discussing cases, and referring to the evidence behind a clinical process, but they should not be used to make people believe that there is an effect of treatment…

For groups of chiropractors, prevention of disease through chiropractic treatment makes perfect sense, yet the credible literature is void of evidence thereof. Still, the majority of chiropractors practising this way probably believe that there is plenty of evidence in the literature. Clearly, if the chiropractic profession wishes to maintain credibility, it is time seriously to face this issue. Presently, there seems to be no reason why political associations and educational institutions should recommend spinal care to prevent disease in general, unless relevant and acceptable research evidence can be produced to support such activities. In order to be allowed to continue this practice, proper and relevant research is therefore needed…

All chiropractors who want to update their knowledge or to have an evidence-based practice will search new information on the internet. If they are not trained to read the scientific literature, they might trust any article. In this situation, it is logical that the ‘believers’ will choose ‘attractive’ articles and trust the results, without checking the quality of the studies. It is therefore important to educate chiropractors to become relatively competent consumers of research, so they will not assume that every published article is a verity in itself…



I am so glad that some experts within the chiropractic community are now publishing statements like these.

This was long overdue.

How was it possible that so many chiropractors so far failed to become competent consumers of research?

Do they and their professional organisations not know that this is deeply unethical?

Actually, I fear they do and did so for a long time.

Why then did they not do anything about it ages ago?

I fear, the answer is as easy as it is disappointing:

If chiropractors systematically trained to become research-competent, the chiropractic profession would cease to exist; they would become a limited version of physiotherapists. There is simply not enough positive evidence to justify chiropractic. In other words, as chiropractic wants to survive, it has little choice other than remaining ignorant of the current best evidence.

61 Responses to Chiropractic: a truly remarkable and excellent review by chiropractors

  • Where is Crackpot_Chiro now?

  • I see chiropractors as car drivers compared to proper medical professionals who are akin to commercial air-line pilots.

    I drive a car with minimal training. Despite occasional “advanced” training, over the years, I remain significantly under-skilled, under-aware and poorly disciplined compared to the woman bringing an A380 from one continent to another.
    The person carrying hundreds of lives faces ongoing scrutiny: her actions are recorded in case of incident.
    I will not sit in a car “piloted” by someone who’s been drinking, used a phone or other distractions at the wheel, speeds, tailgates, undertakes… you get the gist.

    My doctor, nurse, radiographer are all pilots. The chiropractor drives with air freshener dangling from his mirror and revving at the traffic lights – although his car is always nice and clean.

    • In response to the comment on training, I would have to suggest that you look at the actual level of training chiropractors in Canada receive. If you took the the time, you would see that chiropractors receive a 4 year university degree in Canada that is akin to the level and standards of a general medical practitioner. In fact, in the areas of diagnosing injury, anatomy, physiology and rehabilitation, the chiropractic program of study is far superior in depth of knowledge and hours of teaching. Not to undermine any medical practitioner, as their depth of knowledge in illness, disease and pharmacology tops the hours of teaching in chiropractic, not to say chiropractors do not learn these areas of study, because they do, just not as many hours in teaching. So before you try to label the profession as car drivers in a world that needs pilots, you should do your due diligence and see what training Doctors of chiropractic receive and perhaps you would reconsider your opinion.

      • I would have to suggest that you look at the actual level of training chiropractors in Canada receive.

        In fact, in the areas of diagnosing injury, anatomy, physiology and rehabilitation, the chiropractic program of study is far superior in depth of knowledge and hours of teaching.

        Just Professor Ernst provides verifiable evidence for his claims against chiropractic, you could do the same in favour of chiropractic. If those studies are real, surely, it can’t be that hard, can it?

        Also, how do you deal with the rather inconvenient fact that there is (next to no) evidence chiropractic has a net beneficial effect? Hiding evidence is a double-edged sword. It may protect you against publication of disasters, but it also shields the public from learning what is so great about chiropractic, *if* – of course – that is indeed the case.

        • If you want “Verifiable evidence” the research is out there, research (Dr Heidi Haavik PhD in human neurophysiology and Dr Ted Carrick with the Carrick Institute). The problem with the medical community is their ego. If they can not read it in a peer reviewed journal than they do not believe that anything is possible, which only makes them the lesser of the medical community.

          What is the main objective of a medical doctor? To save lives….
          What is the main objective of chiropractic care? I’d like to see your answer to this question because as many medical doctors I have talked to they have no clue on what chiropractors actually do. BUT when asking a chiropractor, they know exactly what the medical profession does…. Interesting i would say.

          My questions for everyone here, does exercise help keep you healthy? Does eating good food make you healthier? Does movement to you extremities keep your brain healthy and allow your brain and endocrine system work optimally? Can a tight muscle to the upper neck cause Vestibulocollic reflex issues sending wrong information to the Vestibuloocular reflex, where by causes “vertigo like symptoms” “Concussion like symptoms” “GI like problems” etc…

          If you still have not connected the dots after reading this, then I highly suggest you learn to read research papers and actually put them to functional use. This is what chiropractors actually do.

          The chiropractic profession has not change their main focus of treatment in over a 120 years of existence. The medical field, well not so much. I remember rolling my ankle thinking I broke it. Went to the ER, the MD X-Ray it and told me it was a severe sprain/strain and to stay off of it for the next 8 weeks. I followed up with an orthopedic doctor and they gave me a boot and told me to stay off of it for 8 weeks. Yes no PT was offered. I saw my chiropractor a few days later and they had a little different approach to treating my ailments. Needless to say i was up and walking that day and fully functional in 1 week. That was 10 years go.
          I recently rolled my ankle last year, same scenario. The ER MD told me it was a severe sprain/strain and that I need to put movement in that ankle immediately for healing. BUT 10 years ago most medical doctors stated that the “Peer reviewed articles on these injury state 8-12 weeks of non-weight bearing” and now they state motion is the key to healing… Do chiropractor put motion in spine to evoke a neuro potential that can possible excite or inhibit efferent or afferent information and promote optimization of you bodies natural physiology?

          Here i go rambling when this article that is not peer reviewed and was posted by Edzard Ernst, whom has biased data and a biased point of view. Yes there are good MDs and horrible MDs, there are good chiropractors and horrible chiropractors. Just because you do not truly understand Chiropractic care does not mean you have dis agree with it. If you do dis agree with it because you think you know what chiropractors actually do and how they were trained than I feel bad for your patient’s because it is either your way or no way, and who is to say that your way is the right way…

          The problem with biology is that we do not fully understand it. Most medical personal would like to tell people that they do understand it but in reality there is to many variables. To disregard chiropractic care when this form of therapy has been around for centuries and helps hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis is just juvenile on your part.

          • Ryan. It is sad to see how little you know about medicine, and even less about chiropractic 🙂

          • “The problem with biology is that we do not fully understand it.” Agreed: but we understand enough to distinguish claims unsupported by any objective evidence from fantasy.

            “The chiropractic profession has not change their main focus of treatment in over a 120 years of existence. The medical field, well not so much.” First sentence; that’s the problem with chiropractic. Second sentence; nonsense!

          • whom has biased data and a biased point of view.

            How do you know this? Please let me know. Please provide evidence.

            Let me pose the question again:
            Just as Professor Ernst provides verifiable evidence for his claims against chiropractic, you could do the same in favour of chiropractic. If those studies are real, surely, it can’t be that hard, can it?
            It is not up to me to look for evidence this quackery works. You claim it does? You show me your best evidence. You cannot? Fine. I have no problems with that. Just know that if you cannot give me any reasons to believe your claims, that is a very good reason for me not to believe them.

          • I highly suggest you learn to read research papers and actually put them to functional use. This is what chiropractors actually do.

            Which explains why they are never able to provide any, because actual research papers provide little to no evidence for chiropractic, yes?

          • @Ryan
            I will answer your post not one of the other regulars here.
            Heidi Haaviks work does NOT provide evidence of subluxation “and/or early secondary prevention in diseases other than musculoskeletal conditions.” as Charlotte stated in her article. HH goes to the subluxation conferences like RubiCON, CalJam etc as the token researcher, they totally misrepresent her research, she remains quiet and laps up their adulation. She is allowing them to trash her research and rubbish her legacy. I have had similar conversations with chiro’s who tell me that HH’s work proves subluxation. Only one even mentions subluxation and then only as a hypothesis.
            You make claims then I suggest you ante up the evidence. Charlotte has looked and found none and I agree with her article. You should do the research because until then the plural of your anecdote does not equal evidence. Pity Edzard has taken a positive and twisted it into a negative instead of just showing some support for Charlotte for a change.

          • @Critical_Chiro

            Oh i am not arguing about subluxation. To me that word means nothing. People want to argue about that word go right ahead. I am arguing about what an adjustment actually does and how it can help people get out of pain. If you would like I can say that chiropractors are addressing a vertebral joint syndrome.

            Most people get tunnel vision when reading papers. HH is just showing that it can restore you actual brain potential as well as body potential with an adjustment. call it what you want: subluxation, vertebral complex syndrome, nerve root impingement etc…

          • You said “The chiropractic profession has not change their main focus of treatment in over a 120 years of existence”

            What was the life expectancy 120 years ago??

  • Good to see chiropractors doing good science. The real crunch will come if they research the benefits of chiropractic for musculoskeletal conditions. I hope they will.

  • Kudos to the authors, C. Goncalves, C. Le Scanff and C. Leboeuf-Yde!
    For many chiropractors, these conclusions must come close to “whistleblowing” and the authors certainly can expect major backlash from their community. I also applaud that -in contrast to so many other researchers- they find the appropriate words and avoid the typical phrases like “more research is needed to … blah… blah… blah…” that we read so often in papers dealing with CAM.
    I hope that the French Health minister, Agnès Buzyn, who made a quite ambiguous statement regarding homeopathy recently (as discussed in this blog, will take this paper into account for future decisions on chiropractic treatments.

  • Oh man!! This is incredible news for the world! Perhaps the leaking, slowly sinking ship that is the ill begotten profession of chiropractic will hasten it’s trip to the bottom of the sea and finally drown itself in its lunacy and greed. Or am I being too harsh….not.

  • That is some good news for today. I can use it. Even more so after after this article in Belgium’s leading Dutch-language newspaper De Standaard that shows the government is subsidising/paying for career-advice on the basis of skull measurements:
    Needless to say, there is approximately as much evidence for this as for chiropractors’ subluxations.

  • I think this is indeed a very courageous deed by these people, and I sincerely hope that this example will eventually be followed by many more who were trained to believe in and apply alternative treatments.

    In fact, I’ve wondered for years about the total absence of any self-cleansing forces in the alternative universe; even people coming up with the most ridiculous treatments and delusions were always welcomed into the fold, just as long as they supported the alternative way of thinking in general.
    For instance, there are literally countless examples of (often self-proclaimed) homeopaths going totally round the bend, abandoning all reason, claiming the most absurd things — yet without so much as an unfavourable remark from their brethren, let alone a scathing dismissal for poisoning the principles of their profession.

    For instance, here’s a man who almost literally says that homeopathy is merely a form of sympathetic magic:
    I quote:

    “Personal experience as a sensitive supervisor
    I experienced strong symptoms from the remedy even though I did not take it …”

    Yet as far as I can tell, this man is still respected in homeopathic circles. And there are even more egregious examples:
    And there are many, many more like this, revealing that homeopathy has nothing to do with science and reason, and everything with a belief system, and “Us against (allopathic) Them” etcetera.

    But then again, you already said it:

    In other words, as chiropractic wants to survive, it has little choice other than remaining ignorant of the current best evidence.

    Or in the words of Upton Sinclair:

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

  • Charlotte is one of the chiropractic PhD’s who I have been following for many years, regularly citing on this blog.
    Sadly I have heard of an instance years ago where a subluxation true believer verbally abused her in a very unprofessional way at a conference. Other chiro’s came to her defense but she was visibly upset from what I heard. Fortunately it did not slowed her down of hold her back.
    Keith Charlton PhD (who has featured previously on this blog R.E. an article by Matthew McCoy abusing him for questioning the faith ) was one of the people who helped her get started in research. He is fond of calling vertebral subluxations “vertical submarines” much to the annoyance of the subbies. Does Keith have some interesting stories. Interestingly in the late 1980’s he lobbied hard to have a research department headed by Lynton Giles set up at the University of Queensland. Lynton is extensively published in top journals including The Lancet. It made it all the way to the Vice Chancellor who supported it. Unfortunately, it was blocked by the doctors.
    McCoy was brought out a few years ago as an “expert witness” by a subbie who was in court. The prosecution brought in Keith who tore huge holes in McCoy’s “expert” testimony and the judge was not kind in his assessment of McCoy. McCoy’s email rant at Keith afterwards is a classic. See here
    Keith has also been publishing articles like Charlotte’s above for years and had vexatious complaints made to the registration board and self appointed guru sue him for defamation. All of which he easily won.
    Stephen Perle has also consistently questioned the BS merchants and had his work and livelihood threatened by the subbies and their attack lawyers.
    “I’ve wondered for years about the total absence of any self-cleansing forces in the alternative universe”.
    Sadly I have to partially agree with your assessment. The subbies expect silence and as Keith has said in the past “silence is a form of consent”. That is something that I will never do in regards to subluxation and on this blog.
    We have had some recent victories. The Australian Spinal Research Foundation has cancelled its yearly subluxation love fest, “Dynamic Growth Congress” due to attendance dropping by 62% last year hopefully due to chiropractors in Australia holding them accountable and tearing them to sheds online.
    I have had similar discussions with members of Friends of Science in Medicine and they have said “its not our job to police chiropractic. It’s your job”. I have to agree but it does help to ask for their help, muscle and expertise in dealing with the subluxationists and the overseas ones who try to interfere in Australia. They have been very helpful.
    So here I ask those here again:
    Step 1. Point out the BS.
    Step 2. Support the chiropractors like Charlotte, Keith and Stephen.
    I am fine with Step 1 and your statements often mirror those made by critical chiropractors but if you do not take step 2 then you are carpet bombing and Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde is unacceptable collateral damage.

  • @Crackpot_Kyro: I love the way you are on a first name basis with these researchers….like you’re all old chums. How quaint.
    I believe Luther, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, seventh-day Adventist and innumerable other self-aggrandizing, greed driven idiots over the centuries have attempted to “reform” Christianity but to no avail…..SINCE THE UNDERLYING THING AIN’T ACTUALLY TRUE. Chiropractic is a Made-up religion that just ain’t true.
    You are a made-up reformer who can’t think straight due to the arrogance and pecuniary rewards being a DC has brought you.
    You really ought to just save your breath and key strokes as they add up to NADA to any right thinking homo sapiens.
    When you prove you can actually “treat-pain-away” (ANY pain) or treat-into existence robust health at “$88.00 per consultation” please publish the proof….I will gladly send an apology. Until then reform yourself by enrolling in medical school.

    • Can you explain to me how a medical doctor takes away pain?… Let me rephrase that. Other than prescribing drugs that help with pain or inflammation, which most of America is on but still seems to be in pain (then the side effects of taking pain killers causing other ailments and tissue functions) Tell me how the medical doctor personally takes away there pain?
      Chiropractors at least activate (by many forms of therapy) mechanoreceptor (Do i need to explain how to activate mechanoreceptors?) that inhibit nociceptive firing allowing their endorphins to release whereby decreasing pain/swelling as well as relaxing sympathetic tone, allowing their body to relax and letting the bio-physiology process to take over and heal…. with little to now side effects oppose to taking many forms of pain killers.

      Do adjustments always work? No they don’t. but it does help thousands of people.
      Does medicine always work? No it does not. but it does help thousands of people.

      What are we arguing about? your unwillingness to see there is more to treating the body than the egos of the people on this website.

      • Sorry, Ryan. This comment puts you into Dunning and Krueger territory.

        • Far from Dunning and Krueger. Everything i stated is backed by many medical text as well as neurophysiology text books.

          You know that the medical profession thought that Dr. Eply was crazy and did not believe his discoveries or his research…. His treatments worked and helped many people.

    • @Michael Kenny
      Straight into the personal attack. For a physio that is unprofessional.
      To you all chiro’s are subluxation based and genuflect at the high altar of DD and you are incapable of accepting any chiro who differs from your religious belief.
      “When you prove you can actually “treat-pain-away” (ANY pain) or treat-into existence robust health at “$88.00 per consultation” please publish the proof….I will gladly send an apology.”
      Question. Do you keep up with the latest literature on pain science? If you did then you would realize the absurdity of that statement.
      Question. Have I EVER made claims in regards to “treat-into existence robust health”?
      That is the type of BS claims made by chiro’s that I have been active policing, submitting official complaints to the registration board and hammering for many years. I would rather work WITH sites like this to further reform than repeatedly correct you for taring all chiropractors with the same brush.

      • @crackpot_Kyro: Unprofessional? THATs your charge? By the by I’m not a “Physio” so like a DC I can be as unprofessional as is needed. Though my actual profession forces me to rely on real logic.
        I’d say “Ryan” is a great example of the state-of-Chiropractic, wouldn’t you ehh?
        Nutty, uncritical, lacking in a any real understanding of logic, evidence or plausibility.
        Of course you are the lofty one, above the naves and woebegones, seeing the “real” profession unvarnished by the likes of its inventor, developers or the tens of thousands of practitioners over 120 years that simply couldn’t or wouldn’t see the proper ‘reforms’ through to their natural conclusion: the Critical_Chiro!. Ahh….it must be great to be king, ehh? Medical school is calling….


  • I was injured in multiple places by chiropractors who were treating me unprofessionally , they were being dirty minded and evil so therefore I do not trust any quacks ever again as long as I live and I will never let them touch me again I suffer from chronic pain depression and PTSD because of the abuse and torture of those quacks

  • Sadistic perverts some of them are

  • “In other words, as chiropractic wants to survive, it has little choice other than remaining ignorant of the current best evidence.”

    This conclusion should state “…if traditional or fundamental chiropractic wants to survive,..”

    The section of chiropractors whose main focus is evidence driven MSK care will have no problem surviving.

  • Critical_Chiro wrote on Saturday 21 April 2018 at 01:37 “HH [Heidi Haavik] goes to the subluxation conferences like RubiCON, CalJam etc as the token researcher, they totally misrepresent her research, she remains quiet and laps up their adulation. She is allowing them to trash her research and rubbish her legacy.”

    @ Critical_Chiro

    How do you reconcile that with Heidi Haavik’s self-declared mission “to run a ridiculously successful and Vitalistic International Centre for Chiropractic Research”? See slide 5 here:

    And see pages 9-11 here:

    This is interesting too:

    IMO, Ms Haavik is wasting her time. Indeed her research appears to compare well with the ‘Chiropractic Method of Investigation’:

    1. Start with a Conclusion
    2. Propose Theory.
    Only theories that support the conclusion should be considered. Little or no attempt should be made to test or disprove the proposed theory.
    3. Collect Supporting Evidence
    One single example of supporting evidence is sufficient, even if there are thousands of examples of evidence that do not support or contradict the theory. Only “supporting” evidence is considered.
    4. Reject Modify or Retain Evidence.
    If the evidence is undeniably proved to be faulty, then reject it and find some evidence that does support the Theory. The Theory is not normally rejected at this point because only one example of supporting evidence is required to justify the theory. Contradictory evidence is ignored.

    If forced to abandon a theory then claim that you didn’t believe it all along and that false Chiropractors proposed it.

    Propose another Theory that supports your conclusion. Go to step 2.

    Golden Rule: Conclusion is always the same regardless of evidence or the theory.

    Corollary: For Straight Chiropractors. No evidence at all is required to support a conclusion.

    The Scientific Method is designed to discover the truth and eliminate falsehoods, lies, ignorance and misunderstanding.

    The Chiropractic Method is self-delusional. It can never uncover a falsehood or prove a truth. It only reinforces existing perceptions of the truth.

    The Chiropractic Method is simply Blind Faith and has no bearing on truth whatsoever.

    The Scientific Method: base your conclusions on observations/evidence.

    The Chiropractic Method: base your observations/evidence on your conclusions.


    • Oh man you got me beat. I surrender.

      Can you tell me how you test pain? I mean doesn’t everyone have a different perception of pain? and if you’re going to tell me they gage it by some form of questionnaire, do all medical doctors give that questionnaire to someone with low back pain, knee pain, shoulder pain, neck pain etc…?

      So question for you people who only read research papers and not actually practice in field and not on a piece of paper.

      Can you increase range of motion to a joint after a chiropractor adjusts you? Does increasing range of motion to a joint after a manipulation evidence of anything? Let me be more black and white for people who can only think through what research tells them.
      Does increasing range of motion to the neck have any effect on vision? Does increasing range the neck have any effect on balance? Does increase range of motion have any effect on bio-mechanical efficiency? and if range of motion does have an effect on the efficiency of movement, doesn’t diverse movement recruit more nerve fibers and activate more areas in the brain like endorphins, cerebellar, mid brain, high cortical areas? Prove me wrong that movement has no effect on how our body and brain perceive efferent stimulation or body sensation.

      ok you need an example, I get it.

      lets say you are working all day at the computer and you feel stiffness in one of your fingers. You choose to ignore it but that stiffness is starting to bother you due to the tension of the knuckle creating discomfort on movement as well as no moevement. This in turn is not allowing you to work efficiently. SO what do most people do, they rub their finger move it around and most of the time they hear a pop (they just cracked there knuckles). OMG you just manipulated a joint and for some reason you feel a sense of relieve, better range of motion, you’re brain is no longer focused on your finger and you can get back to your work. Chiropractors call that a manipulation or adjustment.

      Now if your fingers can crack and relieve pain or discomfort, do you not think that the other 360 joints in the human body can not do the same? Especially the joints the can impinge on a main nerve that goes into the spine?

      I can not draw the picture anymore for you. There is a lot of research out there, I am sorry you only want to read one side of it.

      Medical doctors are not king kong of the medical world, nor are chiropractors. If you want to talk about research and statistical relevance on hurting a patient or causing life threatening ailments or death due to medical ignorance, lets compare the two forms of practice.

      It is funny when looking at chiropractic schools, I see a lot of them employee DC, PhD and MD professors to teach courses they specialize in like microbiology, Neurology, biochemistry, pathology etc…. and when comparing the classes that MD students take…. It look very much like Chiropractic school but also being taught by people with the same degrees. So how are chiropractors inferior in the medical field or not know what they are talking about?

      • ” So how are chiropractors inferior in the medical field or not know what they are talking about?”

        • and yet millions of people get relief from chiropractic therapy. BTW do you have any idea what the hallmark therapy for chiropractic care is??? It is restoring movement to a joint. Read the above comment I left about cracking your fingers or are you just that kind of person who has no observational skills and can only think through someone else’s words on a piece of paper?

          BTW if chiropractors are bogus, so are physical therapist (Most physical therapist manipulate fyi). Have fun medical doctors trying to rehab your patients!

          • I am sorry, but “restoring movement to a joint” is not a therapy; it is a therapeutic aim.
            “you just that kind of person who has no observational skills and can only think through someone else’s words on a piece of paper.”
            PLEASE READ THIS:

          • This is a great TED talk on research. Very Interesting. I should be just like you guys and only read research articles and then try to argue with people who actually have field experience as well as can think for himself. God bless you and whoever you treat or talk to


          • “I am sorry, but “restoring movement to a joint” is not a therapy; it is a therapeutic aim.”

            it seems to be the therapeutic aim of chiropractors. and they seem to hit their target, too…pretty efficiently.

          • it seems to be the therapeutic aim of chiropractors. and they seem to hit their target, too…pretty efficiently.

            Interesting. And where did you find the evidence for this remarkable discovery?

          • anther excellent point, bjorn! it could very well be that there’s just a whole lot of weirdly timed “spontaneously restored joint mobility”, that happen to coincide with chiro manipulations.

            then again, maybe chiros have some way of predicting when these magical events will occur…and schedule appointments accordingly. do you suppose there’s commercial software out there, or do they rely on cards and tea leaves? possibly have druids on staff? or maybe they ‘throw the bones’…

          • “jm” was asked for evidence and regurgitated gobbledegook.

            Nothing new here, move on please!

          • I agree, bjorn – best to move on. A “therapeutic aim” like restoring movement to a joint…it’s too easy to verify yourself at the time of treatment.

            Something like that wouldn’t really fit with the whole “chiro as quack” narrative. 🙂

          • Hehe, you really are out of your league “jm”.
            Joint movement is of course easy to measure, if you know how. But most chiroquacktors don’t bother much with clinical know-how, at least not the genuine kind.
            I have seen (in person as well as on their promotional videos) how chiropractors verify joint movement change, leg length change etc. pretending to find improvement after their silly theatrical performances. Note how he fakes the comparison with the patient lying on their stomach and knees bent. The quality of their diagnostic techniques, or rather lack of same, is best exemplified by their use of “applied kinesiology” to verify their fake diagnoses.
            Note that despite the fancy white coat the idiot the bloke in this film is not a real doctor.

            I can’t help but show the audience this charlatan too. Neither is she a doctor even if she calls herself one. She is pretending to test which supplements will fit the bill fatten her bill.
            These charlatans never tend to amaze 😀

          • Ah… restoring movement to a joint… nobody does it better than time (and a bit of stretching).

            The allegedly “restored” bit of range of motion is the numbness (after pushing and pressing and tingling and bending and…) working its wonders on not feeling that much pain when reaching the end of the range. A little later, after a bit of time, when numbness subsides, it’s time for the next scheduled visit.

            Time is money, after all.

          • You’re rightish again, Bjorn – restored joint movement certainly IS easy to measure, and everyone knows how. It’s measured in terms like “after my chiro adjustment, I could turn my head to back up my car” or “I’m not breathing so shallow anymore” or “hey, I can bend to the right again!”. Things like that. Genuine, practical, useful measurement.

            Do as much youtube and promotional video research as you want. Patients couldn’t care less. I don’t know a single patient who cares about chiro verification, numerical measurement, diagnostic techniques, or leg lengths. They care (and easily verify) how easy it is to move after a treatment, compared to before.

            But we shouldn’t even be talking about straightforward, obvious, verifiable achievements of “therapeutic aims”. The “chiro as quack” narrative is way more fun. Get back to talking about religious cults, pretending you don’t know what chiros mean by subluxation, and complaining that they use the title “Dr”.

            So much for moving on, eh?

          • “jm” always yearns for the last word, even if he has nothing to say 😀

          • The opinion of the patient. Genuine, practical, useful… and totally unreliable.

            It’s like saying that people can fly after taking cocaine because they say so and that’s what matters the most.

            The subjective opinion of patients that brings so much elation and self-satisfaction of aiding the world (in exchange for money) to various -practors, is the number one thing any scientist would shy away from as a measure of anything when studying efficacy or clinical relevance of treatments.

            Pain is, unfortunately, the last refuge of -practors as it is very hard to quantify reliably and objectively.

          • James, never get a treatment from a scientist.

  • restoring joint motion can take weeks. Therefore they are on a treatment plan. Not hard to understand.

    • Ryan you try to obviate “subluxation” but simply re-define it as “loss of joint motion”….an equally nebulous and unqualified expression….and how coincidental but also a “perfect recipient” of a treatment that involves “whackin’ on the bones”….your ilks shibboleth.
      Why don’t you show us the bevy of valid and reliable tests Proven to reveal your make-believe friend: loss of joint motion. I’ll share a secret, its a gonna be a really tough job, mainly cause there ain’t none.
      Perhaps investigate “hyper-mobile/shear-instability” and perhaps recognize you and your whack-jobs can’t possibly make heads or tails of what the spinal bones DO or NEED…your premise and your treatments are religiously imbued entrepreneurial theatrics. In 120+ years they have been of little value to anyone but DCs and the placebo driven believers you can pollute with your nonsense.
      Now get to PubMed and start a’ provin that PI/AS pelvic distortions, AK Muscle-challenges, Activator leg checks, motion palpation fixations, thermography, subluxation-station, Gonstead X-ray analyses and upper cervical Atlas misalignments are all real. And not just gypsy tricks and theatrics some dim witted DC, PhD or MD who couldn’t get a real teaching position at a real college taught you to sell the gullible marks you call patients.
      You’re delusion of the merit of these theatrics is equaled only by your delusion that they have afforded the human race benefits. Which to the right-minded of course they never have.

  • I have read a lot on edzard ernst and you call chiropractors bogus. This site is so one sided it is ridiculous.

    • I know!
      we can’t even blame you… they don’t teach critical thinking in the chiro diploma mills. pity!

      • To say chiropractic school or the chiropractic profession doesn’t teach critical thinking is just ignorant. You have no backing to that comment and you have no understanding on the chiropractic profession….
        All the medical professionals from PhDs, MDs, PTs, and DCs that teach in chiropractics school must not of had been taught critical thinking either, seeing how chiropractors are being taught by a diverse group of medical professionals.

        Just in case you didn’t understand what I just said: Chiropractors are taught by more than just chiropractors. They are also taught by PhD’s, MDs, and PTs. Your last comment just shows that you are so biased, one sided and lack of understanding on the education system of chiropractors and what they do.

        • “To say chiropractic school or the chiropractic profession doesn’t teach critical thinking is just ignorant. You have no backing to that comment…”
          YES I DO!
          I have plenty of chiros like you who provide plenty of evidence.

          • I like how you pick and choose my statements.

            What are your thoughts on this statement “Chiropractors are taught by more than just chiropractors. They are also taught by PhD’s, MDs, and PTs.” So the MD’S and PhD’s that teach chiropractors don’t teach critical thinking or were they ever taught critical thinking or maybe chiros are taught critical thinking?

          • as I already stated: you clearly don’t even know what critical thinking is.

  • Good come back. I like how you were taught critical thinking. Keep it up.

  • It seems DCs (dedicated charlatans) come in a few types. Those that think their non-doctor status with no real doctor-skills, no internship, no hospital privileges etc etc is worth the $200,000 non-transferable, un-respected 4 year degree. And whose apparently ultimate benefit is giving improved range-of-motion to a guys neck for 18 minutes as he backs out of a drive (relief available through a myriad of other much safer and cheaper interventions). And for this he feels he should garner professional respect and approbation and adulation(?????)
    The other thinks the entire profession is nutz, and should be reformed….and that reformation should be in the form of ‘procedures’ (CBP, mirror image traction) that anyone with a free-weekend could be taught. And these ‘Chiropractic-reform’ procedures should garner “$88.00 per consultation” and require 147 treatments. And these treatments should generate pain in the vast majority and they require constant cajoling as to the “remarkable health and functional benefits” they bestow….but are predominantly theoretical and not proven by any real “outcome” research on populations of patients. Though it’s been sold as a Technique for almost 40 years in that time it has captivated less than 10% of the other Dedicated Charlatans. The “Activator” and AK getting 70% and 40% respectively.
    At the end of which there may (or may not) be a slight improvement in pain. And this relief likely equivalent to doing anything else e.g. exercise, mobilization, massage, home-care etc or nothing else.
    Truly a profession of idiots.

  • Anyone with a computer and the necessary skill of literacy can write a paper to be published. Tis seems to be rampant in the universities at the moment, Dozens of paper written without hard data to support them an thus never to be sited in any scientific data sets anywhere…. yet… still written and read by people who wish to believe in an ideology because… well, they want to believe it.

    Of course, we have found the services of many chiropractors to be of great benefit to many different people with many different conditions, but to challenge the claims made by some of the less informed writers out there is always of value. It does no service to capable and competent chiropractors out there to have people walking through the door of their clinic with unreasonable expectation as to what the adjustments will do to improve the patients well being. Like one quick adjustment will somehow overcome years or poor diet, posture, or any other number of claims people are willing to make.

    Thanks for the discerning eye Edzard.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.