The Spanish Ministries of Health and Sciences have announced their ‘Health Protection Plan against Pseudotherapies’. Very wisely, they have included chiropractic under this umbrella. To a large degree, this is the result of Spanish sceptics pointing out that alternative therapies are a danger to public health, helped perhaps a tiny bit also by the publication of two of my books (see here and here) in Spanish. Unsurprisingly, such delelopments alarm Spanish chiropractors who fear for their livelihoods. A quickly-written statement of the AEQ (Spanish Chiropractic Association) is aimed at averting the blow. It makes the following 11 points (my comments are below):
1. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines chiropractic as a healthcare profession. It is independent of any other health profession and it is neither a therapy nor a pseudotherapy.
2. Chiropractic is statutorily recognised as a healthcare profession in many European countries including Portugal, France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom10, as well as in the USA, Canada and Australia, to name a few.
3. Chiropractic members of the AEQ undergo university-level training of at least 5 years full-time (300 ECTS points). Chiropractic training is offered within prestigious institutions such as the Medical Colleges of the University of Zurich and the University of Southern Denmark.
4. Chiropractors are spinal health care experts. Chiropractors practice evidence-based, patient-centred conservative interventions, which include spinal manipulation, exercise prescription, patient education and lifestyle advice.
5. The use of these interventions for the treatment of spine-related disorders is consistent with guidelines and is supported by high quality scientific evidence, including multiple systematic reviews undertaken by the prestigious Cochrane collaboration15, 16, 17.
6. The Global Burden of Disease study shows that spinal disorders are the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide, exceeding depression, breast cancer and diabetes.
7. Interventions used by chiropractors are recommended in the 2018 Low Back Pain series of articles published in The Lancet and clinical practice guidelines from Denmark, Canada, the European Spine Journal, American College of Physicians and the Global Spine Care Initiative.
8. The AEQ supports and promotes scientific research, providing funding and resources for the development of high quality research in collaboration with institutions of high repute, such as Fundación Jiménez Díaz and the University of Alcalá de Henares.
9. The AEQ strenuously promotes among its members the practice of evidence-based, patient-centred care, consistent with a biopsychosocial model of health.
10. The AEQ demands the highest standards of practice and professional ethics, by implementing among its members the Quality Standard UNE-EN 16224 “Healthcare provision by chiropractors”, issued by the European Committee of Normalisation and ratified by AENOR.
11. The AEQ urges the Spanish Government to regulate chiropractic as a healthcare profession. Without such legislation, citizens of Spain cannot be assured that they are protected from unqualified practitioners and will continue to face legal uncertainties and barriers to access an essential, high-quality, evidence-based healthcare service.
END OF QUOTE
I think that some comments might be in order (they follow the numbering of the AEQ):
- The WHO is the last organisation I would consult for information on alternative medicine; during recent years, they have published mainly nonsense on this subject. How about asking the inventor of chiropractic? D.D. Palmer defined it as “a science of healing without drugs.” Chiropractors nowadays prefer to be defined as a profession which has the advantage that one cannot easily pin them down for doing mainly spinal manipulation; if one does, they indignantly respond “but we also use many other interventions, like life-style advice, for instance, and nobody can claim this to be nonsense” (see also point 4 below).
- Perfect use of a classical fallacy: appeal to authority.
- Appeal to authority, plus ignorance of the fact that teaching nonsense even at the highest level must result in nonsense.
- This is an ingenious mix of misleading arguments and lies: most chiros pride themselves of treating also non-spinal conditions. Very few interventions used by chiros are evidence-based. Exercise prescription, patient education and lifestyle advice are hardy typical for chiros and can all be obtained more authoratively from other healthcare professionals.
- Plenty of porkies here too. For instance, the AEQ cite three Cochrane reviews. The first concluded that high-quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. The second stated that combined chiropractic interventions slightly improved pain and disability in the short term and pain in the medium term for acute/subacute LBP. However, there is currently no evidence that supports or refutes that these interventions provide a clinically meaningful difference for pain or disability in people with LBP when compared to other interventions. And the third concluded that, although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices. Hardly the positive endorsement implied by the AEQ!
- Yes, but that is not an argument for chiropractic; in fact, it’s another fallacy.
- Did they forget the many guidelines, institutions and articles that do NOT recommend chiropractic?
- I believe the cigarette industry also sponsors research; should we therefore all start smoking?
- I truly doubt that the AEQ strenuously promotes among its members the practice of evidence-based healthcare; if they did, they would have to discourage spinal manipulation!
- The ‘highest standards of practice and professional ethics’ are clearly not compatible with chiropractors’ use of spinal manipulation. In our recent book, we explained in full detail why this is so.
- An essential, high-quality, evidence-based healthcare service? Chiropractic is certainly not essential, rarely high-quality, and clearly not evidence-based.
Nice try AEQ.
But not good enough, I am afraid.
70 Responses to Chiropractors worry about the Spanish ‘Health Protection Plan against Pseudotherapies’
Leave a Reply to Edzard Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Prof Ernst in point (1) wrote: “The WHO is the last organisation I would consult for information on alternative medicine”
It’s worth remembering that the WHO’s 2003 bulletin on Lower Back Pain mentioned chiropractic and the reasons people turned to it. It wasn’t exactly a ringing endorsement:
QUOTE:
“People with low back pain often turn to medical consultations and drug therapies, but they also use a variety of alternative approaches. Regardless of the treatment, most cases of acute back pain improve. At the time, people in such cases may credit the improvement to the interventions some of which clearly are more popular and even seemingly more effective than others (e.g. chiropractic and other manipulative treatments in which the laying on of hands and the person-to-person interaction during the treatment may account for some of the salutary results).”
“The spread of chiropractic and other manipulative treatments worldwide has won many adherents to this treatment, who perceive that it works better than others. This hypothesis was recently put to the test (25) and, although the respondents still favoured such approaches (chiropractic adjustment, osteopathic manipulation, and physical therapy) perhaps because of the time spent and the laying on of hands meta-analysis cannot confirm the superiority of manipulative treatments (or, for that matter, of acupuncture and massage (26)) over other forms of therapy, or even time as a healer (25), which substantiates the contentions of WHO’s document (1). In most instances, manipulative treatments are more expensive than others (apart from surgery) and not more helpful to outcome (26).”
Ref. https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/81/9/Ehrlich.pdf
With regard to point (7) , new readers of this blog should be interested in the following critical analyses of The Lancet Low Back Pain series:
https://edzardernst.com/2018/03/suffering-from-back-pain-walk-to-your-therapist-dont-accept-or-pay-for-treatment-but-walk-straight-back-home-again/
https://edzardernst.com/2018/03/low-back-pain-alternative-practitioners-feel-encouraged-by-the-recent-lancet-articles-wrongly-so-i-hasten-to-add/
https://complementaryandalternative.wordpress.com/2018/03/23/chiropractors-and-osteopaths-continue-to-mislead-about-their-role-in-the-treatment-of-back-pain/
Also relating to point (7), the recent guidelines from NICE for Low Back Pain and Sciatica were far from good news for chiropractors:
https://complementaryandalternative.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/nice-guidelines-for-low-back-pain-and-sciatica-a-clarification/
Finally, it is disingenuous of the AEQ to urge the Spanish Government in point (11) to regulate chiropractic “as a healthcare profession”, when the Barcelona College of Chiropractic is a declared member of the vitalistic chiropractic Rubicon Group:
https://edzardernst.com/2017/05/a-self-perpetuating-motor-control-problem-more-from-the-subluxation-cult-of-chiropractic/
EE..The Spanish Ministries of Health and Sciences have announced their ‘Health Protection Plan against Pseudotherapies’. Very wisely, they have included chiropractic under this umbrella.
Where did they include chiropractic? My understanding was the only things specifically listed were homeopathy and acupuncture.
your understanding seems to be wrong
Show me where they included chiropractic in their list of pseudotherapies.
“PLEASE show me…”
since you ask so kindly:
The Spanish Ministries of Health and Sciences have announced the intention to implement a ‘Health Protection Plan against Pseudotherapies,’ including chiropractic. [https://www.chiropractic-ecu.org/aeq-fights-spanish-government-aim-for-health-protection-plan-against-pseudotherapies/]
HAPPY?
Thanks. I’ll look in this.
and?
did DC look into this?
Yes, I’m looking into this.
AND HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE YOU TO READ A FEW LINES?
I have not been in contact with a source who has read the actual draft. I have requests out to three people who may be in that position.
Of course if you have a copy of the draft please share the relevant portions.
Excellent post and commentary…as usual. Perhaps if SCAM practitioners were intelligent enough to also read your books things might progress faster. Perhaps you might consider “translating” them into picture, or pop-up books for chiropractors, homeopaths and acupuncturist? It may be the big science-words are simply too intimidating.
I think point number 3 is most telling: a 5 year (2 plus 4 in the US) non-transferable, pointless, desultory “+$150,000.00 “education” to deliver a pseudo-therapy virtually anyone can do to themselves or family members for free…AND whether you get “it” (and “it” can’t be defined) or not you’re virtually the same as if you’d done nothing….but way better off financially.
But we all wait with baited-breath for many of these yo-yo’s to demonstrate their audacity by continuing to post their rhetoric and canned-retorts defending this indefensible tripe. Bravo to Spain!
@ Edzard
Do you have any proof for your following statement:
“To a large degree, this is the result of Spanish sceptics pointing out that alternative therapies are a danger to public health”
It is recognized in the statement issued by the Ministries, page 13:
“Cabe destacar que para el diseño de este Plan se han considerado las propuestas de
actuación en relación a las pseudoterapias realizadas por la Asociación para Proteger
al Enfermo de Terapias Pseudocientíficas, Círculo Escéptico, Farmaciencia, Red de
Prevención Sectaria y del Abuso de Debilidad y la Sociedad para el Avance del
Pensamiento Crítico.”
@ANotherQuack: perhaps you can show proof chiropractic is a branch-of-science? Can give lasting benefit to a particular condition better than anything-else, or nothing-else? Requires a 4 year, $150,000.00 education to teach a bevy of entrepreneurial-theatrics masquerading as healthcare to wannabe-doctors who can never assimilate into real public health-care but only open private fraud-parlors delivering treatments anyone can learn in a 2 hour seminar? Perhaps Dr. Ernst can first prove Spain is not a country filled with Spaniards on Europes’ Iberian peninsula ? That would be a sight bit easier that showing proof chiropractic isn’t pseudoscience.
@ Michael
What has your statement got to do with my question to Prof Ernst?
That’s a pretty longwinded way to say “no, no proof”.
I’m pretty sure Spain is no longer a country. I think it disappeared during the Spanish Acquisition. Or something like that.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that it amazes me that they have enough woo woo to fill a curriculum for five years.
Secciones
EL PAÍS
IN ENGLISH
POLITICS ARTS SPORTS OPINION SPANISH WAY OF LIFE
HEALTH
Spain moves to ban pseudo-therapies from universities and health centers
Government says they “negatively affect health by perpetuating illnesses, causing others, or even increasing the risk of death”
@ Michael
& where are the Spanish sceptics in your El Pais quote?
@ANotherQuack: just out of curiosity if 8% of Americans utilize chiroquackery and 5% of Spaniards actually utilize Homeopathetic-remedies…then wouldn’t the rest of “us” be accurately described as skeptics? And if we focused on those in Spain; Spanish skeptics? And the 400 doctors who created the petition, perhaps connotatively described as skeptics? Perhaps if one scintilla of the scrutiny you seem to apply to what the Professor writes was applied to your “profession” and other quackamedics you would cease looking for “gotcha-moments” and understand things in their larger perspective.
You may want to check your percentages.
The 2015 USA Gallop poll found 14% saw a chiropractor within the last year. Another 12% within the last 5 years.
@ DC
Data from the National Health Interview Survey shows the use of chiropractors in the U.S. increased from 9.1% in 2012 to 10.3% in 2017.
Ref: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db325-h.pdf
@ Michael
Are you applying your skeptical eye to your profession (physiotherapy)?
Prof Ernst made a big claim – I am sure he can back it up
BW..either percentage, he was wrong.
Interesting piece.
“Despite numerous calls for a shift toward the use of research and scientific evidence to guide practice, most physical therapists
continued to base practice decisions largely on anecdotal evidence, and utilized treatment techniques with little scientific support.
16-21 Studies published in 1997 and 1999 indicated that physical therapists tended to rely more heavily on initial education and
training when selecting treatment techniques. In fact, less than five percent of survey respondents indicated that they regularly
used scientific evidence to guide practice.17,22 Personal experience and “expert” opinion guided clinical decision making
throughout the 1990s. 17,22-24”
A Review of the Literature on Evidence-Based Practice in Physical Therapy
Joe Schreiber, PT, MS, PCS1
Perri Stern, Ed.D, OTR/L, FAOTA2
http://ijahsp.nova.edu Vol. 3 No. 4 ISSN 1540-580X
That leaves at least 85% of the US population without the essential (according to chiropractors) spinal care that keeps you healthy and fit.
The US of A is the most chiropractic dense area in the world. On a global basis the chiropractic care coverage may be just a fraction of a basis point?
Then how did humankind survive until old Palmer invented “the chiropractic lifestyle” and how has humankind managed to steadily increase and live healthier and longer without proper spinal care??
Björn. Not all chiropractors hold the view that all people must be under constant chiropractic care.
Yet, there is still this to contend with (if you don’t think evidence based chiropractors can help out, sobeit).
“In 2015, low back and neck pain were ranked the fourth leading cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) globally just after ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and lower respiratory infection {low back and neck pain DALYs [thousands]: 94 941.5 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 67 745.5–128 118.6]}. In 2015, over half a billion people worldwide had low back pain and more than a third of a billion had neck pain of more than 3 months duration. Low back and neck pain are the leading causes of years lived with disability in most countries and age groups.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00586-017-5432-9
@DC wrote:
These are well known facts that are totally irrelevant to this discussion unless we can determine that chiropractic* could significantly reduce this morbidity if applied globally. Can you present evidence thereof?
*Please note that by the term “chiropractic” I am referring to the philosophical doctrine of innate intelligence and subluxation using the set of signature methods mostly involving so-called HVLA manipulation, devised by Palmer & son as well as some absurd inventions added by disciples of theirs under the doctrine, namely the “activator”.
The term should not be used to include more or less evidence based non-chiropractic methods such as ROM manipulation, stretching, rehabilitation or lifestyle coaching even if they have been adopted in a varying degree by chiropractors to supplement their show.
It is very important when discussing and scrutinising ‘chiropractic’, to adhere strictly to the correct definition of the term.
*According to Wikipedia, NIH, MedLine, etc., the term actually SHOULD be used to include more or less evidence based methods such as ROM manipulation, stretching, rehabilitation or lifestyle coaching.
It is very important when discussing and scrutinising ‘chiropractic’, to adhere strictly to the correct definition of the term.
Bjorn…Please note that by the term “chiropractic” I am referring to the philosophical doctrine of innate intelligence and subluxation…
Well, you will have to take it up with those who hold to that philosophical doctrine.
@jm
Your opinion is uninformed. Try reading the wikipedia article again, this time slowly and calmly, and contemplate the difference explained in the section on straights vs. mixers. And I also recommend reading up on the history of chiropractic. Making mud-pies to throw at me is much more fun if they are well researched and referenced.
@DC
As I have said before, I will never understand why you “reformers” are so adhesively attached to the title that unavoidably associates you the worthless doctrine you are trying to dissociate yourselves from.
My opinion’s got nothing to do with it, Bjorn. Wikipedia, the NIH, and the majority of chiropractors seem to have moved on since the days of Palmer. You should too.
If you say so “jm”. I am sure there are many who want to agree with you, that is my point.
This tautological pie-throwing of yours is rather lame. Why don´t you keep to ancient oriental foolery, you´re much better at that.
Reading the last comments made me think:
Could it be true that spamming discussion forums with platitudes, smug comments and nebulous insinuation is one of the most boring troll strategies of all?
jm, since you are an expert on this topic, do you at least have a clear opinion on THIS matter that you would like to share with us?
Björn…As I have said before, I will never understand why you “reformers” are so adhesively attached to the title that unavoidably associates you the worthless doctrine you are trying to dissociate yourselves from.
Many discussions have taken place from tiering the profession to forming a new one. The general consensus is to move forward as “reformers” and make it harder for the fundamentalists to spread their word.
@DC
As a physician and surgeon nearing his end of service, my main objective is and has always been, to promote the well-being and safety of those who need help for ailments and disease.
Chiropractic, in the original, correct meaning of the term does not contribute to any significant way or with an acceptable balance of risk/benefit to health and well being. It was designed from medical ignorance to make money from methods that have proven practically useless.
I am all for medically genuine, evidence based, modern services to those who suffer from problems with the spinal column as well as other musculosceletal problems. Such services already exist and should be reinforced, at least in my part of the world.
My view is that irrational, archaic and unnecessary elements should be as possible, removed from any kind of medical services as they only complicate, obfuscate and add cost.
As before I encourage you ‘reformers’ to reconsider your ahderence to the term and techniques called ‘chiropratic’, which only serves to associate genuine science-led efforts with irrational, outdated practices.
Chiropractic, whether “straight” or “mixed”, will never be an efficacious part of realistic efforts to meet the public health challenge of spinal pain and related problems.
Björn, if you insist on using a 120 year old definition and description of chiropractic, for the most part I agree.
As I said elsewhere, if you don’t think evidence based chiropractors can be part of the solution to addressing nonspecific/mechanical spinal issues, sobeit.
@DC
You are not grasping the issue here.
It is chiropractors who insist on using outdated methods based on 120 year old delusional principles and definitions. I am not inventing the terms or definitions here. Chiropractors lobby and advertise to elevate their status and hence the confusing migration of definitions resulting in a large portion of the US population believing them to be equivalent to medical doctors.
Globally, chiropractic is despite their counter-efforts mostly considered to be alternative medicine, even in countries like mine where it is regulated among health care services. Those who wish to distance themselves from the unscientific, non-evidence based practices and be taken seriously have to bin the title if they wish to be taken seriously.
Jashak, pointing out inaccuracies (on this thread and others) and lies (the recent Bowen thread and others) isn’t spamming or trolling. Trying to sell the idea that chiropractics hasn’t changed since Palmer is inaccurate at best.
Björn….my comments inserted.
It is chiropractors who insist on using outdated methods based on 120 year old delusional principles and definitions.
*** outdated methods, such as….?
I am not inventing the terms or definitions here.
***i didn’t say you did.
Chiropractors lobby and advertise to elevate their status and hence the confusing migration of definitions resulting in a large portion of the US population believing them to be equivalent to medical doctors.
***actually, surveys don’t support this view.
Globally, chiropractic is despite their counter-efforts mostly considered to be alternative medicine, even in countries like mine where it is regulated among health care services. Those who wish to distance themselves from the unscientific, non-evidence based practices and be taken seriously have to bin the title if they wish to be taken seriously.
***perhaps. Osteopaths seem to have pulled it off, at least in the USA. However, many DOs prefer not to do manual therapy.
Björn…Chiropractors lobby and advertise to elevate their status and hence the confusing migration of definitions resulting in a large portion of the US population believing them to be equivalent to medical doctors.
“Most chiropractic users do not view their chiropractor as the first healthcare professional whom they want to talk to about general wellness issues. Only about one in 10 adults (9%) who have been to a chiropractor within the last five years strongly agree or agree somewhat that a chiropractor is the first healthcare provider they want to talk to about their health. Nearly three in four (74%) strongly disagree or disagree somewhat with this statement.”
https://www.palmer.edu/uploadedFiles/Pages/Alumni/gallup-report-palmer-college.pdf
That is certainly not encouraging, DC.
But 14% or even 9% of the US population is a rather large crowd, don’t you think?
Playing with these numbers says that if 70.000 chiropractors have about 30 million (~9%) satisfied customers that is about 430 people per chiro’ that are more than happy to return bi-weekly for more wringing of the neck and thumping on the back.
That should be just enough to pay the bills. And the stray customers who never return will contribute to the kid’s college fund.
🙂
The above contemplation should be taken as frivolous musings, induced by the relieving sense that a last workday before Christmas induces. Let us hope chiropractic has the fortune to shrug off the quasi religious nonsense, ban the dangerous neck wringing, adopt a genuine scientific approach and develop into something really useful. Happy holidays.
“Government says…” is proof of what?
Maybe you should visit Spain and learn about their culture, luckily you would learn something like informing yourself before speaking.
thank you – I did.
look at this TV broadcast [from ~25 min]
http://www.telemadrid.es/programas/la-otra-ciencia/Ciencia-Pseudociencias-2-2076112465–20181213105500.html
@ Edzard
Do you have any proof for your following statement:
“To a large degree, this is the result of Spanish sceptics pointing out that alternative therapies are a danger to public health”
I was in Spain a few weeks ago here may be some indicators for you, if you speak Spanish:
http://www.telemadrid.es/programas/la-otra-ciencia/Ciencia-Pseudociencias-2-2076112465–20181213105500.html
alternatively read some of the Spanish press on the subject
@ Edzard
You made the assertion – where is the proof?
Pardon 14%….120 years “proving” itself as a healthcare miracle and 86% of the population don’t bother. I guess since only 90% of us have MSK complaints that’s a very good ratio. Proof of its profound efficacy.
It would be interesting to note what % of those go based on the “subluxation-is-gonna kill” you theory or “1-3 spinal manipulations MAY have an equal effect as 2 IB or a heat pad” theory? Ummm, Palmer-Clown-College didn’t commission that study.
Do you quacks REALLY consider yourselves “spine experts” and promulgate that notion to the gullible? And what expertise IS “chiropractic” really (and is it worth 4 years and $150K) when its entire underpinning: “structuralism/structural mal-alignment” is going the way of the white rhino? My sympathies to the 14% and the 3.5 billion USD paid out. Shameful.
Actually, depending on the poll, 50-70% of the public have been to a chiropractor.
Utilization is increasing, especially in areas that are pushing an evidence based model.
More chiropractic colleges are moving towards an evidence based model.
Greater distance is being acheived between evidence based chiropractors and the subluxation based chiropractors.
More chiropractors are in hospital settings and multi-discplinary practices.
Chiropractic is doing just fine.
DC wrote on Sunday 16 December 2018 at 14:17 “The 2015 USA Gallop [sic] poll found 14% saw a chiropractor within the last year. Another 12% within the last 5 years.”
@ DC
This 2017 literature search retrieved 14,149 articles and found the following:
QUOTE
“…Globally, the median 12-month utilization of chiropractic services was 9.1% (interquartile range (IQR): 6.7%-13.1%) and remained stable between 1980 and 2015.
-snip-
The reported use of chiropractic services generally decreased over time in in Australia from 18.0% to 14.5% and increased over time in Canada and the United States from 10% to 11.7% and from 7.2% to 10.7% respectively. However, no clear worldwide trend of either increased or decreased chiropractic use was observed between 1980 and 2015.”
Ref: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12998-017-0165-8
DC wrote on Monday 17 December 2018 at 00:33 “Chiropractic is doing just fine.”
Based on the above figures, it seems to be stagnating.
“…increased over time in Canada and the United States from 10% to 11.7% and from 7.2% to 10.7% respectively.”
And which countries have the most chiropractors? These two countries represent approximately 80% of chiropractors worldwide.
“These two countries represent approximately 80% of chiropractors worldwide.”
any evidence?
“There are more than 70,000 chiropractors in the United States…Roughly another 3,000 chiropractors work in academic and management roles.” American Chiropractic Association.
“There are approximately 9,000 licensed doctors of chiropractic practicing in Canada.” Canadian Chiropractic Association.
“There are approximately 100,000 duly qualified doctors of chiropractic/chiropractors in the WFC’s 88 member countries.” World Federation of Chiropractic.
not evidence without a link, I’m afraid
and not all chiros are WFC members in countries outside America, are they?
Wow, do you even Google?
100,000 chiros you say, DC?
Let’s crunch some numbers…
100,000 chiros
8 customers a day
5 days a week
45 weeks a year
£50 per customer on average
A 1% levy – just 50p per customer – would raise £90,000,000 each and every year for research… or an AE monitoring system…
Just think what they could do to advance their businesses with that kind of money. The only outstanding question is, why isn’t this already happening?
Been saying for years, regarding here in the USA….$30 fee added upon state license renewal per year. That would raise 2 million dollars a year. Enough to fund a decent project. But to get 50 state boards to agree…not likely.
because rigorous research would find that most claims made by chiropractors and their professional bodies are bogus?
You using a crystal ball again?
no, but it would be better than your diagnostic techniques
You mean this approach?
“Your doctor will take a medical history and do an exam. He or she will check for tenderness, numbness and muscle weakness, as well as see how far you can move your head forward, backward and side to side.”
Mayoclinic.org
Björn Geir wrote on Wednesday 19 December 2018 at 17:29: “Chiropractors lobby and advertise to elevate their status and hence the confusing migration of definitions resulting in a large portion of the US population believing them to be equivalent to medical doctors.”
There seems to be a fair element of truth in that:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/legislative-alchemy-2018-chiropractors-rebranding-as-primary-care-physicians-continues/
wow.
here is some evidence based proof that the human being is the failed experiment.
this issue of ignorance regarding nature vs science should have been put to bed a long time ago however i believe based on our detachment from truth, it will, much like many dug in ideas, still be standing as the world stops turning.
to the haters of natural healing via chiropractic, acupuncture, homeopathy etc., i say have you ever set foot in the office of a facilitator of natural healing? have you been consciously and subconsciously open to the idea that you were born to be well and that if you are not – something is in the way, something that can be reduced or removed, naturally by the above practitioners? have you looked at deaths as a result of the practice of evidence based medicine in your town, country and globally? i welcome the opportunity to share this natural and logical world of healing with those who are open to hear.
to the marginalised facilitators of natural healing, avoid the rhetoric, speak with clarity and purpose about what it is you do and why you do it. never feel the need to defend yourself against ignorance at it’s highest level, just get on with it and share the evolved light you have with those who seek it.
i have a feeling that when we pass from this life, there may be something else, a space where we recognise that we are all one, where we share openly and lovingly – respectfully, with those around us. where natural, new ideas and solutions are cherished not attacked. where we can correct the clear failings of the human experiment and vibrate synergistically as intended. it’s a good feeling because it beats, hands down, the crap we feed each other on a daily basis in our efforts to be right, to be noticed, to have power.
the us vs them has led us down a very slippery path to a place void of joy and attachment to source – where we face, as a side note to this philosophy, the possibility of irreparable damage to our planet.
long live open minds – long live natural healing – long live free choice – long live those who choose to serve with light, purpose and long live those who choose to use their divine gifts.
@colin
You’re very fond of the word ‘natural’. Death is natural, as are tsunamis, planet-obliterating gas clouds from volcanic eruptions and poisonous fungi. Tobacco is a natural plant, but if you die from lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking tobacco, your death will not be recorded as “from natural causes”.
Breaking a limb is a natural phenomenon. Having the limb set by a physician is unnatural: the natural course for broken bones would be to leave them to heal themselves, even though that would often result in a lifetime of painful limb dysfunction.
Infections are natural and many antibiotics are natural products, but few people would dream of ingesting the fungi or filamentous bacteria that naturally produce them. Indeed, merely ingesting the micro-organisms that secrete antibiotics under suitable conditions would not always work to cure infections. Medical science has taught us how antibiotics work but chemical modification of antibiotic molecules to improve their potency or other properties is a no-no for people who think only ‘natural’ is good. Of course, chemistry is the study by natural human beings of natural reactions between molecules that all have their origins in naturally occurring sources. But ‘chemicals’ are somehow despised by folk who think ‘natural’ is best.
Manufacturing cars and driving them to a naturopath’s office are both unnatural activities, but most patients do it (or rely on other ‘unnatural’ modes of transport) anyway. Salt and sugar are natural, but many folk try not to include any more than they can help in their diets.
Cooking food is unnatural but we know from long experience that eating only raw foodstuffs is in many cases more risky than cooking them. Mostly because of bacteria (which, of course, are natural). Infections and epidemics are natural: vaccination, which prevents infections, is regarded by some as unnatural. Plumbing is unnatural, but separation of drinking water from sewage prevents huge numbers of deaths from infection.
The point is that the boundary between ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ is nowhere near so clear-cut as you seem to think. Left purely to nature the rate at which people cease to live, or live with serious disabilities, is much greater than when products of human invention are introduced to the picture.
Since humans are by definition natural, and everything they do involves making use of things that ultimately are made of the same natural atoms and molecules, then it’s unnatural, indeed stupid, to make the distinction you seem to be making.
“Since humans are by definition natural, and everything they do involves making use of things that ultimately are made of the same natural atoms and molecules, then it’s unnatural, indeed stupid, to make the distinction you seem to be making.”
Assuming Colin is human, the distinction he’s making would be natural. ?
Based on your last paragraph, how do you come to the conclusion that setting a broken bone, making and driving cars, cooking food, and vaccines are not natural? All of those things are perfectly natural, as you pointed out.
@jm
“Assuming Colin is human, the distinction he’s making would be natural.” Congratulations: you followed my reasoning, for once.
“Based on your last paragraph, how do you come to the conclusion that setting a broken bone, making and driving cars, cooking food, and vaccines are not natural? All of those things are perfectly natural, as you pointed out.” Ah, but it seems you didn’t follow my reasoning after all.
You missed the point that my comment was meant to migrate gradually from the ‘Colin’ point of view of ‘natural’ to the justifiable view that everything humans do, manufacture, experience or reason (etc.) is ‘natural’, period.
I didn’t miss your point at all Frank – I just think your attempt to “migrate” got a bit sloppy. Saying something like “Having the limb set by a physician is unnatural” does your point more harm than good.
colin said:
Why do you ask? Do they all have the robust evidence that what they do is effective pinned to the walls of their office?