On 11/11/2019, the York Press reported from coroner’s inquest regarding a chiropractor who allegedly killed a patient. John Lawler suffered a broken neck while being treated by a chiropractor for an aching leg, an inquest has been told. His widow told how her husband was on the treatment table when things started to go wrong. She said he started shouting at chiropractor Dr Arleen Scholten: “You are hurting me. You are hurting me.” Then he began moaning and then said: “I can’t feel my arms.”
Mrs Lawler said Scholten tried to turn him over and then manoeuvred him into a chair next to the treatment table but he had become unresponsive. “He was like a rag doll,” she said. “His lips looked a little bit blue but I knew he was breathing. “I said ‘Has he had a stroke?’ She put his head back and said ‘no, his features are symmetrical’.
When the paramedics arrived, they treated Mr Lawler and to hospital. He had an MRI scan and a doctor told Mrs Lawler that he had suffered a broken neck. She was then informed that her husband was a paraplegic and he could undergo a 14 hour operation which would be traumatic but even before that could happen he “faded away” and died.
__________________________________________
There are, as far as I can see, four issues of interest here:
- It could be that Mr Lawler had osteoporosis; we will no doubt hear about this in the course of the inquest. If so, normal force could have led to the fracture, and the chiropractor would claim that she is not to blame for the fracture and the subsequent death of her patient. The question then would be whether she was under an obligation to check whether, in a man of Mr Lawler’s age, his bone density was normal or whether she could just assume that it was. In my view, any clinician applying a potentially harmful therapy has the obligation to make sure there are no contra-indications to it. If that all is so, the chiropractor might have been both negligent and reckless.
- Has neck manipulation been shown to be effective for any type of pain in the leg? That’s an easy one: No!
- Has the chiropractor obtained informed consent from her patient before commencing the treatment? The inquest will no doubt verify this. As many chiropractors fail to do it, I would not be too surprised if, in the present case, this was also not done. Should that be so, the chiropractor would have been negligent.
- One might be surprised to hear that the chiropractor manipulated the neck of a patient who consulted her not because of neck pain but because of a condition seemingly unrelated to the neck. This is an issue that comes up regularly and which is therefore importan; some people might be aware that it is dangerous to see a chiropractor when suffering from neck pain because he/she is bound to manipulate the neck. By contrast, most people would probably think it is ok to consult a chiropractor when suffering from lower back pain, because manipulations in that region is far less risky. The truth, however, is that chiropractors have been taught that the spine is one organ and one entity. Thus they tend to check for subluxations (or whatever name they give to the non-existing condition they all aim to treat) in every region of the spine. If they find one in the neck – and they usually do – they would ‘adjust’ it, meaning they would apply one or more high-velocity, low-amplitude thrusts and manipulate the neck. This could well be, I think, how the chiropractor in the case that is before the court at present came to manipulate the neck of her patient. And this might be how poor Mr Lawler lost his life.
Is there a lesson to be learnt from this tragic case?
Yes, I think there is: if you want to make sure that a chiropractor does not break your neck, don’t go and consult one – whatever your health problem happens to be.
78 Responses to Death by chiropractic: thoughts about the sad case of Mr Lawler
Leave a Reply to Frank Collins Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Sadly I am not surprised by this tragic story.
This is one of the reasons I avoid chiropractors…
Manipulating cervical vertebrae should only be done by a well trained and experienced person – and definitely not as a regular and frequent treatment.
if you want to make sure that a chiropractor does not break your neck, don’t go and consult one – whatever your health problem happens to be
Where to begin???
1. You know nothing of the patient medical background
2. You know nothing of his presenting condition and complaints
3. You know nothing of the intake at the hospital / radiology / labs / clinical findings / condition / cause of death
4. You know nothing of the chiropractic treatment given
5. You don’t even know if state legislation requires the chiropractor involved to obtain informed consent. Most state boards and MOH throughout the world don’t.
You don’t know much at all about this case but you are happy to scare patients to avoid chiropractic in fear of DEATH… this is not medicine this is SCAM – So Called Allopathic Medicine
Scaring patients so they avoid chiropractors? I’m not sure I see the problem here.
Society does it all the time to get people to avoid harmful behaviour. Look at the mess from this drunk driver, this is how your lungs will look if you smoke, etc. I wrote a video script for our aviation regulator that showed pilots what can happen (messy crash with two deaths) if they do silly things while flying in an uncontrolled aerodrome.
We tell people all the time when you fall for the SCAMs, you are wasting precious time and that could lead to harm, even death. Not only is it a good message, it’s true!
If we can scare just one person. . .
You can scare patients they would die from the evil eye… I don’t care if you do so BUT you are no longer a health care professional practicing evidence-based medicine.
If you want to mislead your patients, advise them against acceptable guidelines and vast amount of research this is your and your patients’ problem.
Doing that while claiming to practice EBM is an outrage. EBM is EBM even when it goes against your believes and wishful thinking.
@Dr. G. Almog
First of all, I don’t have patients and I don’t claim to be a doctor. If I did, I would likely be arrested. I know what you’re thinking: Thank God (your choice) for that! Yes, indeed.
So, I am not misleading my patients or scaring them while claiming to practice EBM. But as someone who cares about the health of those who inhabit what is left of this planet, I just don’t see the harm in telling people about the bad things that can happen when they opt for SCAMs over real medicine.
You stated: “If you want to mislead your patients, advise them against acceptable guidelines and vast amount of research this is your and your patients’ problem.”
I’ve tried to be clear in the past but I suppose it is worth repeating: I will gladly believe and actively promote ANYTHING that is supported by valid evidence. (Vast amounts? Where?) Until then, scare tactics shall remain in my arsenal along with that other silly notion I often rely on: facts.
Admittedly, neither scare tactics nor facts work on everyone. That much is obvious.
It is called evidence based medicine. Allopathic medicine went away in 1850. One hallmark of unscientific practices is that they never learn or abandon practices like cracking necks.
Only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by scientific evidence… David Eddy, M.D., Ph.D.
Where is the wisdom?
This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound.
BMJ 1991 303:798
I guess that is evidence!!!!!!!!!!
perhaps you could find a reference from the 19th century to show how little of medicine is evidence-based?
EE
SBM kills more people… by a long shot…. not even close.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/death-surgery-common/story?id=17285388
RG,
Do you have comparable data from non-SBM to support that claim?
I wouldn’t regard an article by ABC news as evidence. It wasn’t very difficult to find the original paper it was based on, however, and happliy The Lancet isn’t hidden behind a paywall. Here is the original:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61148-9/fulltext
It is difficult to know what the outcomes would have been if these people hadn’t had surgery. Emergency surgery, for instance, is generally for life-threatening problems, and even elective surgery includes such major operations as oesophagectomy for cancer. The difference between different countries does suggest that policies, systems and facilities available are important factors, and since the results are given as means not medians, the outliers (such as Latvia) will have an undue influence on the total. It is interesting that the 60-day mortality rate is almost double the 30-day mortality, which might suggest that the surgery itself isn’t the culprit in all cases. Regardless, studies such as this are important since they lead to changes in practice and improvement in outcomes.
Doc JMK
Hey, nice spin on the stats.
There is an old saying
“figures don’t lie, but liars figure”
@RG
That aircraft occasionally crash does not validate the use of magic carpets.
SBM, like the airline industry, learns from its errors and reacts to evidence.
Show us how AltMed does the same.
We’ll wait.
Yes, be sure to get back surgery instead which half the time is ineffective, costs a lot more and could kill you from any number of iatrogenic problems. But at least the CON-MEDicos (Conventional Medicine) get their healthy cut.
You are a fool who doesn’t know the first thing about medicine, yet jumps at every opportunity to denigrate it.
Already for over half a century, medicine takes a very conservative approach towards (lower) back problems, and even in clear-cut cases of disc herniation, operations are only the very last resort. And I should know, because I have a back hernia that manifested itself at least half a dozen times, complete with (now permanent) nerve damage to the right leg. NOT ONCE did the GP and surgeons I consulted even remotely consider an operation a viable option. And they were right: the pain usually subsided within a week or two, and an operation wouldn’t fix the nerve damage anyway.
RichardR
So SBM wasn’t able to help you in the slightest ? Well, other than to confirm the disc herniation.
What’s so great about it ?
I didn’t say that(*). I merely noted that you try to spread slanderous lies about medical professionals.
*: If you must know: My doctors advised me to keep mobile as much as the pain would allow, and to take as little pain medication as I could manage, and that was good advice. And oh, I also paid some visits to physiotherapists to help mobilize my dorsal muscles. In later recurrences, I usually was pain-free after about a week with this strategy.
Some decades earlier, the preferred treatment looked decidedly different, and usually involved bed rest and quite heavy pain medication for an extended period of time – and because this often led to prolonged complaints, back operations were more common then. However in the 70s, medical research showed that this wasn’t the optimal treatment for lower back pain, including most cases of hernia.
Indeed. First do no harm is the starting point in real medicine. Not intervening actively minimising patient catastophising, and advice to stay active are the most effective, and cheapest, treatments for low back pain. NSAIDS for a few days can help too. Works for >95% of people >95% of the time within 1-2 weeks.
@ Roger on Tuesday 12 November 2019 at 08:41
Rog, I had back surgery 35 years ago and have been asymptomatic since. I have played hockey, tennis, golf; physically built a house and shed, lifted and carried, worked without incident, and have had a pain free enjoyable life since.
Would you rather I live with severe, crippling sciatica for that period? Nuffy.
There is a principle in English law that “you take your victims as you find them”. This means that, for instance, if you were to assualt someone unaware that they had osteogenesis imperfecta (a genetic condition that makes the bones unusually susceptible to fracture) and they were to suffer a fatal injury as a result, then your ignorance of their condition cannot be used as a defence against a murder charge.
Regardless of that, the chiropractor clearly had a duty of care to establish whether Mr Lawler had any pre-existing conditions that made neck manipulation more hazardous. Whether he was competant to do so is a different matter (I have had patients come to me after several months of chiropractic treatment for what turned out to be a spinal tumour, which ought to have been easily spotted on the x-rays if they weren’t simply looking for “subluxations”).
Treating somebody without their consent is assault under English law, though establishing whether Mr Lawler consented to the neck manipulation may not be straightforward. It is standard to require a consent form to be signed before carrying out any medical proceedure (such as surgery or chemotherapy), but the signed form is not the consent, which is deemed to occur when the patient complies or cooperates, e.g. by holding out their arm to have a drip put in. The consent form is useful evidence that some sort of discussion took place, particularly when combined with a printed information sheet, but it can be argued that the person signing it did not understand all the implications of what they were signing. So it is regarded as evidence, not a contract.
I will be very interested to see what transpires here.
Hi Julian
[“your ignorance of their condition cannot be used as a defence against a murder charge”]
I am not a lawyer, but I believe your assumption to be erroneous.
In my opinion, the defense could easily argue against a murder charge, much less so against a manslaughter charge.
But I do agree: if the therapist did not know of a pre-existing condition and should have avoided performing certain medical acts, he still is responsible for the outcome.
However, if the therapist performed a certain medical act badly, I would not blame the entire field of practice for it.
I would not conclude that high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) techniques are bad.
My humble opinion is that they should be avoided for cervical vertebrae when possible, and definitely left to well trained and experienced practitioners.
My personal (very limited) experience of chiropractic treatments is not conclusive, but then again I may have been unlucky with the therapists I consulted.
This being said, I have enjoyed great results from HVLA performed by excellent physiotherapists and osteopaths.
OK here we go:
HVLA in the cervical spine is never warranted secondary to the vertebral arteries travelling through the foramen in the vertebrae. If there is a spur in the foramen or an undiagnosed listhesis, then a high velocity manipulation can sever the artery and kill the patient. Any decent manual physical therapist will tell you this. No practitioner should be performing these type of manipulations in the cervical spine no matter how trained. Any chance to kill the patient is too high. (Grade four) three dimensional mobilizations at the angle of the facet will alleviate most pathologies that chiroquacks use HVLA for. HVLA can be used in the thoracic or lumbar spine by a well trained certified practitioner when warranted as these areas will not kill the patient. “You don’t have to make noise to fix the patient.” Go see a certified manual physical therapist of the spine and stop settling for alternative “medicine” by a “doctor” of chiropractic theory based treatments meant to drain your wallet. Ask yourself how many chiros do you see at the hospital. Zero. How many physical therapists do you see at the hospital? They are on every floor. Physical therapy = true evidence based treatment. Chiro = snake oil salesman.
Ok George. Get all PTs, DOs and MDs to ban cervical manipulation in their respective professions. See how that works out for you.
@D(umb)&C(onfused): OR perhaps get you quacks to adopt MacKenzie’s suggestion that “manipulation (not sure if he’d include your “professions” other idiotic ‘THRUSTING technologies: ’ Activator, ArtriStim, drop-tables, Pro-Adjusters etc etc) SHOULD’NT be dispensed to the entire population in order to find the very few who may actually benefit from it”. But alas what CHIROQUACKER (other than you and your iconoclastic anti-DCs bloviating rhetoric herein) would EVER state such an opinion, let alone agree to practice from that standard. Chiroquackery IS the selling-of-Chiroquackic ADJUSTMENTS. And if it ain’t then please do tell WTF it is….anxiously awaiting another TU Quoque response.
Alexandre,
I am not a lawyer either, but I do have some understanding of how the Law in England and Wales works, and the principle of “you take your victims as you find them” is well-established.
The chiropractor manipulated Mr Lawler’s cervical spine without his consent, which is criminal assault (this is something that medicolegal departments of hospitals and professional indeminity organisations drum into us time and time again). Death resulting from criminal assault is murder. The exsitence of a specific vulnerability in the victim, whether or not the accused knew about it, is not a defense against a charge of murder.
I thought it came out she did not manipulate his cervical spine. She did a table drop on the upper thoracic spine.
DC,
I am afraid that I am not familiar enough with the details of chiropractic manipulation to know the difference, though I doubt whether Mr Lawler would have known, either. However, that is not relevant to the point I am making, because Mr Lawler had either not given consent, or had withdrawn consent, to having his spine manipulated at all. Also, regardless of precisely what the chiropractor did, or intended to do, her actions resulted in his death.
https://edzardernst.com/2019/11/death-by-chiropractic-thoughts-about-the-sad-case-of-mr-lawler/
https://edzardernst.com/2019/11/the-death-of-mr-lawler-highlights-the-scandals-of-chiropractic/
https://edzardernst.com/2019/11/death-by-chiropractic-neck-manipulation-more-details-on-the-lawler-case/
Julian. Just trying to be accurate. I suspect she did what is called a drop where the table piece drops down with the adjustment and the manipulation occurs at the end. I’ve never done the procedure but it can cause neck extension.
But i havent been following the case in detail. I dont know if he gave consent to manipulation and if it was just for the low back.
Tragic case.
Of course, informed consent must be obtained prior to any procedure including chiropractic care. Every health authority decides upon itself from what level of risk to obtain a written, signed consent.
In most cases chiropractic care does not require such a written consent as it involves a minor risk and considered to be a very safe procedure.
This can be changed but you will find yourself signing patients on every drug, test or procedure there is out there.
Dr Almog,
The thing to remember about a consent form , signed or otherwise, is that legally it does not represent consent.
Consent is deemed to occur when the patient holds out their arm for the needle, lies down the treatment table or whatever. The form is simply a record that a discussion has taken place, hopefully with some information about the content of the discussion. The presence of a signature does not mean that the patient has necessarily understood what he was told, however. The reason for the existence of these forms is to serve as evidence in the event of a dispute, as otherwise a Court has to rely on witness statements, if witnesses exist, or on the testimony of those involved.
There are risks in any endeavour. It would be useful to quantify them. Is it still the case that, as a commenter wrote here back in 2013 ( https://edzardernst.com/2013/08/another-wheelchair-filled-with-the-help-of-a-chiropractor/#comment-42493 ) :
“chiropractors having either no adverse event reporting systems, or extremely unreliable ones. The true frequency and severity of complications resulting from chiropractic interventions remains unknown”
@ Prof Paz
Yes.
An adverse reporting system will not tell you the true frequency and severity of complications as it doesn’t establish causation.
and therefore we might as well rely on chiropractors’ (completely unbiased) opinion!
It’s understanding the benefits and limitations of an adverse reporting system.
Bjorn can fill you in if you need some help.
Just to clarify, this is a coroner’s inquest and not a trial.
yes, you are right – I will correct my post accordingly
thanks
Alexandre Monier,
It is not an assumption. Where I make assumptions it is my policy to say so.
Having stated that you are not qualified to give an opinion here you have gone ahead regardless!
The principle “You should take your victim as you find him” is also commonly known as the “eggshell skull rule”, which is why I gave the example that I did, and is firmly established, originally in civil and subsequently also in criminal law in England and Wales (Scotland has it’s own laws, and I don’t know about other countires. However, York is in England).
It is explained more fully in this Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull
As a medical practitioner I have to be aware of the Law as it might apply to my practice, including an understanding of the process of consent, and what is involved in medical negligence claims. I have also enjoyed many long hours chatting to various friends and relatives in the legal profession. I hope this has given me a layman’s understanding of the legal system, which is a useful thing for any for anybody to have.
People have trouble distinguising between what is and what (in their opinion) ought to be. This is not helpful in dealing with the world effectively, and can lead to unwise decisions. Also unrealistic expectations inevitably result in disappointment. This is true in legal as well as in medical, financial and many other matters.
Dear Julian,
[“Having stated that you are not qualified to give an opinion here you have gone ahead regardless!”]
Indeed, I have. Apparently you are not a lawyer either, and yet you gave yours… which is fine by me but still erroneous.
English is not my mother tongue, but I believe the difference between murder and manslaughter to be simple enough for everyone to grasp (e.g. people who are not lawyers). A murder is intentional and manslaughter is not.
In the afore-mentioned case, I seriously doubt that the therapist was planning on hurting his patient… despite what you seem to believe. Unless, of course, that is your assumption?
A
I was not suggesting that the therapist was going to be accused of murder. I was making the point that if someone’s injuries are more severe than they would be otherwise, as a result of an unknown pre-existing condition, this in no way exculpates the perpetrator, and that this applies in criminal as well as civil cases.
I think all of this has sailed quite far off the main issue which is : “is a chiropractic clinic a good choice when one needs to address certain health issues”.
We have now established that the incriminated healthcare professional did not intend to hurt his patient.
What is less clear is whether the dramatic outcome brought to us by Edzard can be extrapolated to state that “chiropractic doctors are quacks and the entire field of practice should be avoided at all costs” or if it was just the tragic consequence of a poorly trained/inexperienced/misinformed/unlucky therapist.
Many people die due to errors or misinformation, and yet we do not blame “medicine” as a whole for this.
This debate is important and could probably benefit from a global effort to elevate the conversation by showing a little more wisdom and respect.
Generally, actually reading what we all bring to the table with a positive attitude rather than having knee-jerk reactions when somebody expresses disagrement would help a lot. We are all probably too old to play “tit for tat” ping pong games.
Just saying…
“chiropractic doctors are quacks and the entire field of practice should be avoided at all costs”
did I say that?
I don’t think that is the main issue in this thread.
Have we? How?
So far the only information that we have is a newpaper report of an inquest, which is a process taking place at a Coroner’s Court in order to establish the cause of death, and whether it was unlawful. It is not within the remit of an inquest to determine the intent of another person who may be implicated in the death. That is a matter for a Criminal Courts, should it get that far.
On the basis of the limited information we have available it does seem to me that the chiropractor had a duty of care (as does anybody setting out to treat someone, regardless of their qualifications) and that he was in breach of that duty of care, either by acting outside his area of competance or by not taking appropriate steps to ascertain that the proceedure was safe in Mr Lawler’s case, and that Mr Lawler’s death was the result. This is sufficient to prove negligence, but negligence is not itself a criminal offence.
A criminal charge of manslaughter is a very different matter. If the reported facts are correct then I would expect that the Criminal Prosecution Service will now be considering whether to bring such a charge. They will also have to take into account whether it would be in the public interest and how likely it is to succeed. I will be very interested to know what transpires.
Every death in an NHS hospital, regardless of whether or not it is expected, is examined internally in a regular Morbidity and Mortality meeting to see what lessons can be learned from it. You may not blame “medicine as a whole”, but the medical and other allied health care professions, as well as the NHS, are constantly striving to improve outcomes, and examining themselves critically is part of this process.
I think you have completely misunderstood the tenor of what I am saying. I am not trying to score points against you. My only reason for posting anything on this blog is to educate and inform when people make claims which are factually incorrect, or when they have clearly misunderstood something important. That some seem to regard this as a personal attack baffles me.
Minor point of order:
During the conversation, the sex of the chiropractor appears to have changed. She is female, Arleen Scholten.
Hi Lenny,
You are absolutely right, sorry about that. My French thinking sometimes applies gender to English words (e.g. doctor).
RichardR
Thank you, you make my case for me.
I think I totally lost you… apologies, I won’t waste any more of your time.
All
I am continually amused at how each time this blog scrutinizes a single death as a result of homeopathy or CAM therapies. All the while thousands are dying every week at the hands of “licensed” MD’s…. with nothing ever said.
What a joke, you people should be ashamed of yourselves.
I am continually amused at how each time I go to a bus stop, there is no train coming.
THIS BLOG IS ABOUT SO-CALLED ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE (SCAM)
What a joke, you should be ashamed of yourself for your persistent ignorance.
EE
Yes, I know… I know.
This blog is not about medical science…. it’s about selling books.
Only because you don’t understand medical science or reality.
@RG
I am continually appalled (and most certainly not amused) by the utter stupidity, arrogant and hypocrisy of people like you, and your slanderous, gratuitous hostility towards our medical professionals.
Stupidity: Ever heard of risk vs. benefit? When regular medicine wouldn’t treat people, far MORE people would die, and even far, far more than that would see a dramatic decline in their quality of life. So it is rather stupid to ignore the benefits of real medicine – which is what you do when you spread your drivel.
Quacks, on the other hand, never saved a life, and usually only fool people into thinking that they feel better (a.k.a. the placebo effect) – a feeling that tends to wear off quickly after ‘treatment’. Even worse: when real doctors make mistakes that harm patients, these mistakes are meticulously recorded and, if possible, compensated. Also, regular medicine LEARNS from its mistakes. Quacks don’t record their mistakes at all, so nobody knows how many people are hurt at their hands – and even worse: their mistakes more often than not end up in the hands of regular medicine, and thus in the statistics of regular medicine.
Arrogance: Yet quacks often claim that they are doing a better job than real doctors, by only looking at cases where things went wrong in regular medicine, and ignoring all else. Disregarding the vast amount of evidence for them being wrong even seems to be a praiseworthy attitude in their Alternative Universe. This of course also means that quacks don’t learn from their mistakes. After all, they Know that they are Doing it Right, so there are no mistakes and there is nothing to learn. They are, in other words, the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Hypocrisy: Quacks dismiss 99.9% of solid, peer-reviewed medical science out of hand because it doesn’t jibe with their view of the world in general and of sickness and health in particular. But on those rare occasions that a scientific study appears to support their SCAM of choice, they immediately embrace it wholeheartedly, and enthusiastically proclaim that “Randomized Double-Blinded Controlled Study X suggests that we are Right!”, totally ignoring the fact that thousands of other studies show that they are Wrong, and that this kind of scientific cherry-picking is nothing short of hypocritical. (Not to mention the fact that studies supporting SCAM more often than not tend to be rather sloppy up to and including outright fraudulent.)
You are the one who should be ashamed for your unrelenting demonstration of some very unsavoury human traits.
Then again, you probably are a troll, and not even a particularly good one. Hint: a clever troll doesn’t set himself up for punishment the whole time like you do.
RichardR
I might be a troll, but I’m ashamed of nothing. Punishment or not from you, I speak the truth, no shame on my part.
The claims I make towards CAM are this;
1- What I have benefited from in my experience.
2- Less harm is done than compared to many EBM treatments.
You Richard confirmed to us with you own lips that you chose not to do the disc surgery.,,, because of the risks associated and the lack of proven benefits.
You are the one that stated that you used the meds sparingly.
You are the one that said you used a physiotherapists for assistance. (not an MD)
So here is the deal Richard, you saw a PT, took a few anti-inflammatory pills, got some heat treatment or massage for your back…. and the pain subsided. Is that so different than many folks seeking out CAM treatments ? I think not….. do no harm. Other folks are seeking out the same (CAM).
I’m laughing my arse off at YOU !
Don’t assume I give you some extra respect simply because you put some letters after your name…. baah
No, it’s completely different from CAM.
Richard’s treatment was evidence based. It wasn’t derived from some made up fantasy like Qi or subluxations. Even though some of his choices came down to educated guess there was still that educated part.
I went through a CAM phase myself. One thing I noticed is there was a never ending stream of treatments I hadn’t tried and a lot of them made no sense. Laxatives. “Cool” foods. Dozens of herbs, and sometimes contradictory recommendations from the same author in different books!
Try reading a few journal articles on back pain. I find this kind of thing extremely empowering. I like to review the published literature before surgery or any risky medical treatment.
Yup.
Um, yes. Quite different. The choice of treatment for my back pain was based on what we call ‘scientific evidence’. And please once again note that this science-based treatment superseded the previous standard treatment because the new one proved to be better. This is called ‘scientific progress’.
CAM treatments are NOT based on scientific evidence. They are based on imagination, on belief, and most of all on people fooling other people (and usually themselves).
CAM treatments DON’T ACTUALLY WORK. CAM treatments ARE NOT RIGOROUSLY TESTED. And if only for these two reasons alone, CAM does not and cannot make progress – one cannot make things better that don’t exist, and one cannot make things better without researching and testing their effectiveness first.
Even if they sometimes make people feel good, that doesn’t make them medically valid, and it certainly doesn’t mean that their practitioners can claim to effectively treat health issues. (And oh, a CAM practitioner could have easily made my condition worse by forcing the vertebrae around the herniated disc, a.k.a. ‘back-cracking’.)
And worst of all: CAM practitioners pretend to be knowledgeable in the field of medicine, they pretend to know what to do when people fall ill. THEY DO NOT.
CAM practitioners are medically incompetent by definition. Yes, even the ones who had actual medical training but now offer CAM treatments are medically incompetent, because they treat patients in ways that are not the best standard of care – and sometimes even outright dangerous (which is what this whole thread is about).
Well, I could leave out the extra letter R, but I fail to see how that letter is supposed to engender respect in the first place. You are not making sense – as usual, I might add. Anyway, I think I hosed you down enough for now, so have a nice life.
@ RG on Wednesday 13 November 2019 at 18:40
“Is that so different than many folks seeking out CAM treatments ? I think not….. do no harm. Other folks are seeking out the same (CAM).”
Did you not read the Profs post? It is about a person who was killed by a chiro. Are you stupid or just a complete moron?
“I’m laughing my arse off at YOU !”
No, everyone is laughing at you and your idiocy. It is a pity the unintelligent aren’t aware of their lack of intelligence.
Indeed. RG gives another textbook example of Dunning-Krugerism.
Science and SBM realises that it is not perfect and learns from its errors. RG and the quacks he espouses will never do the same thing.
many more interesting details have just been reported:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/chiropractor-shouldnt-called-herself-doctor-17248222
Isn´t poor Mrs. Scholten the real victim here?!
*she really “felt” that she could help the man and really “wanted to help him”.
(not without a paycheck, of course…)
*she cured her patient from his leg pain
(he will never feel anything anymore…)
*poor Mrs. Scholten had to fight back tears and was “in a complete state of shock”
(after she broke the neck of her patient).
*she now even will have to stop calling herself “Dr. Scholten”
(well, of course she never was a real one…)
Sarcasm aside, I hope that she gets sued and will go to jail for manslaughter.
“Under cross-examination from Richard Copnall, counsel for Mr Lawler’s family, Mrs Scholten accepted that, with hindsight, it had been dangerous to move him from the table to the chair.
She said: “I was in a complete state of shock. I have treated thousands of people and had never experienced anything like this in the past… I didn’t know what was going on.“
“She was told Mr Lawler had back surgery a decade ago for spinal stenosis and had metal rods inserted in his lower back.
Mrs Scholten said despite this she believed she could relieve some of his pain by what she described as “gentle manipulation”.”
She obviously was practicing well beyond her expertise but didn’t know it. Of course her practice is inherently not useful so there’s that.
Three words:
Utter. Medical. Incompetence.
Meanwhile in New Zealand 3 patients have died after their epilepsy medication was changed and up to 60 final year medical students (Otago Medial School) are suspected of cheating in a final year placement.
@ GibleyGibley on Wednesday 13 November 2019 at 18:23
As usual, what is your point, apart from displaying complete ignorance of the Logical Fallacy, False Equivalency?
(I apologise for not changing most of the vowels so it can be read by a Kiwi.)
Let’s cite every time a chiropractor got a bad education and every time a supplement didn’t contain the dose and ingredients on the label.
More than half of all supplements are mislabeled and 100% of chiropractors learn about subluxations.
So a chiropractor could do better in a chronic condition (epilepsy) without breaking their neck? I don’t understand, why would a chiropractor see an epilepsy patient? You are comparing apples to oranges here. When was the last time a chiropractor worked in an emergency room, where most patients die due to acute medical issues that a chiropractor has no training. My point, really sick people see medical doctors who cannot be saved.
If I am shot in chest by bullet I don’t go to chiropractor emergency room, is there even a place?
What could a chiropractor do for an epilepsy patient, I am really curious?
https://sandiegocountychiropractor.com/epilepsy-chiropractic/
https://awakenchiroco.com/epilepsy-and-chiropractic/
just 2 sites out of dozens
And their patients will believe them, outrageous they can advertise this.
yet more details here:
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/18034608.inquest-death-john-lawler-hears-expert-opinion-broken-neck/
Just came here specifically after reading the news elsewhere to see the imp*tent old geezers fight it off !
@ Pop Corn on Thursday 14 November 2019 at 15:26
What is your point, other than to be the fool?
@Frank Collins ! chill out Sci Guy ! you’re the fool (see how easy this is)
Reading this blog sometimes reminds me of the old “pc Vs Mac” debates from 15 years ago.
All you can really learn about is the size of the ego of the contributors…
not a very clever remark
BOTH PCs AND MACs DO WORK!
Precisely… although I was more referring to people writing in caps and acting like manic street preachers.
Osteopaths are just like real doctors, but without any medical training.
Your logic is not sound when you give your numbered list.
1) It is the obligation of the treating physician to know the risks and lay them out entirely for the patient and/or family. Osteoporosis only matters on the treatment type. We still do not know which type of practicing Chiropractor she is — is she Thompson or Diversified? Did she use a drop and if so, at what force and pressure was applied? Too many unknowns to go calling them out for not getting an x-ray — in fact, does an MD obtain an x-ray prior to treating an URI to ensure it is not pneumonia? Your answer to this would be that the MD would rule out Pneumonia based on symptoms.. the exact way a D.C. rules out potential problems.
2) Your second point shows your lack of knowledge for the human body. NOT completing an adjustment (again, depending on the type of D.C. she is) would cause torque to build in the spine which increases pressure at a certain joint and MUST be adjusted from HEAD to TOE in order to receive the best results. Have you ever heard of Upper Cross Syndrome or Lower Cross Syndrome? The feet and lower spine follow the cervical spine and vice versa.. again your lack of knowledge clearly shows I’m wasting my time writing this but because you’re bashing Chiropractic, why not defend it instead.
3) This is laughable as ALL practicing Chiropractic Physicians must obtain a signed consent and have a report of findings for each patient. If you’re saying D.C.’s rarely get consent, one could say the same for DDS or MD’s prescribing antibiotics without need according to the CDC.. not to mention the narcotic epidemic caused by the AMA.
4) This point is a repeat of your second point and again, proves YOU know absolutely nothing about the Human Body. Have you seen a nerve chart in your life and the end organ function that those nerves provide and IF those nerves are blocked the expected outcome is organ failure which happens more often than I’m sure you’ve seen in a clinical setting. Your lack of knowledge is insulting and the fact I’m writing this further shows that a Registered Nurse.. is smarter than an MD.
Learn something before blogging.. it’s pathetic seeing misinformation going around the internet — even more pathetic when a medical professional is doing the spreading. Sad.
We know that she did use a drop, and that the force was sufficient to cause the fracture.
I think most physicians can distinguish between an upper respiratory tract infection and pneumonia (which is a lower respiratory tract infection). An x-ray may or may not be required depending on the clinical findings and how unwell the patient is.
According to the principles of chiropractic, which differ somewhat from conventional physiology and pathology.
A signature on a consent form does not constitute consent under English law. In this case I don’t know whether a consent form had been signed, but regardless the Coroner found that informed consent had not been given.
What the CDC has to say is irrelevant since the case did not occur in the US.
What??? That may be a basic principle of chiropractic but it isn’t actually true. For example a transplanted heart has had all its nerves removed.
thank you for replying to him; I rarely answer to commentators who insult me in this way – their aggression alone puts them in the wrong.