MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

One of the many issues that needs addressing about chiropractic is its safety. On this blog, we have had dozens of posts and debates on this topic. Today, I want to try and summarise them by providing a fictitious dialogue between a critic and a chiropractor.

Here we go:

Critic (CR): It seems to me that most of the chiros I talk to are convinced that their hallmark therapy, spinal manipulation, is risk-free.

Chiro (CH): Hallmark therapy? Not true! Osteopaths, physios, doctors they all use spinal manipulation.

CR: I know, but name me a profession that employs it more regularly than you chiros.

CH: In any case, it is as good as risk-free; nothing is totally devoid of risk, but chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSMT) is generally very safe, because we are better trained at it than the others.

CR: Do you say that because you believe it or because you know it?

CH: I know it.

CR: That means you have the evidence to prove it?

CH: Yes, of course. Over the years, I have treated over a thousand patients and never heard of any problems.

CR: Without a monitoring system of adverse events that occur after chiropractic spinal manipulation, this is pretty meaningless.

CH: Monitoring systems do not establish causality.

CR: No, but they are a start and can tell you whether there is a problem that requires looking into.

CH: Let me remind you please that the question of safety is foremost an issue for conventional medicine; this is why a monitoring system is useful for drugs. We actually do not need one, because CSMT is safe.

CR: Are you sure?

CH: Yes, V DabbsW J Lauretti have shown this very clearly in their seminal paper comparing drug treatments with chiropractic. 

CR: The much-cited paper by Dabbs and Lauretti is out-dated, poor quality, and heavily biased. It provides no sound basis for an evidence-based judgement on the relative risks of cervical manipulation and NSAIDs. The notion that cervical manipulations are safer than NSAIDs is therefore not based on reliable data. Thus, it is misleading and irresponsible to repeat this claim. Is there not a better comparison for supporting your point?

CH: Not as far as I know. But you can trust our collective experience: CSMT is safe!

CR: Don’t you think that the issue is too important to rely purely on experience? Your collective experience can be very misleading, you know.

CH: Then tell me why chiros pay only a fraction of the insurance premium compared to doctors.

CR: Yes, that is the argument many chiros love. But it also is a very poor one: doctors treat patients who are often very ill, while chiros treat mostly sore backs. Don’t you think that explains a lot about the difference in insurance premiums?

CH: Perhaps, but if you claim CSMT to be harmful, how about you supporting your claim with evidence?

CR: Sure, the best is to review systematically all prospective studies on the topic; and if you do this, the conclusion is that data from prospective studies suggest that minor, transient adverse events occur in approximately half of all patients receiving spinal manipulation. The most common serious adverse events are vertebrobasilar accidents, disk herniation, and cauda equina syndrome. Estimates of the incidence of serious complications range from 1 per 2 million manipulations to 1 per 400,000. Given the popularity of spinal manipulation, its safety requires rigorous investigation.

CH: I bet these are studies done by people who are against chiropractic.

CR: No, actually the primary studies were all done by chiropractors.

CH: Minor transient problems! These are merely what we expect; things often need to get worse before they get better.

CR: Imagine that a drug company claims such BS about the side-effects of a new drug.

CH: But that’s different!

CR: In what way?

CH: Big Pharma is only out to make money.

CR: And chiros?

CH: That’s different too.

CR: What about the serious adverse events like vertebrobasilar accidents, disk herniation, and cauda equina syndrome? Are you going to deny they exist?

CH: Some of those serious complications, while rare, are conditions that existed prior to CSMT being performed with the practitioner missing it upon initial examination.

CR: How do you know?

CH: I know this from experience.

CR: I already told you that experience is unreliable.

CH: Then show me the evidence that I am wrong.

CR: No, you have to come up with the evidence; the burden of proof is evidently on your shoulders.

CH: Whatever! As long as there is no good evidence, I cannot accept that serious complications are a real problem.

CR: That’s just fine: you say “as long as there is no good evidence…” and, at the same time, you prevent good evidence from emerging by preventing a decent AE monitoring system.

CH: I always knew that one cannot have a reasonable discussion with you. I consider that I have won this debate; this issue is now closed.

 

39 Responses to A chat with a chiropractor

  • A very good summary. I have parts of this discussion with chiropractors (and osteopaths) on a pretty regular basis. They always bring up the same old (and invalid) arguments. Maybe in future I can just shortcut the discussion by directing them to this post?

  • The problem, as always, is that chiros are not very bright. The entry level standards to chiro fantasy courses are very low and after a few years of nonsense, a moron is gifted the misleading title, Doctor of Bullshit, which gives an imbecile an undeserved title and an enormous ego.

    The chiro across the corner typifies the mindset if, indeed, there is a mind inside that thick skull. During the COVID-19 lock down in Victoria, Australia, chiros are not deemed an essential service. If that isn’t a clear indication of the uselessness of spinal faffing, what else could be?

    It comes as no great surprise chiros can’t recognise or understand this.

    • @Frank Collins
      Ring the chiropractic bell and you respond in a very predictable way.
      Both chiro’s and physio’s are deemed essential under Victoria’s stage 4 lock-down in Melbourne but only for clearly defined essential conditions, usual care is not permitted for either profession. If you are going to sprout your usual vitriol at least get it right otherwise you come across as being “not very bright”.
      This comes as no great surprise.

      Pray tell sunshine are you aware of the latest research on the global burden of disease when it comes to faffing back pain and neck pain?
      Have you read the latest update in the journal Pain?
      Biennial Review of Pain -September Supplement:
      https://journals.lww.com/pain/toc/2020/09001

      Do you bother to keep up with the research or are you dinosaur stuck in the past.

      • Critical_Chiro wrote: “Have you read the latest update in the journal Pain? Biennial Review of Pain -September Supplement: https://journals.lww.com/pain/toc/2020/09001

        @ Critical_Chiro

        Is this the piece that you think is going to save the chiropractic industry?
        https://journals.lww.com/pain/Fulltext/2020/09001/The_Lancet_Series_call_to_action_to_reduce_low.7.aspx

        If so, rather than bringing anything new and robust to the table, to me it reads like thinly disguised marketing blurb.

        It’s important to be up to speed on 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/

        ___________________________________________________________

        “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”

        Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

        • @BW
          Instead of citing blogs have a closer look at the research and cite the latest research not echo chambers that just feed your bias. The blogs all assume that chiropractic is a single technique which is antiquated.
          What do you think the original Lancet LBP Series was aiming at?
          It was a call to arms for ALL professions to change.
          What is the September update in pain all about?
          “rather than bringing anything new and robust to the table, to me it reads like thinly disguised marketing blurb. ”
          Sadly, the update just showed that low value care has changed little and more new low value care in the form of the regenerative therapies has crept in. The authors lamented this in a recent interview.
          Basically, things need to change. How we approach patients and treat patients needs to change.
          Do you think the majority of chiropractors (Osteo’s and physio’s) use manual therapy as their sole intervention?
          Are the critics here capable of evaluating the evidence and changing their position as new evidence presents itself?
          Human nature being the way it is probably not. You have made too many public statements expressing one extreme and are now locked in.

          @MK
          I would reply but you but deluge of unprofessional language coming from a health professional says it all.

          • Critical_Chiro wrote; “Are the critics here capable of evaluating the evidence and changing their position as new evidence presents itself?”

            @ Critical_Chiro

            Yes. However, the main problem with chiropractors is that they seem to want to blend in with other MSK practitioners without making any serious attempt to reform. As I have said before, the President of the World Federation of Chiropractors, Vivian Kil has declared that her vision is:

            QUOTE
            “That we will (the chiropractic profession) set aside our differences within the profession, unite as a profession, and agree that becoming the source of nonsurgical, nonpharmacological, primary, spine care expertise and management should be a primary common goal.”
            Ref. https://edzardernst.com/2019/05/chiros-at-war/

            Further – and also as pointed out previously – her vision appears to be shared by the World Federation of Chiropractic Secretary-General, Richard Brown:

            QUOTE
            “The WFC has unity as one of its core pillars. While it would seem very simple to cut adrift a section of the chiropractic community with whom we disagree, the reality is that this is neither possible nor desirable…The richness of the chiropractic profession lies in its diversity of approaches…Education is delivered differently. The philosophy of chiropractic care takes many forms, some aligned with other health professions, others quite distinct…The WFC values evidence-informed care and promotes research as a means of developing the chiropractic profession.”
            Ref. https://www.wfc.org/website/images/wfc/qwr/QWR_2017JUL.pdf (pp 5-6)

            It’s also worth mentioning here that the World Federation of Chiropractic has just lost several of its Research Committee members…
            http://chiropractic.prosepoint.net/172624

            …as well as 17 international sponsors:
            http://chiropractic.prosepoint.net/172621

            So, it all looks to me like Vivian Kil is the captain of a sinking ship. If only she’d paid attention to history:

            QUOTE
            “In 1901 D. D. Palmer scuttled the Chiropractic ship; gave it up as a profession; left it in disgrace in Davenport. B. J. Palmer assumed the remnants, although ‘only a boy’—18 to be exact—took the scraps and debts left behind by the elder and reconstructed a business upon the ruins. Upon application, two years later, D. D. was taken into the successful business of B.J. Palmer. He returned penniless, in debt and goods mortgaged. B.J. gave half of all he had, paid his debts and cleaned the mortgage.”
            Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ADaniel_David_Palmer%2FArchive_1

            The Lerner Report also seems to have some relevancy to this: https://chiro.org/Plus/History/Persons/LernerReport-chiro/lerner_report_word_update.pdf

            With regard to B.J. Palmer, he was ruthless businessman. A brief browse through this link https://www.chirobase.org/05RB/psc_catalog_1922.pdf is all you need in order to understand that he was an unsavoury character.

            In essence, it’s important to know the following about the man:

            In 1910, he testified that, at the age of 11, that he had been “kicked from home, forced to make a living” (State of Wisconsin vs. S.R. Jansheki, December 1910).

            He spent years as a vagrant, living largely by hustling on the streets, and slept in dry-goods boxes, hotel kitchens, pool halls, etc. He was permanently expelled from school in the 7th grade, did jail time for petty thievery, and was well-acquainted with the red-light district of town. (Magner, G. Chiropractic: The Victim’s Perspective).

            In the preface to one of BJ’s books, a dean of Palmer College wrote, “The first 20 years of this boy’s life were spent in being educated to hate people and everything they did or were connected with”. (Hender H. Preface. In Palmer BJ. The Bigness of the Fellow Within. Davenport. IA: Palmer School of Chiropractic, 1949)

            Indeed, R.C. Schafer DC, a former director of public affairs for the American Chiropractic Association, reported that as a self-proclaimed ‘keeper of the flame’ BJ was suffocating and ruthless to anyone who dared oppose him, and he remembered him as a bigot and an outlandishly vulgar person. Apparently it was common knowledge that BJ openly supported Hitler in the 1930s (Schafer RC. The imbroglio of the professional greyhound. Dynamic Chiropractic 9(17)10, 1991.) and, like his father, BJ was afflicted by megalomania.

            His book titles revealed an enormous ego and he made many sweeping pronouncements about the nature of health, disease and the human body. His ignorance and ego also combined to discover a ‘duct of Palmer connecting the spleen with the stomach’(https://tinyurl.com/y4kmfkgg ).

            During his pre-chiropractic years he worked with a mesmerist and in a circus – both of which may have honed his showmanship and salesmanship. From the beginning, BJ did everything possible to distance chiropractic from medicine and osteopathy. His views came to dominate the profession and he greatly expanded chiropractic’s metaphysical basis, which constituted a major part of chiropractic education. He described chiropractic as a ‘health serve-us’ (Palmer BJ. Selling Yourself. Davenport, IA: Palmer College Press, 1921)

            BJ also claimed “I do nothing. It is Innate that does the work’ (Bach, M The Chiropractic Sotr. Austell, GA: Si-Nel Publishing & Sales Co., 1968)

            On page 424 of his book ‘Answers’ (1952), BJ refers to Innate as the ‘other fellow’, or the ‘fellow within’, and the real originator of chiropractic. In the same book, he also asks – and answers – ‘What are the principal functions of the spine? To support the head, To support the ribs, To support the chiropractor’.

            And in his book, ‘The Bigness of the Fellow Within’ (1949), he states that “Innate…has been building and running millions of bodies for millions of years” and he exhorted all chiropractors to harness this divine power. He also states: “One spark of Innate is greater than all the education, books, and libraries of man”.

            @ Critical_chiro

            As you can see, chiropractic is essentially blatant quackery full of chiroprACTORS.

          • @BW
            All your reply shows is that you are mired in the past with the vitalists. The irony that you both employ the same arguments seems to elude you.
            If only you realized it is history 1902, 1922, 1910, 1930’s, 1968, 1952, 1949.
            And then it happened.
            I wondered how long before “Godwin’s Law” would apply to this blog.
            Priceless.
            As anyone reading your post can see Blue your arguments are history.
            You have devoted 5-10 hours a day for close to 25 years online under many different names and on a succession online platforms as each one became outdated like your arguments. That is 5+ straight years of your life wasted on an outdated philosophy. You have hard wired yourself to one extreme and cannot change. You think DD and BJ are relevant today but they are not except in an historical context.
            So are you and the rest of the critics capable of change? No (Bjorn Geir yes).

            When it comes to the WFC it is definitely not “international sponsors” who pulled out, just US sponsors and a minor Australian sponsor (Quoting Matthew McCoy is like quoting Andrew Wakefield to represent medicine). What is significant is that Life College/Life West//Guy Reichman have pulled their support while evidence based Logan University has stepped up. Christine Goetz has moved into Greg Kawchuk’s position on the WFC research committee and she is skilled at dealing with outspoken American vitalists and their political games. She is involved in US government committees. The researchers are playing a long game and there is more to this but we will have to see where it goes.

            Richard Brown has commented that “unity with diversity” has been tried and failed at WFC.
            You quote him in a 2017 report but it would be far more relevant to look at the recent reports particularly from the point where Laurie Tassell resigned after 4 researchers ripped into philosophy based chiropractors at the 2019 conference in Berlin.
            Diversity if you look at recent WFC publications is discussing ethnic and gender diversity and the importance of the appointment of an evidence based Female head, Vivian Kil.
            The recent 20 principles posted by WFC does not once talk about philosophy. The vitalists are angry.
            The WFC Rapid Review on chiropractic and the immune system at the beginning of the pandemic was a clear message to the vitalists and they were pissed off big time.
            There is more to this story than just Matthew McCoy posting from his patents house basement.
            It looks like what is happening at WFC has been brewing for a while and the vitalists have lost influence. Now there will be push back from them.

      • Too bad one of you dC reprobates (a “small-d” to indicate small, faux doctors) won’t finally and precisely tell us what Chiroquackery IS. It’s been aptly described here as faffing-about on the back, which I’d believe most erudite observers would deem accurate.
        However I still can’t understand why “thrusting” is the format of your conniving “Therapy”? Fornication aside when is “thrusting” on the body (Especially a sprained body-part) an apt, intuitive or substantially important thing-to-do? In a word it ain’t. Yet you quacks whack and push and thrust on everyone all the time. I guess it’s because it’s easy; easy to do, easy to lie about and obviously pretty easy to sell to idiots. Virtually every new gizmo (aside from “Decompression” and “lasers” lol) “Thrusts”. You quacks in fact make your base-less livings off of selling-the-“thrust“ to the gullible…proposing you have some grand insight, education and validation to do so…other than your own self-interest and a long lineage of prior liars, Gypsy’s and scam-artists who laid out the path. And then you collectively have the audacity to advertise it as life-changing “healthcare”. It should be a felony. Perhaps sane observers should just keep on carpet-bombing as long as you reprobates keep on thrusting.

        • Erm… married thrusting is not fornication. But let us not cavil, quibble, or bandy subtle semantical sophistries…
          Of the Twelve Chiropractic Limericks I posted in the Thread on Professor Ernst’s new book, perhaps number nine merits repetition here (or perhaps is doesn’t but I’m doin’ it anyway):

          CHIROPRACTIC LIMERICK 9:

          Not all that it’s cracked up to be:
          This vertebra’s quite all at sea!
          With lumbar adjustment
          A powerful thrust meant
          The spinal cord severed – teehee!

          • Chiroptactic Limerick number 13, dashed off in a school today:

            Not all that it’s cracked up to be:
            Respected researcher Prof E
            Says to thrust your poor back
            Until vertebrae crack
            Won’t cure you of your maladee.

        • when is “thrusting” on the body (Especially a sprained body-part) an apt, intuitive or substantially important thing-to-do?

          Start here to gain a basic understanding (although i doubt you will)

          https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aja.1001820103?fbclid=IwAR3m9bRb_g9BnBN08GoaVbg0WN9FG4qhCJApjrTRUaPRLivWBj7sl12buqA

          The concentration of mechanoreceptors appears greater in areas related to the extremes of movement and probably represents the first line of defense in sensing these extremes. These afferent discharges elicit support from discharging mechanoreceptors located in the joint capsule and subsequently from those in the surrounding muscles. This total afferent output alerts the central nervous system of impending injury, which can then be averted through reflex mechanisms.

  • That was not a summary, at least not a very good one. That was cherry picking so Ernst could “win”.

  • Oh i have noticed you tend to disappear from conversations when facts dont support your view. But sure, anytime you want to dive into the facts re VAD and cSMT let me know.

  • It wouldnt be very hard to interview a real chiropracter. Why not do that?
    Its not a challenge to knock down strawman arguments that you make up yourself.

  • Oh do tell…what is it that you think i believe that is not true?

    • you seem hell-bent to have a discussion with me; so, tell me one thing:
      why should I engage with a defender of chiropractic who seems obsessed with his on views and importance while unable to disclose his name.
      during the last 25 years I had the pleasure to discuss with chiros who were more bright and less anonymous, and it never was fruitful.

      • You’re right…you shouldn’t discuss facts with me re VAD and cSMT….it doesn’t appear to be your strongest subject.

        • anything you say DC …. i suspect that in your more enlightened moments even you realise that you are a nutter.

          • If you would have spent as much time discussing at least one of the relevant topics, rather than hurling insults, perhaps some progess could have been made. But whatever.

  • Critical_Chiro wrote on Monday 21 September 2020 at 02:35: “@BW As anyone reading your post can see Blue your arguments are history. You have devoted 5-10 hours a day for close to 25 years online under many different names and on a succession online platforms as each one became outdated like your arguments.”

    @ Critical_Chiro

    That is wholly untrue. IMO, you lose any credibility you might have had with that ad hominem attack.

    However, I shall once more indulge you:

    Critical_Chiro wrote on Monday 21 September 2020 at 02:35: “When it comes to the WFC [World Federation of Chiropractic] it is definitely not ‘international sponsors’ who pulled out, just US sponsors and a minor Australian sponsor”

    Nevertheless, 17 sponsors is a lot to lose.

    Critical_Chiro wrote on Monday 21 September 2020 at 02:35: “Christine Goetz has moved into Greg Kawchuk’s position on the WFC research committee and she is skilled at dealing with outspoken American vitalists and their political games. She is involved in US government committees. The researchers are playing a long game and there is more to this but we will have to see where it goes.”

    Some might say we already know where it is going – e.g. here’s some criticism of Christine Goertz, DC:

    “This trial follows the infamous ‘A+B versus B’ design. It will almost always generate a positive result – so much so that it is a waste of time to run the study because we know its findings before it has started. And if this is so, the trial is arguably even unethical.”
    Ref: https://tinyurl.com/yc387mgn

    Unfortunately for science, Goertz is also Chairperson of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), an independent non-profit organisation, which has allocated $5.7 million to fund “a study of access to holistic therapies for treating low back pain, including massage, acupuncture, osteopathy, chiropractic…”
    Ref: https://www.massagemag.com/holistic-therapies-alternative-opioids-86376/

    Critical_Chiro wrote on Monday 21 September 2020 at 02:35: “Richard Brown has commented that ‘unity with diversity’ has been tried and failed at WFC. You quote him in a 2017 report, but it would be far more relevant to look at the recent reports particularly from the point where Laurie Tassell resigned after 4 researchers ripped into philosophy based chiropractors at the 2019 conference in Berlin.”

    Yes, Tassell admitted in July 2018, in a clear acceptance of the vitalists, that reform had failed and that chiropractors “now practice in a range of different settings, using a wide range of interventions, and practicing from varying philosophical standpoints”
    Ref: https://www.wfc.org/website/images/wfc/qwr/2018/QWR_2018JUL.pdf (p.3)

    But please note that his words were prescient – i.e. they were entirely in keeping with the World Federation of Chiropractic’s Strategic Plan 2019-2022 which, under its ‘Values’, states: “We respect diversity in the range of approaches that chiropractors take.”
    Ref: https://www.wfc.org/website/images/wfc/docs/Strategic_Plan_2019-2022/WFC_STRATEGIC_PLAN_2019-2022.pdf (see p.7)

    With regard to the Berlin conference, it was another disaster for chiropractic’s image. Here’s a damning, skeptical write-up of the event beforehand:
    https://complementaryandalternative.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/world-federation-of-chiropractic-biennial-congress-epic2019-evidence-based-or-not/
    …and another one after it:
    https://edzardernst.com/2019/05/chiros-at-war/

    Critical_Chiro wrote on Monday 21 September 2020 at 02:35: “Diversity – if you look at recent WFC publications – is discussing ethnic and gender diversity and the importance of the appointment of an evidence based Female head, Vivian Kil.”

    IMO, it’s more important that a *competent* head is appointed, not one who dreams of uniting the profession whilst simultaneously being reluctant to advocate for transparency:
    Kil: “We need, at least to the outside, to act as one profession…”
    Ref: http://chiropractic.prosepoint.net/164440

    Evidentally, she sees the writing on the wall: “The decade to come, 2015-2025, will be a pivotal one in our history. We need to step up to the challenge and work toward achieving our position as primary spine care specialist right now, or we will miss the boat. If we miss the boat, the nightmare has set in, and our profession may no longer have a reason to exist.”
    Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4685193/

    Critical_Chiro wrote on Monday 21 September 2020 at 02:35: “The recent 20 principles posted by WFC does not once talk about philosophy. The vitalists are angry.”

    The mechanists should be upset too. See:
    https://edzardernst.com/2019/09/the-20-principles-of-the-world-federation-of-chiropractic/

    Critical_Chiro wrote on Monday 21 September 2020 at 02:35: “The WFC Rapid Review on chiropractic and the immune system at the beginning of the pandemic was a clear message to the vitalists and they were pissed off big time.”

    That was good effort, but I doubt it’ll stop the vitalists. I also wonder how much that Rapid Review was simply a window-dressing exercise. For example – and despite it having a ‘Public Health Society’ https://rcc-uk.org/?s=public+health&submit=Search – the Royal College of Chiropractors doesn’t return any information on vaccination on a search of its website: https://rcc-uk.org/?s=vaccination&submit=Search

    The AECC University College also seems to have stepped away from evidence-based public health policy. In 2014, its website declared: “we endorse and recommend the NHS vaccination programme”. This is the archived link to the relevant page: https://tinyurl.com/yxu38pmg However, its website currently appears devoid of any mention of its former endorsement and recommendation of the NHS vaccination programme: https://www.aecc.ac.uk/search/?q=vaccination

    Critical_Chiro wrote on Monday 21 September 2020 at 02:35: “It looks like what is happening at WFC has been brewing for a while and the vitalists have lost influence. Now there will be push back from them.”

    In other words, the ‘chiro wars’ continue, as they have done for decades, with no resolution in sight.

    Nothing new to see here.

  • @BW
    Wrote:
    “In other words, the ‘chiro wars’ continue, as they have done for decades, with no resolution in sight.
    Nothing new to see here”.
    In medicine its called a robust critical debate while in chiropractic it’s “chiro wars”. The vitalists accuse us of “pulling the profession apart”. Similar arguments. LOL
    What is new is that the vitalists are on the defensive, Life College and Life West have pulled out and Logan has stepped in. Long overdue and the influence of Activator/Arlan buying a seat at the table is gone.
    BTW nice to see at least 1 paper cited.
    “We need to step up to the challenge and work toward achieving our position as primary spine care specialist”. – V Kil
    So the vitalists pulling out of the WFC helps achieve this. Bravo Vivian Kil.

    “The AECC University College also seems to have stepped away from evidence-based public health policy”.
    AECC is going further evidence based, their researchers have added teir names to this paper:
    https://chiromt.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12998-020-00312-x
    International SOFEC Statement;
    https://www.mq.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/175755/Educational-Statements-PDF_2017.pdf
    Nice try Blue look in the web archive then make assumptions. Straw Man.

    • the robust medical debate about the theory of the 4 humours has been concluded very swiftly in the light of science and evidence.

      • Critical_Chiro wrote: “What is new is that the vitalists are on the defensive…”

        That’s not new. The vitalists have always been on the defensive.

        Critical_Chiro wrote: “ “We need to step up to the challenge and work toward achieving our position as primary spine care specialist”. – V Kil So the vitalists pulling out of the WFC helps achieve this. Bravo Vivian Kil.”

        I doubt that chiropractors’ greatest wish (to become primary care specialists) will ever be achieved – e.g. here’s what Kil’s looking at:

        The British Chiropractic Association admitted in 2016 that “unity need not mean uniformity”:
        Ref: http://www.mccoypress.net/i/bca_bennett_letter_december_2016.jpg

        That stance is wholly reconcilable with a recent comment made by Michael Copland-Griffiths [DC, FRCC, FBCA, FEAC – former Chair of the Chiropractic Registration Steering Group (1994-1997), former President of the British Chiropractic Association (1985-1987) and former Chair of the General Chiropractic Council (2002-2006)] on the Chiropractors’ Act 1994: “the diverse Chiropractic profession had to continue to speak with one voice…disunity would kill the commencement of the Act”
        Ref: https://www.gcc-uk.org/UserFiles/Docs/Newsletters/The%20Chiropractors%20Act%20and%20opening%20of%20the%20GCC%20register%20MCG.pdf [Link now dead for some odd reason]

        Indeed, it fits in very neatly with his article in the European Journal of Oriental Medicine, Vol.2 No.6, 2004, in which he wrote: “In spite of strong mutual suspicion and distrust, the profession united under a group formed specifically to pursue regulation and secured the Chiropractors Act (1994)…..Regulation for a new profession will literally ‘legitimise it’, establishing its members within the community, making them feel more valued. In turn, this brings greater opportunity for more clients and a healthier bank balance.”
        Ref: https://www.ebm-first.com/chiropractic/uk-chiropractic-issues/1437-statutory-regulation-the-chiropractic-experience.html

        Still in the UK, David Newell, Professor of Integrated Musculoskeletal Care and AECC University College (formerly the Anglo European College of Chiropractic) Director of Research has commented that: “Global and European chiropractic reform is unlikely”
        Ref: https://tinyurl.com/y4vl9ath

        Newell seems to be correct, not least because the European Chiropractors’ Union admitted three years ago that it had not yet covered serious areas such as “ the subluxation complex, vaccination, the use of drugs and patient management, where we know there is a significant difference in opinion between the two groups [mechanists/vitalists].”
        Ref: https://www.chiropractic-ecu.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/01-32-Backspace-Mar17-to-print.pdf

        Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that the subluxation-based UK McTimoney Chiropractic Association has been preaching #ChiropracticTolerance
        Ref: https://www.facebook.com/mctimoneychiropracticassociation/photos/a.145823282157071.35903.145726228833443/1980951451977569/?type=3&theater

        Critical_Chiro wrote: “The AECC is going further evidence based, their researchers have added their names to this paper: https://chiromt.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12998-020-00312-x

        It’s interesting that the AECC University College changed its name in recent times. All it needs to do now is to drop its chiropractic programs and it’ll be respectable. I suspect that that is its medium-to-long-term plan if what it currently offers by way of study is anything to go by:
        https://www.aecc.ac.uk/study/

Leave a Reply to Edzard Cancel 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.

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.

Archives
Categories