Yes, it’s CAW again!
How best should we celebrate?
- I could show you how often we had to discuss the harm chiropractic does to patients.
- I could tell you about the contraproductive advice chiropractors tend to issue to anyone who wants to hear it.
- I could list the fatalities chiropractic manipulations have caused.
- I could write about the unethical transgressions many chiropractors commit.
- I could elaborate on the financial fraud some chiropractors are involved in.
- I could write about the dishonest cherry-picking that chiropractors like to engage in.
But that would not be nice, and they would say that I have an axe to grind, a chip on my shoulder, that I am incompetent, don’t know what I am writing about, in the pocket of BIG PHARMA, etc.
So, I decided to celebrate the CAW by reporting on a chiropractic success story, a type of article that chiropractors like: a case report of a patient cured by chiropractic treatments.
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) has been the leading cause of disability globally for the past few decades, resulting in decreased quality of life physically and emotionally. This case report is, according to its authors, important in the medical literature to add to studies reporting successful conservative treatment of CLBP and chronic neck pain (CNP). Triage, diagnosis, and understanding of economical and conservative therapeutics can, the authors stress, benefit patients; providers as well as institutions and third party payors benefit from improved outcomes.
A 39-year old male presented with severe CLBP who had experienced no long-term success with prior chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). After symptoms began to worsen in spite of receiving SMT, the patient sought treatment for his pain, abnormal spine alignment, and poor sagittal alignment at a local spine facility. History and physical examination demonstrated altered spine and postural alignment including significant forward head posture and reduced cervical and lumbar lordosis and coronal plane abnormalities. Treatment consisted of a multi-modal regimen focused on strengthening postural muscles, specific spine manipulation directed toward abnormal full-spine alignment, and specific Mirror Image traction aiming to improve spine integrity by realigning the spine toward a more normal position. The treatment consisted of 36 treatments over three months. All original tests and outcome measures were repeated following care.
Objective and subjective outcome measures, patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic mensuration demonstrated improvement at the conclusion of treatment and maintained at 1-year follow-up re-examination.
The authors concluded that this is case demonstrates that the CBP orthopedic chiropractic treatment approach may represent an effective method to treat abnormal spinal alignment and posture. This study adds to the literature regarding conservative methods of treating spine pain and spinal disorders.
What, you are NOT impressed?
- You even claim that the patient’s symptoms worsend despite long-term SMT?
- You insist that such a case poves nothing and certainly does not justify the conclusion?
- You point out that one of the authors is a compensated researcher for CBP Non-Profit, Inc., while another one is a compensated consultant and researcher for Chiropractic BioPhysics, NonProfit, Inc. and one is the CEO of Chiropractic BioPhysics® (CBP®)?
- And you note that this paper was funded by Chiropractic BioPhysics?
Let me tell you this: you are a spoilt sport! We are, after all, in the realm of chiropractic research where things are different. What is normally called promotion florishes here as research, and the rules of science, ethics or even common sense are suspended.
2 Responses to Chiropractic Awareness Week (CAW) 2025: my attempt of a celebration
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Although not germane to today’s topic, I’ve been meaning to share this definition of “scientific” from a chiropractor’s website. It reminds me of Humpty Dumpty’s comment about a word meaning what someone wants it to mean, not what it actually means.
How do you define “scientific?”
If you define it as the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment and then testing the resulting hypotheses, then today’s chiropractic is quite scientific. Because it’s based on the scientific fact that the nervous system controls and regulates virtually every cell, tissue, organ and system of the body.
Don’t be misled by the “low-tech” nature of chiropractic adjustments! There are a growing number of studies that suggest the chiropractic approach to reducing nerve disturbance along the spine, may enhance the ability of the brain and nerve system to control and regulate the body.
These include published research documenting the results of chiropractic care on asthma, infantile colic, immune function, dysmenorrhea (menstrual cramps), improving vision and brain function, lower back pain, one’s overall health status and many others.
The “scientific” argument is largely a red herring and the sign of a double standard. Medical economist David Eddy, MD, Ph.D., observes that only 15% of medical procedures have ever been scientifically verified, and the other 85% of common medical procedures have no “scientific basis!”
Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding. Ask our delighted patients whether chiropractic is scientific.
References:
Gray’s Anatomy, Henry Gray F.R.S.Smith, R. Where is the wisdom? BMJ 1991; 303(Oct 5): 798-799.
Paul Shekelle, MD, MPH, Head of a back study of RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1992, Medicine, Monopolies and Malice, pp. 49, 199, 208.
John Carey, Medical Guesswork. Business Week, May 29, 2006, 73-79.
Thank you for this excellent example of the SCAMmer’s mindset. It strongly supports the notion that most of these people ended up in quackery because they are simply not smart enough to be real doctors or scientists.
“If you define [‘scientific’] as the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment and then testing the resulting hypotheses, …”
Already here they messed up. Not only did they get the order wrong, they even missed a step. The first step after observing a particular phenomenon or problem is setting up a hypothesis to try and explain the observation; the next step is making one or more predictions based on that hypothesis. Only then does the process of experimenting, testing and collecting data begin(*).
“… then today’s chiropractic is quite scientific. …”
Yeah, sure …
“… Because it’s based on the scientific fact that the nervous system controls and regulates virtually every cell, tissue, organ and system of the body.”
Completely wrong. Most cells, tissues and organs are NOT controlled or regulated by the central nervous system, they operate largely autonomously, with any control usually via chemical signals (hormones etc.), not neurological signals.
And even where organs such as the heart and the intestine are connected to the CNS, this happens through the vagus nerve, which is not located in the spine at all.
“There are a growing number of studies that suggest the chiropractic approach to reducing nerve disturbance along the spine, may enhance the ability of the brain and nerve system to control and regulate the body.”
Complete and utter nonsense. I can’t find any credible studies that demonstrate or explain this chiro version of ‘nerve disturbance’, apart from the well-known neurological condition of nerve compression as a result of e.g. a herniated disc, stenosis, or carpal tunnel syndrome. These conditions can’t be remedied in any meaningful way by chiropractic ‘adjustment’, and in many cases have nothing to do with the spine either. And even if they do, then those adjustments don’t have any effect beyond perhaps temporary mobilization and stretching of the muscles involved, producing a short-lived improvement in symptoms at best.
So what this shows us once again is that chiropractors are medically ignorant yet arrogant fools. Which, alas, goes for almost all SCAMmers.
*: And these predictions, experiments en tests should be aimed at falsifying the hypothesis, not supporting it.