children
It has been reported that the PLASTIC SURGERY INSTITUTE OF ·UTAH, INC.; MICHAEL KIRK MOORE JR.; KARI DEE BURGOYNE; KRISTIN JACKSON ANDERSEN; AND SANDRA FLORES, stand accused of running a scheme out of the Plastic Surgery Institute of Utah, Inc. to defraud the United States and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. Michael Kirk Moore, Jr. and his co-defendants at the Plastic Surgery Institute of Utah have allegedly given falsified vaccine cards to people in exchange for their donating $50 to an unnamed organization, one which exists to “liberate the medical profession from government and industry conflicts of interest.” As part of the scheme, Moore and his co-defendants are accused of giving children saline injections so that they would believe they were really being vaccinated.
The co-defendants are Kari Dee Burgoyne, an office manager at the Plastic Surgery Institute of Utah; Sandra Flores, the office’s receptionist; and, strangest of all, a woman named Kristin Jackson Andersen, who according to the indictment is Moore’s neighbor. Andersen has posted copious and increasingly conspiratorial anti-vaccine content on Facebook and Instagram; Dr. Moore himself was a signatory on a letter expressing support for a group of COVID-skeptical doctors whose certification was under review by their respective medical boards. The letter expresses support for ivermectin, a bogus treatment for COVID.
According to the indictment, the Plastic Surgery Center of Utah was certified as a real vaccine provider and signed a standard agreement with the CDC, which among other things requires doctor’s offices not to “sell or seek reimbursement” for vaccines.
Prosecutors allege that, when people seeking falsified vaccine cards contacted the office, Burgoyne, the office manager, referred them to Andersen, Dr. Moore’s neighbor. Andersen, according to the indictment, would ask for the name of someone who’d referred them—it had to be someone who’d previously received a fraudulent vaccine card, per the indictment—then direct people to make a $50 donation to a charitable organization, referred to in the indictment only as “Organization 1.” Each vaccine card seeker was required to put an orange emoji in the memo line of their donation.
After making a donation to the unnamed charitable organization, prosecutors allege, Andersen would send a link to vaccine card seekers to enable them to make an appointment at the Plastic Surgery Institute. With adult patients, Moore would allegedly use a real COVID vaccine dose in a syringe, but squirt it down the drain. Flores, the office’s receptionist, gave an undercover agent a note, reading “with 18 & younger, we do a saline shot,” meaning that kids were injected with saline instead of a vaccine. Prosecutors allege the team thus disposed of at least 1,937 doses of COVID vaccines.
All four people are charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to convert, sell, convey, and dispose of government property; and conversion, sale, conveyance, and disposal of government property and aiding and abetting.
Throughout the scheme, the group reported the names of all the vaccine seekers to the Utah Statewide Immunization Information System, indicating that the practice had administered 1,937 doses of COVID-19 vaccines, which included 391 pediatric doses. The value of all the doses totaled roughly $28,000. With the money from the $50 vaccination cards totaling nearly $97,000, the scheme was valued at nearly $125,000, federal prosecutors calculated.
“By allegedly falsifying vaccine cards and administering saline shots to children instead of COVID-19 vaccines, not only did this provider endanger the health and well-being of a vulnerable population, but also undermined public trust and the integrity of federal health care programs,” Curt Muller, special agent in charge with the Department of Health and Human Services for the Office of the Inspector General, said in a statement.
_________________________________
I am already baffled by anti-vax attitudes when they originate from practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). When they come from real physicians and are followed by real actions, I am just speechless. As I stated many times before: studying medicine does unfortunately not protect you from recklessness, greed, or stupidity.
Aromatherapy is popular yet it has a problem: there is no indication for it. Yes, it can make you feel better but this is hardly a true medical indication. I know of many things that make me feel better, and I would not call them a THERAPY! But perhaps this new study from Iran offers a solution for the dilemna:
Sleep plays an essential role in infant development. This randomized clinical trial investigated the effect of aromatherapy with rose water on the deep sleep status of premature infants admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).
The study was conducted on 64 infants hospitalized in NICUs. In the intervention group, two drops of rose water were poured on gas and placed next to the babies’ heads. The control group was treated in the same way except that distilled water was employed. The ALS scale was used to assess the sleep status.
Of the 66 infants in this study, 30 were female and 36 were male. The average gestational age of the infants was 32.5 ± 1.99 weeks. The results showed that the amount of deep sleep (type A and B) in the intervention group was significantly higher than the control group during and after the intervention (p=0.001).
The authors concluded that, considering the positive impact of rose water in improve of sleep quality in premature babies; it can be used to improve sleeping condition of infants in hospitals, along with main treatment.
The study has many flaws and it is badly written. Yet, I find it interesting. If its results can be confirmed with a more rigorous trial, aromatherapy might finally find a true medical purpose.
Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in early childhood are known to influence lung development and lifelong lung health, but their link to premature adult death from respiratory disease is unclear. This analysis aimed to estimate the association between early childhood LRTI and the risk and burden of premature adult mortality from respiratory disease.
This longitudinal observational cohort study used data collected prospectively by the Medical Research Council National Survey of Health and Development in a nationally representative cohort recruited at birth in March 1946, in England, Scotland, and Wales. It evaluated the association between LRTI during early childhood (age <2 years) and death from respiratory disease from age 26 through 73 years. Early childhood LRTI occurrence was reported by parents or guardians. Cause and date of death were obtained from the National Health Service Central Register. Hazard ratios (HRs) and population attributable risk associated with early childhood LRTI were estimated using competing risks Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for childhood socioeconomic position, childhood home overcrowding, birthweight, sex, and smoking at age 20–25 years. The researchers compared mortality within the cohort studied with national mortality patterns and estimated corresponding excess deaths occurring nationally during the study period.
5362 participants were enrolled in March, 1946, and 4032 (75%) continued participating in the study at age 20–25 years. 443 participants with incomplete data on early childhood (368 [9%] of 4032), smoking (57 [1%]), or mortality (18 [<1%]) were excluded. 3589 participants aged 26 years (1840 [51%] male and 1749 [49%] female) were included in the survival analyses from 1972 onwards. The maximum follow-up time was 47·9 years. Among 3589 participants, 913 (25%) who had an LRTI during early childhood were at greater risk of dying from respiratory disease by age 73 years than those with no LRTI during early childhood (HR 1·93, 95% CI 1·10–3·37; p=0·021), after adjustment for childhood socioeconomic position, childhood home overcrowding, birthweight, sex, and adult smoking. This finding corresponded to a population attributable risk of 20·4% (95% CI 3·8–29·8) and 179 188 (95% CI 33 806–261 519) excess deaths across England and Wales between 1972 and 2019.
The authors concluded that, in this perspective, life-spanning, nationally representative cohort study, LRTI during early childhood was associated with almost a two times increased risk of premature adult death from respiratory disease, and accounted for one-fifth of these deaths.
What has that got to do with so-called alternative medicine?
Nothing!
Yet, I feel that this study is so remarkable that I need to report on it nonetheless.
What do the findings indicate?
I am not sure. Perhaps they confirm that our genetic makeup is hugely important in determining our health. Thus even the earliest signs of weakness can provide an indication of what might happen in later life.
Whatever the meaning, I find this study fascinating and hope you agree.
Brillia for Children is probably the most amazing homeopathic quackery I have ever encountered:
Uses: Enhance clarity, improve concentration of attention, reduce feelings of anxiety & stress, excitability, irritability and hyperactivity to improve attention, focus and mood regulation.
Active Ingredient: Lapine S-100 immune globulin mixture of homeopathic dilutions 12C, 30C and 50C.
Brillia is a unique combination of antibody science and homeopathic formulation. The active ingredient of Brillia is antibodies to the brain-specific S100 protein (S100B). This protein is an important regulator of many different intracellular and extracellular brain processes, e.g. various enzymes activities, calcium homeostasis, communication between neurons, etc. Since almost all mental and neurological diseases as well as temporal stress-induced conditions are accompanied by disturbance of the above-mentioned processes, especially communication between neurons, the normalization of these processes is considered to be a prospective way to treat people with such undesirable conditions. Brillia is an antibody conjugated to the S100B protein and does not alter the concentration of the S100B protein in the bloodstream. Brillia’s efficacy stems from its ability to regulate the activity of the S100B protein and does not alter its concentration. In order for a protein to have an effect in the body, it needs to bind to its target, such as an enzyme. Proteins have very specific conformations that ensure that only the correct protein binds to the correct target molecule. Once the protein correctly orients itself into the active site of the target molecule, this is when the protein causes an effect in the body. When Brillia binds to the S100B protein, the overall shape of the protein is altered, hindering its ability to bind to its target molecule and thereby controlling its activity in the body. In short, Brillia stops the S100B protein from acting in the body by changing its shape, consequently regulating levels of anxiety and hyperactivity.
PARENT TOOL | WATCH: DISCOVER BRILLIA
WATCH: WHY & HOW BRILLIA WORKS
Inactive Ingredients: Lactose monohydrate, magnesium stearate, microcrystalline cellulose. Does not contain artificial colors or artificial flavors.
Food Allergy Warning: This product contains lactose. Brillia is gluten free and nut free.
About active ingredients, the website tells us this:
Let’s start off with the active ingredient, registered with the FDA as Lapine S-100B immune globulin. Now we know this name can be intimidating, so we are going to break it down for you. Working backwards, “immune globulin” is just the “sciency” way of saying “antibody”, and don’t worry, we will get into what an antibody actually is in just a second. Next, “S-100B” is the name of the protein the antibody is designed to recognize in the body. Lastly, “Lapine” is just a descriptor of the origin of the antibody, just like the millions of other antibodies used each and every day in laboratories all across the world.
So, what exactly is an antibody? Antibodies are a naturally occurring protein and component of our immune system that are individually programmed to target a very specific protein, in the case of Brillia, the S-100B protein. It is important to understand that antibodies are one of the most specific and targeted molecules in our bodies, resulting in zero off-target effects — meaning that antibodies specifically look for and attach to their target only. This is why Brillia has no harmful side effects, because it only interacts with the S-100B protein. Not only does Brillia have absolutely zero side effects, it also has no contraindications with any other medications or supplements your child may be taking. This is due to Brillia’s extremely high level of target specificity, meaning that Brillia is so well targeted to the S-100B protein, it won’t even think about touching anything else in the body, including any other drugs or supplements.
Now that we know more about the active ingredient, let’s talk about its target, the S-100B protein.
The S-100B protein is a naturally occurring protein and is most prevalent in the brain. It is an important regulator of many processes such as regulating calcium levels and helping neurons communicate, but in our case, we care about how it influences the symptoms we mentioned earlier, such as anxiety and hyperactivity.
Given that S-100B protein influences these symptoms, it is quite intuitive that when the S-100B protein doesn’t do its job properly, these symptoms become more prevalent, and this is exactly what happens in those who suffer from anxiety, hyperactivity, stress and lack of focus.
So, what makes the S-100B protein, for a lack of a better term, mess up? The answer is quite simple, when the S-100B protein is overproduced or overactive, its activity becomes unnecessarily high, making it capable of causing these symptoms.
The firm even has something vaguely resembling evidence: a study that “shows that over the course of 12 weeks, Brillia had a significantly better effect on the severity of anxiety over those that did not take Brillia, therefore proving Brillia’s efficacy.” They show some actual results but the methods or source of the study are not disclosed. On Medline, I could not find it either. Therefore, I asked the firm to send it to me. This is the answer I got:
“Our studies were conducted in Europe and then published on our website. Please click here to view the full details found on our site.”
So, they have a study that they commissioned in Europe; it was done by researchers unnamed. The firm then put some data of it on their website. In other words:
- we don’t know who was responsible for the study;
- we cannot evaluate how rigorous it was;
- it has never been peer-reviewed;
- it is now being used for promotional purposes.
Personally, I don’t find this acceptable. In my view, this does not provide a legitimation to make far-reaching claims about the remedy. Until I have evidence to the contrary, I thus deem it safe to conclude that Brillia has no effect other than enriching the manufacturer.
The purpose of this review was to
- identify and map the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and harms of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for infants, children and adolescents with a broad range of conditions;
- identify and synthesise policies, regulations, position statements and practice guidelines informing their clinical use.
Two reviewers independently screened and selected the studies, extracted key findings and assessed the methodological quality of included papers. A descriptive synthesis of reported findings was undertaken using a level-of-evidence approach.
Eighty-seven articles were included. Their methodological quality varied. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation are being utilised clinically by a variety of health professionals to manage paediatric populations with 
- adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS),
- asthma,
- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
- autism spectrum disorder (ASD),
- back/neck pain,
- breastfeeding difficulties,
- cerebral palsy (CP),
- dysfunctional voiding,
- excessive crying,
- headaches,
- infantile colic,
- kinetic imbalances due to suboccipital strain (KISS),
- nocturnal enuresis,
- otitis media,
- torticollis,
- plagiocephaly.
The descriptive synthesis revealed: no evidence to explicitly support the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation for any condition in paediatric populations. Mild transient symptoms were commonly described in randomised controlled trials and on occasion, moderate-to-severe adverse events were reported in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and other lower-quality studies. There was strong to very strong evidence for ‘no significant effect’ of spinal manipulation for managing
- asthma (pulmonary function),
- headache,
- nocturnal enuresis.
There was inconclusive or insufficient evidence for all other conditions explored. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding spinal mobilisation to treat paediatric populations with any condition.
The authors concluded that, whilst some individual high-quality studies demonstrate positive results for some conditions, our descriptive synthesis of the collective findings does not provide support for spinal manipulation or mobilisation in paediatric populations for any condition. Increased reporting of adverse events is required to determine true risks. Randomised controlled trials examining effectiveness of spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatric populations are warranted.
Perhaps the most important findings of this review relate to safety. They confirm (yet again) that there is only limited reporting of adverse events in this body of research. Six reviews, eight RCTs and five other studies made no mention of adverse events or harms associated with spinal manipulation. This, in my view, amounts to scientific misconduct. Four systematic reviews focused specifically on adverse events and harms. They revealed that adverse events ranged from mild to severe and even death.
In terms of therapeutic benefit, the review confirms the findings from the previous research, e.g.:
- Green et al (Green S, McDonald S, Murano M, Miyoung C, Brennan S. Systematic review of spinal manipulation in children: review prepared by Cochrane Australia for Safer Care Victoria. Melbourne, Victoria: Victorian Government 2019. p. 1–67.) explored the effectiveness and safety of spinal manipulation and showed that spinal manipulation should – due to a lack of evidence and potential risk of harm – be recommended as a treatment of headache, asthma, otitis media, cerebral palsy, hyperactivity disorders or torticollis.
- Cote et al showed that evidence is lacking to support the use of spinal manipulation to treat non-musculoskeletal disorders.
In terms of risk/benefit balance, the conclusion could thus not be clearer: no matter whether chiropractors, osteopaths, physiotherapists, or any other healthcare professionals propose to manipulate the spine of your child, DON’T LET THEM DO IT!
This Cochrane review assessed the effectiveness and safety of oral homeopathic medicinal products compared with placebo or conventional therapy to prevent and treat acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) in children.
The researchers included double‐blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or double‐blind cluster‐RCTs comparing oral homeopathy medicinal products with placebo or self‐selected conventional treatments to prevent or treat ARTIs in children aged 0 to 16 years.
In this 2022 update, the researchers identified three new RCTs involving 251 children, for a total of 11 included RCTs with 1813 children receiving oral homeopathic medicinal products or a control treatment for ARTIs. All studies focused on upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), with only one study including some lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). Six RCTs examined the effect on URTI recovery, and five RCTs investigated the effect on preventing URTIs after one to four months of treatment. Two treatment and three prevention studies involved homeopaths individualizing treatment. The other studies used predetermined, non-individualized remedies. All studies involved highly diluted homeopathic medicinal products, with dilutions ranging from 1 x 10‐4 to 1 x 10‐200.
Several limitations to the included studies were identified, in particular methodological inconsistencies and high attrition rates, failure to conduct intention‐to‐treat analysis, selective reporting, and apparent protocol deviations. Three studies were classified as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, and many studies had additional domains with unclear risk of bias. Four studies received funding from homeopathy manufacturers; one study support from a non‐government organization; two studies government support; one study was co‐sponsored by a university; and three studies did not report funding support.
The authors concluded that the “pooling of five prevention and six treatment studies did not show any consistent benefit of homeopathic medicinal products compared to placebo on ARTI recurrence or cure rates in children. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low to very low for the majority of outcomes. We found no evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic medicinal products for ARTIs in children. Adverse events were poorly reported, and we could not draw conclusions regarding safety.”
____________________________
These findings are hardly surprising. Will they change the behavior of homeopaths who feel that
- children respond particularly well to homeopathy,
- ARTIs are conditions for which homeopathy is particularly effective?
I would not hold my breath!
This study described osteopathic practise activity, scope of practice and the osteopathic patient profile in order to understand the role osteopathy plays within the United Kingdom’s (UK) health system a decade after the authors’ previous survey.
The researchers used a retrospective questionnaire survey design to ask about osteopathic practice and audit patient case notes. All UK-registered osteopaths were invited to participate in the survey. The survey was conducted using a web-based system. Each participating osteopath was asked about themselves, and their practice and asked to randomly select and extract data from up to 8 random new patient health records during 2018. All patient-related data were anonymized.
The survey response rate was 500 osteopaths (9.4% of the profession) who provided information about 395 patients and 2,215 consultations. Most osteopaths were:
- self-employed (81.1%; 344/424 responses),
- working alone either exclusively or often (63.9%; 237/371),
- able to offer 48.6% of patients an appointment within 3 days (184/379).
Patient ages ranged from 1 month to 96 years (mean 44.7 years, Std Dev. 21.5), of these 58.4% (227/389) were female. Infants <1 years old represented 4.8% (18/379) of patients. The majority of patients presented with musculoskeletal complaints (81.0%; 306/378) followed by pediatric conditions (5%). Persistent complaints (present for more than 12 weeks before the appointment) were the most common (67.9%; 256/377) and 41.7% (156/374) of patients had co-existing medical conditions.
The most common treatment approaches used at the first appointment were:
- soft-tissue techniques (73.9%; 292/395),
- articulatory techniques (69.4%; 274/395),
- high-velocity low-amplitude thrust (34.4%; 136/395),
- cranial techniques (23%).
The mean number of treatments per patient was 7 (mode 4). Osteopaths’ referral to other healthcare practitioners amounted to:
- GPs 29%
- Other complementary therapists 21%
- Other osteopaths 18%
The authors concluded that osteopaths predominantly provide care of musculoskeletal conditions, typically in private practice. To better understand the role of osteopathy in UK health service delivery, the profession needs to do more research with patients in order to understand their needs and their expected outcomes of care, and for this to inform osteopathic practice and education.
What can we conclude from a survey that has a 9% response rate?
Nothing!
If I ignore this fact, do I find anything of interest here?
Not a lot!
Perhaps just three points:
- Osteopaths use high-velocity low-amplitude thrusts, the type of manipulation that has most frequently been associated with serious complications, too frequently.
- They also employ cranial osteopathy, which is probably the least plausible technique in their repertoire, too often.
- They refer patients too frequently to other SCAM practitioners and too rarely to GPs.
To come back to the question asked in the title of this post: What do UK osteopaths do? My answer is
ALMOST NOTHING THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL.
Shiatsu is a Japanese form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) derived from Traditional Chinese Medicine using deep pressure on the paths of the postulated acupuncture meridians. Clinical observations on this topic are said to be encouraging, especially for the treatment of sleep and conduct disorders, but there is a lack of empirical data.
The objective of this study was to examine the possible therapeutic effects of shiatsu in a clinical population of children treated in child and adolescent psychiatry. It was designed as a qualitative descriptive and non-interventional study, conducted on children treated in day-care hospital units and outpatient clinical settings. Shiatsu was administered, at least during 3 sessions, to children with an autism spectrum disorder or other disorders according to ICD-11 criteria (such as conduct disorders with impulsivity or attention deficit).
The evaluation was performed by two independent researchers (a child psychiatrist and a psychologist who were not the caregivers) based on direct observation of children during the shiatsu sessions, combined with semi-structured non-inductive interviews with their parents, and data collected from focus groups conducted with the children’s caregivers. A phenomenological interpretive analysis (IPA) approach with Nvivo coding software was used to analyze the data.
Based on semi-structured interviews with 13 parents cross-referenced with data from 2 focus groups and direct observations of 7 children during 2 full shiatsu sessions for each observation, the results show that shiatsu has positive effects on
- internal tension (a relief effect, notably on aggressive behaviors directed against others or self),
- sleep (including improvement of sleep quality),
- social interaction,
- attention,
- verbalization of affects and traumatic memories of early childhood,
- perception of bodily limits.
As these children had several other treatments as well, it cannot be proved that the positive effects observed in this study are related specifically to shiatsu practice. Shiatsu may participate and facilitate the effects of other treatments. It is noteworthy that most of the children came willingly to the shiatsu sessions, ask their parents to repeat the shiatsu sessions at home, and indicate to the practitioner, from one session to the next, their elective body points where they wish to receive the application of shiatsu.
The authors concluded that the findings suggest therapeutic benefits of shiatsu, especially on externalize violence with a relief of aggressive behavior directed against others or self (knowing, moreover, that internal tension, sleep disorders and non-verbalization of affects or traumatic memories, all improved by shiatsu, are also all risk factors for externalize violence). These results highlight, therefore, the need to develop a daily practice of shiatsu in child and adolescent psychiatry. Further research is required to clarify the effects of shiatsu and ascertain better its underlying mechanisms based on this exploratory pilot study.
I do appreciate that, with a treatment that has not been submitted to many controlled clinical trials, researchers feel that they have to start from scratch, e.g. simple observations. However, they also must realize that their observations do not lend themselves to firm conclusions about the effects of the treatment. In the present case, the researchers do seem to be aware of this caveat but nevertheless make statements that go way beyond of what is warranted:
- the results show that shiatsu has positive effects on …
- Shiatsu may participate and facilitate the effects of other treatments
- the findings suggest therapeutic benefits of shiatsu, especially on externalize violence
- These results highlight, therefore, the need to develop a daily practice of shiatsu in child and adolescent psychiatry
I fear that these statements are not merely exaggerated but suspect they are also untrue. Testing them in properly controlled clinical trials would show whether my suspicion is correct. Meanwhile, I would like to remind
- researchers,
- reviewers,
- and journal editors
of their duty to be truthful and not mislead the public.
I was fascinated to find a chiropractor who proudly listed ‘the most common conditions chiropractors help kids with‘:
- Vision problems
- Skin conditions
- Bedwetting
- Sinus problems
- ADD/ADHD
- Stomachaches
- Asthma
- Allergies
- Loss of hearing
- Ear Infections
- Hip, leg, or foot pain
- Constipation
- Poor coordination
- Breastfeeding difficulties
- Arm, hand, or shoulder pain
- Anxiety and nervousness
- Colic
- Scoliosis
The birth process, even under normal conditions, is frequently the first cause of spinal stress. After the head of the child appears, the physician grabs the baby’s head and twists it around in a figure eight motion, lifting it up to receive the lower shoulder and then down to receive the upper shoulder. This creates significant stress on the spine of the baby.
“Spinal cord and brain stem traumas often occur during the process of birth but frequently escape diagnosis. Infants often experience lasting neurological defects. Spinal trauma at birth is essentially attributed to longitudinal traction, especially when this force is combined with flexion and torsion of the spinal axis during delivery.” ~Abraham Towbin, MD
Growth patterns suggest the potential for neurological disorders is most critical from birth to two years of age, as this time is the most dynamic and important phase of postnatal brain development. Over sixty percent of all neurological development occurs after birth in the child’s first year of life. This is why it is so important to bring your child to a local pediatric chiropractor to have them checked and for your child to get a chiropractic adjustment during the first year of their life. Lee Hadley MD states “Subluxation alone is a rational reason for Pediatric Chiropractic care throughout a lifetime from birth.”
As our children continue to grow, the daily stresses can have a negative impact on an ever growing body. During the first few years of life, an infant often falls while learning to walk or can fall while tumbling off a bed or other piece of furniture. Even the seemingly innocent act of playfully tossing babies up in the air and catching them often results in a whiplash-like trauma to the spine, making it essential to get your baby checked by a pediatric chiropractor every stage of his/her development as minor injuries can present as major health concerns down the road if gone uncorrected.
______________________________
On the Internet, similar texts can be found by the hundreds. I am sure that many new parents are sufficiently impressed by them to take their kids to a chiropractor. I have yet to hear of a single case where the chiropractor then checked out the child and concluded: “there is nothing wrong; your baby does not need any therapy.” Chiropractors always find something – not something truly pathological, but something to mislead the parent and to earn some money.
Often the treatment that follows turns out to be a prolonged and thus expensive series of sessions that almost invariably involve manipulating the infant’s fragile and developing spine. There is no compelling evidence that this approach is effective for anything. In addition, there is evidence that it can do harm, sometimes even serious harm.
And that’s the reason why I have mentioned this topic before and intend to continue doing so in the future:
- There is hardly a good reason for adults to consult a chiropractor.
- There is no reason to take a child to a chiropractor.
- There are good reasons for chiropractors to stop treating children.
But let’s be a bit more specific. Let’s deal with the above list of indications on the basis of the reliable evidence:
- Vision problems – no sound evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
- Skin conditions – no sound evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
- Bedwetting – some evidence that chiropractic manipulations are ineffective.
- Sinus problems – no sound evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
- ADD/ADHD – some evidence that chiropractic manipulations are ineffective.
- Stomachaches – no sound evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
- Asthma – some evidence that chiropractic manipulations are ineffective.
- Allergies – no sound evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
- Loss of hearing – no sound evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
- Ear Infections – some evidence that chiropractic manipulations are ineffective.
- Hip, leg, or foot pain – no sound evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
- Constipation – no sound evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
- Poor coordination – no sound evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
- Breastfeeding difficulties – no good evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
- Arm, hand, or shoulder pain – no sound evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
- Anxiety and nervousness – no sound evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
- Colic – some evidence that chiropractic manipulations are ineffective.
- Scoliosis – no sound evidence that chiropractic manipulations are effective.
I rest my case.
This study aimed to evaluate the number of craniosacral therapy sessions that can be helpful to obtain a resolution of the symptoms of infantile colic and to observe if there are any differences in the evolution obtained by the groups that received a different number of Craniosacral Therapy sessions at 24 days of treatment, compared with the control group which did not received any treatment.
Fifty-eight infants with colic were randomized into two groups:
- 29 babies in the control group received no treatment;
- babies in the experimental group received 1-3 sessions of craniosacral therapy (CST) until symptoms were resolved.
Evaluations were performed until day 24 of the study. Crying hours served as the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome measures were the hours of sleep and the severity, measured by an Infantile Colic Severity Questionnaire (ICSQ).
Statistically significant differences were observed in favor of the experimental group compared to the control group on day 24 in all outcome measures:
- crying hours (mean difference = 2.94, at 95 %CI = 2.30-3.58; p < 0.001);
- hours of sleep (mean difference = 2.80; at 95 %CI = – 3.85 to – 1.73; p < 0.001);
- colic severity (mean difference = 17.24; at 95 %CI = 14.42-20.05; p < 0.001).
Also, the differences between the groups ≤ 2 CST sessions (n = 19), 3 CST sessions (n = 10), and control (n = 25) were statistically significant on day 24 of the treatment for crying, sleep and colic severity outcomes (p < 0.001).
The authors concluded that babies with infantile colic may obtain a complete resolution of symptoms on day 24 by receiving 2 or 3 CST sessions compared to the control group, which did not receive any treatment.
Why do SCAM researchers so often have no problem leaving the control group of patients in clinical trials without any treatment at all, while shying away from administering a placebo? Is it because they enjoy being the laughingstock of the science community? Probably not.
I suspect the reason might be that often they know that their treatments are placebos and that their trials would otherwise generate negative findings. Whatever the reasons, this new study demonstrates three things many of us already knew:
- Colic in babies always resolves on its own but can be helped by a placebo response (e.g. via the non-blinded parents), by holding the infant, and by paying attention to the child.
- Flawed trials lend themselves to drawing the wrong conclusions.
- Craniosacral therapy is not biologically plausible and most likely not effective beyond placebo.
