1 2 3 27

Spinal manipulation is a treatment employed by several professions, including physiotherapists and osteopaths; for chiropractors, it is the hallmark therapy.

  • They use it for (almost) every patient.
  • They use it for (almost) every condition.
  • They have developed most of the techniques.
  • Spinal manipulation is the focus of their education and training.
  • All textbooks of chiropractic focus on spinal manipulation.
  • Chiropractors are responsible for most of the research on spinal manipulation.
  • Chiropractors are responsible for most of the adverse effects of spinal manipulation.

Spinal manipulation has traditionally involved an element of targeting the technique to a level of the spine where the proposed movement dysfunction is sited. This study evaluated the effects of a targeted manipulative thrust versus a thrust applied generally to the lumbar region.

Sixty patients with low back pain were randomly allocated to two groups: one group received a targeted manipulative thrust (n=29) and the other a general manipulation thrust (GT) (n=31) to the lumbar spine. Thrust was either localised to a clinician-defined symptomatic spinal level or an equal force was applied through the whole lumbosacral region. The investigators measured pressure-pain thresholds (PPTs) using algometry and muscle activity (magnitude of stretch reflex) via surface electromyography. Numerical ratings of pain and Oswestry Disability Index scores were collected.

Repeated measures of analysis of covariance revealed no between-group differences in self-reported pain or PPT for any of the muscles studied. The authors concluded that a GT procedure—applied without any specific targeting—was as effective in reducing participants’ pain scores as targeted approaches.

The authors point out that their data are similar to findings from a study undertaken with a younger, military sample, showing no significant difference in pain response to a general versus specific rotation, manipulation technique. They furthermore discuss that, if ‘targeted’ manipulation proves to be no better than ‘general’ manipulation (when there has been further research, more studies), it would challenge the need for some current training courses that involve comprehensive manual skill training and teaching of specific techniques. If simple SM interventions could be delivered with less training, than the targeted approach currently requires, it would mean a greater proportion of the population who have back pain could access those general manipulation techniques. 

Assuming that the GT used in this trial was equivalent to a placebo control, another interpretation of these results is that the effects of spinal manipulation are largely or even entirely due to a placebo response. If this were confirmed in further studies, it would be yet one more point to argue that spinal manipulation is not a treatment of choice for back pain or any other condition.

systematic review of the evidence for effectiveness and harms of specific spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) techniques for infants, children and adolescents has been published by Dutch researchers. I find it important to stress from the outset that the authors are not affiliated with chiropractic institutions and thus free from such conflicts of interest.

They searched electronic databases up to December 2017. Controlled studies, describing primary SMT treatment in infants (<1 year) and children/adolescents (1–18 years), were included to determine effectiveness. Controlled and observational studies and case reports were included to examine harms. One author screened titles and abstracts and two authors independently screened the full text of potentially eligible studies for inclusion. Two authors assessed risk of bias of included studies and quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE methodology. Data were described according to PRISMA guidelines and CONSORT and TIDieR checklists. If appropriate, random-effects meta-analysis was performed.

Of the 1,236 identified studies, 26 studies were eligible. In all but 3 studies, the therapists were chiropractors. Infants and children/adolescents were treated for various (non-)musculoskeletal indications, hypothesized to be related to spinal joint dysfunction. Studies examining the same population, indication and treatment comparison were scarce. Due to very low quality evidence, it is uncertain whether gentle, low-velocity mobilizations reduce complaints in infants with colic or torticollis, and whether high-velocity, low-amplitude manipulations reduce complaints in children/adolescents with autism, asthma, nocturnal enuresis, headache or idiopathic scoliosis. Five case reports described severe harms after HVLA manipulations in 4 infants and one child. Mild, transient harms were reported after gentle spinal mobilizations in infants and children, and could be interpreted as side effect of treatment.

The authors concluded that, based on GRADE methodology, we found the evidence was of very low quality; this prevented us from drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of specific SMT techniques in infants, children and adolescents. Outcomes in the included studies were mostly parent or patient-reported; studies did not report on intermediate outcomes to assess the effectiveness of SMT techniques in relation to the hypothesized spinal dysfunction. Severe harms were relatively scarce, poorly described and likely to be associated with underlying missed pathology. Gentle, low-velocity spinal mobilizations seem to be a safe treatment technique in infants, children and adolescents. We encourage future research to describe effectiveness and safety of specific SMT techniques instead of SMT as a general treatment approach.

We have often noted that, in chiropractic trials, harms are often not mentioned (a fact that constitutes a violation of research ethics). This was again confirmed in the present review; only 4 of the controlled clinical trials reported such information. This means harms cannot be evaluated by reviewing such studies. One important strength of this review is that the authors realised this problem and thus included other research papers for assessing the risks of SMT. Consequently, they found considerable potential for harm and stress that under-reporting remains a serious issue.

Another problem with SMT papers is their often very poor methodological quality. The authors of the new review make this point very clearly and call for more rigorous research. On this blog, I have repeatedly shown that research by chiropractors resembles more a promotional exercise than science. If this field wants to ever go anywhere, if needs to adopt rigorous science and forget about its determination to advance the business of chiropractors.

I feel it is important to point out that all of this has been known for at least one decade (even though it has never been documented so scholarly as in this new review). In fact, when in 2008, my friend and co-author Simon Singh, published that chiropractors ‘happily promote bogus treatments’ for children, he was sued for libel. Since then, I have been legally challenged twice by chiropractors for my continued critical stance on chiropractic. So, essentially nothing has changed; I certainly do not see the will of leading chiropractic bodies to bring their house in order.

May I therefore once again suggest that chiropractors (and other spinal manipulators) across the world, instead of aggressing their critics, finally get their act together. Until we have conclusive data showing that SMT does more good than harm to kids, the right thing to do is this: BEHAVE LIKE ETHICAL HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS: BE HONEST ABOUT THE EVIDENCE, STOP MISLEADING PARENTS AND STOP TREATING THEIR CHILDREN!

The World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) claim to have been at the forefront of the global development of chiropractic. Representing the interests of the profession in over 90 countries worldwide, the WFC has advocated, defended and promoted the profession across its 7 world regions. Now, the WFC have formulated 20 principles setting out who they are, what they stand for, and how chiropractic as a global health profession can, in their view, impact on nations so that populations can thrive and reach their full potential. Here are the 20 principles (in italics followed by some brief comments by me in normal print):

1. We envision a world where people of all ages, in all countries, can access the benefits of chiropractic.

That means babies and infants! What about the evidence?

2. We are driven by our mission to advance awareness, utilization and integration of chiropractic internationally.

One could almost suspect that the drive is motivated by misleading the public about the risks and benefits of spinal manipulation for financial gain.

3. We believe that science and research should inform care and policy decisions and support calls for wider access to chiropractic.

If science and research truly did inform care, it would soon be chiropractic-free.

4. We maintain that chiropractic extends beyond the care of patients to the promotion of better health and the wellbeing of our communities.

The best example to show that this statement is a politically correct platitude is the fact that so many chiropractors are (educated to become) convinced that vaccinations are undesirable or harmful.

5. We champion the rights of chiropractors to practice according to their training and expertise.

I am not sure what this means. Could it mean that they must practice according to their training and expertise, even if both fly in the face of the evidence?

6. We promote evidence-based practice: integrating individual clinical expertise, the best available evidence from clinical research, and the values and preferences of patients.

So far, I have seen little to convince me that chiropractors care a hoot about the best available evidence and plenty to fear that they supress it, if it does not enhance their business.

7. We are committed to supporting our member national associations through advocacy and sharing best practices for the benefit of patients and society.

Much more likely for the benefit of chiropractors, I suspect.

8. We acknowledge the role of chiropractic care, including the chiropractic adjustment, to enhance function, improve mobility, relieve pain and optimize wellbeing.

Of course, you have to pretend that chiropractic adjustments (of subluxations) are useful. However, evidence would be better than pretence.

9. We support research that investigates the methods, mechanisms, and outcomes of chiropractic care for the benefit of patients, and the translation of research outcomes into clinical practice.

And if it turns out to be to the detriment of the patient? It seems to me that you seem to know the result of the research before you started it. That does not bode well for its reliability.

10. We believe that chiropractors are important members of a patient’s healthcare team and that interprofessional approaches best facilitate optimum outcomes.

Of course you do believe that. Why don’t you show us some evidence that your belief is true?

11. We believe that chiropractors should be responsible public health advocates to improve the wellbeing of the communities they serve.

Of course you do believe that. But, in fact, many chiropractors are actively undermining the most important public health measure, vaccination.

12. We celebrate individual and professional diversity and equality of opportunity and represent these values throughout our Board and committees.

What you should be celebrating is critical assessment of all chiropractic concepts. This is the only way to make progress and safeguard the interests of the patient.

13. We believe that patients have a fundamental right to ethical, professional care and the protection of enforceable regulation in upholding good conduct and practice.

The truth is that many chiropractors violate medical ethics on a daily basis, for instance, by not obtaining fully informed consent.

14. We serve the global profession by promoting collaboration between and amongst organizations and individuals who support the vision, mission, values and objectives of the WFC.

Yes, those who support your vision, mission, values and objectives are your friends; those who dare criticising them are your enemies. It seems far from you to realise that criticism generates progress, perhaps not for the WFC, but for the patient.

15. We support high standards of chiropractic education that empower graduates to serve their patients and communities as high value, trusted health professionals.

For instance, by educating students to become anti-vaxxers or by teaching them obsolete concepts such as adjustment of subluxation?

16. We believe in nurturing, supporting, mentoring and empowering students and early career chiropractors.

You are surpassing yourself in the formulation of platitudes.

17. We are committed to the delivery of congresses and events that inspire, challenge, educate, inform and grow the profession through respectful discourse and positive professional development.

You are surpassing yourself in the formulation of platitudes.

18. We believe in continuously improving our understanding of the biomechanical, neurophysiological, psychosocial and general health effects of chiropractic care.

Even if there are no health effects?!?

19. We advocate for public statements and claims of effectiveness for chiropractic care that are honest, legal, decent and truthful.

Advocating claims of effectiveness in the absence of proof of effectiveness is neither honest, legal, decent or truthful, in my view.

20. We commit to an EPIC future for chiropractic: evidence-based, people-centered, interprofessional and collaborative.

And what do you propose to do with the increasing mountain of evidence suggesting that your spinal adjustments are not evidence-based as well as harmful to the health and wallets of your patients?


What do I take out of all this? Not a lot!

Perhaps mainly this: the WFC is correct when stating that, in the interests of the profession in over 90 countries worldwide, the WFC has advocated, defended and promoted the profession across its 7 world regions. What is missing here is a small but important addition to the sentence: in the interests of the profession and against the interest of patients, consumers or public health in over 90 countries worldwide, the WFC has advocated, defended and promoted the profession across its 7 world regions.

Controlled clinical trials are methods for testing whether a treatment works better than whatever the control group is treated with (placebo, a standard therapy, or nothing at all). In order to minimise bias, they ought to be randomised. This means that the allocation of patients to the experimental and the control group must not be by choice but by chance. In the simplest case, a coin might be thrown – heads would signal one, tails the other group.

In so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) where preferences and expectations tend to be powerful, randomisation is particularly important. Without randomisation, the preference of patients for one or the other group would have considerable influence on the result. An ineffective therapy might thus appear to be effective in a biased study. The randomised clinical trial (RCT) is therefore seen as a ‘gold standard’ test of effectiveness, and most researchers of SCAM have realised that they ought to produce such evidence, if they want to be taken seriously.

But, knowingly or not, they often fool the system. There are many ways to conduct RCTs that are only seemingly rigorous but, in fact, are mere tricks to make an ineffective SCAM look effective. On this blog, I have often mentioned the A+B versus B study design which can achieve exactly that. Today, I want to discuss another way in which SCAM researchers can fool us (and even themselves) with seemingly rigorous studies: the de-randomised clinical trial (dRCT).

The trick is to use random allocation to the two study groups as described above; this means the researcher can proudly and honestly present his study as an RCT with all the kudos these three letters seem to afford. And subsequent to this randomisation process, the SCAM researcher simply de-randomises the two groups.

To understand how this is done, we need first to be clear about the purpose of randomisation. If done well, it generates two groups of patients that are similar in all factors that might impact on the results of the study. Perhaps the most obvious factor is disease severity; one could easily use other methods to make sure that both groups of an RCT are equally severely ill. But there are many other factors which we cannot always quantify or even know about. By using randomisation, we make sure that there is an similar distribution of ALL of them in the two study groups, even those factors we are not even aware of.

De-randomisation is thus a process whereby the two previously similar groups are made to differ in terms of any factor that impacts on the results of the trial. In SCAM, this is often surprisingly simple.

Let’s use a concrete example. For our study of spiritual healing, the 5 healers had opted during the planning period of the study to treat both the experimental group and the control group. In the experimental group, they wanted to use their full healing power, while in the control group they would not employ it (switch it off, so to speak). It was clear to me that this was likely to lead to de-randomisation: the healers would have (inadvertently or deliberately) behaved differently towards the two groups of patients. Before and during the therapy, they would have raised the expectation of the verum group (via verbal and non-verbal communication), while sending out the opposite signals to the control group. Thus the two previously equal groups would have become unequal in terms of their expectation. And who can deny that expectation is a major determinant of the outcome? Or who can deny that experienced clinicians can manipulate their patients’ expectation?

For our healing study, we therefore chose a different design and did all we could to keep the two groups comparable. Its findings thus turned out to show that healing is not more effective than placebo (It was concluded that a specific effect of face-to-face or distant healing on chronic pain could not be demonstrated over eight treatment sessions in these patients.). Had we not taken these precautions, I am sure the results would have been very different.

In RCTs of some SCAMs, this de-randomisation is difficult to avoid. Think of acupuncture, for instance. Even when using sham needles that do not penetrate the skin, the therapist is aware of the group allocation. Hoping to prove that his beloved acupuncture can be proven to work, acupuncturists will almost automatically de-randomise their patients before and during the therapy in the way described above. This is, I think, the main reason why some of the acupuncture RCTs using non-penetrating sham devices or similar sham-acupuncture methods suggest that acupuncture is more than a placebo therapy. Similar arguments also apply to many other SCAMs, including for instance chiropractic.

There are several ways of minimising this de-randomisation phenomenon. But the only sure way to avoid this de-randomisation is to blind not just the patient but also the therapists (and to check whether both remained blind throughout the study). And that is often not possible or exceedingly difficult in trials of SCAM. Therefore, I suggest we should always keep de-randomisation in mind. Whenever we are confronted with an RCT that suggest a result that is less than plausible, de-randomisation might be a possible explanation.


Myelopathy is defined as any neurologic deficit related to the spinal cord. When due to trauma, it is known as (acute) spinal cord injury. When caused by inflammatory, it is known as myelitis. Disease that is vascular in nature is known as vascular myelopathy.

The symptoms of myelopathy include:

  • Pain in the neck, arm, leg or lower back
  • Muscle weakness
  • Difficulty with fine motor skills, such as writing or buttoning a shirt
  • Difficulty walking
  • Loss of urinary or bowel control
  • Issues with balance and coordination

The causes of myelopathy include:

  • Tumours that put pressure on the spinal cord
  • Bone spurs
  • A dislocation fracture
  • Autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis
  • Congenital abnormality
  • A traumatic injury

This review presents a series of cases with cervical spine injury and myelopathy following therapeutic manipulation of the neck, and examines their clinical course and neurological outcome.

Its authors conducted a search for patients who developed neurological symptoms due to cervical spinal cord injury following neck SMT in the database of a spinal unit in a tertiary hospital between the years 2008 and 2018. Patients with vertebral artery dissections were excluded. Patients were assessed for the clinical course and deterioration, type of manipulation used and subsequent management.

A total of four patients were identified, two men and two women, aged between 32 and 66 years. In three patients neurological deterioration appeared after chiropractic adjustment and in one patient after tuina therapy. The patients had experienced symptoms within one day to one week after neck manipulation. The four patients had signs of:

  1. central cord syndrome,
  2. spastic quadriparesis,
  3. spastic quadriparesis,
  4. radiculopathy and myelomalacia.

Three patients were managed with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion while one patient declined surgical treatment.

The authors note that their data cannot determine whether the spinal cord dysfunction was caused my the spinal manipulations or were pre-existing problems which were aggravated by the treatments. They recommend that assessment for subjective and objective evidence of cervical myelopathy should be performed prior to cervical manipulation, and suspected myelopathic patients should be sent for further workup by a specialist familiar with cervical myelopathy, such as a neurologist, a neurosurgeon or orthopaedic surgeon who specializes in spinal surgery. They also state that manipulation therapy remains an important and generally safe treatment modality for a variety of cervical complaints. Their review, the authors stress, does not intend to discard the role of spinal manipulation as a significant part in the management of patients with neck related symptoms, rather it is meant to draw attention to the need for careful clinical and imaging investigation before treatment. This recommendation might be medically justified, yet one could argue that it is less than practical.

This paper from Israel is interesting in that it discloses possible complications of cervical manipulation. It confirms that chiropractors are most frequently implicated and that – as in our survey – under-reporting is exactly 100% (none of the cases identified by the retrospective chart review had been previously reported).

In light of this, some of the affirmations of the authors are bizarre. In particular, I ask myself how they can claim that cervical manipulation is a ‘generally safe’ treatment. With under-reporting at such high levels, the only thing one can say with certainty is that serious complications do happen and nobody can be sure how frequently they occur.

“There is a ton of chiropractor journals. If you want evidence then read some.”

This was the comment by a defender of chiropractic to a recent post of mine. And it’s true, of course: there are quite a few chiro journals, but are they a reliable source of information?

One way of quantifying the reliability of medical journals is to calculate what percentage of its published articles arrive at negative conclusion. In the extreme instance of a journal publishing nothing but positive results, we cannot assume that it is a credible publication. In this case, it would be not a scientific journal at all, but it would be akin to a promotional rag.

Back in 1997, we published our first analysis of journals of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). It showed that just 1% of the papers published in SCAM journals reported findings that were not positive. In the years that followed, we confirmed this deplorable state of affairs repeatedly, and on this blog I have shown that the relatively new EBCAM journal is similarly dubious.

But these were not journals focussing specifically on chiropractic. Therefore, the question whether chiro journals are any different from the rest of SCAM is as yet unanswered. Enough reason for me to bite the bullet and test this hypothesis. I thus went on Medline and assessed all the articles published in 2018 in two of the leading chiro journals.


I evaluated them according to


The results of my analysis are as follows:

  1. The JCM published 39 Medline-listed papers in 2018.
  2. The CMT published 50 such papers in 2018.
  3. Together, the 2 journals published:
  • 18 surveys,
  • 17 case reports,
  • 10 reviews,
  • 8 diagnostic papers,
  • 7 pilot studies,
  • 4 protocols,
  • 2 RCTs,
  • 2 non-randomised trials,
  • 2 case-series,
  • the rest are miscellaneous types of articles.

4. None of these papers arrived at a conclusion that is negative or contrary to chiropractors’ current belief in chiropractic care. The percentage of publishing negative findings is thus exactly 0%, a figure that is almost identical to the 1% we found for SCAM journals in 1997.

I conclude: these results suggest that the hypothesis of chiro journals publishing reliable information is not based on sound evidence.

In a paper discussed in a previous blog, Ioannidis et al published a comprehensive database of a large number of scientists across science. They used Scopus data to compile a database of the 100,000 most-cited authors across all scientific fields based on their ranking of a composite indicator that considers six citation metrics (total citations; Hirsch h-index; coauthorship-adjusted Schreiber hm-index; number of citations to papers as single author; number of citations to papers as single or first author; and number of citations to papers as single, first, or last author). The authors also added this caution:

Citation analyses for individuals are used for various single-person or comparative assessments in the complex reward and incentive system of science. Misuse of citation metrics in hiring, promotion or tenure decision, or other situations involving rewards (e.g., funding or awards) takes many forms, including but not limited to the use of metrics that are not very informative for scientists and their work (e.g., journal impact factors); focus on single citation metrics (e.g., h-index); and use of calculations that are not standardized, use different frames, and do not account for field. The availability of the data sets that we provide should help mitigate many of these problems. The database can also be used to perform evaluations of groups of individuals, e.g., at the level of scientific fields, institutions, countries, or memberships in diversely defined groups that may be of interest to users.

It seems thus obvious and relevant to employ the new metrics for defining the most ‘influential’ (most frequently cited) researchers in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Doing this creates not one but two non-overlapping tables (because ‘complementary&alternative medicine’ is listed both as a primary and a secondary field (not sure about the difference)). Below, I have copied a small part of these tables; the first three columns are self-explanatory; the 4th relates to the number of published articles, the 4th to the year of the author’s first publication, the 5th to the last, the 6th column is the rank amongst 100 000 scientists of all fields who have published more than a couple of papers.


Ernst, E. University of Exeter gbr 2253 1975 2018 104
Davidson, Jonathan R. T. Duke University usa 426 1972 2017 1394
Kaptchuk, Ted J. Harvard University usa 245 1993 2018 6545
Eisenberg, David M. Harvard University usa 127 1991 2018 8641
Lundeberg, Thomas 340 1983 2016 17199
Linde, Klaus Technische Universitat Munchen deu 276 1993 2018 19488
Schwartz, Gary E. University of Arizona usa 264 1967 2018 21893
Eloff, J.N. University of Pretoria zaf 204 1997 2018 23830
Birch, Stephen McMaster University can 244 1985 2018 31925
Wilson, Kenneth H. Duke University usa 76 1976 2017 40760
Kemper, Kathi J. Ohio State University usa 181 1988 2017 45193
Oken, Barry S. Oregon Health and Science University usa 121 1974 2018 51325
Pittler, M.H. 155 1997 2016 53183
Postuma, Ronald B. McGill University can 159 1998 2018 61018
Patwardhan, Bhushan University of Pune ind 144 1989 2018 64465
Krucoff, Mitchell W. Duke University usa 261 1986 2016 66028
Chiesa, Alberto 87 1973 2017 82390
Baliga, Manjeshwar Shrinath 142 2002 2018 83030
Mischoulon, David Harvard University usa 194 1992 2018 91705
Büssing, Arndt University of Witten/Herdecke deu 207 1980 2018 95907
Langevin, Helene M. Harvard University usa 67 1999 2018 98290
Creath, Katherine 84 1984 2017 99709
Kuete, Victor University of Dschang cmr 239 2005 2018 128347


White, Adrian University of Plymouth gbr 294 1990 2016 16714
Astin, John A. California Pacific Medical Center usa 50 1994 2014 21379
Kelly, Gregory S. 37 1985 2011 31037
Walach, Harald University of Medical Sciences Poznan pol 246 1996 2018 31716
Berman, Brian M. University of Maryland School of Medicine usa 211 1986 2018 34022
Lewith, George University of Southampton gbr 380 1980 2018 34830
Kidd, Parris M. University of California at Berkeley usa 38 1976 2011 36571
Jonas, Wayne B. 187 1992 2018 42445
MacPherson, Hugh University of York gbr 143 1996 2018 49923
Bell, Iris R. University of Arizona usa 142 1984 2015 51016
Patrick, Lyn 21 1999 2018 57086
Ritenbaugh, Cheryl University of Arizona usa 172 1981 2018 63248
Boon, Heather University of Toronto can 188 1988 2017 69066
Aickin, Mikel University of Arizona usa 149 1996 2014 72040
Lee, Myeong Soo 430 1996 2018 72358
Lao, Lixing University of Hong Kong hkg 247 1990 2018 74896
Witt, Claudia M. Charite – Universitatsmedizin Berlin deu 238 2001 2018 78849
Sherman, Karen J. 136 1984 2017 82542
Verhoef, Marja J. University of Calgary can 190 1989 2016 84314
Smith, Caroline A. University of Western Sydney aus 135 1979 2018 94130
Miller, Alan L. 30 1980 2016 94421
Paterson, Charlotte University of Bristol gbr 71 1995 2017 95130
Milgrom, Lionel R. London Metropolitan University gbr 107 1979 2017 112943
Adams, Jon University of Technology NSW aus 294 1999 2018 128486
Litscher, Gerhard Medical University of Graz aut 245 1986 2018 133122
Chen, Calvin Yu-Chian China Medical University Taichung chn 130 2007 2016 164522

No other researchers are listed in the ‘Complementary&Alternative Medicine’ categories and made it into the list of the 100 000 most-cited scientists.

To make this easier to read, I have ordered all SCAM researchers according to their rank in one single list and, where known to me, added the respective focus in SCAM research (ma = most areas of SCAM):

  1. ERNST EDZARD (ma)
  3. KAPTCHUK TED (acupuncture)
  5. WHITE ADRIAN (acupuncture)
  6. LUNDEBERG THOMAS (acupuncture)
  7. LINDE KLAUS (homeopathy)
  8. ASTIN JOHN (mind/body)
  9. SCHWARTZ GARRY (healing)
  10. ELOFF JN
  12. WALLACH HARALD (homeopathy)
  13. BIRCH STEVEN (acupuncture)
  14. BERMAN BRIAN (acupuncture)
  15. LEWITH GEORGE (acupuncture)
  18. JONAS WAYNE (homeopathy)
  19. KEMPER KATHIE (ma)
  20. MACPHERSON HUGH (acupuncture)
  21. BELL IRIS (homeopathy)
  22. OKEN BARRY (dietary supplements)
  23. PITTLER MAX (ma)
  30. AICKIN MIKEL (ma)
  32. LAO LIXING (acupuncture)
  33. WITT CLAUDIA (ma)
  35. SHERMAN KAREN (acupuncture)
  37. VERHOEF MARIA (ma)
  39. SMITH CAROLINE (acupuncture)
  42. BUESSING ARNDT (anthroposophical medicine)
  45. MILGROM LIONEL (homeopathy)
  47. ADAMS JON (ma)

The list is interesting in several regards. Principally, it offers individual SCAM researchers for the first time the opportunity to check their international standing relative to their colleagues. But, as the original analysis in Ioannidis’s paper contains much more data than depicted above, there is much further information to be gleaned from it.

For instance, I looked at the rate of self-citation (not least because I have sometimes been accused of overdoing this myself). It turns out that, with 7%, I am relative modest and well below average in that regard. Most of my colleagues are well above that figure. Researchers who have exceptionally high self-citation rates include Buessing (30%), Kuete (43%), Adams (36%), Litscher (45%), and Chen (53%).

The list also opens the possibility to see which countries dominate SCAM research. The dominance of the US seems fairly obvious and would have been expected due to the size of this country and the funds the US put into SCAM research. Considering the lack of funds in the UK, my country ranks surprisingly high, I find. No other country is well-represented in this list. In particular Germany does not appear often (even if we would classify Wallach as German); considering the large amounts of money Germany has invested in SCAM research, this is remarkable and perhaps even a bit shameful, in my view.

Looking at the areas of research, acupuncture and homeopathy seem to stand out. Remarkably, many of the major SCAMs are not or not well represented at all. This is in particular true for herbal medicine, chiropractic and osteopathy.

The list also confirms my former team as the leaders in SCAM research. (Yes, I know: in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.) Pittler, White and Lee were, of course, all former co-workers of mine.

Perhaps the most intriguing finding, I think, relates to the many SCAM researchers who did not make it into the list. Here are a few notable absentees:

  1. Behnke J – GERMANY (homeopathy)
  2. Bensoussan A – AUSTRALIA (acupuncture)
  3. Brinkhaus B – GERMANY  (acupuncture)
  4. Bronfort G  – US  (chiropractic)
  5. Chopra D – US (mind/body)
  6. Cummings M – UK (acupuncture)
  7. Dixon M – UK (ma)
  8. Dobos G – GERMANY (ma)
  9. Fisher P – UK (homeopathy)
  10. Fonnebo V – NORWAY (ma)
  11. Frass M – AUSTRIA (homeopathy)
  12. Goertz C – US (chiropractic)
  13. Hawk C -US (chiropractic)
  14. Horneber M – GERMANY (ma)
  15. Jacobs J – US (homeopathy)
  16. Jobst K – UK (homeopathy)
  17. Kraft K – GERMANY (naturopathy)
  18. Lawrence D – US (chiropractic)
  19. Long CR – US (chiropractic)
  20. Meeker WC – US (chiropractic)
  21. Mathie R – UK (homeopathy)
  22. Melchart – GERMANY (ma)
  23. Michalsen A – GERMANY (ma)
  24. Mills S – UK (herbal medicine)
  25. Peters D – UK (ma)
  26. Reilly D -US (homeopathy)
  27. Reily D – UK (homeopathy)
  28. Robinson N – UK (ma)
  29. Streitberger K – GERMANY (acupuncture)
  30. Tuchin PJ – US (chiropractic)
  31. Uehleke – GERMANY (naturopathy)
  32. Ullman D – US (homeopathy)
  33.  Weil A – US (ma)

I leave it to you to interpret this list and invite you to add more SCAM researchers to it.


(thanks to Paul Posadski for helping with the tables)

A chiro, a arms dealer and a Brexit donor meet in a bar.

The arms dealer: my job is so secret, I cannot tell my neighbour what I do.

The Brexit donor: I have to keep things so close to my chest that not even my wife knows what I am doing.

The chiro: that’s nothing; my work is so secret that not even I know what I am doing.


But I am yet again intrigued by a survey aimed at finding out what chiropractors are up to. One might have thought that, after 120 years, they know what they are doing.

This survey described the profiles of chiropractors’ practice and the reasons, nature of the care provided to their patients and extent of interprofessional collaborations in Ontario, Canada. The researchers randomly recruited chiropractors from a list of registered chiropractors (n=3978) in active practice in 2015. Of the 135 randomly selected chiropractors, 120 were eligible, 43 participated and 42 completed the study.

Each chiropractor recorded information for up to 100 consecutive patient encounters, documenting patient health profiles, reasons for encounter, diagnoses and care provided. Descriptive statistics summarised chiropractor, patient and encounter characteristics, with analyses accounting for clustering and design effects. Thus data on 3523 chiropractor-patient encounters became available. More than 65% of participating chiropractors were male, mean age 44 years and had practised on average 15 years. The typical patient was female (59% of encounters), between 45 and 64 years (43%) and retired (21%) or employed in business and administration (13%). Most (39.4%) referrals were from other patients, with 6.8% from physicians. Approximately 68% of patients paid out of pocket or claimed extended health insurance for care. Most common diagnoses were back (49%, 95% CI 44 to 56) and neck (15%, 95% CI 13 to 18) problems, with few encounters related to maintenance/preventive care (0.86%, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.9) and non-musculoskeletal problems (1.3%, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.3). The most common treatments included spinal manipulation (72%), soft tissue therapy (70%) and mobilisation (35%).

The authors concluded that this is the most comprehensive profile to date of chiropractic practice in Canada. People who present to Ontario chiropractors are mostly adults with a musculoskeletal condition. Our results can be used by stakeholders to make informed decisions about workforce development, education and healthcare policy related to chiropractic care.

I am so sorry to have mocked this paper. I shouldn’t have, because it actually does reveal a few interesting snippets:

  1. Only 7% of referrals come from real doctors.
  2. The vast majority of all patients receive spinal manipulations.
  3. About 6% of them are under 14 years of age.
  4. Chiropractors seem to dislike surveys; only 35% of those asked complied.
  5. 23% of all consultations were for general or unspecified problems,
  6. 8% for neurologically related problems,
  7. 5% for non-musculoskeletal problems (eg, digestive, ear, eye, respiratory, skin, urology, circulatory, endocrine and metabolic, psychological).
  8. Chiropractors rarely refer patients to other clinicians; this only happened in less than 3% of encounters.
  9. Apart from manipulation, chiropractors employ all sorts of other dubious therapies (ultrasound 3%, acupuncture 3%, , traction 1%, interferential therapy 3%, soft laser therapy 3%).
  10.  68% of patients pay out of their own pocket…

… NO WONDER, THEY DO NOT SEEM TO BE IN NEED OF ANY TYPE OF TREATMENT: 54% of all patients reported being in “excellent/very good overall health”!

I have written about this more often than I care to remember, and today I do it again.


Because it is important!

Chiropractic is not effective for kids, and chiropractic is not harmless for kids – what more do we need to conclude that chiropractors should not be allowed anywhere near them?

And most experts now agree with this conclusion; except, of course, the chiropractors themselves. This recent article in THE CHRONICLE OF CHIROPRACTIC is most illuminating in this context:

It was only a matter of time before the attack on the chiropractic care of children spread to the United States from Australia and Canada and its also no surprise that insurance companies would jump on the bandwagon first.  According to Blue Cross and Blue Shield Children under the age of 5 years should not receive chiropractic care (spinal manipulation) ” . . . because the skeletal system is not mature at this time.”

The Blues further contend that:

“Serious adverse events may be associated with pediatric spinal manipulation in children under the age of 5 years due to the risks of these procedures in children this age.”

The Blues claims that their determination is based on standards of care – though they do not state which ones.

“This determination was based on standards of care in pediatric medicine as well as current medical evidence.”

This is not the first time Blue Cross attacked the chiropractic care of children. In 2005 CareFirst Blue Cross claimed that:

“Spinal manipulation services to treat children 12 years of age and younger, for any condition, is considered experimental and investigational.”

The ridiculous and false claims by Blue Cross come on the heels of a ban placed on spinal manipulation of infants by the Chiropractic Board of Australia (see related story) and attacks on chiropractors who care for children in Canada by chiropractic regulatory boards there.

There is in fact plenty of evidence to support the chiropractic care of infants and children and there are practice guidelines (the highest level on the research hierarchy pyramid) that support such care.

The real issue is not whether or not evidence exists to support the chiropractic care of children – the real issue is power and the lack of any necessity for evidence for those with the power.



What can we learn from this outburst?

  1. Chiropractors often take much-needed critique as an ‘attack’. My explanation for this phenomenon is that they sense how wrong they truly are, get defensive, and fear for their cash-flow.
  2. When criticised, they do not bother to address the arguments. This, I believe, is again because they know they are in the wrong.
  3. Chiropractors are in denial as to what they can and cannot achieve with their manipulations. My explanation for this is that they might need to be in denial – because otherwise they would have to stop practising.
  4. They often insult criticism as ridiculous and false without providing any evidence. The likely explanation is that they have no reasonable evidence to offer.
  5. All they do instead is stating things like ‘there is plenty of evidence’. They don’t like to present the ‘evidence’ because they seem to know that it is worthless.
  6. Lastly, in true style, they resort to conspiracy theories.

To any critical thinker their behaviour thus makes one conclusion virtually inescapable: DON’T LET A CHIROPRACTOR NEAR YOUR KIDS!

The World Federation of Chiropractic, Strategic Plan 2019-2022 has just been published. It is an odd document that holds many surprises. Sadly, none of them are positive.

As the efficacy and safety of chiropractic spinal manipulations, the hallmark treatment that close to 100% of all chiropractic patients receive, are more than a little doubtful, one would expect that such a strategy would focus on the promotion of rigorous clinical research to create more certainty in these two important areas. If you are like me and were hoping for a firm commitment to such activities, you will be harshly disappointed.

Already in the introduction, the WFC sets an entirely different agenda:

We believe that everyone deserves access to chiropractic. We believe in chiropractors being accessible throughout the world. We believe that societies can thrive where chiropractors are available as a part of people’s health care teams.

If you are not put off by such self-serving, nauseous nonsense and read on, you find what the WFC call the ‘FOUR STRATEGIC PILLARS’


The text supporting the first three pillars consists of insufferable platitudes, and I will therefore not burden you with it. But the title of No4 did raise my hopes of finding something along the lines of an advancement of the evidence-base of chiropractic. Sadly, this turned out to be over-optimistic. Here is the 4th pillar in its full beauty:

Advancing the chiropractic profession together under the banner of evidence-based, people-centered, interprofessional and collaborative care.

Around the world health is delivered according to prevailing societal, cultural and political factors. These social determinants mean that chiropractors must adapt to the environment in which they practice.

As a global federation we must continuously strive to advance awareness of chiropractic under a banner of ethical, evidence-based, people-centered care.

Through consensus-building, shared understanding and respectful dialogue with partners in the health system, chiropractic should become a valued partner in contributing enhanced population health.

Throughout our 7 world regions, we must advance public utilization of chiropractors to optimize the health of nations.

Through the identification of common values and a commitment to patient-centered care, we can advance the identity of chiropractors as spinal health care experts in the health care system.

The WFC will:

– Advance awareness of chiropractic among the general public, within health systems and among health professionals.

– Advance access to chiropractors for all people and broaden the integration of chiropractic services

– Advance interprofessional collaboration and the integration of chiropractic into health systems



The essence of the WFC strategy for the next 3 years thus seems to be as follows:

  1. Avoid any discussion about the lack of evidence of chiropractic.
  2. Promote chiropractic to the unsuspecting public at all cost.
  3. Make sure chiropractors’ cash flow is healthy.

There are some commentators on this blog who regularly try to make us believe that chiropractic is about to reform, leave obsolete concepts behind, and become a respectable, ethical and evidence-based healthcare profession. After reading the appalling drivel the WFC call their ‘strategic plan’, I am not optimistic that they are correct.

1 2 3 27
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.