chiropractic
Chiropractic is a complementary medicine that has been growing increasingly in different countries over recent decades. It addresses the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the neuromusculoskeletal system disorders and their effects on the whole body health.
This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of chiropractic in the treatment of different diseases. To gather data, scientific electronic databases, such as Cochrane, Medline, Google Scholar, and Scirus were searched and all systematic reviews in the field of chiropractic were obtained. Reviews were included if they were specifically concerned with the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment, included evidence from at least one clinical trial, included randomized studies and focused on a specific disease. The articles were excluded if:
- – they were concerned with a combination of chiropractic and other treatments (not specifically chiropractic treatment);
- – they lacked at least one clinical trial;
- – they lacked at least one randomized study;
- – and they studied chiropractic in the treatment of multiple diseases.
The research data including the article’s first author’s name, type of disease, intervention type, number and types of research used, meta-analysis, number of participants, and overall results of the study, were extracted, studied and analyzed.
Totally, 23 chiropractic systematic reviews were found, and 11 articles met the defined criteria. The results showed the influence of chiropractic on improvement of neck pain, shoulder and neck trigger points, and sport injuries. In the cases of asthma, infant colic, autism spectrum disorder, gastrointestinal problems, fibromyalgia, back pain and carpal tunnel syndrome, there was no conclusive scientific evidence. There is heterogeneity in some of the studies and also limited number of clinical trials in the assessed systematic reviews. Thus, conducting comprehensive studies based on more reliable study designs are highly recommended.
The authors stressed that three points should be emphasized. Firstly, there is a discrepancy between the development of chiropractic in different countries of the world and the quality and quantity of studies regarding the effectiveness and safety of chiropractic in treatment of diseases. Secondly, some of the systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of chiropractic in treatment of diseases had a minimum quality of research methodology and were not useful for evaluation. Some of the excluded articles are examples of this problem. Finally, a limited number of studies (11 systematic review articles and 10 diseases) had the required criteria and were assessed in the study.
Assessment and analysis of the studies showed the impact of chiropractic on improvement of some upper extremity conditions including shoulder and neck trigger points, neck pain and sport injuries. In the case of asthma, infant colic and other studied diseases, further clinical trials with larger sample sizes and high quality research methodology are recommended.
So, is chiroprctic of proven effectiveness for any disease?
The conditions for which there is tentatively positive evidence (btw: most rely on my research!!!) are arguably not diseases but symptoms of undelying conditions. Therefore, the answer to my question above is:
NO.
- mind-body medicine (32.0%),
- massage (16.1%),
- chiropractic (14.4%),
- acupuncture (3.4%),
- naturopathy (2.2%),
- art and/or music therapy (2.1%).
Reporting post-COVID-19 was associated with an increased likelihood of using any SCAM in the last 12 months (AOR = 1.18, 95% CI [1.03, 1.34], p = 0.014) and specifically to visit an art and/or music therapist (AOR = 2.56, 95% CI [1.58, 4.41], p < 0.001). The overall use of any SCAM was more likely among post-COVID-19 respondents under 65 years old, females, those with an ethnical background other than Hispanic, African-American, Asian or Non-Hispanic Whites, having a higher educational level, living in large metropolitan areas and having a private health insurance.
Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a lumbosacral surgical emergency that has been associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) in numerous case reports. However, identifying if there is a potential causal effect is complicated by the heightened incidence of CES among those with low back pain (LBP). This study‘s hypothesis was that there would be no increase in the risk of CES in adults with LBP following CSM compared to a propensity-matched cohort following physical therapy (PT) evaluation without spinal manipulation over a three-month follow-up period.
A query of a United States network (TriNetX, Inc.) was conducted, searching health records of more than 107 million patients attending academic health centers, yielding data ranging from 20 years prior to the search date (July 30, 2023). Patients aged 18 or older with LBP were included, excluding those with pre-existing CES, incontinence, or serious pathology that may cause CES. Patients were divided into two cohorts:
- (1) LBP patients receiving CSM,
- (2) LBP patients receiving PT evaluation without spinal manipulation.
Propensity score matching controlled for confounding variables associated with CES.
67,220 patients per cohort (mean age 51 years) remained after propensity matching. CES incidence was 0.07% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.05–0.09%) in the CSM cohort compared to 0.11% (95% CI: 0.09–0.14%) in the PT evaluation cohort, yielding a risk ratio and 95% CI of 0.60 (0.42–0.86; p = .0052). Both cohorts showed a higher rate of CES during the first two weeks of follow-up.
The authors concluded that the present study involving over 130,000 propensity-matched patients found that CSM is not a risk factor for CES. The incidence of CES in both CSM and PT evaluation cohorts aligns with previous estimates of CES incidence among patients with LBP, indicating a heightened risk of CES compared to asymptomatic individuals regardless of intervention. Moreover, these findings underscore the increased CES incidence within the first two weeks after either CSM or PT evaluation, emphasizing the need for clinicians’ vigilance in identifying and emergently referring patients with CES for surgical evaluation. Further real-world evidence is needed to corroborate these findings using alternative case-control and case-crossover designs, and different clinician comparators.
This is an interesting and well-reported investigation. Its particular strength is the huge sample size. Its weakness, on the other hand, is the fact that, despite the researchers best efforts, the two groups might not have been entirely comparable and that there could be a host of relevant factors that the propensity matching was unable to control for.
It is, I think, to the credit of the authors that they abstain from overrating their results and correctly emphasize in their conclusions that: Further real-world evidence is needed to corroborate these findings using alternative case-control and case-crossover designs, and different clinician comparators.
Advocates of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) almost uniformly stress the importance of prevention and pride themselves to make much use of SCAM for the purpose of prevention. SCAM, they often claim, is effective for prevention, while conventional medicine tends to neglect it. Therefore, it seems timely to ponder a bit about the subject.
It makes sense to differentiate three types of prevention:
- Primary prevention aims to prevent disease or injury before it ever occurs.
- Secondary prevention aims to reduce the impact of a disease or injury that has already occurred.
- Tertiary prevention aims to soften the impact of an ongoing illness or injury that has lasting effects.
Here I will includes all three and I will ask what SCAM has to offer in any form of prevention. I will do this by looking at what we have previously discussed on this blog in relation to several specific SCAM and add in each case a very brief evaluation of the evidence.
Acupuncture
- Acupuncture for the prevention of headache? How to fool (almost) everyone with an RCT – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Acupuncture for chronic migraine prevention? Two new systematic reviews yield encouraging evidence – ENCOURAGING EVIDENCE
Chiropractic
- Chiropractic manipulation and primary prevention. It’s time that chiropractors stop misleading the public in order to fill their pockets – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- ‘Maintenance care’ is very good for chiropractic economics … but not for anything else! – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- No evidence that spinal manipulation improves immune function – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Chiropractic maintenance care: boosting chiropractic cash flow in perpetuity – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Birth-trauma: a diagnosis that richly fills the pockets of many chiropractors – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- If you don’t want to get the flu…consult your chiropractor urgently! – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
Herbal medicine
- Prevention of acute radiation-induced proctitis with Aloe vera – ENCOURAGING EVIDENCE
- Can Chinese Medicine Be Used for Prevention of Corona Virus Disease? – NO CONVINVING EVIDENCE
Homeopathy
- Effectiveness of Homeopathic Arsenicum album 30C in the Prevention of COVID-19 – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Disturbing news on the recent trial of homeopathy for COVID prevention – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- A new study of homeopathy for the prevention of COVID-19 infections – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Is this the crown of the Corona-idiocy? Nosodes In Prevention And Management Of COVID -19 – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Homeopathic Prevention and Management of Epidemic Diseases – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Influenzinum: the homeopathic flu prevention that does not prevent flu – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Homeopathy for preventing and treating acute respiratory tract infections in children – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- A new trial of homeopathy for preventing COVID-19 infections – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Oscillococcinum, the homeopathic solution to the coronavirus threat? – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- An RCT suggests that homeopathy can prevent epidemics!!! But how reliable is this evidence? – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- HOMEOPATHS LOVE IT: the epidemiological evidence suggesting that homeopathy works – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Understanding homeoprophylaxis: it is dangerous nonsense!!! – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- “Homeoprophylaxis, the homeopathic vaccine alternative, prevents disease through nosodes.” NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Boiron’s new study of homeopathy NO GOOD EVIDENCE
Mind-body therapies
- Meditation for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Transcendental meditation (TM) for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease? – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
Osteopathy
Does Osteopathy Prevent Motion Sickness? – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
Supplements
- Multivitamins in the prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Zinc for the prevention or treatment of acute viral respiratory tract infections in adults? A new systematic review – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19? NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Do Vitamin, Mineral, and Multivitamin Supplements Prevent Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer? – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Does vitamin D supplementation lower the risk of cancer and precancers? – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Glucosamine is associated with decreased risk of lung cancer – ENCOURAGING EVIDENCE
Yoga
- Yoga for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: more than wishful thinking? – NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE
- Who says it’s all negative? The addition of yoga to aerobic exercise programs reduces global cardiovascular risk – ENCOURAGING EVIDENCE
I hope you agree: this list is impressive!
- Impressive in the way of showing how often we have discussed SCAM for prevention in one form or another.
- Impressive also to see how little positive evidence there is for effective prevention with SCAM
Of course, this is merely based on posts that were published on my blog. Some will argue that I missed out on some effective SCAMs for prevention. Others might claim that I judged some of the the above cited articles too harshly. If you share such sentiments, I invite you to show me the evidence – and I promise to look at it and evaluate it critically.
Meanwhile, I will draw the following conclusion:
Despite the prominent place prevention assumes in discussions about SCAM, the actual evidence fails to show that it has an important role to play in primary, secondary or tertiary prevention.
“Is Chiropractic Worth the Taxpayer’s Expense?” is the interesting question asked in this article by Ikenna Idika Ogbu from the Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals of North Midlands, UK and Chandrasekaran Kaliaperumal from the Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, UK. Here is the abstract:
Chiropractic remains a service provided outside the NHS in the United Kingdom and the argument for inclusion has been ongoing since the 90’s. There are significant patient-reported benefits from chiropractic backed by evidence in specific use-cases as cervicogenic headaches and there are significant potential cost-savings from the inclusion of chiropractic as an NHS service. The evidence, however, does not particularly favour the use case of chiropractic, especially in the context of Low Back Pain (LBP) and the benefits of chiropractic are unclear. Considering the potential cost-savings for the NHS and the society, there should be consideration for its inclusion. However, the evidence will need to be clearer to argue for inclusion of chiropractic in the NHS spectrum of services, especially for spinal services.
So, the authors confirm that, even for back pain, “the benefits of chiropractic are unclear”, and in the next sentence they advocate “consideration for its inclusion.”
Does that make sense?
No!
Let’s be clear: the least expensive way to proceed in the short term is usually to do nothing. No treatment is invariably less expensive than treatment! Yet, this logic obviously does not account for the two most important factors in this equation: risk and benefit.
- Not treating a condition can cause prolonged, needless suffering.
- Not treating a condition can cause significant follow-up costs.
- Treating it can cause adverse effects and additional suffering.
- Adverse effects can cause significant follow-up costs.
- Treating the condition effectively will result in less suffering.
- Treating the condition effectively will result in less follow-up costs.
It follows that we should treat health problems:
- effectively,
- with few risks of side-effects,
- as cheaply as possible.
It also follows that costs are by no means the only factor in this complex equation. Cost-effectiveness without effectiveness is not possible. Moreover, cost-effectiveness withoout an acceptable degree of safety is unlikely.
In the case of chiropractic, we have hardly reliable proof of effectiveness or safety. And this means that, before we can consider chiropractic to be paid for from public money, we first need solid evidence for its safey and efficacy – each for the relevant health problem to be treated. Once we have reliable data about all this – AND ONLY THEN – might we consider including chiropractic into the public healthcare budget.
In other words, the above cited paper is naive and ill-informed to the extreme.
I sometimes like to browse through old articles of mine and amaze myself. It is now 15 years ago that I published this paper:
Since 1994 chiropractic has been regulated by statute in the UK. Despite this air of respectability, a range of important problems continue to bedevil this profession. Professional organizations of chiropractic and their members make numerous claims which are not supported by sound evidence. Many chiropractors adhere to concepts which fly in the face of science and most seem to regularly violate important principles of ethical behaviour. The advice chiropractors give to their clients is often dangerously misleading. If chiropractic in the UK is to grow into an established health care profession, the General Chiropractic Council and its members should comply with the accepted standards of today’s health care.
This begs the question: HAVE THINGS IMPROVED AT ALL?
- Have professional organizations of chiropractic stopped making claims which are not supported by sound evidence?
- Have their members stopped making claims which are not supported by sound evidence?
- Do chiropractors no longer adhere to concepts which fly in the face of science?
- Have they ceased violating important principles of ethical behaviour?
- Is the advice chiropractors give to their clients no longer dangerously misleading?
Here are my answers to these questions:
- No.
- No.
- No.
- No.
- No.
Yes, there are moments when I surprise myself. And there are also those when I ask whether any of my work has ever had any effect. And then, after some reflection, I discover that my job is not nearly as bad as some others.
This prospective, community-based, active surveillance study aimed to report the incidence of moderate, severe, and serious adverse events (AEs) after chiropractic (n = 100) / physiotherapist (n = 50) visit in offices throughout North America between October-2015 and December-2017.
Three content-validated questionnaires were used to collect AE information: two completed by the patient (pre-treatment [T0] and 2-7 days post-treatment [T2]) and one completed by the provider immediately post-treatment [T1]. Any new or worsened symptom was considered an AE and further classified as mild, moderate, severe or serious.
From the 42 participating providers (31 chiropractors; 11 physiotherapists), 3819 patient visits had complete T0 and T1 assessments. The patients were on average 50±18 years of age and 62.5% females. Neck/back pain was the most common presenting condition (70.0%) with 24.3% of patients reporting no condition/preventative care.
From the patients visits with a complete T2 assessment (n = 2136 patient visits, 55.9%), 21.3% reported an AE, of which:
- 7.9% were mild,
- 6.2% moderate,
- 3.7% severe,
- 1.5% serious,
- 2.0% had missing severity rating.
The most common symptoms reported with moderate or higher severity were:
- discomfort/pain,
- stiffness,
- difficulty walking,
- headache.
The authors concluded that this study provides valuable information for patients and providers regarding incidence and severity of AEs following patient visits in multiple community-based professions. These findings can be used to inform patients of what AEs may occur and future research opportunities can focus on mitigating common AEs.
They also note that:
- The incidence of AEs reported in their study was lower than the 30%-50% reported in a recent scoping review of 250 observational and experimental studies of manual treatments of the spine.
- A similar prospective clinic-based survey collected data from 4712 encounters from Norwegian chiropractors found that 55% of these encounters had an AE.
- A clinical trial of chiropractic care for patients with neck pain found that 30% reported an AE.
- The Scandinavian College of Naprapathic Manual Medicine collected AE information from 767 patients and found that 51% of those who had at least 3 SMT treatments reported an AE.
The authors did not mention our systematic review:
The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence about the risks of spinal manipulation. Articles were located through searching three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), contacting experts (n =9), scanning reference lists of relevant articles, and searching departmental files. Reports in any language containing data relating to risks associated with spinal manipulation were included, irrespective of the profession of the therapist. Where available, systematic reviews were used as the basis of this article. All papers were evaluated independently by the authors. 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.
Whatever the true rate of AEs turns out to be, one thing is very clear: it is unacceptably high, particularly if we consider that the benefits of spinal manipulations are doubtful and at best small.
Yesterday, I was sent this OfS press release and asked to comment:
Approval of proposed new name for AECC University College UKPRN: 10000163
The Office for Students (OfS) has approved the use of the word ‘university’ in the provider’s change of name from ‘AECC University College’ to ‘Health Sciences University’.
The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 amended relevant legislation to give the OfS the power to consent to the use of the word university in a registered higher education provider’s name. In consenting to the inclusion of the word ’university’ in any name, the OfS has regard to the need to avoid names which are, or may be, confusing.1
The OfS has published guidance for registered higher education providers that wish to use either ‘university’ or ‘university college’ title as part of their name. This states that we will consult on a provider’s proposed new name and assess the extent to which the proposed name is, or may be, confusing or misleading.2
AECC University College applied to the OfS for approval to use the word university in its proposed new name ‘Health Sciences University’ in June 2023. We consulted on the provider’s proposed new name and received 98 responses.3 Considering the responses:
• We took the view that the provider’s proposed new name did not appear to be like any other registered English higher education provider’s name because of similarity that could cause potential confusion or be misleading.
• We agreed with some consultation responses which stated that the proposed name could be potentially misleading, for the following reasons:
o Several respondents raised concerns that the proposed name implies a scope of offering that does not match the reality of the provider’s offering.
o Several respondents raised concerns that the proposed name may suggest that the provider is the sole provider of health sciences provision in the region and/or the UK. Respondents stated that the proposed name offers a broader portfolio than the provider has in reality, and therefore the name is anti-competitive, given other providers may offer a broader scope of provision in the relevant disciplines.
• We concluded, however, that issues raised by respondents during the consultation are unlikely to cause any detriment or harm as they could be mitigated by the university’s requirement to comply with its legal obligations under consumer protection law. This means that the university must ensure that students have clear information to enable them to make informed decisions about whether they want to study there. Information would include, for example, what is meant by the term ‘health sciences’ and clear and visible communication regarding the breadth and depth of courses offered.
• Therefore, we decided to approve the proposed new name of ‘Health Sciences University’.
1 See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/part/1/crossheading/powers-in-relation-to-university title/enacted.
2 See ‘Regulatory Advice 13: How to apply for university college or university title’ available at:
www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/regulatory-advice-13-how-to-apply-for-university-college-and university-title/.
3 Available at: www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/proposed-new-name-for-aecc-university-college/.
_________________________________
A few years ago, I was invited to visit the ‘AECC’ and give a lecture to its students. Here is the post I published about this weird experience:
As I said, yesterday, I was asked (by ‘The Times Higher’) to comment on the above press release. Here is the comment I provided; I hope they publish it:
The change from ‘AECC University College’ to ‘Health Sciences University’ is an intriguing construct emphasizing the academic status by using the term ‘university’, while hiding the true content of the institution: AECC stands for ‘Anglo-European College of Chiropractic‘; in other words, the institution is a school of chiropractic, a form of treatment that is as far from science as bungee jumping and has never convincingly demonstrated to generate more good than harm. I wonder what might be next – a ‘Health Science University for Pole Dancing’ perhaps?
Subsequently, the journalist came back to me with two further questions which I answered:
Q1: Do you think it is concerning that the OfS has allowed it to use this title?
A: This title will almost inevitably mislead consumers who might assume that, if they are granted university status, chiropractic must be backed by strong evidence for efficacy and safety.
Q2: What do you worry will be the consequences?
A: Patients who are misled in this way are in danger of wasting their money, of delaying their recovery, or of suffering significant harm.
Since it is a rare occurance these days – I retired more than a decade ago – that I publish something in the peer-reviewed literature, please allow me to make some brief comments of this review just published by Spanish researchers and myself. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of visceral osteopathy (VO) in musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal disorders.
Two independent reviewers searched in PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases in November 2023 and extracted data for randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical effectiveness of VO. The risk of bias and the certainty of evidence were assessed using the Risk-of-Bias tool 2 and the GRADE Profile, respectively. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effect models using RevMan 5.4. software.
Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative and seven in the quantitative synthesis. For musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis suggested that VO produces no statistically significant changes in any outcome variable for patients with low back pain, neck pain or urinary incontinence. For non-musculoskeletal conditions, the qualitative synthesis showed that VO was not effective for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome, breast cancer, and very low weight preterm infants. Most of the studies were classified as high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence downgraded to low or very low.
We concluded that VO did not show any benefit in any musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal condition.
Yes, I agree: these findings are hardly surprising. Visceral osteopathy (or visceral manipulation) is an expansion of the general principles of osteopathy and involves the manual manipulation by a therapist of internal organs, blood vessels and nerves (the viscera) from outside the body. Visceral osteopathy was developed by the osteopath Jean-Piere Barral. He stated that through his clinical work with thousands of patients, he created this modality based on organ-specific fascial mobilization. And through work in a dissection lab, he was able to experiment with visceral manipulation techniques and see the internal effects of the manipulations.[1] According to its proponents, visceral manipulation is based on the specific placement of soft manual forces looking to encourage the normal mobility, tone and motion of the viscera and their connective tissues. These gentle manipulations may potentially improve the functioning of individual organs, the systems the organs function within, and the structural integrity of the entire body.[2]
Visceral osteopathy is being practised mostly by osteopaths and less commonly chiropractors and physiotherapists. It comprises of several different manual techniques firstly for diagnosing a health problem and secondly for treating it. Several studies have assessed the diagnostic reliability of the techniques involved. The totality of this evidence fails to show that they are sufficiently reliable to be od practical use.[3] Other studies have tested whether the therapeutic techniques used in visceral osteopathy are effective in curing disease or alleviating symptoms. The totality of this evidence fails to show that visceral osteopathy works for any condition.[4] The treatment itself seems to be safe, yet the risks of visceral osteopathy are nevertheless considerable: if a patient suffers from symptoms related to her inner organs, the therapist is likely to misdiagnose them and subsequently mistreat them. If the symptoms are due to a serious disease, this would amount to medical neglect and could, in extreme cases, cost the patient’s life.
[all references in brackets [] can be found in my recent book]While the results of our review might be unsurprising, one thing about it did, after all, surprise me a great deal: the journal that published it, the ‘INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE‘. I even lost a bet for a bottle of wine with the lead author, because I said they would never accept it for publication!
To accuse anyone of an abuse of science is a hefty charge, I know. In the case of proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) doing science, it is, however, often justified. Let me explain this by using the example of chiropractors (I could have chosen homeopathy, faith heaalers, acupuncturists or almost any other type of SCAM professional, but in recent times it was the chiros who provided the clearest examples of abuse).
Science can be seen as a set of tools that is used to estabish the truth. In therapeutics, science is employed foremost to answer three questions:
- Is the therapy plausible?
- Is the therapy effective?
- Is the therapy safe?
The way to answer them is to falsify the underlying hypotheses, i.e. to demonstrate that:
- The therapy is not plausible.
- The therapy is not effective.
- The therapy is not safe.
Only if rigorous attempts at falsifying these hypotheses have falied can we conclude that:
- The therapy is plausible.
- The therapy is effective.
- The therapy is safe.
I know, this is rather elementary stuff. It is taught during the first lessons of any decent science course. Yet, proponents of SCAM are either not being properly taught or they are immune to even the most basic facts about science. On this blog, we regularly have the opportunity to observe exactly that when we read and are bewildered by the comments made by SCAM proponents. This is often clearest in the case of chiropractors.
- They cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that their hallmark intervention, spinal manipulation, is plausible.
- They cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that their hallmark intervention, spinal manipulation, is effective.
- They cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that their hallmark intervention, spinal manipulation, is safe.
If they conduct research, they set up their investigations in such a way that they confirm their beliefs:
- Spinal manipulations are plausible.
- Spinal manipulations are effective.
- Spinal manipulations are safe.
In other words, they do not try to falsify hypotheses, but they do their very best to confirm them. And this, I am afraid, is nothing other than an abuse of science.
QED
And how can the average consumer (who may not always be in a position to realize whether a study is reliable or not) tell when such abuse of science is occurring? How can he or she decide who to trust and who not?
A simplest but sadly not fool-proof advice might consist in 2 main points:
- Never rely on a single study.
- Check whether there is a discrepancy in the results and views of SCAM proponents and independent experts; e.g.:
- Chiropractors claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced.
- Homeopath claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced.
- Acupuncturists claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced.
- Energy healers claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced.
- Naturopaths claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced.
- Etc., etc.
In all of those cases, your alarm bells should ring and it might be wise to be cautious and avoid the treatment in question.
