spinal manipulation
Spinal manipulative therapies, including chiropractic and osteopathic maneuvers, are widely practiced for musculoskeletal complaints. However, serious complications such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak with subsequent intracranial hypotension (IH) have been described. The pathophysiological mechanism is presumed to involve mechanical stress on the spinal dura during high-velocity movements, leading to dural tears, particularly in the cervicothoracic region.
A team of Italian neuroscientists conducted a scoping review in accordance with the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, through a comprehensive search of PubMed and Scopus. They complemented the review with an illustrative case from their own institution.
The researchers identified 21 eligible papers, including 21 patients with IH following spinal manipulation. Most patients were women (81%), aged 29-54 years, and the majority underwent cervical maneuvers.
SMT techniques vary, most often involving high-velocity cervical maneuvers. The most frequent were axial tension with rotation in seven cases (33.3%), unspecified cervical manipulation in four cases (19%), and thoracic spinal manipulation in two cases (9.5%). Less common single-case techniques included rotation with hyperextension, combined cervical and thoracic mobilization, axial tension with lateral flexion, and occipital/shoulder tension technique (n = 1 case each).
Symptom onset was typically within the first week, and all presented with orthostatic headache, often accompanied by nausea, neck pain, tinnitus, or visual disturbances. Neuroimaging consistently revealed features of IH, with pachymeningeal enhancement and subdural collections as the most frequent findings; spinal imaging frequently demonstrated extradural CSF collections. Management was conservative in about one-third of cases, but most required epidural blood patching, which was effective in the majority. Surgical repair was necessary in rare, refractory cases, particularly in the presence of structural spinal abnormalities. Overall prognosis was favorable, with 95% of patients achieving full recovery.
The authors’ illustrative case highlights the potential for severe complications such as subdural hematomas and recurrence if the underlying leak is not addressed:
A 65-year-old patient without a previous history of headache presented with a progressively worsening headache, with orthostatic features, poorly responsive to medical therapy, that has lasted for the past 20 days. The patient denied any recent trauma. He reported having undergone cervical osteopathic manipulations within the past 3 months for recurrent cervicalgia. A brain MRI without contrast was performed, showing a large bilateral subdural hematoma with significant mass effect on the cortical gyri. The patient was admitted to the emergency department and underwent neurosurgical evacuation of a bilateral chronic subdural hematoma via burr holes. Subsequently, endovascular embolization of the middle meningeal arteries was performed as an adjunctive treatment to reduce the risk of recurrence. The surgical procedure was performed without complications. A cranial CT scan showed a reduction in the volume of the hematoma. Therefore, the patient was discharged. However, after a transient improvement in the symptoms, the patient continued to present a fluctuating headache without positional features, with four to five episodes per month. He was readmitted to our clinic and, upon arrival at the ER, a head CT scan showed an increase in pneumocephalus and a recurrence of the hematoma. The following day, an MRI of the neuraxis with contrast was performed, which revealed radiological findings suggestive of IH: pachimeningeal enhancement, subdural fluid collection, dural venous engorgement, cervical spinal longitudinal extradural collection, and effacement of the suprasellar cistern. The Bern score was 7. Given these findings, a surgical revision of the previous burr holes was performed without periprocedural complications. After the first day, a non-targeted epidural blood patch (EBP) was performed under local anesthesia by injecting 16 mL of autologous blood into the L3–L4 epidural space. The procedure was uneventful. A cranial CT scan showed satisfactory surgical outcomes, highlighting a reduction in the volume of the hematoma and of the pneumoencephalus. The patient was subsequently discharged with complete resolution of the headache.
The authors concluded that clinicians should recognize the possibility of CSF leaks after spinal manipulation, especially in patients with new-onset orthostatic headache.
I feel compelled to point out that, considering the multiple risks of upper spinal manipulations and the almost total lack of evidence of benefit from such treatments, the risk/benefit balance of spinal manipulation is clearly not positive. It follows, I think, that it would be wise for patients not to allow such therapies being carried out, and for healthcare professionals to discourage them.
Pediatric vertebral artery dissection (VAD) following chiropractic cervical manipulation (CCM) is a rare phenomenon. As chiropractic care of pediatric populations increases internationally, it is imperative to increase awareness of this cause of VAD.
This case-report describes a patient encountered in the Department of Neurological Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, USA. He was a 20-month-old male who presented nonspecifically with acute onset of
- lethargy,
- vomiting,
- cyanosis,
- respiratory distress.
Cerebrovascular imaging revealed a luminal irregularity in the V4 segment of the right vertebral artery, consistent with dissection. The patient’s guardian later provided history of taking the child for cervical chiropractic corrections immediately prior to the patient’s presentation to the emergency department.
The patient was managed non-operatively. Intubation was performed due to respiratory distress and managed with fluids, vasopressors, antimicrobials, and high-flow oxygen. The patient was extubated four days after presentation, and pressors were discontinued upon achievement of hemodynamic stability. A few days after extubation, the patient was ambulating and able to interact with objects and caretakers. Aspirin therapy was initiated and continued after discharge. The patient was followed with annual appointments and imaging. At two-year follow-up, CTA demonstrated an asymmetrically small right vertebral artery, accompanied by encephalomalacia of the right posterior occipital lobe. MRA demonstrated diffuse narrowing of the V4 segment of the right vertebral artery, albeit less pronounced than prior MRAs. Aspirin was discontinued by an outside following team due to stability of imaging findings. The parents were advised to avoid contact sports to avoid trauma and recurrent stroke.
The authors found 2 further cases of pediatric VAD in the published literature following CCM. Non-specific presentations were noted in both of them. Appropriate diagnosis of pediatric VAD requires increased surveillance in response to a thorough history and an acknowledgment of the plethora of possible patient presentations and etiologies.
The authors concluded that there is an increasing utilization of chiropractors among the pediatric population. In a pediatric patient with nonspecific symptoms, VAD should be considered as a differential diagnosis when there is a history of CCM.
The authors’ statement that “pediatric vertebral artery dissection (VAD) following chiropractic cervical manipulation (CCM) is a rare phenomenon” should be taken with a pinch of salt. As there is no monitoring, the frequency of adverse effects and complications is essentially unknown. Crucially. the risks of CCM for children is by no means confined to VADs. For a fuller account, I recomment reading my book which has an entire chapter on this very subject.
The key messages about CCM for kids might be summarised in the following simple three facts:
- CCM has no true benefit for children.
- Thus the risk/benefit balance fails to be positive.
- Therefore we should discourage partents from taking their kids to see chiropractors.
The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and clinician-supported biopsychosocial self-management vs medical care for adults with increased risk of chronic disabling LBP.
This 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial enrolled participants in 3 research clinics at the Universities of Minnesota and Pittsburgh from November 2018 to May 2023; final follow-up was in June 2024. Adults with acute or subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back tool were randomized to 1 of 4 groups, with interventions lasting up to 8 weeks. Statistical analysis was conducted from November 2024 to June 2025.
These interventions were:
- Spinal manipulation therapy (n = 201),
- supported self-management (n = 305),
- combined supported self-management with spinal manipulation (n = 193),
- guideline-based medical care (n = 301).
Physical therapists and chiropractors provided spinal manipulation and supported self-management.
The 2 primary outcomes averaged over a follow-up of 1 year were monthly low back disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) and weekly pain intensity (numerical rating scale). Secondary analysis examined the proportion of participants achieving a 50% or higher reduction in the primary outcome measures.
Among the 1000 participants randomized (mean [SD] age, 47 [16] years; 58% female), 93% completed the trial. The omnibus test for differences across the 4 treatment groups was statistically significant for disability (P = .001; supported self-management, 4.7; spinal manipulation, 5.5; combined supported self-management with spinal manipulation, 4.8; medical care, 5.9) but not pain intensity (P = .16; supported self-management, 2.8; spinal manipulation, 3.0; combined supported self-management with spinal manipulation, 2.8; medical care, 3.0). Averaged over 12 months, LBP disability was significantly lower compared with medical care for supported self-management (mean difference, −1.2 [95% CI, −1.9 to −0.5]) and supported self-management with spinal manipulation (mean difference, −1.1 [95% CI, −1.9 to −0.3]) but not spinal manipulation alone (mean difference, −0.4 [95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4]). Group differences in pain intensity were not statistically significant; point estimates ranged from −0.2 to 0. Both supported self-management groups had higher proportions of patients achieving a 50% or greater reduction in disability (supported self-management, 67%; spinal manipulation, 54%; combined supported self-management with spinal manipulation, 65%; medical care, 54%).
The authors concluded that for patients with acute or subacute LBP at increased risk of chronic disabling LBP, clinician-supported biopsychosocial self-management showed statistically significant but small reductions in disability, but not pain, vs medical care over 1-year follow-up, and spinal manipulation alone showed no significant difference for either outcome.
These findings are very bad news for chiropractors (the profession that uses spinal manipulations more than any other): spinal manipulation does not generate effects that are in the least convincing. This is particularly remarkable, since the study was not blinded. It means that, even the undoubtedly powerful placebo effect associated with spinal manipulation did not render the outcome more favourable.
I said it many times, and I will say it again: For LBP, many therapies generate similarly marginally positive effects but no treatment is truly convincing. In this situation, we should choose one that is at least inexpensive and free of severe adverse effects. And that evidently cannot be spinal manipulation!
Von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder and predisposes patients to hemorrhagic complications following trauma or invasive procedures. Chiropractic spinal manipulation is widely used for musculoskeletal pain; however, serious complications have been reported, particularly in patients with underlying coagulopathies.
Iliopsoas hematoma with secondary femoral neuropathy is an uncommon but potentially disabling condition. A team of US doctors present a clinical case highlighting this rare complication following chiropractic manipulation in a patient with VWD and review the relevant literature. They describe the clinical course and follow-up of a 32-year-old female patient with known VWD who developed acute neurological deficits after chiropractic manipulation. Imaging findings were analyzed using radiographs, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Hematoma volume was calculated using the ABC/2 formula, which has been well validated and shows a high correlation with volumes calculated using planimetric techniques.
After chiropractic manipulation, the patient developed severe lumbar and inguinal pain, followed by progressive weakness and sensory impairment of the left lower limb. Imaging revealed a large left iliopsoas hematoma measuring approximately 896 cc, causing femoral nerve compression. Management included coagulation factor replacement, pain control, and interventional radiology-guided drainage, resulting in significant hematoma reduction and neurological improvement. At the six-month follow-up, residual neuropathy and muscle atrophy persisted, although functional recovery was evident.
The uthors concluded that patients with VWD are at high risk for severe hemorrhagic complications even after seemingly minor manipulative therapies. Chiropractic spinal manipulation may precipitate life-threatening or disabling bleeding events in this population. Early recognition, appropriate imaging, correction of the coagulopathy, and multidisciplinary management are crucial to optimize outcomes. This case highlights the importance of patient counseling, risk stratification, and caution when considering alternative therapies in individuals with inherited bleeding disorders.
The list of complications, including fatal ones, after chiropractic manipulations is long – very long. That they can cause iliopsoas hematoma with secondary femoral neuropathy was new to me. The lesson here seems relatively simple: if you have a bleeding abnormality, avoid chiropractic manipulations at all costs!
This, of course, raises an interesting question:
Considering that ~25% of the general population have some sort of clotting abnormality, do chiropractors routinely check whether their pations have normal blood clotting?
Somehow, I doubt it.
The authors found very low‐certainty evidence (downgraded for study limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision) that SMT may result in a medium reduction in pain compared to no treatment at one month (MD ‐13.99, 95% CI ‐27.33 to ‐0.66; I2 = 89%; 4 studies, 325 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. They found low‐certainty evidence (downgraded for study limitations and imprecision) that SMT may result in a large improvement in functional status compared to no treatment at one month (SMD ‐0.84, 95% CI ‐1.32 to ‐0.35; I2 = 71%; 4 studies, 312 participants).
SMT versus other conservative interventions
Low‐certainty evidence (downgraded for inconsistency) indicated that SMT may result in little to no difference in pain (MD ‐4.72, 95% CI ‐8.26 to ‐1.17; I2 = 89%; 31 studies, 4109 participants) and may result in a small improvement in functional status (SMD ‐0.25, 95% CI ‐0.38 to ‐0.11; I2 = 73%; 28 studies, 3940 participants) compared to other conservative interventions at one month.
These effects, however, should be interpreted with caution due to the substantial statistical heterogeneity for which there is no clear explanation.
Less than half of the studies (47%) reported on adverse events, of which 12 studies reported these systematically. Adverse events in the SMT group were limited to muscle soreness, stiffness, and/or transient increase in pain. None of the studies registered any serious complications related to either the experimental or control group treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the adverse effects of SMT.
Authors’ conclusions: When SMT is compared to sham SMT/placebo, it may result in a small improvement in pain and medium improvement in functional status in adults with chronic low back pain. When compared to no treatment, SMT may result in a medium improvement in pain and a large improvement in functional status. When compared to other conservative interventions, SMT may result in little to no difference in pain and a small improvement in functional status. The evidence is of low to very low certainty, largely due to the fact that the effects of SMT were examined in trials conducted in different settings and populations, with different types of SMT technique, dosage, and frequency of treatment. Continuing to conduct RCTs in the same manner will neither strengthen the evidence nor our confidence in it.
Once again, it has been confirmed that most trials of SMT are, because of their failure to report adverse effects, in violation of ethical standards. But the importance of this excellent review lies elsewhere. Despite 76 published RCTs, there is huge uncertainty about the benefits of SAM. What should we make of this fact?
In my view, it highlights that:
- the studies are often of poor quality;
- the effect of SMT are so small that they are negligibel;
- patients with back pain should look for treatments that are safe and effective;
- the choice can therefore not be SMT.
Reliable reporting and publication practices are essential for trustworthy evidence synthesis and clinical decision-making. This analysis aimed to identify latent classes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) based on trial reporting and publication practices, and to examine whether these classes influenced treatment effects.
Trials were evaluated on whether they met criteria for trial reporting and publication practices across six domains. Latent class analysis was used to identify trial subgroups. Random-effects meta-regression models assessed whether class membership predicted pooled estimates of treatment effects for pain and disability.
The international team included 239 RCTs and identified four classes: Dated (23 %), older trials (mostly pre-2010) with consistently low proportions of criteria met; Non-contributing (30 %), newer trials that inconsistently met the criteria, had small samples, and short follow-ups; SMT-focused (15 %), which reported SMT details and fidelity more consistently but otherwise resembled the Non-contributing class; and Pragmatic (33 %), consisting of larger trials, meeting most criteria, but often underreported SMT-specific and fidelity details. Reporting practices had larger impact on class membership than publication practices. Despite differences class membership was not associated with treatment effect estimates and explained minimal outcome variability (R2 ∼1 %).
The authors concluded that, although trial reporting and publication practices varied substantially across SMT trials, these differences were not associated with differences in treatment effects. The widespread failure to meet key criteria raises concerns about the interpretability and credibility of the SMT evidence base. To strengthen transparency and scientific value, future trials should adhere more rigorously to reporting guidelines.
What does this mean?
The authors state that editors and peer reviewers should more rigorously enforce established reporting standards, including CONSORT (with its Harms extension), TIDieR, and the CIRCLe SMT checklist.
Undoubtedly, this is true.
But what does it mean for patients?
In my view, it is a reminder for all of us to be skeptical about the claims made by chiropractors, osteopaths and other providers of SMT – even if they claim to be based on evidence.
This article explores how the sociological concept of trust, both externally and internally, presents challenges to the legitimacy and credibility of the chiropractic profession. This ethnographic study consisted of systematic observation and interviews of 40 chiropractors in South Carolina from Fall 2016 to Fall 2017. Additionally, interviews were conducted with staff members, patients, and other medical providers, such as physicians, physical therapists, massage therapists, and representatives from the insurance industry, about their understanding and experiences with chiropractic medicine. Phone interviews were also conducted with deans and provosts at seven chiropractic colleges around the country.
In total, over 100 interviews and informal conversations occurred during the course of the project. All identifiers of participants and chiropractic colleges in the study were removed to ensure anonymity. Instead, pseudonyms were created that were known only by the author of the study. Additionally, data from the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation was obtained to document changes in the number of chiropractors who are no longer in practice in the state between 2016 and 2017.
The data from this study suggests that there may be a number of trust issues between the public and chiropractors, between chiropractors and physicians, and among chiropractors themselves. For example, comments and observations from respondent interviews suggests many patients do not fully trust their provider. Additionally, physicians claim the reason for the lack of trust is due to the absence of any meaningful accountability measures to control rogue chiropractors and the wide variance in types of treatment they offer. Among chiropractors themselves, there appears to be an absence of trust, as many providers see their colleagues as competitors and potential threats.
Trust is a key component to the success of any social relationship. Given the inability or unwillingness of the chiropractic profession to hold members accountable for questionable practices, along with the perception that chiropractic treatments may not be effective, the public, patients, and the medical profession will likely continue to view chiropractic medicine with suspicion.
In the paper, the author (Robert Hartmann McNamara, Ph.D. Department of Criminal Justice ) makes several further valuable points:
- The need for autonomy is a critical component to understanding why so many providers are unwilling to allow their profession to be regulated. It also seems apparent that there is no collective conscience, no real sense of solidarity, and there remain questions about the trustworthiness of chiropractors by patients, the public, the medical community and even among chiropractors themselves.
- Chiropractors point to some level of persecution by insurance companies—indicating that others in medicine engage in inappropriate billing and fraud, but that insurance companies target chiropractors because of their limited ability to stand up to them. While there may be some truth to these criticisms, there is also evidence to indicate that the identification of chiropractors for audits may be justified. For example, in a 2016 report by the Office of Inspector General, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the agency responsible for overseeing health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, of all the providers who were cited for fraud, abuse, and errors in Medicare billing, chiropractors were overwhelmingly the largest set of offenders. In fact, the report showed that for 2013, an estimated $359 million in Medicare payments for chiropractic services did not comply with Medicare requirements. Thus, one of the primary reasons for the creation of Medicare accountability teams is because the data indicated that chiropractors are at the center of the problem when it comes to inaccurate and fraudulent billing for treatment.
- The sociological literature points out that the development and enhancement of trust is a crucial component to establishing and sustaining social relationships, and thereby creating a sense of solidarity and morality. To the extent that chiropractors can better foster the development of trust, they will likely earn the respect of their colleagues in medicine and not be seen in a negative light by the public or their patients. This is accomplished, of course, by setting reasonable expectations of what chiropractors can legitimately do and holding the members of the profession accountable in adhering to those standards.
All of this ties in well with many of my previous posts on chiropractic. I might therefore just add this:
What can you expect from a profession that was founded by one of the most infamous snake oil salesmen in US history?
Dysmenorrhoea refers to the occurrence of painful menstrual cramps of uterine origin and is a common gynaecological condition. The efficacy of medical treatments such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) or oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) is considerable. However the failure rate can still be as high as 20-25% and there are also a number of associated adverse effects. Many women are thus seeking alternatives to conventional medicine. One popular treatment modality is spinal manipulation.
The objectives of this Cochrane review were to determine the safety and efficacy of spinal manipulations for the treatment of primary or secondary dysmenorrhoea when compared to:
- each other,
- placebo,
- no treatment,
- or other medical treatments.
Electronic searches of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group specialised register of controlled trials, CCTR, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Bio extracts, Psyclit and SPORTDiscus were performed to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field’s Register of controlled trials (CISCOM) was also searched. Attempts were also made to identify trials from the National Research Register, the Clinical Trial Register and the citation lists of review articles and included trials. In most cases, the first or corresponding author of each included trial was contacted for additional information.
Included were any RCTs including spinal manipulative interventions (e.g. chiropractic, osteopathy or manipulative physiotherapy) vs each other, placebo, no treatment, or other medical treatment were considered. Exclusion criteria were: mild or infrequent dysmenorrhoea or dysmenorrhoea from an IUD.
Five RCTs were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. Four trials involving high velocity, low amplitude manipulation (HVLA), and one involving the Toftness manipulation technique were included. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Meta analysis was performed using odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes. Data unsuitable for meta-analysis were reported as descriptive data and were also included for discussion. The outcome measures were pain relief or pain intensity (dichotomous, visual analogue scales, descriptive) and adverse effects.
Results from the four trials of high velocity, low amplitude manipulation suggest that the technique was no more effective than sham manipulation for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea, although it was possibly more effective than no treatment. Three of the smaller trials indicated a difference in favour of HVLA, however, the only trial with an adequate sample size found no difference between HVLA and sham treatment. There was no difference in adverse effects experienced by participants in the HVLA or sham treatment. The Toftness technique was shown to be more effective than sham treatment by one small trial, but no strong conclusions could be made due to the small size of the trial and other methodological considerations.
The authors concluded that overall there is no evidence to suggest that spinal manipulation is effective in the treatment of primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea. There is no greater risk of adverse effects with spinal manipulation than there is with sham manipulation.
Probably the first question that springs in one’s mind is, WHY ON EARTH COULD SPINAL MANIPULATIONS BE EFFECTIVE FOR THIS CONDITION? Unsurprisingly, the proponents of this approach have come up with several rationales:
- The parasympathetic and sympathetic pelvic nerve pathways are closely associated with the spinal vertebrae, in particular the 2nd-4th sacral segments and the 10th thoracic to the 2nd lumbar segments. One hypothesis is that mechanical dysfunction in these vertebrae causes decreased spinal mobility. This could affect the sympathetic nerve supply to the blood vessels supplying the pelvic viscera, leading to dysmenorrhoea as a result of vasoconstriction. Manipulation of these vertebrae increases spinal mobility and may improve pelvic blood supply through an influence on the autonomic nerve supply to the blood vessels.
- Another hypothesis is that dysmenorrhoea is referred pain arising from musculoskeletal structures that share the same pelvic nerve pathways. The character of pain from musculoskeletal dysfunction can be very similar to gynecological pain and can present as cyclic pain as it can also be altered by hormonal influences associated with menstruation.
I think we can all agree that these theories are very long shots! As it stands, we also do not need to shoot long at all. There is simply no good evidence that spinal manipulations work for dysmenorrhoea. There is thus no need to embark on implausible explanations to justify the notions of Palmer and Still claiming that spinal manipulation is a panacea. The idiocy of this claim has long been established.
The only question that does remain, in my view, is this:
WHEN WILL CHIROPRACTORS AND OSTEOPATHS FINALLY GIVE UP THEIR OUTLANDISHLY WISHFUL THINKING OF THEIR FOUNDING FATHERS?
The connections between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), his “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) cult, and the US chiropractic profession are complex and worrying.
Chiropractors’ support for RFK Jr.
The shady love affair had started long before RFK Jr. decided to join Trump. While Kennedy conducted his anti-vaccine campaign before running for president, chiropractors were hefty donors to his actions. In 2019, for instance, they donated nearly half a million dollars to the cause — about a sixth of the organization’s revenue that year. When Kennedy created the MAHA Alliance super PAC for his presidential candidacy, more than half of its initial donors were chiropractors. And when Kennedy’s nomination to lead HHS was questioned, a raft of chiropractors signed a letter of support for him.
RFK Jr.’s advocacy for so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
After his appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), RFK Jr. has proven to be a vocal proponent of SCAM, particularly chiropractic. He has publicly supported chiropractic, for inctance, when speaking at chiropractic colleges and forums. His expressed his belief that chiropractic is a “necessary part of modern healthcare” and that chiropractors treat the “root causes” of disease, while conventional medicine is just masking symptoms. Major professional chiro-organizations, such as the “International Chiropractors Association” (ICA) and the “Georgia Council of Chiropractic” (GCC), have therefore applauded Kennedy’s appointment to HHS, viewing it as a “pivotal moment” for the advancement of chiropractic care and its integration into federal health programs. They anticipate his leadership will lead to expanded insurance reimbursement and greater acceptance by MAHA followers. “People that graduated with me in 2017, probably out of 100 people … around 70 or 80 of them were Kennedy freaks,” says Gabe Padilla, who once studied and worked as a chiropractor but has since left the field. “And I’m talking about, wow, they lived and breathed this man. They would drink his bath water if they could.”
The MAHA Initiative and Holistic Integration
The MAHA cult allegedly aims to tackle the chronic disease epidemic through a strategy that includes a focus on SCAM. It claims that factors like poor diet, environmental chemicals, over-medicalization and even vaccinations are major drivers of chronic illness. This over-emphasis on external and lifestyle factors, and a rejection of conventional medicine and science resonates with the “philosophy” espoused in the chiropractic, SCAM “wellness” spheres. The MAHA framework thus includes the goal of incorporating SCAM, opening the door for increased governmental support for chiropractic. There even is a chiropractic liaison for MAHA now, whose job is to keep chiropractic organizations connected to the larger movement.
Chiropractors are delighted, of course, advocating the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid coverage beyond spinal adjustments. In DD Palmer’s tradition, chiropractors advocate their quackery as a panacea. RFK Jr. and MAHA have developed strong ties to a dubious coalition of wellness influencers, holistic and functional medicine advocates, and anti-vaxers. This alliance favours SCAM and questions the scientific and medical establishment—a sentiment that creates a fertile environment for chiropractic. Spending on wellness in general has hit more than $500 billion in the United States and is projected to continue growing. Meanwhile, the employment of chiropractors is forecasted to rise 10 percent over the next decade, at a higher rate than the average for all occupations.
Conclusion
The connection between RFK Jr./MAHA and chiropractic is a relationship of mutual support and ideological alignment. The chiropractic profession sees Kennedy’s leadership as a political opportunity to achieve greater recognition and financial integration, while Kennedy’s MAHA framework provides an official platform for promoting chiropractic quackery.
Spinal epidural hematoma is a rare but potentially devastating condition that can result in permanent neurologic deficits if not diagnosed promptly. This case report presents a 48-year-old female patient with a medical history of systemic lupus erythematosus, renal transplantation, and hypertension who developed spinal epidural hematoma (SEH) after chiropractic manipulation, leading to acute quadriplegia. She came to the emergency department with progressively worsening midline back pain that had started 2 days earlier. The patient reported undergoing chiropractic manipulation at a private clinic for neck pain, after which she developed back pain that gradually worsened. The cause of the patients problems turned out to be a spinal epidural hematoma.
The objective of this report is to highlight the potential for spinal epidural hematoma development in patients with comorbidities or underlying risk factors, such as systemic autoimmune disease, hypertension, or organ transplantation, after chiropractic manipulation and to emphasize the importance of early recognition to prevent serious neurologic sequelae.
The authors concluded that SEH is a rare but serious condition that must be considered as a potential complication of chiropractic manipulation, particularly in patients with comorbidities that increase bleeding risk.
Such cases are rare, we hope (as there is no monitoring, we cannot be sure), but not unheard of. Similar cases have been described before, e.g.:
Spinal epidural hematoma (SEH) occurring after chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy (CSMT) is a rare clinical phenomenon. Our case is unique because the patient had an undiagnosed cervical spinal arteriovenous malformation (AVM) discovered on pathological analysis of the evacuated hematoma. Although the spinal manipulation likely contributed to the rupture of the AVM, there was no radiographic evidence of the use of excessive force, which was seen in another reported case. As such, patients with a known AVM who have not undergone surgical intervention should be cautioned against symptomatic treatment with CSMT, even if performed properly. Regardless of etiology, SEH is a surgical emergency and its favorable neurological recovery correlates inversely with time to surgical evacuation.
Spinal epidural hematoma is a rare but potentially devastating complication of spinal manipulation therapy. This is a case report of a healthy pregnant female who presented to the emergency department with a cervical epidural hematoma resulting from chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy that responded to conservative treatment rather than the more common route of surgical management.
Objective: We report on the case of a patient with spinal epidural hematoma (SEH) after spinal manipulative therapy and review features of reported cases of a similar nature. Clinical features: The patient was undergoing Coumadin anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation and presented to the chiropractor complaining of a stiff neck. After cervical manipulation, he developed paresthesia in both feet, progressing to motor deficits in all 4 extremities. He required a laminectomy and evacuation of a clot indenting the spinal cord. Results: Review of the literature revealed 7 reported cases of SEH after manipulation; 5 patients underwent cervical manipulation and 1 patient received Coumadin therapy. Conclusion: Practitioners of spinal manipulative therapy should be aware of SEH as a possible complication of manipulation in patients at risk and should exercise caution in the care of patients undergoing anticoagulant therapy.
Introduction: Spinal epidural hematoma is a rare complication after chiropractic manipulation. In the literature, only three cases have been reported, which all necessitated surgical treatment. Case report: A 27-year-old woman was treated with cervical chiropractic manipulation (C5/6) and facet joint infiltration. 10 minutes later the patient presented signs of intracranial pressure with nausea, vertigo, headache and vomiting. The magnetic resonance imaging of the spine demonstrated an epidural hematoma extending from the cervical to the sacral spine. As the patient had no sensible or motor deficits and recovered quickly, surgical treatment was not necessary. A few days later the patient had a complete persisting remission of symptoms. Conclusion: If neurological deficits occur after chiropractic manipulation, a spinal epidural hematoma should be considered to provide adequate therapy without delay. The current case report shows an unusual expansion of the hematoma which has not described so far after chiropractic manipulation. But, in contrast to the three cases reported before, a surgical intervention was not necessary.
Conclusion?
Well, I suppose you know mine: As chiropractic spinal manipulations are of uncertain (to put it mildly!) effectiveness, even rare but serious risks weigh heavily and make the risk/benefit balance tilt into the negative. In practical terms, this obviously means this: avoid chiros where you can!
