…and this is a 
(Note: this is the infamous article on chiropractic that got Simon Singh sued. It is being reposted all over the web today by multiple blogs and online magazines.)
Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results - and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.
You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that "99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae". In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.
In fact, Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.
You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying - even though there is not a jot of evidence.
I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.
But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.
In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.
More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.
Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.
Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: "Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck."
This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.
If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.
Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: Kirk | July 29, 2009 2:28 PM
Here's hoping that this case and others finally bring about badly needed freedom of speech reforms in Britain. The ability to criticize, argue and debate is too valuable to allow it to be suppressed because of the threat of a costly lawsuit.
Posted by: Ranson | July 29, 2009 2:28 PM
Why didn't you post the unedited, like Orac?
Posted by: Jeff Bell | July 29, 2009 2:30 PM
I thought that the sticking point was the word "bogus", and it's not there now.
Does anyone know which paragraph it was in?
Posted by: Casey | July 29, 2009 2:31 PM
I agree with Ranson. What's the point in posting the censored version of the article?
Posted by: B.T. Murtagh | July 29, 2009 2:32 PM
As I drive around the Charleston area of South Carolina, I'm frequently struck by the sheer profusion of chiropractic practices. They seem to be only slightly behind the churches in number.
Posted by: Piesquared | July 29, 2009 2:35 PM
Edited version? What was edited? Just language for profanity or England/America?
Posted by: A Recovering Catholic | July 29, 2009 2:41 PM
A friend of mine, has a girlfriend, who whiling seeing a chiropractor, suffered a stroke while having her neck manipulated. This girl was in her early 30's.
I wouldn't go anywhere near a chiropractor.
Posted by: Tristanm | July 29, 2009 2:47 PM
I must echo others here. What is the point of posting the edited version? Shouldn't you be posting the unedited version to make the point?
Posted by: Yanker
|
July 29, 2009 2:50 PM
I'm sorry but anecdotal stories are not evidence. I have a friend who has a friend who... is no basis for decision-making.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 29, 2009 2:57 PM
Pop on over to Orac's blog to see the uncensored version. (No knock on PZ -- I wouldn't want to get sued either!) The offending statements are so non-controversial, it's really stunning the libel suit went through.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 29, 2009 2:58 PM
Glad I saw this. I've tended to give chiropractic some benefit of the doubt, along the lines of "Leaving aside all the kooky associated ideas, it does do some good for some back problems, so to that extent . . . ." and so on. If the harms outweigh those limited benefits to the extent that Singh argues, you shouldn't put your spine within a hundred yards of a chiropractor.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 29, 2009 2:59 PM
@Piesquared and anybody else missing the backstory: Singh got the pants sued off of him by the BCA because he said their claims were "bogus", and through a combination of overly plaintiff-friendly British libel law and a judge who has an archaic and context-insensitive of "bogus", the lawsuit was successful. It is being appealed now.
The version PZ has posted here is just missing the three-or-so sentences that sparked the lawsuit. You can still find them at Orac's blog.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 29, 2009 3:03 PM
@Aaron Baker: FWIW, Singh represents one extreme of the opinions on chiropracty. Other skeptics still feel that seeking treatment only for back pain issues from a reputable chiropractor may still have a positive risk-benefit payoff for many people.
I have no personal opinion on the matter, except to say that the one chiropractor I had extensive interactions with was dangerously full of shit. But that's a sample size of one, so it doesn't really say anything.
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | July 29, 2009 3:04 PM
A friend of mine went for years to his quackropractor for a weekly adjustment. Now his orthopedic surgeon says that he has the sort of back injuries that you would expect to see in a survivor of an airplane crash. Anecdotal, I know, but still.
Posted by: Fred Bortz | July 29, 2009 3:16 PM
Click my name for my review of Trick or Treatment.
A comparative review of that book and Anticancer: A New Way of Life by David Servan-Schreiber was published in a couple of major newspapers and is now online at
http://www.scienceshelf.com/Anticancer.htm
Posted by: dave
|
July 29, 2009 3:17 PM
i'm sure there're *real* chiropractors who went to school and everything and knows how to do things properly, but there are so many quack chiropractors out there ripping people off, how do the average people who choose to not go to a physician pick the right chiropractors? as far as i'm concerned, there is absolutely no reason to see a chiropractor for anything anytime. might as well go see a psychic
Posted by: JD | July 29, 2009 3:25 PM
I was duped by the whole subluxation sensation a few years ago when I was in the middle of orthognathic hell. It did nothing more than placebo, but was claimed to be the cure all after an unsuccessful osteotomy in 1994. I wasted money and even recommended the clinic for a number of years until I turned on my skeptical cap.
Like religion, I think a number of people who have seen chiropractors for years would hate to admit they've been duped. All that time and money invested only reinforces the placebo effect and acts as positive testimony by proxy.
I even wrote a tune called Cranial Cervical Subluxation. Never again.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | July 29, 2009 3:30 PM
Simon Singh is the author of "Fermat's Enigma", The epic quest to solve the world's greatest mathematical problem; with forward by John Lynch.
One of my favorite books in all the world, which I just re-read last week. Perfect for summer, or anytime.
Congratulatory limerick for Andrew Wiles
by E. Howe, H. Lenstra. D. Moulton
Page 283
Posted by: IST | July 29, 2009 3:39 PM
meh... plenty of otherwise rational people end up duped by scam alt med practices... and anecdotes as evidence is what seems to catch them. It's more difficult to be rational about something when it claims to reduce the amount of pain you're in.
@#16> the quacks are educated too, often in the same places as the "real" chiros... the difference is that the quacks think they can fix ailments that are unrelated to the spine, and the "real" ones stick to the spine, with what look to be similar rates of success. You can check here for starters, if you'd like. The references are likely to be better sources than the general article.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 29, 2009 3:49 PM
I've told this story before, I'll tell it again.
Years ago I went to a chiropractor on the advice of my sister and her husband (who died last December because he chose reiki and crystals and shit over traditional (real) cancer treatment.)
As I sat in the room waiting for the "doctor," I was playing with the various things on the shelf. There was a metal bar with some wires and a battery box with a button on it. As I was examining it the "doctor" came into the room.
He proudly explained what it was. He said that he had a man make them for him, said that it prevents colds. He explained that if you hold the metal bar and push the button, it kills all the cold viruses "and their eggs."
And their eggs.
I will never forget that, Dr. Bova. Thanks for the education.
Posted by: Sis | July 29, 2009 3:56 PM
I have a rueful smirk here, as one who has had a few chiropractic treatments, and a lot of regular doctoring for my back problems, over a period of about 55 years. I'm not defending chiropractic, and once I found physiotherapy, I stopped using chiros, as little as I had.
But full blown, lifelong harm was caused me and thousands upon thousands of others, by orthopedic surgeons. I have never met a person who told me their back surgery improved their problem permanently. And have been told almost universally they were made worse, ultimately, as was I by the interventions of regular medicine and surgery.
I can attest that the little real help I've received came first from a chiropractor, who I saw maybe six times, and who spent most of our sessions doing the same things a physio later did when I began seeing them, after the chiro stopped her practise when her husband was murdered. She kind of stopped a lot of things then.
I've had manipulations done by a physio and done by a chiro. They are the same, but I wouldn't let any physio do them, and never again, a chiro. Physios are trained at medical schools, and mine is on the faculty, and yes, teachers manipulations. There is a place for them.
So I know your post was about law suits. There are class action suits against orthos for the device I wear, and then consider all the other ortho class actions, and what's going on with a handful of chiro suits pales.
Posted by: Tony Lloyd | July 29, 2009 3:57 PM
PZ et al., you can get the offending passage at http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/07/beware-spinal-trap.html from Jack of Kent. Jack is a strange phenomenon, a lawyer who seems to be a decent chap (well, half decent..he is a lawyer!). He has been posting extensively on the case, explaining the ins and outs of the law to the lay man.
Posted by: Tony Lloyd | July 29, 2009 4:16 PM
To those who are saying "well Chiropractic helped my back and, anyway, Orthopedics is rubbish" may I quote the article:
But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. (i.e. just what you're saying)
The article is not about Chiropractic per se but about a "professional" body recommending Chiropractic for bed wetting, asthma, ear disease, colic...a whole host of problems in children which appear to be totally unrelated to the spine. Saying "but it helped my back" is like claiming that NASA are right to claim they can brew good beer because it can be shown that they are excellent engineers and, anyway, Richard Dawkins' homebrew was a disaster.
Posted by: Jack
|
July 29, 2009 4:22 PM
I've said it before, I'll say it again: I wrenched my back badly when I was 25 (I'm 50 now). So badly I literally couldn't straighten up or walk without screaming agony. The only thing that fixed me up was chiropractic manipulation. After one session I could walk almost normally, although still with some pain. After three sessions I was fully mobile and pain free.
The chiropractor I saw was not one of these airy-fairy bullshitters who tried to claim that back-cracking could fix everything from a slipped disc to cancer (although I've met a few of those since and yes, they're loonies). He asked me first to try to bend and move in different directions. He watched how I moved, and how I reacted. Then he gently put his finger right on the root of all my pain and said "That's where the problem is". That was the first time he'd touched me.
He explained to me precisely what my problem was, where it was, and how the manipulation he was going to do would help. Then - after that - he took X-rays and showed me where I'd messed up the alignment of a vertebra. It was visible, and it was right where he'd pointed before taking the X-rays.
I am no doctor, and my knowledge of anatomy is not comparable with that of a doctor. But what he said, and did, made some sort of rational sense to me. There was no magic; no talk of "subluxations" or any similarly woo bollocks. He simply said, "You've strained that vertebra and the disc beneath it, so if I move your spine this way it will relieve the pressure. And it did.
Whenever this problem has recurred (and it's never recurred as badly as that first occasion) I have tried regular doctors and osteopaths. I have tried rest. And nothing relieves it as quickly and totally as seeing this chiropractor.
Placebo? Maybe you can buy that. I know the placebo effect is real. But I do wonder how anyone who has truly put their back out and known just how incapacitating and painful that is can so casually write this off as being entirely down to the placebo effect. I know I can't.
I'm a thoroughgoing skeptic and a militant atheist. I am damned sure there's nothing mystical going on here. The guy is doing something to my back that relieves and fixes severe pain and immobility. That, I'm sure of. I just don't know what the precise mechanism is. Maybe he doesn't either. But it's real, and it works, and I will keep using my chiropractor.
But yeah... all that other bollocks some of 'em claim seems like pure moonshine and arrogant wishful thinking. They're back-crackers. Some of 'em do it effectively. Period. It's absurd that Singh's article is under attack.
Posted by: Aron | July 29, 2009 4:22 PM
I simply must say, as a proud skeptic, I almost always agree with just about everything you say. However, I do take issue with what is being written here.
I suffer from chronic mild back pain. I've been to physical therapists, and while there were positive results, they were very mild at best. However, upon going to see a chiropractor, I began to see major improvements in my back. I won't say it was perfect: far from it. I still experience pain now, and I've been meaning to return to the practice. There were other things in the office which bothered me, specifically pamphlets touting chiropractic as a healer of disease. It made me just as dumbfounded as Jafafa above me.
I do not recommend or even condone seeing a chiropractor or other practitioner of "complementary" medicine for anything other than back pain, and only mild back pain at that. I'm merely pointing out that there is a purpose to their existence: that they choose to go beyond is simply disgusting to me.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 29, 2009 4:23 PM
Dude.
Dawkins Beer.
This could be even bigger than Billy Beer. This must happen.
Hopefully it will be an aggressively-hopped IPA -- you know, because us atheists are so "bitter". Thanks, I'll be here all week!
Posted by: James Sweet | July 29, 2009 4:28 PM
@Jack and Aron: I think Singh's article is consistent with your respective experiences. He acknowledges that there is some evidence chiropracty is useful for back pain. I think the only place you would disagree with him is that he finds the risk-benefit to be unacceptable.
I suppose the trick is, how does a layperson tell a reputable chiropractor from a quack? It would be nice if there was some kind of national chiropractor association that certified only the reputable ones... which is exactly why we should all be utterly incensed at the BCA.
Posted by: DominEditrix | July 29, 2009 4:31 PM
My chiropractor was really more of a physical therapist. He personally thought that "chiropractic can cure anything" was incredible bullshit, and thought that new-agey practices were only good for a placebo effect and usually not even that. He found diagnosis-by-crystal particularly angry-making. He was the first person to notice that I suffered from lower lumbar scoliosis and to determine the cause - damage from a knee injury - something that three knee surgeons had missed.
There are evidently several sorts of school under the chiropractic banner [BTW, that word irritates me no end - the "ic" ending makes it a freaking adjective, not a noun.] Some foster the cure-all delusion, some merely breed oddly-named PTs.
Posted by: Alex R. | July 29, 2009 4:32 PM
My father has serious spinal problems (I think it's called black disc) from a work incident years ago. The one time he ever tried going to a chiropractor for it he was in the emergency room the next day.
Posted by: Jack
|
July 29, 2009 4:33 PM
James - I know Singh acknowledges that there is evidence that chiropractic can help back pain and I have seen the evidence that gives that some support. I would love to see a really widespread, detailed study done. Lacking that, I can only say that in my personal experience I know perhaps a dozen people who have used chiropractors for back problems. Two of those were the people who put me onto it (including my ex-wife, who had a ruptured disc). The rest have been people I have recommended it to. I'm telling the truth when I say that every single one of these people has had good results and become sufficiently persuaded that chiropractic can help a bad back. Of course that's anecdotal. But I'm willing to keep taking any risk that might be there. Because *damn*, putting your back right out hurts like a bastard.
Posted by: Bob | July 29, 2009 4:45 PM
Personally, I'm still hoping to see retro-phrenology make a comeback. After all, if bumps on your head can indicate your personality traits, then logically modifying your personality should just be a matter of creating the right bumps.
Bob
Posted by: Aron | July 29, 2009 4:47 PM
James and Jack,
I wholeheartedly agree. I feel that there should be some sort of study to assess the risk/benefit of seeing a chiropractor. And I can also tell anyone who's willing to listen that there are few things that are quite so debilitating as back pain.
Nearly any other kind of ache which might afflict one's body -- headache, toothache, leg pain, etc. -- while certainly thoroughly unpleasant, can be dealt with. You can lie down for a headache, or walk carefully with a sore leg. With a sore back, there's no solution. You can't walk carefully -- hell, you can barely even stand up. You can't sit down. You can only lie on the floor with your feet in the air. (At least, for me, it was helpful). I think those chiropractors who see themselves as Jack's did, as simply alternative physical therapists are the good guys. The crystal, reiki, PK Reader types are the dangerous ones.
This has simply been my two cents, and as the saying goes, your mileage may vary. Let it also be said that I'm UTTERLY furious with the BCA. How dare they bring this kind of lawsuit upon Mr. Singh? The UK needs defamation and libel law reform, and it needs it NOW.
Posted by: Newfie | July 29, 2009 4:47 PM
Joint pain and stiffness in my left hip. A couple treatments of heated massage, and one crack from the chiro fixed me right up.
From the Canadian Chiropractic Association FAQ:
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 29, 2009 4:48 PM
Fred Bortz #15
Fred, you need to wear a red nose with that bow tie.
Posted by: gerryfromktown | July 29, 2009 4:48 PM
Jack Author #25:
Interesting anecdote. Nothing in your story however has anything to do with Simon Singh's essential point, which is this:
Nowhere in Singh's article did he claim that chiropractic treatment of back pain was a placebo. In fact, he said this:
Which pretty well means your rant is a straw man.
Posted by: !Bob | July 29, 2009 4:50 PM
Thought you should know, your getting more Bible Bashing ads in the google ads thingum.
"Athiesm is Against The Law" and some biblical geology stuff, as well as a whole host of Chiropractic quackery.
Posted by: Tom | July 29, 2009 4:56 PM
I'm very disappointed that the censored version was posted instead of the original, for which Mr. Singh was unjustly tried.
Posted by: CelticGoddess1326 | July 29, 2009 4:59 PM
Sis (#21) I have a lot of sympathy for people with back problems as I have them myself. I see a chiropractor every now and again and have always had good results (I know it's anecdotal, but I am responding to your anecdote) WITH HIM. Other chiropractors have usually not been as thorough in relieving my pain (which is why I drive 2 1/2 hours to see him when I need him and hope he doesn't retire any time soon). I have also had a lot of luck with "adjustments" to my wrists that eliminate my pain from repetitive stress (I type a lot and don't always have access to an ergonomic keyboard, which is wonderful FOR ME). Unfortunately, my chiropractor also has some woo-woo type beliefs, and I would gladly consider looking into a physiotherapist when he does retire (my pragmatism says that I shouldn't mess with something that's working), but I have no idea how to go about finding a GOOD one, and had a HORRIBLE experience with a physical therapist (what's the difference, BTW - do you know?) after I pulled a muscle in my back while working in retail (her method of "treating" the strain was to dig her elbow into the already-sore muscle - I would have walked out at that very moment if workman's comp wasn't paying for it - I never did get any relief from her anyway and ended up paying out of pocket to my chiropractor (no insurance at the time)).
Jack (#24) I agree wholeheartedly and couldn't have said it better myself - as with most things, there is good and bad in every profession, and I would much prefer a good chiropractor over a woo-head with an M.D. (and I've met plenty of 'em). However, as you said, chiropractic is wonderful for back problems and that type of thing that can be fixed by spinal or other joint manipulation - I don't believe (and no one will ever convince me) that it will fix anything beyond that (although once when my sinuses were clogged up, the chiropractor heard me blowing my nose and he did something to my ears and everything drained - fantastic!).
Aron (#25) Once again, I agree - see comments above.
One more anecdote (I know, I know, the plural of anecdotes is NOT data, and I do hope that someone does a study as to whether or not chiropractic is valid for back and joint problems ONLY): my dad has a worse back than I do, and when he threw it out (about once a year when I was a kid), all that could be done was rest, ice, and painkillers. Well, he was literally unable to walk during this time - he'd be stuck on the sofa-bed mattress thrown on the floor for days at a time peeing into an old applesauce jar (I never asked how he pooped - didn't want to know) and not showering. He tried a chiropractor when I was about 14, and the guy (same guy I see now) came OUT TO OUR HOUSE (Dad could NOT travel), and Dad was up and walking WITHIN MINUTES. Will it cure cancer? Hell no, but it's good for what it's good for, and if there was another option less associated with woo that worked as well, I'd be all for it, because I AM a proud anti-woo skeptic, but until then, I'll stick with what I know works FOR ME - I won't say it will work for everyone.
P.S. My chiropractor is one of those who takes x-rays etc. and shows you what is going on before he ever touches you (unless it's a chronic thing that does the same thing 3-4 times in a row like I have - I don't need x-rays anymore because it's always the same thing).
Posted by: CelticGoddess1326 | July 29, 2009 5:06 PM
Whoops, typoed my URL - lest you think I'm a spammer, here's the real one: http://www.myspace.com/celticgoddess1326. I always proof my comments, but sometimes I forget to check the URL - sorry again!
Posted by: G.Shelley | July 29, 2009 5:11 PM
Sure, Chiropractic can aid with lower back problems, I don't think many people deny that, but it is no better than physiotherapy and is associated with more adverse reactions.
As for PZ publishing the edited version, I don't see an issue there, the important thing here is that the point of the article is not altered in any way and that because of their actions, the article is seen by a much wider audience.
Posted by: Matt Schoeneberger | July 29, 2009 5:15 PM
One problem with the study of chiropractic and physical therapy that I've seen in the literature is the measure of their efficacy for non-specific low back pain. How is any manipulative therapist supposed to treat a back problem without first finding out what is casing the pain? That's just silly
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | July 29, 2009 5:20 PM
emphasis mineClearly you have never had a migraine. What's with this "my pain is worse than all others?" Do you feel that no one will accept your anecdote about chiropractic without thinking that your back pain is the worst kind of pain? I don't think the degree of pain you feel should have anything to do with the effectiveness of treatment. If chiropractic is effective in treatment for back pain, the degree of pain suffered should be irrelevant.
Posted by: jaynie | July 29, 2009 5:23 PM
@ #20
I happen to be in possession of such a machine. A No.1 Sinustat by the Ultimate Physical Appliance Co., circa 1922 had been scheduled for garbage, so I quickly snapped it up, just for its curiosity value. :D
Posted by: Aron | July 29, 2009 5:36 PM
Pygmy Loris
While I feel the personal attack was unnecessary, you make a good point. I have been very lucky in my life to have never suffered a migraine. I'm merely coming from the perspective of someone who suffered (and still suffers) chronic headaches. While they do not classify as migraines, they're still miserable. I was not merely trying to play a game of one-upsmanship. I was simply using my experience as (admittedly anecdotal) evidence of how chiropractic has helped me. As I stated at the end of my post, your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | July 29, 2009 5:43 PM
I remember being laid up, with a sharp pain in my spine,
(Cos a mammal that's bipedal ain't intelligent design)
And I heard about a doctor who could really fix my back
If I'd let him give the silly thing a crack.
I'd be feeling so much better, and in just a day or two,
If he'd let me do the sorts of things he really wants to do;
I'd be doing flips and cartwheels, with my pain completely stopped,
Just as soon as all my vertebrae were popped.
So I read a couple journals, and I analyzed his claims
And I looked into the history of Chiropractic's aims
It was quite the panacea, if you're willing to believe
All that spine manipulation can achieve.
And the thing is--in a day or two, my pain had disappeared!
It's as if I never wrenched it; it was positively weird!
(True, I never saw the doctor. As it was, I fixed my spine
With some aspirin and a glass or two of wine!)
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 29, 2009 5:48 PM
I would like to make two requests.
First, those people who have found that chiropractic care can successfully treat back pain, please RTFA before saying you disagree with what Singh or PZ is saying.
Second, those people who would like to explain the backstory to others, please get your facts straight before doing so. The BCA have not won their libel lawsuit yet. The libel trial hasn't even started yet.
The only thing Singh has lost was a preliminary hearing where the judge decided what the meaning of the article was. Judge Eady ruled that Singh was saying the the BCA knowingly promoted bogus treatments, even though that's not what the BCA claimed Singh was saying in their suit, and it sure as hell doesn't jibe with a plain reading of the article.
The uncensored article is available at my blog (click my name) as well as at Respectful Insolence (which is where I got it from).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2009 5:50 PM
My wife had back surgery 5 years ago and has had zero issues. Without surgery she'd be nearly crippled. I'm sure if you ventured outside your small biased anecdotal sample you'd find plenty of people whose backs, other joints, small and large bones and tissues with damage were helped by orthopedic surgery and the surgeons who performed it.
Your post reeks of woo addled nonsense. Nearly as bad as the people who claim prescription medicine is nothing but harmful.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | July 29, 2009 6:04 PM
Aron,
I was not making a personal attack. I don't understand why you thought I was. Your post was unnecessarily dismissive of pain that does not resemble your own. That was the issue I was trying to draw your attention to.
I am sincerely happy that you have never had migraines. Pain is pain and medicine is working very hard to understand and treat pain, especially with so many combat vets coming home with chronic pain. Chiropractors can be dangerous and those who reach beyond their ability can kill.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 29, 2009 6:07 PM
Here's a little more background on Justice Eady, the judge hearing this suit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/24/richard-desmond-tom-bower-mr-justice-eady
Posted by: Newfie | July 29, 2009 6:07 PM
That was brilliant as usual, Cuttlefish. Very nice.
Posted by: Fred Bortz | July 29, 2009 6:08 PM
Tis Himself suggests
> Fred, you need to wear a red nose with that bow tie.
That bow tie is nothing compared to the one attached to my name in this post.
I tie my own, and I have a few that I wear shamelessly to get kids' attention when I am a scientist/author visiting their schools.
A red nose might be good, too. Invite me to a school near you and I'll try to locate one. :)
Posted by: Aron | July 29, 2009 6:11 PM
Pygmy Loris,
You are, of course, completely right. I'm sorry I misread your statement. I hope you can accept my apology for the false accusation. Let's move on, shall we?
Posted by: donna | July 29, 2009 6:23 PM
Sorry, my chiropractor was a shitload better than the damned doctor who gave me Vioxx for the pain, which is now known to lead to hypertension and heart attacks.
Still have the hypertension though, thanks.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 29, 2009 6:30 PM
Ah yes, a doctor prescribing a medication that was thought safe at the time validates chiropractic quackery.
I'm sorry, what?
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | July 29, 2009 6:31 PM
Chiropractic would be the ideal line for a serial killer intent on decades of undetected homicides.
Posted by: amphiox | July 29, 2009 6:45 PM
Physiotherapy is the first line treatment for mechanical back pain. Out of all the cases of chronic low back pain, surgery would be indicated in about 1%, and for that 1% the results of surgery are pretty impressive. For the remaining 99%, surgery will most likely make things worse. So the trick is selecting which patients are candidates for surgery.
Unfortunately, the U.S. private system is currently set up in such a way as to provide a great deal of incentive for unnecessary back surgery. And the fault is not just with the surgeons recommending the surgery, but also in patients who will doctor shop until they find someone willing to operate on them, because they are simply unwilling to accept the fact that their back pain will not improve quickly with conservative therapies.
The largest study I know of on surgery for disc herniation, which is about as clear-cut an indication for surgery as it gets, found no difference in pain and functional status between surgery and non-surgical interventions (basically physiotherapy and its adjuncts) at the 2 year mark, but patients who had surgery reported that their pain improved faster (not surprisingly as you get pain relief immediately after surgery if all goes well). However, this study is seriously marred by the fact that 30% of the patients in the no-surgery arm crossed over to the surgical arm during the study period - that is, they became unsatisfied with waiting to get better with conservative treatment, went doctor shopping, and found someone willing to operate on them.
It is probably impossible, technically and ethically, to do a proper study of surgery for back pain in the U.S. health system as it stands today.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 29, 2009 6:58 PM
This is an official version that has been gone over by lawyers -- the information is all there, but they have no pretext of any kind to demand that it be removed. I have no reluctance personally to post the unedited version, but this is part of a joint effort by many sites to simultaneously release the article, and everyone is using the same unassailable version.
Posted by: Derryl Murphy | July 29, 2009 7:03 PM
My ex-wife took her daughter to a chiropractor, who set cubes of sugar on her bare belly to determine that she had a sugar allergy. Because of this we had to go to rice bread and other such wonders in the house because wheat bread produces sugars.
I wouldn't cross the street to piss on a chiropractor if he or she was on fire.
D
Posted by: Stu
|
July 29, 2009 7:07 PM
and everyone is using the same unassailable version.
Come on, PZ. As has been pointed out several times now, Orac has the full one:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/07/the_british_chiropractic_association_bew.php
Posted by: SEF | July 29, 2009 7:09 PM
Those running the UK legal system are being extremely hypocritical and dishonest over their ridiculous interpretation of defamation (ie libel or slander). The vital part of its definition which they're ignoring is the truth factor. It is of crucial importance whether or not the information which would negatively affect someone's reputation is true.* Otherwise you are just correcting the falsely favourable impression people previously had of them.
I call the judges et al hypocrites because their very job entails them defaming, by that same false definition which they currently favour, everyone they've ever judged to be guilty of crime - and I don't mean just the innocent ones! The guilty ones have also had their reputation (and subsequent lives) negatively impacted by being found guilty and having a criminal record. So they could and should sue the judges themselves for defamation damages under the faulty interpretation the judges are using.
Clearly, all the judges and magistrates and expert witnesses (and perhaps lawyers and even juries) wouldn't accept that the entire prison etc population was entitled to win law-suits against them for defamation. The truth (ie of whether the convicted criminals were in fact guilty) would suddenly matter when it came to judges being the defamers. So it's a very selective, ie hypocritical, interpretation these judges have for disregarding the importance of truth in their definition of "defamation". It's one rule for them and their cronies and another for everyone else.
I really want to see judges etc taken to task for their hypocrisy in a court sometime - and hence bring back the proper definition of defamation. Perhaps there's an enterprising lawyer on Singh's team. I doubt the prison population would actually be allowed even to lodge such a bunch of law-suits in order to raise the matter that way. The legal system seems to be very good at finding ways of suppressing justice and not prosecuting what certain people don't want prosecuted (or even recorded as a crime), regardless of what would be in the interest of victims or the public.
* NB if there's no negative impact then it's also not defamation. Flattery, ie using untruths to positively affect someone's reputation, is unfortunately not a crime.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 29, 2009 7:19 PM
Not only to conservative, non-surgical therapies take time, they also take effort on the part of the patient.
I have periodic lower back pain which I never saw a doctor about until I had an acute flare-up after straining it (by doing bench-presses without both feet on the floor - don't do that!). She showed me some stretching exercises to do every day. She also pointed out that the large amount of excess body fat on my abdomen was putting strain on my back and, as she had on previous visits, recommended aerobic exercise and offered to refer me to a nutritionist. In other words, the most effective treatment for my back pain would involve regular stretching and exercise on my part. Many people (me included) find it hard to motivate themselves to undertake such lifestyle changes. I'm wise enough to know that there are rarely quick, easy fixes in life, so while I haven't been diligent with my stretches and weight loss program, neither have I whined at my doctor to refer me to surgeon. I'm sure there are other people with less maturity (and better insurance) who demand surgery.
Posted by: CelticGoddess1326 | July 29, 2009 7:26 PM
truthspeaker (#46) First of all, I have read the article, both PZ's post and your post. I'm not disagreeing with anybody, that I know of, because I'm really not saying much of anything verifiable through existing research (re: chiropractic treatment of back pain) that isn't anecdotal. While I understand what the article is saying in terms of safety, I think that Singh is also a bit reactionary in his (also anecdotal) story of the Canadian woman who died. Yes, this treatment has risks. I've signed paperwork at almost EVERY doctor's visit (all kinds of doctors - chiropractors, dentists, dermatologists - pretty much every doctor I've ever seen) saying that I acknowledge the possible risks of treatment and that they're not liable for anything and yadda yadda. Even the pharmacists are on board the "warning" boat - the information sheet for my thyroid medication only fits on one page because the print is teeny tiny - that medication carries serious risks, and patients need to know those risks and decide ON THEIR OWN and with the help of their doctors what the best choice for treatment is. One thing I think we need to remember as consumers of health care in the 21st century - ESPECIALLY in America, where the almighty dollar is king, not patient health - is that EVERY treatment and EVERY medication and EVERY procedure has risks, and it is up to the patient to decide whether the risks are justified IN THAT SITUATION.
I've got to agree with amphiox (#56) as well on surgery studies for back pain: "It is probably impossible, technically and ethically, to do a proper study of surgery for back pain in the U.S. health system as it stands today." It's sad, but true - skeptical patients will ask for second opinions and do research, but the ordinary consumer seems to want everything yesterday, relief included, even if that relief is dubious and involves scalpels - they'll try just about anything (which is what keeps woo-heads in business, regretably), and once THEY decide what is wrong and how to fix it, they won't stop until they find someone to do what they want, data or no data.
I think this is very sad.
It's a bit off-topic, but I wish the poor gullible consumer would be just a bit more skeptical! We skeptics would have less to gripe about, but I think the world would be a happier place.
Posted by: CatBallou
|
July 29, 2009 7:27 PM
Cuttlefish has already, albeit obliquely, pointed to the real problem: Intelligent Design
If we were created in the image of God, just imagine the kind of back pain he has! No wonder he's such an ass.
Posted by: JHJEFFERY | July 29, 2009 7:31 PM
Well. . .
Having been a personal injury trial lawyer for well over 30 years (and up yours, Tony #22, we're not all alike :)) I can tell you this: a severe whiplash (cervical flexion/extension injury) can take up to half a year to resolve without chiropractic care. With good chiropractic care you can be well in 6 months.
I have deposed dozens, if not hundreds, of chiropracters and the orthopaedic surgeons who hate them. Each has a point, and a point of view.
Chiropractic, properly understood and applied, is a palliative method of care which can temporarily relieve some myofascial and musculoskeletal discomfort.
That's about all you can say about it.
Jerry
Posted by: Last Hussar | July 29, 2009 7:38 PM
PZ- the problem is that the most controversial line is left out- the one where Singh implies that Chiropracters know the treatment is false. He would therefore be stating they KNOW they are selling fake treatments. He has to show that they know they are lieing. if he can't he will be deemed to be damaging their 'good name'.
Now what ever posters on this blog may think of them, even if they proved are 100% wrong and there is NO case for chiro, he is making an attack on their personal honesty. The idea is that this is a black mark against them personally, not the practise they promote, and as such can (alledgedly) affect them in areas not to do with chiro. In addition if they are knowingly selling something fake it is fraud.
If he had stuck to the case against chiro, then he would have been on safe ground, as long as the facts were accurate. The nub of the case is that he is seen to be stating that practicioners are in themselves not trustworthy.
Imagine you make a mistake at work. Someone alledges that you did this on purpose, and as a result of this allegation (not the mistake) you suffered a loss of some form ("I'm sorry Dr Myers, we don't do XXX for frauds") This is what the BCA will try to argue, if precedence in UK cases is any guide.
Posted by: Radi | July 29, 2009 7:41 PM
Added my contribution :)
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 29, 2009 7:42 PM
Singh implied no such thing. You can read the article in full at my blog or at orac's.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 29, 2009 8:02 PM
and their eggs!
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 29, 2009 8:30 PM
I think a worse case was when football fans on a forum were being sued for complaining that the way the club was being run was a joke (their words).
Sheffield United or Sheffield Wednesday I believe it was.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | July 29, 2009 8:44 PM
Ignoring the original insanity used to 'diagnose' this supposed problem, how on earth can anyone think that the starches etc in rice can't be broken down to produce sugars? Just for starters people go on about how rice flour is sweeter than wheat flour...Posted by: Skeptical DoDo | July 29, 2009 8:50 PM
Very interesting comments. However, in regards to back pain or neck pain etc. All acute back pain usually resolves in 6-8 weeks with or without treatment. Chiropractors know this and prescribe adjustments for, oh, 6-8 weeks. Next MRI showed a lot of back problems and in the early days everyone did surgery for the those back problems. Now we know that 1/3 to 1/2 of the normal population also have the same findings on MRI. So the number of surgeries has dropped tremendously. Surgery is now only done for MRI that show actually compression of a nerve and findings of paralysis, parathesia, drop foot, urinary or bowel problems. X-rays are next to useless, unless there is trauma and one is trying to find fractures. Chiropractors alwasy say the spine is out of alignment. To me that means you have a broken back. Experiments with cadavers have shown to move a vertebra the amount of force to move the vertebra would break the back. So now for back pain it is recommended to use physical therapy, analgesics and time. We use to put people to bed rest for two weeks or traction. That is no longer done and actually made things worse. The key is to keep moving. Now, for the ear infections, colic and the like, the chiroparactors own literature proves that manipulation doesn't work. Placebo is effective 35-40% of the time and that is what most of it is. One real problem in chiropractic school is that they teach non vaccination which is a crime and has no basis in studies. Simon Singh is a hero taking on the laws in England cause the real problem is that science debate should never be stifled by laws that restrict freedom of speech. That is what this is all about. Some group is upset because its feeling got hurt. Well too bad, in science it is about the truth, to hell with the feelings.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | July 29, 2009 8:56 PM
#64
"I can tell you this: a severe whiplash (cervical flexion/extension injury) can take up to half a year to resolve without chiropractic care. With good chiropractic care you can be well in 6 months."
So, it can take up to 6 months without chiropractic, or within half a year with? Are you just going a very long route to say they're equally effective?
Posted by: Obeah | July 29, 2009 8:59 PM
Has anyone done the math?
Number of Chiropractors.
Number of "manipulations".
Number of deaths.
I read once that almost 8000 people
die each year after a reaction to aspirin.
Posted by: RC | July 29, 2009 9:07 PM
I'm personally quite against chiropractors. My mother had back and neck soreness, and for several months saw a chiropractor who believed it was spinal and continued treating her. After one appointment she died. Autopsy showed the chiropractor aggravated a brain aneurism and made it burst, killing her. That was what was causing the neck pain.
Part of it was my mother's fault - continuing to visit a "health professional" when she shouldn't have. But the chiro was out of their depth, unable to cope, and unwilling to admit it. And not a chiropractor anymore.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2009 9:11 PM
This is relevant why?
Posted by: Angel Kaida | July 29, 2009 9:12 PM
uknesvuinng,
It's a joke, silly. A joke.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2009 9:14 PM
or how for that matter
Posted by: Nova | July 29, 2009 9:20 PM
I must chime in with others and protest that the proper version was not posted. Why post the censored version? That seems to undermine the whole point of posting it in the first place.
Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 9:24 PM
I have it on reliable account that everybody dies sooner or later, but I once read that logically incompetent people love non sequiturs.Posted by: Trumpeter | July 29, 2009 9:27 PM
Yet another anecdote. Very close friend. Chronic back pain. Over a year of bi-weekly sometimes weekly chiropractic adjustment relieved his pain for oh, a week. The morning after his "last" adjustment he awoke unable to move his legs. Rushed to hospital, xrayed, doctors discovered a bone chip pressing against nerves in his spine. When said bones chip was surgically removed and after months of physio therapy cured his thankfully temporary paralysis and after many years appears to have solved his chronic back pain. One must ask why this wasn't observed by the chiropractor and is it possible the frequent manipulations caused the chip? Anectodal yes but has convinced me to waddle bent over in pain away from the chiropractor and get myself to a proper medical practitioner in such cases.
Posted by: SEF | July 29, 2009 9:50 PM
No, that wasn't what he said at all. However ...
... as it happens, thanks to the leaked warning sent out, we now know that they do know they can't support their claims for their treatments - ie that they do know they are not merely telling but selling a lie. That was not the action of innocent people who thought they did have valid evidence that their treatments really worked. It wasn't a call to protect themselves by prominently posting the (imaginary) evidence.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 29, 2009 10:04 PM
I think what Obeah was getting at is that the anecdotes and occasional numbers Singh references in his article are not (nearly!) sufficient to prove that chiropracty is particularly dangerous as compared to any other conventional treatment. I think it's a fair cop.
Of course, that clearly wasn't Singh's intention. He wasn't writing a book that looked to be the final evaluation on chiropractic treatment; he was writing a short article for Chiropractic Awareness Week.
Posted by: BlueMonday | July 29, 2009 10:08 PM
This isn't so much an anecdote about chiropractic care as it is an anecdote about chiropractic mentality: someone close to me (in my extended family) is both a chiropractor and an Evangelical Christian. Several years ago, while his 6 children were all still quite young, his wife got diagnosed with cancer. You can probably guess the rest--they used prayer, vitamins, and magnets to try to cure her cancer so she didn't have to use chemo or have surgery on her lady parts (they had the 6, but they weren't willing to ruin the chance of having more little ones). Real doctors ended up doing a full hysterectomy on her, but it was to no avail. She died and those children were raised without a mother, all because of a dangerous combination of religious belief and woo. Fifteen years later, he's still doing the exact same woo that got his own wife killed (though, to be fair, he doesn't dissuade patients from "allopathic" cancer treatment, just offers his aid in addition to it). Traumatic personal experience was not enough to cool him on it. Blind faith is truly dangerous.
Posted by: JHJEFFERY | July 29, 2009 10:19 PM
72 "So, it can take up to 6 months without chiropractic, or within half a year with? Are you just going a very long route to say they're equally effective?"
76 "It's a joke, silly. A joke"
Well, yeah, it's a joke. But I used to use it with great effectiveness on opening statement in those little whiplash cases. Gets the jury thinking about what is really going on.
But in the final analysis, there's nothing wrong with chiropractic as long as it is contained within its sphere of competence.
JHJ
Posted by: Trish | July 29, 2009 10:20 PM
I worked for a chiropractor for a short period of time. I never truly bought into the entire thing ... but I was interested in watching the result purely out of my own curiosity.
One thing I did notice was the relief that patients felt just from the pre-chiropractic care - the part of the job I did. Heat packs, EMS, and basic massage. (Honestly ... stuff you can have done at home by a loved one - and I was good at it)
If chiropractic care is to be measured, the pre-care performed before the chiropractor even gets into the room needs to be measured as well. A decent back rub will make anyone feel better.
Posted by: Funkopolis | July 29, 2009 10:39 PM
But if everyone included the allegedly libelous lines, that would become the unassailable version, all over the net like 09F911. The Bogus Chiropractic Association cannot sue the entire world.
This was a golden opportunity for an "I am Spartacus" moment across the whole rational blogotubes. Nobody's afraid of religion, but lawyers?. Watch out!
Posted by: Jeanette Garcia | July 29, 2009 11:06 PM
Maybe it's my pragmatic nature but I'm mistrustful of needles and chiropractors. It doesn't make sense that pressure on one part of your body would cure another part. I do agree that a good back rub can cure a lot of ills however, I do not expect it to cure heart desease.
Posted by: Shrelk | July 29, 2009 11:06 PM
A little late, but all hail Cuttlefish!
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 29, 2009 11:17 PM
I think this personal attention to the body is a big, and very understandable, appeal of alternative medicine to a lot of people.
In many - not all, but many - real medical clinics you wait alone in a room for a while, a nurse comes and asks you some questions off a list, maybe weighs you and takes your blood pressure, then you wait alone some more, then a doctor comes in for a few minutes and asks you some followup questions that may or may not indicate that she has read the notes the nurse just took, you get some a advice or a prescription, and then you are either sent up front to pay or sent to another room to get some tests done. I think it feels impersonal to a lot of people.
Some doctors, like both my primary care physician and my ENT guy, make an effort to be personable (and to actually read the forms I fill out, my history, and the nurse's notes). Others, like my previous primary, don't. If you live in a big city like me, and have a car, and decent health insurance, you can dump your impersonal doctor and look for a better one like I did. Some people don't have that option. Many others, for whatever personal reasons, don't feel empowered to do so.
I think real medical practices could benefit from adopting some of the touchy-feely approach of alternative medicine in order to help patients relax and feel comfortable. And some have.
Posted by: Paula Helm Murray | July 29, 2009 11:21 PM
I had a chiropracter who I'd trust with my life. She made no pretenses to cure anything except misalignments, and if she thought it was something other than a stress or strain she'd direct you to a physician in a New York Minute.
In fact, she took a friend of ours to the ER at KU Med Center after he came in, said,
"Well, I had this fall and I'm feeling out of sorts, and my leg really hurts." She did her brief, first check-out (she asked us to tell her where her where it hurt and why) and said, We need to go to the ER. The intern who checked them in ignored her and my friend, the resident came in, sent my friend for an X-ray and they discovered my friend had fractured his femur in the fall. And also apparently chewed the intern about how, "if a chiropracter brings in a patient and says they need you, for the love of all that's right, do not blow her off.
She knew her limitations were bones and joints. (She had tried to be an MD but the sight of blood, even her own blood, made her queasy.) she passed away in 2001 and I still miss her dearly.
The other plus for me was that she didn't X-ray me 9 ways to sundown. I had a burn as an infant, had to have surgery every couple of years to release the scar until they grafted it when I was 12, and every hospital admission was accompanied by a chest x-ray.
I have not had anything to do with a chiropracter since she passed, mostly because she straightened out a bunch of stuff for me. But as I get older, I wish she were still here.
Posted by: Minus | July 29, 2009 11:36 PM
This is for Tony at #64.
You state that "Chiropractic, properly understood and applied, is a palliative method of care which can temporarily relieve some myofascial and musculoskeletal discomfort."
From what I have read and heard there is no way to properly understand chiropractic because there is nothing to understand. There is no theory. It is all based on woo. Some guy just made it up. It's hocus pocus, and, yes, sometimes hocus pocus works. To hear it from an expert, check out Dr. Mark Crislip's "QuackCast 10_ History and Theory of Chiropractic" at
http://www.quackcast.com/spodcasts/files/7219a04d8d3b1302766cae8ea96f991f-9.html#unique-entry-id-9
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 30, 2009 12:15 AM
Then obviously my comment wasn't directed at you. But thanks for the long response to something I didn't say.
Posted by: Arguendo | July 30, 2009 12:45 AM
I went to a Chiropractor several years ago that held his hands over my stomach and asked me what I had eaten over the week. When I got to “Hamburger” he said, “What did you have on that hamburger?” I told him, Mustard and Pickles, which, when I said it, he said there may be a problem. I’m reading from your body that you shouldn’t eat those items together. I literally laughed at him and walked out the door. I have had back trouble throughout my life and a chiropractic treatment can really help but I have to agree there are a lot of Quacks out there. The only thing we can do with those guys is vote with our dollars or expose them when possible.
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
July 30, 2009 12:47 AM
i went to a chiropractor for a while.
he was a friend of the family, and a reasonable fellow. i went because, well, i sorta got hit by a car. and i had back pain. and going to a chiropractor helped a great deal. he never tried to sell me any snake oil, and in fact, warned me about other chiropractors who would.
but i get the impression this guy is the exception to the rule.
Posted by: anaxagoras | July 30, 2009 2:09 AM
There seems to be a double standard operating, between standard medicine and chiropractic. The difference is what qualifies as EVIDENCE that a treatment works (or at least is safe). Standard medicine values clinical trials, peer-review, all that good science stuff. Chiropractic seems to be satisfied with anecdotes.
Because there is insufficient scientific information on safety and efficacy of chiropractic, patients are in the unfortunate position of having to make decisions based mostly on hope and on faith in a practitioner's skill and good intentions. Not a very satisfying way to go, but when you're suffering it is understandable to want to get help from wherever you can.
Granted, standard medicine does not do a very good job for some patients in treating back and neck pain. Likewise, peer-reviewed clinical trial data does not exist for a lot of treatments in standard medicine. But at least the medical community recognizes the deficit, and considers rigorous scientific experiments to be the gold standard.
Do chiropractors have to take a Hippocratic oath? You know, the "first, do no harm" part--how can they be true to it if the studies haven't been done to at LEAST demonstrate safety to a scientific standard?
(I'll skip the run-down of my relevant, lengthy, and debilitatingly painful experience as that too is only an anecdote....)
Posted by: anaxagoras | July 30, 2009 2:43 AM
Arguendo,
Good grief, I thought you were setting up a joke, I was looking for the punchline!
Posted by: Frank | July 30, 2009 4:57 AM
If you are going to talk about quack doctors, why limit the discussion to just chiropractic? The AMA itself admits that over 100,000 patients die every year from doctor and hospital mistakes. I have fired doctors in the past because they either thought I was too stupid to know what they were talking about or they actually didn't know themselves.
If I had to choose between a chiropractor for minimally invasive spinal manipulation, or a surgeon to mutilate my body, implant forieng materials, and leave me in a worse condition than I originally suffered, crack my back baby!
In fact, if back surgeons were held to the same scrutiny that Singh put to chiropractic I would bet you would find a smaller success rate, more "accidental" deaths, and even more patients crippled and in pain.
I personally know more people who have been crippled by back surgery than chiropractors. That may just be me but ask around yourself. I do know quite a few people who have had back surgery and not one of them has said that they would have the surgery again if given the choice. Any one know the actual success rate of back surgery? The death rate? The disability occurance rate?
I don't think that chiropractors are any better than so called medical doctors. It just wasn't a fair or comprehinsive comparison.
Posted by: Paul Macgowan | July 30, 2009 6:23 AM
Stick it to them Simon!
Posted by: Sis | July 30, 2009 6:45 AM
"Woo addled nonsense". ??? Please cite my woo.
I said, and I repeat, thousands have been harmed by orthopedic surgery. That's fact.
I've never met anyone who has had back surgery who is pain-free, but in fact, most attest they are worse. I've done some research on this, as you can imagine. I used PubMed, that well-known woo source.
Posted by: Sis | July 30, 2009 6:55 AM
"If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market."
##
HRT, HT, Claritin, Paxil, Zyprexa, Seroquel, chloresterase inhibitors, NSAIDS (the ones still on the market), statins, venlafaxine, hydroxchloriquine sulfate, prepulsid.... .
Posted by: Chris | July 30, 2009 6:56 AM
Some chiropractors are good, some are quacks.
I went to one on and off for a few years, whenever I'd hurt my back. He spent about 25% of the time asking questions, 20% of the time heating my back with a heat pack, 5% on the actual adjustment, and 50% on what exercises I should do to help prevent the problem recurring. I rarely had to return for another session for the same problem.
My wife however, went to a female quack who she liked because she thought that 'she understands me because she's a woman'. After going for weeks for back pain that steadily got worse, she finally went to mine (only because her chiro was on holiday that day). He asked her a few questions, and called an ambulance. My wife had her gall bladder removed a few days later, along with seven gall stones.
One of our friends we met through post-natal activities had a baby who was constantly crying. As in, every waking minute. For the first 8 months of his life, he would need constant comforting. Every doctor they took him to said the same thing, that some babies were like that.
When he started crawling, he would only commando crawl, using one arm. Another parent at the playgroup suggested taking him to a chiropractor, who noticed something that all the doctors and pediatricians had missed. He had a dislocated shoulder(from birth).
Once the shoulder was popped back in, the crying stopped.
Anecdotal, absolutely. I will trust someone who has done a dozen years of training in medicine over someone who twists your back for a living. But remember, people go to different doctors for second opinions. Some doctors are good, some are bad.
Similarly, don't tar all chiropractors with the 'quack' tag. The ones that talk about 'energy' and crap like that deserve nothing but scorn. But there are those out there who read medical journals, who recognise the limitations of their practice, and who genuinely do help some conditions.
Posted by: Heraclides | July 30, 2009 8:05 AM
Another sample of size one in Dunedin, New Zealand is "Dr" Tat Loo (goodness knows where his doctorate or MD is from), who publishes a weekly "advertisement" that basically picks up one medical scare or other to promote his chiropracy practice. This guy clearly reads the "popular" medical "literature", but in a way you expect from someone who is anti-vaccine, i.e. looking to quote mine what he'd like to be true.
Recent "stories" from him include "the swine flu vaccine that you can have today" (swine flu is around in New Zealand, for those outside NZ) and a tilt at a local measles outbreak by trying to heavily imply that the local health departments are lying about the effectiveness of the vaccine. Of course, it's all prevented with chiropractic therapy...
Posted by: symball | July 30, 2009 8:38 AM
To all those who are leaping up to defend their own chiropractors and distinguishing between them and the@quack versions- a couple of points you may have missed.
1) The sensible chiropractors you have described all sound like good sensible people- but they are really just practising physical therapy- Chiropractic is riddled with mystical bulls**t, which they seem to have dropped- they should re-train as physiotherapists.
2)The BCA is the national registered body for chiro's in the UK- this isn't a small fringe organisation. For an organisation of this stature to make such ridiculous claims is shameful and the reason why there has been so much fuss made by British sceptics.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 30, 2009 8:53 AM
I wouldn't even go to a chiropractor for back pain relief. The reason is simple, I don't want to sponsor chiropractors or anything of the sort. Moreover, if you have back pain that could be fixed by moving a vertebra, your GP can send you to a real surgeon who will actually know what he's doing. Plus, you get the normal standard of care that you expect from medical professionals, like doing some measurements or snapping an image to see if the pain is actually caused by alignment problems, recommending surgery if the pain is symptomatic of something serious that can't be fixed nonintrusively, etc. and the knowledge that all treatments prescribed to you have been approved after having gone through the proper medical approval procedures, like a double blind test of efficacy.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 30, 2009 9:24 AM
There's your difference right there. The professional associate for real doctors keeps track of how many patients die from mistakes made by its members. The BCA uses lawsuits to suppress information about its members.
Posted by: Obeah | July 30, 2009 9:44 AM
"I read once that almost 8000 people die each year after a reaction to aspirin."
"This is relevant why?"
Probably shouldn't have added that.
I guess the connection I made in my little brain was the fact that the danger of chiropractic might be small relative to the other medical procedures, and "safe" drugs, used every year.
Just wondering how many people die compared to the number of adjustments?
Posted by: imadc | July 30, 2009 9:44 AM
You can find evidence to support or oppose both Chiropractic and Medicine. If you fully agree with this article, I can show you articles upon articles disputing it. The point is: I'm not vehemently opposed to the medical field -- I think that both Medicine and Chiropractic should, and eventually will, come together to work together FOR the patients and not just for themselves.
Posted by: bunbuns | July 30, 2009 10:32 AM
I'll share my quick anecdotal experience with both chiropractors and orthopedic surgeons.
I've suffered from near constant mid-back pain since high school - I'm now 30. At one point, I was working a desk job and the pain got much worse. I did see a chiropractor for about a year and only had mild improvement. I stopped seeing him since it was a drain on my wallet.
A few years later I got pregnant and had a whole new set of back problems, including sciatica and an extremely painful tailbone. I had hoped that once I had my baby the tailbone pain would improve, but no such luck.
I tried doctors who prescribed me heavy painkillers, orthopedic spine specialists who performed cortisone injections (the first time I received it I was in heaven - no pain for about 4 months - then it came back.. and never went away even after two further injections under x-ray).
At this point I was a year post-partum and literally couldn't sit for long periods and was in agony any time I stood up. The pain lasted for a good 15 seconds until my tailbone shifted to a new position. Doesn't seem like long, but trust me, it was.. So - I attempted to see a chiropractor. The guy was nice, charming, and I was desperate for ANY type of relief. Immediately after his adjustments I had the most severe sciatic pain. I walked with a noticeable limp - for about two months.
Luckily, I have the awesome tool that is the internet and found the website coccyx.org. It was there that I learned that I could have surgery to remove the entire tailbone. The results were pretty amazing. The day of my surgery I was able to perform my Kegel exercises without feeling the pull on my tailbone. It is now 2 years post-surgery and I would definitely go through the surgery again. I'm not completely pain free, but now I can sit for hours at a time when using a boppy nursing pillow as a seat cushion.
I'll never go to a chiropractor again. My orthopedic surgeon was a complete dick - personality wise - but my heartfelt thanks goes to him. He's one of only a few that perform that type of surgery.
Posted by: bunbuns | July 30, 2009 10:32 AM
I'll share my quick anecdotal experience with both chiropractors and orthopedic surgeons.
I've suffered from near constant mid-back pain since high school - I'm now 30. At one point, I was working a desk job and the pain got much worse. I did see a chiropractor for about a year and only had mild improvement. I stopped seeing him since it was a drain on my wallet.
A few years later I got pregnant and had a whole new set of back problems, including sciatica and an extremely painful tailbone. I had hoped that once I had my baby the tailbone pain would improve, but no such luck.
I tried doctors who prescribed me heavy painkillers, orthopedic spine specialists who performed cortisone injections (the first time I received it I was in heaven - no pain for about 4 months - then it came back.. and never went away even after two further injections under x-ray).
At this point I was a year post-partum and literally couldn't sit for long periods and was in agony any time I stood up. The pain lasted for a good 15 seconds until my tailbone shifted to a new position. Doesn't seem like long, but trust me, it was.. So - I attempted to see a chiropractor. The guy was nice, charming, and I was desperate for ANY type of relief. Immediately after his adjustments I had the most severe sciatic pain. I walked with a noticeable limp - for about two months.
Luckily, I have the awesome tool that is the internet and found the website coccyx.org. It was there that I learned that I could have surgery to remove the entire tailbone. The results were pretty amazing. The day of my surgery I was able to perform my Kegel exercises without feeling the pull on my tailbone. It is now 2 years post-surgery and I would definitely go through the surgery again. I'm not completely pain free, but now I can sit for hours at a time when using a boppy nursing pillow as a seat cushion.
I'll never go to a chiropractor again. My orthopedic surgeon was a complete dick - personality wise - but my heartfelt thanks goes to him. He's one of only a few that perform that type of surgery.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2009 10:33 AM
And you can find "evidence" to support creationism too.
It doesn't mean it comes from credible sources.
Posted by: imadc | July 30, 2009 10:56 AM
exactly.
Posted by: Guen | July 30, 2009 10:58 AM
My mother is a chiropractor who went to chiropractic college in Los Angeles. It is a highly reputable college. She has had a very successful business and still practices with a following of patients she has had for two decades and more. I do not go to a chiropractor and never will. I don't want any chiropractor to ever manipulate my spine. My mother used to tell us that she had the exact same schooling as an MD and that she was just as qualified as one to make judgments regarding health. When I was a teenager she decided my sister had meningitis based on symptoms. She never took my sister to the doctor...maybe she was right. When I was about 16 I kept getting really sick. She diagnosed me as having appendicitis and took me to an acupuncturist and used chiropractic on me. To be honest, the acupuncture made pretty horrible symptoms vanish. My mother also placed me on a starvation inducing bland diet of only steamed vegetables because this was suppose to avoid aggravating my appendix. Several times, she declared me cured after symptoms seemingly vanished. One night I ended up at the emergency room with incredible pain. I thought my appendix had ruptured. Turns out...the whole thing, the entire time was ovarian cysts. WOW! That may be anecdotal, but I hope it shows that even highly educated chiropractors believe themselves to be cure-all medically qualified doctors. Every time I tell her about ANY ailment myself, my daughter, or my fiance has...she believes all we need is chiropractic to fix it....including ADHD, thyroid disease, temper tantrums, etc.
Posted by: Cheryl | July 30, 2009 11:06 AM
I grew up under the care of a chiropractor - my grandfather. The type of treatment he provided would be on par with a massage therapist today. He would not use spinal manipulation or hyper extension of a joint on any child. He often said such things should not be used on a still growing body. All us grandkids would ask him to pop our necks cause we thought it was funny, but he wouldn't. He'd tell us its not right to do that to someone just for fun and without cause. It was always gentle massage with strong hands.
People would come from all over the state to see him. They would be surprised that he could tell there was something wrong just by looking at them. That was because he knew that a tinge of yellow in the eyes or vision problems, sudden weight change, bad breathe, or ridges in finger nails could indicate something beyond his ability. He was always honest. He could not cure cancer or heart problems. He could not fix a broken back or make someone walk again. He could provide massage and what is known today as passive range of motion. He did some spinal manipulations but only after a good 20 to 30 minute massage to the area followed by another lengthy massage.
I injured my back some 30 years ago and lived too far away to visit my grandfather. I went to a local chiropractor who spent maybe 10-15 minutes with me to pop my back. I knew that was completely wrong. My grandfather was appalled saying he could have done more harm than good.
I won't go to a chiropractor today. If I have a musculo-skeletal problem, a physiotherapist will be the only person I see. I fully support Singh.
Posted by: Guen | July 30, 2009 11:09 AM
I noticed a lot of you are citing examples regarding the injuries caused by surgeons and medical doctors. Exactly how is it relevant to this debate? Yes, some other doctors are not so hot...does this validate the effectiveness or safety of chiropractic? The question is: does chiropractic have any scientific basis for being considered as a therapy for any ailment. If so, which ones and how can you protect yourself against the practitioners who believe themselves to be miracle workers or just out to get your cash? Be careful with the argument here. I can argue that chiropractic is safer then driving in my car...that doesn't mean I should run out to a chiropractor instead.
Posted by: tl | July 30, 2009 1:32 PM
Well, there are such things as dislocations, and it is certainly necessary (though perhaps not sufficient) to put the mating surfaces back where they belong. I can hardly imagine anyone advocating that a dislocated thumb should be left that way; why would one assume that a twisted spine wouldn't need to be put back into alignment?
If they would stick to that specific service, we wouldn't have an issue.
Posted by: Sis | July 30, 2009 1:48 PM
No Guen, I'm not arguing that individual doctors are sometimes harmful, I'm arguing that the prevailing ethic in medicine is, when we see drugs and devices (implanted in people's backs, knees, hips, chests) marketed with hidden, suppressed and spun data; when evidence being delivered to front line physicians on a silver platter by a "thought leader" in the employ of pharma, or one (also working for pharma) who works for as formerly august an entity as the NIH (Sunderland et al), and I'm arguing that front line physicians are not doing any research into evidence, but being quite happy to take the bling and look the other way.
Chiropractic is essentially woo.
So is mainstream medicine. Nekkid as the day they were born, and the citizenry is really getting tired of pointing it out to you gullible people who ironically and so willingly, swallow mainstream woo.
Posted by: Sis | July 30, 2009 1:51 PM
There are so many "pharyngulas" each as poseur and useless as the original, as derivative as a batch of me-too drugs. There was only one Pharmalot. RIP.
Posted by: Jim | July 30, 2009 3:17 PM
I've been seeing a chiropractor for about 15 years, on and off. I was dragged to him after I broke a couple of discs in my lumbar spine. I did not believe in chiropractic treatment, but I was physically unable to resist.
Fifteen years later, there is a very good orthopaedic surgeon still waiting for me to come back to have my spine fused.
I have done an astonishing range of physical things in the intervening years, mostly with no bad reaction at all.
And there were side effects. Particularly in the first few weeks, I was in a lot of pain a lot of the time. But I was in pain anyway, and he did tell me ahead of time that there would be good and bad days.
I mentioned to my boss once that I still didn't believe a DC could cure chronic ear infections, and he responded quietly, "They cured my kids." This, after everyhing "conventional" had been tried without success.
Oh, and the "woman in Canada?" The inquest found that she had a pre-existing vascular condition and, despite the best efforts of "expert" physicians, there was no evidence that the chiroprator had caused or contributed to her death. There was some evidence that he could not have caused the fatal injury without ripping her head off.
I'm quite sure that there are incompetent DCs around, and ther are certainly a lot of quacks who hide under the banner of chiropractic treatment. (They drive my DC crazy, too.) But it can and does work.
Posted by: Last Hussar | July 30, 2009 5:27 PM
This is the phrase which is being edited out of the 'safe' version, and which in reply to my earlier post Truthspeaker said doesn't mean Singh is implying the Chiropracters know the treatment is false.
'happily promotes bogus treatments'.
This is the trouble with implying something. It is in the mind of the reader. T/S may well read that with out seeing any implication that C/Ps know the treatment is false. However if the BCA can convince the court that a majority of people will read that as C/Ps are KNOWINGLY misleading people they win. Different people-different interpretation.
Reading the sanitized version compared to the original, it looks like the BCA haven't gone after the science Singh quotes, but have gone for this sentence- an attack on them, not on chiropractic therapy.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 30, 2009 5:41 PM
Jim #118 wrote:
Well, looks like he blew your skepticism right out of the water, didn't he? So much for doubt. Your boss knows, for a fact, that adjustments to the spine cured his kids of chronic ear infections. It wasn't coincidence or regression to the mean. It wasn't anything else. It wasn't a case of subjective validation. It wasn't a matter of any of the "conventional" methods slowly making a difference.
No. He knew. The clincher? He "responded quietly." Sniff. I love that part. Do keep it in.
What an affecting story. There's no scientific support or mechanism, but, if you can't trust uncontrolled, unconfirmed, unlikely anecdotes about daddies and their kids disseminated by strangers over the internet, what can you trust? You sure made us think again.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2009 5:49 PM
I had a pretty nasty cut on my hand a couple weeks ago acquired during a fairly harrowing photo excursion. I decided that drinking beer was the best way to heal this slice.
Surprise surprise. A couple cases of beer later
MY CUT IS HEALED!!!1!!11111111111one
Beer is the cure for lacerations!
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 30, 2009 8:06 PM
Jim #118:
MY boss says that chiropractic is bullshit (well, he would if I asked him). So there!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 30, 2009 8:30 PM
Now to run the experiment. Beer versus Patricia's grog at the Pharyngula tavern. My money is on the grog. Especially after it starts eating through tankards...Posted by: Mrs. Muir | July 30, 2009 9:02 PM
Why was the thing edited? What was the problem with it? Was it lacking in scientific proof? What I read here was only anecdotal. What are the statistics? Are many of the problems from persons trained at the same institutions? Are there other common denominators, or is this simply a person who hates chiropractors? Is this an excerpt?
I have gone to a chiropractor for several years. Like all therapies, there is a risk. However, we run risks any time we visit the doctor, physical therapist, dentist, midwife, or any health care practitioner. I got a very nasty infection after a dental appointment. It could have potentially been fatal. Does this mean that I should never go to a dentist? No, it means, though, that since he did not answer my repeated calls when the problem showed up, I found a more responsible dentist. We have to understand the risks that attend our choices, but we certainly cannot expect perfection! Thankfully, we are free to choose for ourselves and must respect each person's right to do this, whether or not we agree. The point should be to improve the profession by deleting those who practice irresponsibly, whether in medicine or the so-called alternative therapies, and naturally we should, none of us, be fooled into believing bombastic claims. Look at the statistics and proofs. There is no panacea for all problems within the sphere of medicines and therapies. And we need to bear in mind that not every therapy is for every person.
Posted by: SEF | July 30, 2009 9:14 PM
@ Sastra #120:
Note also that the confirmatory character in the story was the boss. These woo-soaked types do so like their authority figures (all the better for being bogus authorities). They'd never have the advice coming from a beggar or flower-seller. They don't respect those (and wouldn't expect anyone else to). The "boss" is also generally going to be male and white (contrast the roles of the female characters in such stories).
Posted by: SEF | July 30, 2009 9:19 PM
@ Mrs. Muir #124:
Ah, "delete" them like the modern cybermen would, perchance, whereas daleks would "exterminate" them. ;-)
Posted by: Bryson Brown | July 30, 2009 9:21 PM
A case for the example hopper:
I had persistent leg pain (much worse in the morning) for many months between spring of '08 and April of '09. When I finally did get an MRI (a three-month wait from request to exam), the cause was clear: a damaged disc at L3-4, with stenosis causing compression of the left and (especially) right femoral nerve. Reduced reflex in the right leg and some reduced sensitivity showed up on physical examination.
As far as I can tell, surgery is the right response to this: the lesion is local and clearly explains the symptoms I was having, everything else looks good, and I've done all I can with physio (I'm fitter than I've been in 15 year or more). Better still, surgery for this kind of compression/ disc problem apparently has a pretty high success rate.
For now I'm waiting to see a surgeon (late August). This raises a point some might find helpful: I've been taking Tramadol (37.5 mg.) (along with ibuprofen (400 mg) and acetominophen (=paracetamol for those outside North America- 825 mg.)) three times a day since late April. The Tramadol has been amazingly helpful. I think that it may even have reversed some of the nerve damage that had developed (it's in trial for diabetic neuropathy). I've gone from being barely able to get downstairs in the morning to being able to walk normally, and run later in the day, too. Tramadol is a non-opioid drug that acts on \mu-opioid receptors as well as on serotonin and noradrenalin receptors. It's done more than I though would be possible to control my nerve-related pain.
Posted by: amphiox | July 30, 2009 9:29 PM
Personally, I suspect that most of the small benefit seen with chiropractic for short term relief of mechanical low back pain is related to the fact that a good lumbar spinal manipulation pretty much amounts to a deep, thorough massage.
In the name of fairness and charity, I would like to mention the following points:
In the current American health system, a spine surgeon who tries to be discriminating in patient selection must deal with the fact that many of the patients he/she does not offer surgery to will just go to his competitor across the street, who will agree to operate, and as most surgeons in this system are in effect the CEOs of their own private little corporation, the temptation is strong to just take the customer and feed one's family.
There is also the issue that there are NO good therapies for chronic mechanical back pain. NOTHING really helps much. Faced to a patient in excruciating agony, unable to function, with a quality of life that is hardly worth living, surgeons are going to want to try to help, and they have been trained to operate. When all you've got is a hammer, and you need to crack an eggshell, and you really, really, really need to crack that eggshell. . . .
As for patients doctor shopping and being unwilling to accept the slow and often only partial and temporary recovery offered by physiotherapy and other conservative measures, I have been fortunate that I am still young enough and lucky enough not have experienced significant back pain in my life, but the few episodes of acute low back pain I have experienced, which lasted only a few hours, if chronic back pain was even half as bad, and lasting months on end, day after day, well I can sympathize with the desperate desire to have the pain go away NOW.
As a final point, humans suffer from mechanical low back pain because we are a transitional species in the truest sense of that word. Our lumbar spine and its associated musculature displays the transition from a quadrupedal ancestor to an upright tail-less biped (the tail-less part is crucial here, tailed bipeds don't have the biomechanical issues we do because of the tail's counterbalancing effect), but the adaption is not complete, leaving us with this major biomechanical problem. One could postulate the eventual elimination of chronic low back pain in human descendents a million or two years hence as our spines complete the transition to upright walking and obtain the proper biomechanical configuration (conditional upon chronic low back pain being a disadvantageous trait that could be selected against).
At any rate, if we were designed, our lumbar spines are solid evidence that the designer was either stupid or sadistic. An intelligent and benevolent designer, if he wanted to make an intelligent tool using species, would have either given us a tail, like bipedal dinosaurs, or kept us quadrupedal and given us an alternate manipulating organ, like an elephant's trunk, or another pair of limbs (like centaurs?), or dispensed with a skeleton altogether (squid!)
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 30, 2009 9:38 PM
SEF #120 wrote:
Not generally, I think. I've noticed a strong thread of mis-placed feminism running through a lot of alternative medicine woo. Women as healers, women with special ancient wisdom, women as closer to nature, women with more attuned spirituality, women empowering themselves through networks of women with their instinctive ways of knowing. Trust yourself. Follow your heart. Join the alt med sisterhood, with its gentler, natural ways towards wellness and woo.
If you see some advertised event directed specifically at women -- like a "Woman's Expo" -- you can pretty much count on it being crammed full of a lot of very dicey alt med workshops, lectures, and booths (plus advice on things like 'how to talk to your angels.') I've spoken about this phenomenon with other women at skeptic, humanist, and atheist conventions, and they usually say the same thing. Being skeptical about alternative medicine (or religion) is seen as buying into patriarchal, male, Western, right brain ways of seeing the world. It betrays and ignores the innate sensitivity, openness, and tolerance women are supposed to possess.
Blech.
Posted by: Alex Deam | July 30, 2009 10:32 PM
Er no, the lawsuit was not successful, as the lawsuit is not over. What happened was that Judge Eady decided that "bogus" meant "deliberately dishonest", rather than just wrong regardless of intention as most people understand the word. Singh is currently appealing that decision. Whether that appeal is successful or not, the lawsuit won't be over. The Judge will then decide if the meaning that is affixed to the word "bogus" is libelous or not.
You should realise that chiropractic as a philosophy believes that the spine is the root cause of most health problems, and that manipulating the spine, even when the health problems are nothing to with the spine, will help. The BCA are not unusual in chiropractic in this regard.
Posted by: Tassie Devil | July 30, 2009 11:25 PM
Case 1:
55year old lawyer, saw chiropractor for low back pain. Chiropractor identified neck 'subluxation' causing back issues.
Presented to the emergency department 10 hours after neck manipulation complaining of severe, unremitting unilateral headache. Initial investigations normal; then had grend mal seizure lasting 4 minutes from which he recovered with aphasia(unable to speak) and hemiplegia (paralysed on one side). Immediately intubated and transferred for cerepral angiography which revealed a massive stroke. Further investigation showed a vertebral artery tear. Died in intensive care 12 hours later.
Case 2:
32year old company director collapsed while getting ready to go to a party with his wife, whom he had married less than a month earlier. Arrived confused, had grand mal seizure from which he did not regain consciousness. CT showed massive unilateral stroke. On further questioning his wife volunteered that he had had three chiropractic neck manipulations in three weeks after he injured his shoulder playing tennis. Died in ICU the following afternoon.
These are not friend-of-a-friend anecdotes, these are cases I have personally been involved with. And in reply to the 'well, people die from medical treatment, too' - in neither of these individuals was neck manipulation going to make any difference to their symptoms. Both of these people were killed by quacks who knew nothing about anatomy or pathology and who ignored the documented risks of the useless procedures they were performing.
And just because orthopaedic surgery is not always successful does not mean that by extension, it's OK for chiropractic quacks to do things that have a significant risk of death or permanent disability.
Posted by: Sis | July 31, 2009 1:32 AM
Case 1-7,520,000. Presented with stroke like symptoms, kidney failure, vision disturbances, tingling pain in extremities, muscle pain and weakness, atrophied calf muscles, transient global amnesia; cardiac arrest, cerebellar ataxia, memory loss, aphasia *which doesn't mean can't speak*, pancreatitis, diabetes.
Statins. Vioxx. Zyprexa. Paxil. Prescribed to millions upon no more evidence than they would increase market share.
No one said this. "And just because orthopaedic surgery is not always successful does not mean that by extension, it's OK for chiropractic quacks to do things that have a significant risk of death or permanent disability."
You really do have a reading comprehension problem. You'd be a good example of why pharma can run to the bank with no more evidence for the drug they've prescribed you than it will increase stockholders share.
Posted by: Tassie Devil | July 31, 2009 2:02 AM
Sis:
Aphasia is the medical term for being unable to speak. Dysphasia is having trouble finding the right words. Dysarthria is knowing the right words, but having difficulty forming them due to problems with muscles involved in phonation.
And your rant against medications that have been subjected to extensive trials, and your inability to comprehend the risk:benefit ratio, makes your contribution totally pointless.
Come back when you're scintifically literate and then we can have a meaningful discussion. Until then you're just an altie woo-merchant with nothing to add.
Posted by: SEF | July 31, 2009 4:06 AM
@ Sastra #129:
Yes, self-empowerment alt-healing woo is often female. However, I wasn't referring to that general trend but this specific one and observing the local crop of woo sponsors. As it happens, chiropractic seems to be stereotypically male anyway (perhaps it's all that thrusting!); but, more importantly given what I was actually pointing out, the bias in the stories here is in that tradition.
Posted by: SEF | July 31, 2009 5:11 AM
There's a different kind of trap involved in chiropractic - apparently exactly the same one as in religions.
The whole thing is a con-trick based entirely on woo and unevidenced and dangerous/evil practices. At least some of the ongoing practitioners must have become aware of this during training / induction / indoctrination because they are reported as sticking to real stuff (massage and physiotherapy) and referring patients/victims to real doctors for everything else. They don't genuinely do chiropracty as such (like many homeopaths are really herbalists). Yet for some reason these "moderates" still ally themselves with the scum - and, in doing so, enable and provide cover for the scum.
Is it that they can't bear to admit (even to themselves) they were conned into training for a bogus profession (/religion)? Do they somehow imagine that everyone else in the con-trick similarly ignores the official dogma and practices in favour of cherry-picking excuses to do what was always sensible and right (ie they manage to be decent beings despite their religious dogma, as per condom-using Catholics who fail to beat/stone their children and women)? Are they too cowardly to come out of the closet and declare their real position?
The few genuinely competent masseurs and physiotherapists currently masquerading as chiropractors (for the prestige, community, whatever) should easily be able to move into honest, decent, evidence-based practice - albeit presumably with some retraining and recertification. Why do they continue to give succor to the pond-scum around them in their bogus (and destructive) profession (/religion) by remaining in it?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 7:33 AM
Why did I know that Sis would end up being a anti-pharma wingnut?
Got a scabby grudge to pick sis?
Posted by: SIS | August 1, 2009 12:20 PM
scintifically literate?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 1, 2009 12:33 PM
*snicker*Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 7:48 AM
hahaha
I guess that's a yes to my question then?
Posted by: SEF | August 3, 2009 8:24 AM
Do you two (NoR & RBDC) know that you're really quoting Tassie Devil (for the typo) and not SIS/Sis?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 8:35 AM
No I didn't. But thanks.
Apologies to SIS, for that.
Posted by: John1761 | August 12, 2009 3:00 AM
Perfect site, i like it!
online , cheap , cheap , , online ,
Posted by: John1761 | August 12, 2009 6:13 AM
Perfect site, i like it!
, online , , , ,
Posted by: LloydChiro | August 18, 2009 12:26 PM
"The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying - even though there is not a jot of evidence."
I'm not a "fundamentalist," or anything like that, but there is actually some evidence that spinal manipulation can help with infantile colic:
http://bit.ly/8z80J
There's probably more. However, I'm pretty surprised that an online community that postures itself to be a group of critical thinkers would overlook the other side of the argument. Is this a case of whoever shouts the loudest wins in this group? Who here is being responsible? Maybe someone should, in turn, be skeptic about the skeptics.