Chiropractic stroke publicized

[Skeptic Guy]

They might also be interested in watching the following video clips of chiropractic victims speaking out…

Britt Harwe, chiropractic victim and founder of the Chiropractic Stroke Awareness Group (3mins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wCicEGlRXk

A short presentation about neck manipulation and stroke featuring a young stroke victim - ‘Is A Headache Worth Dying For? (2mins)
http://www.neck911usa.com/vide.htm

Video clip featuring tetraplegic chiropractic victim, Sandra Nette (3mins 12 secs)
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/class-action-lawsuit/#clip59878

Video clip of quadriplegic chiropractic victim, Diane Rodrigue (see from 25min 45 secs in)
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0505/primetime.html


Also, ‘What’s the harm in going to a chiropractor’ is worth a read as it gives details of people who have been seriously injured or killed by chiropractic treatment:
http://whatstheharm.net/chiropractic.html

These are great. Thanks. I will pass them along too.

One of my friends who went to a chiropractor a few weeks ago, had a neck adjustment that cause immense pain and she couldn't move for a day or two. It was scary. She has decided that she will not go back to THAT chiropractor. I am trying to tell her that they are all the same.

Well we are also not counting the people they cripple either.

So with Mehmet Oz you believe in energy healing too? He is a noted cardiac surgeon after all so he must know what he is talking about.

Dr. Oz is an excellent cardiac surgeon. He saved the life of a friend of mine. However, he is the biggest wooist around. I catch him on Oprah's XM Radio channel now and then and he scares me with what he is saying.

 

[Blue Wode]

The chiropractic neck adjustments and stroke issue was in the news again yesterday:
http://www.settleit.net/san-diego-l...-with-dr-pritsker-on-safeness-of-chiropractic

The presenter of that 3-minute news clip says that neurosurgeons say that about 10% of their patients with torn blood vessels come after otherwise healthy patients have their necks adjusted.

There’s a brief interview with a concerned neurosurgeon, followed by an interview with a chiropractor who, rather alarmingly, says that chiropractic “is [still] the safest form of treatment for somebody who has a neck problem”. It’s a claim which is completely at odds with Edzard Ernst’s findings…

Spinal manipulation for neck pain is a treatment with unknown benefits and unknown harm. Because of this and the fact that serious risks are on record, a responsible risk–benefit assessment cannot ignore the risks and cannot come out in favour of spinal manipulation.

Remember the supreme law in medicine: first do no harm. Other therapies for neck pain exist, e.g. exercise, which are supported by at least as good evidence for benefit and which are at the same time free of significant risks.

The inescapable recommendation based on the best evidence available today is to use exercise rather than spinal manipulation as a treatment for neck pain.

http://www.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact0902a06d01.htm

The effectiveness of spinal manipulation for most indications is less than convincing. A risk-benefit evaluation is therefore unlikely to generate positive results: with uncertain effectiveness and finite risks, the balance cannot be positive.

Adverse Effects of Spinal Manipulation: A Systematic Review (2007)
http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/7/330

 

[ponderingturtle]

Dr. Oz is an excellent cardiac surgeon. He saved the life of a friend of mine. However, he is the biggest wooist around. I catch him on Oprah's XM Radio channel now and then and he scares me with what he is saying.

Exactly being an excellent surgeon does not prevent people from not knowing even the basics of research about alternative medicine. That is why I thought it telling that it was a surgeon who endorsed chiropracty and not a researcher into effective back pain treatments.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Even so, unlike a PT, a chiropractor need not have any medical training whatsoever.

So the best a chiropractor can do is ignore or disavow what he was taught in his college of chiropractic.

I don't know what you consider 'medical training' but licensed chiropractors certainly have some. Many among their group claim to recognize the fallacies of the theory. Seems like cognitive dissonance to me, but it is what they claim.

 

[JJM]

I don't know what you consider 'medical training' but licensed chiropractors certainly have some. {snip}

Not by any practical standard. If you are bleeding, I know enough to provide direct pressure on the wound; however, bona fide medical training requires much more. Chiros often obtain licenses without ever seeing an ill person (they recruit healthy friends and family to attend their "clinics").

Many chiros oppose vaccination. Twenty percent will examine and adjust your spine regardless of your complaint. They don't have useable, medical training.

Chiro students spend a lot of time learning about fairy-tale subluxations and bogus means of detecting and "adjusting" them. They don't have much time left to obtain so much as a boy-sprout merit-badge in first aid. I believe Dr. Barrett has noted that they learn "conversational, medical terminology" so they can sound knowledgable.

What about the small number who renounce subluxations and try to practice rationally? I think they are admirable in some ways; but I don't want to attend a PT-wannabe who imagines s/he is qualified to diagnose and treat. Upon graduation, they don't have the formal training/experience to diagnose or to treat. Thus, they have to be self-educated to be competent, and I don't trust my health to amateurs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not one to tout their practice, but I'm pretty sure the subjects taken in Chiropractic colleges is more thorough than what you are describing.

Here's an example:

Summary of Course Hours for Doctor of Chiropractic

* Anatomy 585 hours
* Biochemistry 75 hours
* Physiopathology 345 hours
* Microbiology and Public Health 120 hours
* Diagnosis 525 hours
* Diagnostic Imaging 270 hours
* Clinical Laboratory 75 hours
* Associated Studies 165 hours
* Chiropractic Philosophy 135 hours
* Chiropractic Technique 615 hours
* Ancillary Therapeutic Procedures 90 hours
* Clinical Practice Issues 75 hours
* Clinical Experience and Outpatient Services 1,320 hours
* Total Core hours 4,380 hours
* Elective Courses 225 hours

They don't spend anytime on drug treatment and some do oppose vaccines and I oppose the whole basis of the field. But they are not for the most part, completely ignorant of medicine.


Barrett supports using them. Like I said, I have debated this with him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Barrett has backed off from his stand from years ago, but not far enough for my taste. Here is a paper Barrett backs:

Chiropractic: Does the Bad Outweigh the Good?

The Bottom Line

A good chiropractor can do a lot to help you when you have mechanical-type back pain and other musculoskeletal problems. But until the chiropractic profession cleans up its act, and its colleges uniformly graduate properly limited chiropractors who specialize in neuromusculoskeletal problems, you'll have to exercise caution and informed judgment when seeking chiropractic care.

My argument is, go see a PT if it is PT you are getting from the Chiropractor.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Barrett has backed off from his stand from years ago, but not far enough for my taste. Here is a paper Barrett backs:

Chiropractic: Does the Bad Outweigh the Good?

My argument is, go see a PT if it is PT you are getting from the Chiropractor.

And I think the corollary should be -- don't go and see a chiropractor for anything else.

 

[Blue Wode]

My argument is, go see a PT if it is PT you are getting from the Chiropractor.

And I think the corollary should be -- don't go and see a chiropractor for anything else.

So, in a nutshell, until chiropractors reform (if that’s possible) they’re probably best avoided. For drive-by readers of this thread, here’s why:

"The words 'manipulation' and 'subluxation' in a chiropractic context have meanings that are different from the meanings in evidence-based literature.... The reasons for use of manipulation/mobilization by an evidence-based manual therapist are not the same as the reason for use of adjustment/manipulation by most chiropractors."

Can Chiropractors and Evidence-Based Manual Therapists Work Together? An Opinion From a Veteran Chiropractor [Samuel Homola, DC, The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, Vol.14 No.2 (2006) E14-E18 ]
http://jmmtonline.com/documents/HomolaV14N2E.pdf

"Modern chiropractic theory, if it exists, is double-talk that attempts to cling to "subluxation" theory while pretending to have abandoned it. The actual reality is that chiropractors cannot agree among themselves about what they believe or should believe."

Analysis of a misleading chiropractic article in a major medical journal [Stephen Barrett, Chirobase]
http://www.chirobase.org/14Misc/meeker.html

Following on from the above two links, this is an example of why it is likely that many chiropractic patients are being duped into potentially dangerous unnecessary or inappropriate treatment:

Chiropractic Simplified—Chiropractic described in 100 words without using the terms adjustment or subluxation. Use it in your patient conversations and see more people "get" chiropractic.

http://www.patientmedia.com/audio/seminar.htm

Returning to the topic of this thread, here are the thoughts of neurologist, Steven Novella:

“The risks of neck manipulation are not trivial. The primary risk is that aggressive neck manipulation may cause a tear (called a dissection) in one of the four arteries that feed the brain - two carotids to the front of the brain and two vertebrals to the back.

If a tear forms in one of these arteries then a clot (called a thrombus) can form around that tear, blocking off flow through the artery and causing a stroke. It is also possible that the thrombus may break lose and flow downstream and then lodge in and completely block off an artery - when a clot moves it is called an embolus.

This is apparently what happened to Sandra Nette…this case should be a wake up call. The government cannot continue to license nonsense and call it medicine. The public deserves better. I also think that public awareness about the risks of neck manipulation needs to be raised, and more importantly this practice needs to simply stop.

Watch how the government and chiropractors respond to this law suit. It will be very telling.”

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=316

And this is one of the first responses to the Nette lawsuit – the defence statement of Sandra Nette’s chiropractor, Gregory Stiles, who, unsurprisingly, is denying all allegations:
http://www.ctv.ca/generic/WebSpecials/pdf/StatementofDefenceofDrStiles.pdf

For a good, scientific summation of the chiropractic neck manipulation and stroke controversy, see here:
http://healthwatcher.net/chirowatch...nse to Martinuk article in Calgary Herald.pdf

And for a handy Fact Sheet on chiropractic which you can download and distribute, see here:
http://www.ukskeptics.com/factsheets/Chiropractic.pdf

 

[JJM]

I'm not one to tout their practice, but I'm pretty sure the subjects taken in Chiropractic colleges is more thorough than what you are describing.

Here's an example:

They don't spend anytime on drug treatment and some do oppose vaccines and I oppose the whole basis of the field. But they are not for the most part, completely ignorant of medicine. {snip}

Okay, how about: they are simply ignorant of medicine.

How can one master anatomy and pathophysiology and then subscribe to the notion of chiropractic subluxations (to which many schools apply different names, these days)? The answer is plain- they study those subjects from the point of view of chiropractic, not reality. Another problem is that study of microbiology and public health is incompatible with opposition to vaccination. In other words- their instruction in the topics is inferior.

As for their "clinical" experience, it is usually a joke. Many graduates have posted that they must rely on healthy, young friends and family members to pose as patients at their clinics. One group even sued over the poor clinical experience. The school won, not because they provided a good experience; rather, they had no contractual obligation to do so.

http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/...1&MERCURYSID=9ac341fe894c032f3c98ee00405aa420 "... As a greenhorn DC, I clearly recollect the first patient who told me, straight out, that he needed a “good cracking.” ... Since I was just out of school and without any meaningful experience, this seemed perfectly reasonable." No meaningful experience; yet he can legally hang out a shingle and call himself a primary care physician.

So, one cannot judge an education by the list of required courses, and one must go with the lowest common denominator for chiros- no meaningful experience.

 

[Tomblvd]

I'm not one to tout their practice, but I'm pretty sure the subjects taken in Chiropractic colleges is more thorough than what you are describing.

The only subjects there that are remotely close to what would be considered relevant would be:

* Anatomy 585 hours
* Biochemistry 75 hours
* Physiopathology 345 hours
* Microbiology and Public Health 120 hours

And obviously "anatomy" and "physiopathology" would spend most if not all the time on the back. That leaves biochem and micro, both of which I know I saw in college. The rest of the subjects you listed are directly related to Chiro.

IOW that is a very weak cirruculum.

 

[Blue Wode]

We seem to have at least one very questionable chiropractic curriculum here in the UK. The following is lifted from the BSc Hons prospectus of the McTimoney College of Chiropractic:

The basic principle of chiropractic is that disturbances of the nervous system, resulting from subluxation of the bones of the spine and other parts of the body, are a primary or contributory factor in the pathological process of many common human and animal ailments.

More…
http://www.mctimoney-college.ac.uk/documents/Human-prospectus-Updated-July-2008.pdf

It’s not very reassuring reading when you consider that, upon graduation, McTimoney-trained chiropractors are officially recognised as independent primary care providers. Indeed, how the McTimoney teachings can be reconciled with the following regulatory requirements is just mind-boggling:

…[all UK chiropractors] must ensure that all the information they provide, or authorise others to provide on their behalf, is factual and verifiable, is not misleading or inaccurate in any way, does not abuse the trust of members of the public in any way, nor exploit their lack of experience or knowledge about either health or chiropractic matters, and does not put pressure on people to use chiropractic, for example by arousing ill-founded fear for their future health or suggesting that chiropractic can cure serious disease.

http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/FITNESS_TO_PRACTISE_REPORT_2007_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf

For more revelations, see this great Quackometer post, ‘The Role of UK Universities in Chiropractic’:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/08/role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html

Getting back on the topic of neck manipulation and stroke, for those interested, a round-up of the Nette class-action lawsuit can be found here:
http://www.chirobase.org/08Legal/nette.html

 

[Rolfe]

.... upon graduation, McTimoney-trained chiropractors are officially recognised as independent primary care providers.

What, in Britain? You sure? Sounds very unlikely to me. (Though it's probably pretty academic, what with NHS GPs who are real doctors being, well, free and everything....)

The first time I heard the term "McTimoney", I thought it was a joke. I really did.

Tourist: Is there a clan tartan I'm entitled to?

Shopkeeper in tourist trap: Very probably. What's your name, sir?

Tourist: Dunlop.

Shopkeeper: Oh yes, you'd be entitled to the Mackintyre tartan.

Tourist: That's interesting, I didn't know the Dunlops were Mackintyres.

Shopkeeper: Oh yes, Dunlops have been Mackintyres for many years now.

[I'll be here all week....]

McTimoney.... Geddit?

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

In Embra there are books which list every sept of every family of every clan in known space.
If your name is Pastafazoola-Cowsnofskibumstein, they'll flog you 40m2 of MacFarlane tartan and two family heirlooms.

 

[Rolfe]

And if you're me you end up wrapped up like a Christmas present.

Rolfe.

 

[Blue Wode]

...upon graduation, McTimoney-trained chiropractors are officially recognised as independent primary care providers.

What, in Britain? You sure? Sounds very unlikely to me.

Yes, I'm sure - once they’ve registered with the GCC to enable them to practice, that is. The following is lifted from the General Chiropractic Council’s Code of Practice and Standard of Proficiency:

The education and training of chiropractors

To register as a chiropractor in the United Kingdom, individuals have to complete a four-year chiropractic honours degree course or its equivalent, including a full year of clinical training. This educational requirement reflects the fact that chiropractors are independent practitioners with responsibility for patients in the primary care setting.

See page 4
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/COPSOP_Dec05_WEB(with_glossary)07Jan09.pdf

And this is lifted from the GCC’s Patient Information Leaflet:

Do I need to contact my GP?

You do not need to let your GP know unless you want to. Many GPs recommend chiropractic care to their patients. With your permission, your chiropractor may send a report to your GP, with details of your condition and the treatment you are receiving. This is because your GP holds all your medical records so it is in your interests for them to be kept up to date.

http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/WhatCanIExpect_Sep07_Web.pdf

Incidentally, as you’ll see from the prospectus link in my previous post, around a quarter (i.e. approx. 600 practitioners) of the UK chiropractic profession is made up of dubiously-trained McTimoney chiropractors.