• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chiropractors peddle snake oil

andycal

Critical Thinker
A
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
382
Shock horror, new report says "It don't work guv'nor"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4824594.stm

It seems that Edzard Ernst is making his way through the alt. med. industry in the UK and causing a fuss. This time he doesn't say anything about "people should try acupuncture instead" which is heartwarming.

Obviously this is only one study, more are needed and of course chirpractors themselves are saying it's crap, but I suppose it's a start.
 
from the article
British Chiropractic Association said:
"The usefulness of manipulation is that it can be added, substituted or modified as part of a package of care that provides management, pain control, advice and recognises risks to a good recovery,"
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it would be a darn site more usefull if it actualy worked!
 
andycal said:
Obviously this is only one study, more are needed and of course chirpractors themselves are saying it's crap, but I suppose it's a start.
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of negative evidence already exists for spinal manipulation:

Much of the original evidence for chiropractic spinal manipulation was based on the Meade Report back in the early 1990’s - a study that was subsequently shown to be flawed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1833493

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/311/7015/1302

Since then, there have been more indications that the effects of spinal manipulation for back pain are non-specific (see Rapid Responses for this study published in the BMJ in 2004):
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38282.669225.AEv1

In addition to that, this 2005 summary of recent studies for spinal manipulation further demonstrates why the evidence isn't looking good for chiropractors:
http://www.springer.at/periodicals/article_pdf/xxxxxxxxx140xxxxxx379109_1.pdf

And for those who want a quick look at the current status of chiropractic, this article gives a brief outline of the evidence for it as well as the safety issues surrounding it:
http://journals.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact1002a02t01.htm

Suffice to say that with chiropractic ‘subluxations’ still remaining unproven after more than 100 years one has to wonder how the profession ever managed to become regulated in the UK. (Apparently, a few months ago, even the Royal College of General Practitioners withdrew its guidelines which had formerly recommended chiropractic spinal manipulation in the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain.)

BTW, if you do a UK Google search for “subluxations” it’s quite an eye-opener.
 
andycal said:
Shock horror, new report says "It don't work guv'nor"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4824594.stmObviously this is only one study, more are needed and of course chirpractors themselves are saying it's crap, but I suppose it's a start.
Click to expand...
No, it's not one study, it's a meta-analysis of several. I haven't read it yet, and I would like to see the criteria for selecting studies for inclusion. Usually Ernst et al are above reproach on that. Of course the chiros will cite all sorts of other studies which appear to support them.
 
Cracking links, thanks for those. It's something I've not really taken much notice of and I really didn't realise how dangerous this stuff can be. Just skimming the surface I can see how a bit of jiggery pokery with the back can help to ease pain, but It didn't dawn on me just how much 'manipulation' these guys get up to.

A friend of mine went to one some time ago and just before he said anything I said "I guess he said one leg was shorter than the other and gave you something to put in your shoe?". I said it jokingly having read some of the comments on Jref. Whaddya know, I was bang on.

I'd take more of an interest but I don't know anyone else who goes and anyway, I'm reading all about Gillian McKeith at the moment, Ben Goldacre has gone to work on her something rotten...
 
Asolepius said:
No, it's not one study, it's a meta-analysis of several. I haven't read it yet, and I would like to see the criteria for selecting studies for inclusion. Usually Ernst et al are above reproach on that. Of course the chiros will cite all sorts of other studies which appear to support them.
Click to expand...

Here it is:

Ernst E, Canter PH, A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal
manipulation, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine: Vol. 20; April 2006,
pp189-193:
http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/pdf/j06-04spinalmanip.pdf


Interesting review of it by Mark Henderson, science correspondent at The Times:

Spinal Manipulation - the rules of science apply
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8123-2100577,00.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom