Chiropracty?

[princesspoppy]

Hi

Now Im most probably going to display my ignorance and sound incredibly stupid, but I was surprised to learn that Chiropracty is considered as quackery.
I genuinely thought that it was a legitimate case of manipulating the spine.
As you can see, I dont have a wide knowlegde of it, but could someone please explain it to me?

Thanks!

 

[MWare]

http://skepdic.com/chiro.html

 

[Bronze Dog]

This might help you out.

There are some chiropractors who just deal with mundane stuff like back pain, but they're a minority. Most chiropractors deal with magical "subluxations" which they claim are the real cause of disease. The way-out ones have been known to claim things like curing cancer by cracking your back.

 

[Blue Wode]

Hi

Now Im most probably going to display my ignorance and sound incredibly stupid, but I was surprised to learn that Chiropracty is considered as quackery.
I genuinely thought that it was a legitimate case of manipulating the spine.
As you can see, I dont have a wide knowlegde of it, but could someone please explain it to me?

Thanks!

This article from the latest issue of the Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy goes a long way to explaining the whole problem with chiropractic:
http://jmmtonline.com/documents/HomolaV14N2E.pdf

The chiropractic profession, which began with a founding father in 1895, is identified primarily by its use of manipulation. But chiropractic is based upon a vertebral subluxation theory that is generally categorized as supporting a belief system. The words "manipulation" and "subluxation" in a chiropractic context have meanings that are different from the meanings in evidence-based literature. An orthopedic subluxation, a partial dislocation or displacement of a joint, can sometimes benefit from manipulation or mobilization when there are joint-related symptoms. A chiropractic subluxation, however, is often an undetectable or asymptomatic "spinal lesion" that is alleged to be a cause of disease. Such a subluxation, which has never been proven to exist, is "adjusted" by chiropractors, who manipulate the spine to restore and maintain health. 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.

Now, if you want to know just how prevalent chiropractic quackery is in the UK then look no further than the websites of these two chiropractic associations:

The United Chiropractic Association

We recognize that interference to innate intelligence (Subluxation) diminishes healing capacity, with an alteration in the dynamic interrelationship between mental, physical and social aspects of the whole person.

The art of chiropractic encourages optimal expression of health by the detection, removal (Adjustment) and prevention of nervous system interference.

To use drugless, minimally invasive techniques to adjust identified subluxations throughout an individual’s lifetime.

We commit to assist the process of self-empowerment with compassion and care, whilst respecting each person’s dignity, uniqueness and freedom of choice.

http://www.united-chiropractic.org/modules/content/index.php?id=4

The McTimoney Chiropractic Association

McTimoney taught, as DD Palmer had before him, that health depends on healthy nerve messages, that subluxations of the vertebrae or other joints interfere with these, and that such subluxations can affect not only joints and muscles, but every cell and organ in the body. He also stressed what would one day be called holism: that human beings are not purely physical but mental, emotional and spiritual beings as well, and that treating the whole body restores health to all these aspects of the patient.

http://www.mctimoney-chiropractic.org/mca.htm

Of course, the regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Council, doesn’t question the validity of these practices since the legislative framework for chiropractic in the UK doesn’t require that chiropractors adhere to any particular chiropractic ‘style’. Interestingly, though, the General Chiropractic Council completely avoids mentioning the word ‘subluxation’ on its website:
http://www.gcc-uk.org/page.cfm

If you want to learn more about the problems with chiropractic, including the questionable effectiveness of regulation, then this article’s well worth a read:
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=chiropractic.php

Regards spinal manipulation for back pain, the current evidence on it seems to be that it is no better than standard treatments, and it is thought that it will likely be found to be most beneficial for a (still to be identified) small sub-group of acute back pain sufferers. This article in the Times offers a succinct overview of the current evidence on (scientific) spinal manipulation:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8123-2100577,00.html

Hope this helps.

 

[Soapy Sam]

There are good and bad. It's clear from surgery and physiotherapy that
spinal manipulation can help some kinds of problems.

So long as chiropractors stick to those and do so safely (as a large number do), I think most people here have no problem with that at all. (ETA- That such treatment carries an element of hazard should be understood by all involved).

The more irrational claims made by some chiropractors in absence of evidence or even in contradiction of it , do great harm , by association, to the credibility of the simple manipulative practitioners, which is why the more responsible chiros ( at least in the UK) are trying to establish more controlled, evidence based methods. I applaud this and expect it to see off the dafter claims eventually, at which point chiro may well lose any distinction from (some aspects of) physiotherapy and will vanish as an independent profession.
(One can imagine a certain reluctance to progress may be attached to this picture).

I personally derived great benefit from manipulation by a chiropractor, regarding a long term neck problem which had not responded to years of anti-inflammatory drugs, so I'm biased in favour in those cases where spinal manipulation has a provable, statistically repeatable effect on the mechanics of the problem.
I do not think it can cure flat feet or straighten my teeth.
We should bear in mind that mainstream medicine probably carries much nonsense too. It is just a less obvious type of nonsense and therefore harder to spot. What the mainstream does have is the ability to self correct. (eg Helicobacter pylorii and ulcers). It would be good to see that research aspect- and a willingness to admit error- stressed far more by all forms of "alternative" therapy.

 

[Blue Wode]

There are good and bad. It's clear from surgery and physiotherapy that
spinal manipulation can help some kinds of problems.

So long as chiropractors stick to those and do so safely (as a large number do), I think most people here have no problem with that at all. (ETA- That such treatment carries an element of hazard should be understood by all involved).

The more irrational claims made by some chiropractors in absence of evidence or even in contradiction of it , do great harm , by association, to the credibility of the simple manipulative practitioners, which is why the more responsible chiros ( at least in the UK) are trying to establish more controlled, evidence based methods.

Evidence?

Consent or submission? The practice of consent within UK chiropractic:

Results suggest that valid consent procedures are either poorly understood or selectively implemented by UK chiropractors

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15726031&dopt=Abstract

The value of chiropractic:
http://journals.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact1002a02t01.htm

 

[Almo]

I know someone personally who thinks they get less colds because they go to the chiropractor regularly.

 

[Blue Wode]

This from the website of the British Chiropractic Association:

Chiropractic – the natural health choice for the whole family

http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Happy families.pdf

A healthy future
As your children grow, you will be getting their eyes and teeth checked regularly. Consider giving them regular chiropractic checkups too, which could give them the best start in life with a healthy spine and nervous system.

Can a chiropractor treat a newborn baby?
Yes, in fact the sooner your baby is checked, the sooner any injury of stresses from the birth can be dealt with safely and gently.

Don’t children just grow out of it?
Not necessarily. Problems with their spines and nervous systems might not show obvious symptoms for years. Colic, ear infections, learning difficulties or frequent illness may be signs that your children’s nervous system is not working efficiently.

How on earth can you manipulate the spine of an infant or young child to enhance its health? Doesn’t the spine of a neonate consist mainly of cartilage?

Servicing your spine

http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Servicing your spine.pdf

You rely on your spinal cord
Like at telephone network, your spinal cord delivers messages from your brain to your body through the nervous system. The vertebrae - the bones of your spine - provide protection for this vital part of your body. As you go through life, a loss of proper function (movement) in the vertebrae, which some chiropractors call a subluxation, may interfere with the healthy working of your spine and the nerves that run through it. This may affect your body’s natural ability to recover from injury and you may find yourself increasingly unwell, unable to shake off apparently minor aches, pains and even some illness.

How often should check-ups be given?
Chiropractors practise in two main ways; one is to minimise the recurrence of your pain through ‘supportive’ care. The practitioner may recommend a check-up every two to six months depending on your original complaint and your lifestyle. The other approach is known as ‘wellness care’. Here, the chiropractor may wish to check you more frequently, as well as exploring with you further ways you can enhance your wellbeing.

Just look at all those weasel words – may interfere, may affect, you may find yourself increasingly unwell... And the last paragraph is obviously designed to let subluxation-based chiropractors off the hook.

Princesspoppy, this is definitely a case of buyer beware.

 

[atari24]

There was a local commercial here featuring a chiropractor doing some kind of head bobbing procedure to an infant. It was quite disturbing.

 

[epepke]

Hi

Now Im most probably going to display my ignorance and sound incredibly stupid, but I was surprised to learn that Chiropracty is considered as quackery.
I genuinely thought that it was a legitimate case of manipulating the spine.
As you can see, I dont have a wide knowlegde of it, but could someone please explain it to me?

Thanks!

You've gotten some good answers. I'd just add that a chiropractor massaged Andy Warhol's gall bladder (Warhol died after emergency gall bladder surgery a few days later), and another chiropractor gave John Wayne a coffee enema for his stomach cancer. I also know a couple of chiropractors who have not vaccinated their children because they think that spinal manipulations are all they need.

But mostly, I wanted to say that I like the coinage "Chiropracty." Over here, they just use "Chiropractic" as a noun, which sets my teeth on edge. I usually call it "Chiropraxis."

 

[Nyarlathotep]

This might help you out.

There are some chiropractors who just deal with mundane stuff like back pain, but they're a minority. Most chiropractors deal with magical "subluxations" which they claim are the real cause of disease. The way-out ones have been known to claim things like curing cancer by cracking your back.

One told my wife that chiro could treat our kid's Down Syndrome.

That must be some pretty sophisticated spine popping, if it's going to remove that extra chromosome.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Blue Wode.
I'm no medic. My understandings of medical practice are formed from general reading,-ie newspapers & magazines, the net, this board, from listening to friends who are medics (notably several physios and a pair of GPs) and in this case by personal experience of chiro treatment and subsequent discussion with another chiro (all Brits). So my evidence is " personal communication" for the most part.

My comment about attempting to establish evidence based treatment is based on the clear belief of the persons with whom I have discussed it that this is the case and that this requirement is being imposed from above by the UK medical establishment in all areas of regulated medicine. This may be quite wrong, but I have heard the same thing from several NHS medics as well as two chiropractors.

On the number of chiros operating "safely"- Fair call on your part. I should not say "a large number" because I do not know the number. It's an assumption based on the fact that there appear to be a large number of them operating and I have heard no reports of large scale malpractice and that as I say, the mainstream medics I know seem unconcerned. But absolutely, patients should understand the risks. Same goes for taking pills of course.

 

[princesspoppy]

Thanks guys.... wow, I really was misinformed.
So, let me get this straight... There are mainstream forms of chiropractice that work along the same principles as physiotherapists and basically offer a variation on a massage.
But some, also labelled as Chiropractors believe in this sublaxtion nerves controlling the whole body nonsense?

 

[Blue Wode]

Thanks guys.... wow, I really was misinformed.
So, let me get this straight... There are mainstream forms of chiropractice that work along the same principles as physiotherapists and basically offer a variation on a massage.
But some, also labelled as Chiropractors believe in this sublaxtion nerves controlling the whole body nonsense?

That’s about it in a nutshell. Evidence-based chiropractors could be viewed as physiotherapists who specialise in manipulative therapy and, if you were choosing a chiropractor, it would be wise to go for this type. I believe there’s a small break-away group of them in the UK who prefer to go by the name of ‘neuromusculoskeletal specialists’, although I don’t think they’ve set themselves up as an official association yet.

Soapy Sam, thank you for your reply. A few points:

My comment about attempting to establish evidence based treatment is based on the clear belief of the persons with whom I have discussed it that this is the case and that this requirement is being imposed from above by the UK medical establishment in all areas of regulated medicine. This may be quite wrong, but I have heard the same thing from several NHS medics as well as two chiropractors.

Let’s hope you’re right because chiropractic regulation could certainly do with being tightened up.

On the number of chiros operating "safely"- Fair call on your part. I should not say "a large number" because I do not know the number. It's an assumption based on the fact that there appear to be a large number of them operating and I have heard no reports of large scale malpractice and that as I say, the mainstream medics I know seem unconcerned. But absolutely, patients should understand the risks. Same goes for taking pills of course.

That’s a big assumption. It’s worth remembering that:

1. Despite numerous case reports of serious adverse events following manipulation (particularly to the upper cervical spine), there is still nowhere in the UK for patients to report complications/injuries associated with their treatment. Therefore, with the frequency of adverse events remaining unknown, chiropractic has yet to demonstrate that it is a safe therapy.

2. Chiropractors are generally allowed to practice how they like. That includes quackery like applied kinesiology, craniosacral therapy, and the regular correction of ‘subluxations’. It may not be malpractice, but it’s certainly not good practice either.

3. The regulatory body is not an inspectorate, therefore it’s left up to patients to recognise when their treatment might be dangerous, bogus, or unnecessary (or all three).

But absolutely, patients should understand the risks. Same goes for taking pills of course.

I’m glad we’re in agreement here. At least we can count on a Patient Information Leaflet inside our packets of pills.

 

[RSLancastr]

The more irrational claims made by some chiropractors in absence of evidence or even in contradiction of it , do great harm , by association, to the credibility of the simple manipulative practitioners, which is why the more responsible chiros ( at least in the UK) are trying to establish more controlled, evidence based methods. I applaud this and expect it to see off the dafter claims eventually

Sam, I think you're being a bit overly optimistic. I hope I'm wrong.

So, let me get this straight... There are mainstream forms of chiropractice that work along the same principles as physiotherapists and basically offer a variation on a massage.

I don't know that they are necessarily the "mainstream" of chiropracty. If they are, then perhaps Soapy Sam is right.

But I have gotten the distinct impression that they are not the mainstream.

Does anyone know of any statistics on this?

 

[Blue Wode]

RSLancaster, your impressions don’t seem to be too far off the mark.

I’m not sure precisely what type of statistics you’re looking for, but in their 1st June 2006 letter of reply to criticism of their recent paper ‘A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation’, (see the last letter in this link):

http://www.osteopathy.org.uk/uploads/Letters_on_Ernst_and_Canters.pdf

Edzard Ernst and Peter Canter quoted and referenced a figure of 89.8% for chiropractors in the USA who feel that spinal manipulation should not be limited to musculoskeletal conditions.

For the UK, they cited the following reference in support of indications that the influence of the ‘vitalists’, who insist that spinal manipulation is a panacea, is growing:

GCC Elections in the UK

I congratulate you on your new newspaper which I know will be well received by the profession internationally.
In Vol 1, No. 2 I would also commend you on your summation of the GCC Elections in the UK where many of the old guard mechanists have been swept out of office and the vitalistic group have attained a more democratic and mainstream chiropractic balance.
If the younger members, up to 500 of whom did not have a vote because of a quirk in the law, had been able to vote then I believe the swing would have totally unseated the medically oriented mechanists so prevalent on the previous Council.
The future is a little brighter for British Chiropractic.

J. L. Graeme Wight, DC
President
Scottish Chiropractic Association

http://www.thechiropracticchoice.com/edition_pdf/sep_2002_18.pdf

Unfortunately, these results appear to be true. A quick check confirms that at least five of the 10 elected chiropractic members who currently sit on the General Chiropractic Council’s committees are members of subluxation-based chiropractic associations.

With that in mind, I think it’s a bit much that earlier this month, via the Editor of the Daily Mirror, the General Chiropractic Council gave M.D. and newspaper columnist, Miriam Stoppard, this scolding…

http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/Daily_Mirror_Miriam_Stoppard_6_June_06.pdf

…for writing this:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sexandhealth/miriam/tm_column_date=02062006-name_index.html


What we seem to have here is a profession that’s fighting for its survival.

Further reading:
http://chirotalk.proboards3.com/

 

[Soapy Sam]

RSL- If I seem more in favour of chiro. than other alt med it's primarily because my experience of it was good. The guy was sane, methodical, communicative and the treatment worked. I'd feel hypocritical if I was not honest -on this board of all places- about that.

It may well be (and things Eos in particular has said in the past lead me to think) that I was extremely fortunate in my choice of therapist. If they were all like this fellow, I think I would not be overly optimistic in what I said, but I suspect you are right; I think he may be a lot better than the average.

 

[Psiload]

Speaking of Chiroquacktors...

I wanted to respond to a post concerning a certain procedure that Chiros perform know as MUA- Manipulation Under Anesthesia on ChiroWeb.com's Open Forums:

http://www.chiroweb.com/cgi-bin/ubb...e+Discussion&number=1&DaysPrune=30&LastLogin=

If you're not familiar with MUA, let me just say... Be afraid. Be very afraid.

So I click on registration in order that I may participate in the Open Forums, and I get the following:

We are not accepting new registrations at this time.

Typical. An "open" forum for "open" minds.

 

[Belz...]

This might help you out.

There are some chiropractors who just deal with mundane stuff like back pain, but they're a minority. Most chiropractors deal with magical "subluxations" which they claim are the real cause of disease. The way-out ones have been known to claim things like curing cancer by cracking your back.

Plus, once you learn their tricks and can do all that back-cracking yourself, they become pretty much useless.

 

[Red Siegfried]

But mostly, I wanted to say that I like the coinage "Chiropracty." Over here, they just use "Chiropractic" as a noun, which sets my teeth on edge.

Good to know I'm not the only one that calls it chiropracty when I speak the word. But I like chiropraxis, that sounds good. Chiropractic may be a noun as it is commonly used, but it's noun dressing up as an adjective.

I also wanted to state that it's been my experience that whenever you tell someone about all the bogusness that occurs in chiropracty (I'm going to use that word from now on) the first thing out of their mouths is "Oh, but my chiropractor doesn't believe in that stuff." Funny how nobody's chiropractor believes in subluxation theory but yet so many of them use it. But I'll say it again, if you DON'T believe in subluxations then you're not a chiropractor, you're something else pretending to be a chiropractor.

There's only one medical specialization in the world where you can believe in the entire central premise of the treatment, or not, however you choose and you still get to be called that kind of specialist - it's chiropracty.