- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
In a recent thread I was attacked by a number of members after I attacked an ATOT chiroprator for being a fraud. It quickly became apparent that many people on this forum don't really know what chiropractic is and don't understand my distaste for the "practice".
This is a big topic but I'm well aware that on this forum there is an inverse relationship between OP length and the number of people who will actually read it. Knowing this I will try to keep the OP as brief and entertaining as possible, but like I said it is a big topic and I'd like to cut off as many counter-arguments in advance as possible. If you want to respond all I ask is that you actually read the OP in full. At the least, read the cliffs of each section but they are not a good replacement for the full post.
Chiropractic
Brief History
In 1895, a grocer and magnetic healer with an intense interest in metaphysics, phrenology and spiritualism allegedly cured a deaf man by manipulating his neck. From this single incident and without further research or evidence, Palmer extrapolated his full theory of medicine, arguing that 95% of all human diseases and illnesses are the result of subluxations in the spine impinging the bodies "Innate energy" (the other 5% caused by subluxations in other bones). This is an astoundingly large assumption, especially when you consider that the nerve that conveys sounds from the brain to the ear does not pass through the spine!
D.D. Palmer's son, B.J. Palmer, a circus worker and mesmerist soon took over his father's school of chiropractic. His philosophies have shaped the field almost as much as his fathers. He is quotes as saying that M.D. stands for "more death". He turned the discipline into a business and make a shit ton of money from it.
Although it would be too much effort for me to go into here, the history of chiropractic has been an orgy of money and power. The chiropractic lobby from day one has aggressively sought political power. Some states eventually required chiropractic students to pass the same basic science tests as medical students. Between 1927 and 1953 only 23% of chiropractic students were able to pass, compared to 86% of medical students. Due to the political power of the chiropractic lobby, these laws were repealed, so chiropractic students could fail with impunity.
History cliffs
-- Chiropractic was invented in a single day based on a single incident by a single person
-- The inventor was a magnetic healer and spiritualist
-- Chiropractic gained huge political power and a crackpot leader
Are all chiropractors this crazy?!
Chiropractors fall into three main groups, often referred to as "straights", "mixers" and "reformers".
Straights
These guys are the 100% pure crackpots of the group. They really believe that all human illnesses result from subluxations. Evidence is not their strong suit. They have a philosophical outlook on medicine, not a science-based approach. About 15% of chiropractors are straights. That's more than I'd like, but I'm thankful the number isn't larger because these people are truly crazy.
Reformers
This is by far the smallest group. They make up about 2% of chiropractors. They believe in eschewing the subluxation theory in favour of an evidence-based approach to chiropractic. In their view, chiropractic treatment should be restricted to muscular-skeletal ailments, the only area in which it has been conclusively shown to have any net positive effect.
Mixers
This group is complicated. They make up the ~83% of remaining chiropractors. On the face of it it seems these guys should be more rational than the straights because they accept that not all disease is cured by spinal manipulation. In general they believe in the germ theory of disease and their practice is not limited to fixing subluxations. The problem is, although they promote other forms of treatment, in a very large number of cases (probably a majority, although I'm having trouble finding the numbers) they promote other alternative modalities in lieu of evidence-based medicine.
Many mixers supplement their subluxation therapies with homeopathy, acupuncture and other well known fraud-based medicine modalities. This isn't surprising considering the anti-scientific approach to medicine that is positively rife within chiropractic circles.
Chiropractic schism cliffs
-- Chiropractors range from the positively insane to the rational, but are heavily weighted towards the insane
-- Straights reject the germ theory of disease and practice only subluxation therapy
-- Reformers may as well by physical therapists, because that's what they do
-- Mixers are complicated but in general still believe in subluxation therapy and often compliment it with other unscientific modalities
Evidence for and against chiropractic medicine
Typically, proponents of chiropractic will point to two studies which show the efficacy of chiropractic. These studies are the 1989 RAND study and the 1990 Meade study. I'll take these in turn.
RAND Study
This study (actually more like a meta-study) reviewing 22 trials that showed the efficacy of chiropractic in treating lower back pain. The problem: these studies were not even testing chiropractic. In fact, only 4 of the 22 trials involved in the research were performed by chiropractic clinics, and those clinics were not practicing chiropractic, but manipulative therapy (NOT the same thing).
The chiropractic community has misrepresented this study to such a degree that the designer of the study spoke out against them:
Meade study
This study, again looking at lower back pain, involved two treatment groups. One group received only chiropractic treatment while the other received only physical therapy. This study suffers from the same problem as the RAND study in that traditional chiropractic medicine was not studied, but only physical spinal manipulation. Importantly, the chiropractic group received 44% more treatment, had double the treatment time and received care in a private setting. This is a ridiculously unbalanced trial.
Neither of these trials in any way tested subluxation therapy, and let's keep in mind that only 2% of chiropractors wholly reject this principal, meaning 98% of chiropractors use subluxation theory at least some of the time. There still is no evidence in favour of this.
Evidence cliffs
-- Two main studies are touted to show the efficacy of chiropractic
-- They both suck and don't even test chiropractic
It can't do any harm though, right?
Wrong. There is a statistical correlation between chiropractic care on people aged under 45 and stroke caused by vertebroasilar artery dissection. This post has gone on long enough but read here for more.
Links
Skeptic's Dictionary - Chiropractic
Chirobase <-- Excellent site, tons of information
Skeptoid episode on chiropractic <--- if you prefer listening to reading, but take Brian Dunning with a grain of salt
Chiropractic: Flagship of the Alternative Medicine Fleet by Steven Novella
Chiropractic: Flagship of the Alternative Medicine Fleet pt 2 by Steven Novella
Science and Chiropractic on Science-Based Medicine
What a Rational Chiropractor Can Do for You by Samuel Homola, a chiropractor
Wikipedia article on chiropractic
Chiropractic and Stroke a review of one paper
Not really a conclusion....
I have a lot more that I'm willing to post but this OP is already too long so I'll take arguments as they come. I hope we can have a productive discussion on this topic because it is something I am very interested in. I did not one day decide to just start attacking chiropractors, I am merely strongly opposed to fraud and pseudoscience and I'm a proponent of the truth and evidence-based thinking. I'm most certainly not an expert in medicine in general or chiropractic specifically, but I have done my homework and I'm willing to stand by what I post. I'm also willing to accept that anything I posted above is wrong, provided you have the evidence.
Also I haven't prove-read this so excuse the myriad spelling and grammatical mistakes, I just wanted to get it out there.
Old thread revived with no meaningful contribution..
admin allisolm
This is a big topic but I'm well aware that on this forum there is an inverse relationship between OP length and the number of people who will actually read it. Knowing this I will try to keep the OP as brief and entertaining as possible, but like I said it is a big topic and I'd like to cut off as many counter-arguments in advance as possible. If you want to respond all I ask is that you actually read the OP in full. At the least, read the cliffs of each section but they are not a good replacement for the full post.
Chiropractic
Brief History
In 1895, a grocer and magnetic healer with an intense interest in metaphysics, phrenology and spiritualism allegedly cured a deaf man by manipulating his neck. From this single incident and without further research or evidence, Palmer extrapolated his full theory of medicine, arguing that 95% of all human diseases and illnesses are the result of subluxations in the spine impinging the bodies "Innate energy" (the other 5% caused by subluxations in other bones). This is an astoundingly large assumption, especially when you consider that the nerve that conveys sounds from the brain to the ear does not pass through the spine!
D.D. Palmer's son, B.J. Palmer, a circus worker and mesmerist soon took over his father's school of chiropractic. His philosophies have shaped the field almost as much as his fathers. He is quotes as saying that M.D. stands for "more death". He turned the discipline into a business and make a shit ton of money from it.
Although it would be too much effort for me to go into here, the history of chiropractic has been an orgy of money and power. The chiropractic lobby from day one has aggressively sought political power. Some states eventually required chiropractic students to pass the same basic science tests as medical students. Between 1927 and 1953 only 23% of chiropractic students were able to pass, compared to 86% of medical students. Due to the political power of the chiropractic lobby, these laws were repealed, so chiropractic students could fail with impunity.
History cliffs
-- Chiropractic was invented in a single day based on a single incident by a single person
-- The inventor was a magnetic healer and spiritualist
-- Chiropractic gained huge political power and a crackpot leader
Are all chiropractors this crazy?!
Chiropractors fall into three main groups, often referred to as "straights", "mixers" and "reformers".
Straights
These guys are the 100% pure crackpots of the group. They really believe that all human illnesses result from subluxations. Evidence is not their strong suit. They have a philosophical outlook on medicine, not a science-based approach. About 15% of chiropractors are straights. That's more than I'd like, but I'm thankful the number isn't larger because these people are truly crazy.
Reformers
This is by far the smallest group. They make up about 2% of chiropractors. They believe in eschewing the subluxation theory in favour of an evidence-based approach to chiropractic. In their view, chiropractic treatment should be restricted to muscular-skeletal ailments, the only area in which it has been conclusively shown to have any net positive effect.
Mixers
This group is complicated. They make up the ~83% of remaining chiropractors. On the face of it it seems these guys should be more rational than the straights because they accept that not all disease is cured by spinal manipulation. In general they believe in the germ theory of disease and their practice is not limited to fixing subluxations. The problem is, although they promote other forms of treatment, in a very large number of cases (probably a majority, although I'm having trouble finding the numbers) they promote other alternative modalities in lieu of evidence-based medicine.
Many mixers supplement their subluxation therapies with homeopathy, acupuncture and other well known fraud-based medicine modalities. This isn't surprising considering the anti-scientific approach to medicine that is positively rife within chiropractic circles.
Chiropractic schism cliffs
-- Chiropractors range from the positively insane to the rational, but are heavily weighted towards the insane
-- Straights reject the germ theory of disease and practice only subluxation therapy
-- Reformers may as well by physical therapists, because that's what they do
-- Mixers are complicated but in general still believe in subluxation therapy and often compliment it with other unscientific modalities
Evidence for and against chiropractic medicine
Typically, proponents of chiropractic will point to two studies which show the efficacy of chiropractic. These studies are the 1989 RAND study and the 1990 Meade study. I'll take these in turn.
RAND Study
This study (actually more like a meta-study) reviewing 22 trials that showed the efficacy of chiropractic in treating lower back pain. The problem: these studies were not even testing chiropractic. In fact, only 4 of the 22 trials involved in the research were performed by chiropractic clinics, and those clinics were not practicing chiropractic, but manipulative therapy (NOT the same thing).
The chiropractic community has misrepresented this study to such a degree that the designer of the study spoke out against them:
This study is not an endorsement of chiropractic and was never intended to even test chiropractic.
Meade study
This study, again looking at lower back pain, involved two treatment groups. One group received only chiropractic treatment while the other received only physical therapy. This study suffers from the same problem as the RAND study in that traditional chiropractic medicine was not studied, but only physical spinal manipulation. Importantly, the chiropractic group received 44% more treatment, had double the treatment time and received care in a private setting. This is a ridiculously unbalanced trial.
Neither of these trials in any way tested subluxation therapy, and let's keep in mind that only 2% of chiropractors wholly reject this principal, meaning 98% of chiropractors use subluxation theory at least some of the time. There still is no evidence in favour of this.
Evidence cliffs
-- Two main studies are touted to show the efficacy of chiropractic
-- They both suck and don't even test chiropractic
It can't do any harm though, right?
Wrong. There is a statistical correlation between chiropractic care on people aged under 45 and stroke caused by vertebroasilar artery dissection. This post has gone on long enough but read here for more.
Links
Skeptic's Dictionary - Chiropractic
Chirobase <-- Excellent site, tons of information
Skeptoid episode on chiropractic <--- if you prefer listening to reading, but take Brian Dunning with a grain of salt
Chiropractic: Flagship of the Alternative Medicine Fleet by Steven Novella
Chiropractic: Flagship of the Alternative Medicine Fleet pt 2 by Steven Novella
Science and Chiropractic on Science-Based Medicine
What a Rational Chiropractor Can Do for You by Samuel Homola, a chiropractor
Wikipedia article on chiropractic
Chiropractic and Stroke a review of one paper
Not really a conclusion....
I have a lot more that I'm willing to post but this OP is already too long so I'll take arguments as they come. I hope we can have a productive discussion on this topic because it is something I am very interested in. I did not one day decide to just start attacking chiropractors, I am merely strongly opposed to fraud and pseudoscience and I'm a proponent of the truth and evidence-based thinking. I'm most certainly not an expert in medicine in general or chiropractic specifically, but I have done my homework and I'm willing to stand by what I post. I'm also willing to accept that anything I posted above is wrong, provided you have the evidence.
Also I haven't prove-read this so excuse the myriad spelling and grammatical mistakes, I just wanted to get it out there.
Old thread revived with no meaningful contribution..
admin allisolm
Last edited by a moderator:
Facebook
Twitter