Critical views of chiropractic

Critical views of Chiropractic

In its 100-year history chiropractic has been under frequent attack from osteopathy, from conventional medicine, from scientists critical of its scientific foundations, and recently from web-based critics of its advertising tactics and of the extravagent claims and dubious practices of some DCs. Although the profession has survived, and indeed thrived, the profession itself has voiced many of these criticisms in a move to reform chiropractic from within. Examples include:

• Can Chiropractors and Evidence-Based Manual Therapists Work Together? An Opinion From a Veteran Chiropractor

Samuel Homola DC, an outspoken dissident within the profession, expresses his opinion that evidence-based chiropractic is the only way forward.

• Chiropractic, Bonesetting, and Cultism - Samuel Homola (entire book on-line).

This book, published in 1964, contains trenchant criticism of the profession, and the following year Homola's application to renew his membership of the ACA was rejected. In 1991, David Redding, chairman of the ACA board of governors, welcomed Homola back to the ACA. In 1994, 30 years after its publication, the book was reviewed for the first time by a chiropractic journal. [3]

• Chiropractic Ethics: An Oxymoron?

JC Smith DC writes in 1999 that ethical issues are "in dire need of debate" because of "years of intense medical misinformation/slander" and because of well-publicised examples of tacky advertising, outlandish claims, sensationalism and insurance fraud.

• Critical thinking

Christopher Kent, president of the Council on Chiropractic Practice, advises his colleagues of the importance of high standards of evidence, noting that in the past DCs were too ready to accept anecdotal evidence

• Open Letter to the Profession (See Chiroweb for commentary.)

A 1992 letter from ACA attorney George McAndrews warns the chiropractic profession that 'scare tactic' advertising damages the newly won respect within the AMA.

• Subluxation - The Silent Killer

A 2000 commentary by Ronald Carter, Past President of the Canadian Chiropractic Association discussing his opinion that the subluxation story, regardless of how it is packaged, is not the answer. He suggests it is time for the 'silent majority' to present a rational model of chiropractic so that it can become an essential member of the health care team.

• Joseph Keating, professor at the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic and a prominent historian of chiropractic has written extensively criticising both weaknesses in the arguments used by chiropractors, and to denounce disreputable practices within the profession. In 1997, he described chiropractic as a 'science, antiscience and pseudoscience', and said "Although available scientific data support chiropractic's principle intervention method (the manipulation of patients with lower back pain), the doubting, skeptical attitudes of science do not predominate in chiropractic education or among practitioners". He argued that chiropractic's culture has nurtured antiscientific attitudes and activities, and that "a combination of uncritical rationalism and uncritical empiricism has been bolstered by the proliferation of pseudoscience journals of chiropractic wherein poor quality research and exuberant over-interpretation of results masquerade as science and provide false confidence about the value of various chiropractic techniques". However, in 1998, after reviewing the articles published in the Journal of Manipulative and Physical Therapy (JMPT) from 1989-1996, he concluded,

"substantial increases in scholarly activities within the chiropractic profession are suggested by the growth in scholarly products published in the discipline's most distinguished periodical (The JMPT). Increases in controlled outcome studies, collaboration among chiropractic institutions, contributions from nonchiropractors, contributions from nonchiropractic institutions and funding for research suggest a degree of professional maturation and growing interest in the content of the discipline."

Chiropractic: Science and Antiscience and Pseudoscience Side by Side

Quackery in Chiropractic - A 1991 editorial from Dynamic Chiropractic where Keating discusses his concerns for advertising products before they are scientifically evaluated.

Faulty Logic and Non-skeptical Arguments in Chiropractic _ Keating critically distinguishes between sound and unsound arguments in support of chiropractic

Chiropractic treatment of non-spinal disorders

It wasn't so long ago that a college president suggested, "Rigor mortis is the only thing we can't help!" Joseph Keating, chiropractic historian [4]

Many MDs are generally concerned about treatments that have no established scientific basis, feeling there is a risk that ineffective treatments might delay more appropriate medical treatment. They are particularly skeptical about the benefits of chiropractic for illnesses not directly related to the spine.

Because they feel that healing comes from within the body, DCs don't talk of 'cure', but of 'helping the body cure itself'. As a result, the traditional DC sees all who suffer as in need of his or her help. The degree to which they claim to be able to help varies, not only from condition to condition but also from case to case, and also because different DCs use different techniques. The spinal cord does carry a vast amount of information from peripheral organs and tissues to the brain, including sensations of pain, touch, temperature. In addition, virtually every organ and its blood supply is regulated both directly by efferent nerves, many of which travel down the spinal cord, and indirectly by neuroendocrine regulation of hormone secretion. Accordingly, disruption of spinal information flow can influence virtually every organ system. However it is not clear that any particular organ dysfunction is caused by a disorder of spinally-mediated information transfer, or whether manipulation by DCs could correct such a disorder.

Since the original observations of DD Palmer, DCs have been alert for evidence that their manipulations might have such beneficial effects. There is evidence (from case studies) that they can, but this evidence is generally regarded as weak because it may be influenced by the prior beliefs and expectations of the patient and the practitioner. Only if it leads to an objective protocol for intervention with objectively verifiable efficacy can it be regarded as validated. A common criticism of DCs has been the apparent willingness of some to offer treatment for conditions where there is no validated basis, especially those that might be life-altering without concurrent medical care.

Some DCs believe however, from their clinical experience, that several conditions can be resolved by chiropractic interventions. In particular, cases that have not responded to conventional treatment might include some where the underlying cause is indeed a disorder of neural regulation of an organ system, as the failure of conventional treatment might be taken as excluding more common causes of dysfunction, such as infectious disease. It is also possible that a symptom apparently of an organ disease is actually the result of a somatic reflex pain generated from the spine. Thus, if an organ-related complaint responds to chiropractic adjustments, it is possible that a spinal condition was the cause of the problem in the first place. [5]

For example, infantile colic is a condition characterised by uncontrollable crying in infants with no clear cause: some reports suggest that chiropractic is efficacious, others do not. Chiropractic is also used to treat asthma; and can be efficacious, but probably no more so than placebo treatment. Placebo effects can be very powerful, indicating the important ability of the mind to contribute to healing, and in some cases chiropractic might be efficacious because it exploits the placebo effect in an efficient way. DCs believe that any treatment that results in less dependence on medication has value, even if might only be effective because of the reassuring and calming effect on the mother and/or child. Otitis media in infants is another condition that some DCs claim to manage efficiently[6][7]. In the past, antibiotics were the treatment of choice, but recent studies suggest that waiting as long as three days before beginning a regimen could save as many as 30% from unnecessary exposure to antibiotics.[8] DCs, who also have training in physical examination, believe that they have an important 'watchful waiting' role in monitoring otitis media. Many MDs however feel that even if chiropractic treatment osf such conditions has some benefits by exploiting the placebo effect, there is a risk that false reassurance might delay more appropriate medical treatment.

Chiropractic and vaccination

In line with a general philosophy of chiropractic to minimise use of medicines and drugs, 'traditional straight' chiropractors are opposed to childhood vaccination. Their main association, the International Chiropractors Association, is "supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory vaccination laws, providing an elective course of action for all regarding immunization, thereby allowing patients freedom of choice in matters affecting their bodies and health." This advice is contrary to the general belief of the medical profession that mass vaccination has enormous health benefits and is an essential part of a responsible public health policy.

External criticism

• Keeping Your Spine In Line, Adjusting the Joints, and Video - Alan Alda, PBS, Scientific American Frontiers, Web Feature (combines internal and external criticism)
• Chirobase: Skeptical guide to chiropractic history, theories, and current practices - Stephen Barrett MD, and Samuel Homola DC (combines internal and external criticism)
• Novella S (1997) Chiropractic: Flagship of the Alternative Medicine Fleet Part One and Part Two