Credit: iStockphoto
You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that "99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae".
In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.
In fact, Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.
You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas.
The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.
I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor.
This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.
But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.
In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.
More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.
Are We Surprised to Know....
You might be surprised to know that when the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that "99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae", mainstream medical practices still included blood-letting and amputation with little or no anaesthetic. TB was a major killer in the western world and cancer was bearely heard of.
C'mon, here is a guy who makes a living as a writer in Britain, doing an op ed piece for mass consumption. He makes assertions that he knows will result in contoversy. He includes low-brow comparisons back to 1860's thinking, and then has the gall to claim the scientific and/or journalistic high ground.
By lumping "fundamentalist" chiro's in with regular chiropractic thinking he is producing nothing but a pop-media piece that discolours the reputation of regular chiro practicioners.
He got what he deserved, even if it was not what he expected. No sympathy here, and shame on Cosmos for blandly supporting him under the banner of journalists sticking together.
Regards,
Muka P.
Keep chiropractic problem cases in context
It is a shame that in critiquing Chiropractic treatment Singh (and his learned academic co-author) commit a noteable journalist oversight in not putting the number of chiropractic 'problem cases' in objective context for the general reader - that is, ironically, to apply a scientific impartiality approach to the discussion.
It is not clear from Singh's article's wording whether 'the medical literature' in which Edzard Ernst identified the '700 cases of serious complications' applies to the global literature or just to Canada's (therefore this is poor journalism in creating ambiguity around one of the article's central claims), but let's for argument's sake say it concerns Canada's literature.
If we consider the number of patients treated by chiropractors across Canada (population 33.73 million, with 7000 licenced chiropractors performing roughly 980,000 treatments per week (Canadian Chiropractors Association)), a figure of 700 problem cases (over what time?) is likely to be statistically negligible compared to the number of 'problem cases' attributed to conventional, western medical treatments. If the '700 cases' in the literature relate to the world, it is virtually an irrelevant argument.
Either way Singh is guilty of sensationalising this number of cases, and particularly so given he specifically highlights - in gorey detail - one or two bad cases. There is no shortage of worse cases to be found in local GP's surgerys or hospitals as a result of malpractice by 'normal' medicine.
The fact is that any treatment of patients by any technique has an associated risk and background injury rate.
In Australia alone (population ~23 million) there are roughly 4500 DEATHS from medical malpractice annually (the Age, July 09), leaving aside other 'injuries', which must number in the thousands. I'd venture that the 'bad case' rate for conventional medicine is many magnitudes higher for treatment of comparable cases, such as neck pain. This is not eluded too.
In this sense, I don't feel much sympathy for Singh's poor work - and can see that, given Singh's credentials and the reach of the Guardian globally, the article was damaging to international Chiropractic industry.
If Singh wishes to leverage his significant profile with opinion style pieces that essentially attack by appealing to scientific rationale, he ought to do far better. A man with his credentials and experience should not be using words like 'bogus' lightly - if anyone should know the potential of such terms it is a journalist like Singh. His article does the science journalism community a disservice with sloppyness with such a high profile topic, and is a reminder of accountability.
One might be forgiven for thinking that Singh's article's underlying aim, given its cheeky timimg with the international Chiropractic conference, was to shine light on his new book, and raise his profile internationally. So be it.
James (a scientist who was successfully treated for on-going neck pain by a single visit to a chiropractor after several visits to GPs, surgeons, and hospitals ruled out any problem and failed to alleviate the pain).
Re: Keep chiropractic problem cases in context
Well said James. As Dawkins would have put it, bad scientific poetry on Singh's part.
Practical Experience of Chiropractic NOT curing the problem
I have been to a chiropractor to remove back pain - no success after several visits but a feeling that I was being led into a path of dependency for limited relief. I discontinued treatment and did not collapse!
I know many people who go regularly to chiropractors without experiencing a cure although some symptoms might be alleviated a little. One of my main complaints is that - unlike physios I have visited - I have not heard of chiros helping with strengthening/mobility type exercises to reduce dependency.
So I am not surprised that Chiros have turned to a legal system to try to protect their territory ...just sad that that system may allow them a hollow victory.
Practical Experience of Chiro 'Curing' the Problem
Chiros do promote and help with strengthening/mobility exercises. So now you hear of it! Seems that health care practitioners of all 'codes' fail to help people from time to time. Please remember that if Chiros don't 'defend their territory' then I will also have to live with back pain.
Re: Practical Experience of Chiropractic NOT curing the problem
Not everyone who visits a chiropractor regularly is doing it to cure a problem.
I have been receiving chiropractic treatment once a month for over a decade as a preventative. Everybody in my family has back problems, and growing up I would regularly see my mum laid out flat for days, unable to move she was in such pain. That first happened to her in her late teens. I vowed young never to let that happen to me, and now in my mid-30s I have never once been in that kind of pain; in fact, alone amongst my whole family, I've rarely had any kind of back problems.
I attribute this to looking after my spine, not only with regular chiropractic visits but with the help of the strengthening/mobility type exercises that my chiropractor teaches me.
In addition, intensive chiropractic treatment - recommended by a GP - cured the chronic pain in my knees (caused by an uneven sacrum).
defend free science
The problem is not whether this article is correct on all points or whether it could have been done better. The problem is that the right to express opinions on science topics is killed by the libel laws and by the practice of those who sued Mr. Singh. Even if he is completely wrong, the defense is to argue publicly against, not to sue. Galileo was wrong on many things, and he even attacked his adversaries with verbal violence, but the Church trial against him has been the biggest threat to human free speech and free research in all of human history and the Church is still paying for its error.
Suing means: we chiropractors have no good answers. He will keep silent not because we are right but because we are stronger.
This is enough to me to conclude that I want to stay away from chirotherapy and chiropractitioners. Maybe they could so some good to my spine but certainly they have already caused much pain to my brain.
If Singh had simply
If Singh had simply retracted his incorrect comments, he would not have been sued would he not? Who will publish the chiropractors reply? Do you seriously think the Gaudian newspaper will give the same forum to others as they give to Dr. Singh? What troubles me is that Dr Singh does not simply express an opinion, but rather presents his opinion as accurate fact.With the right of free speech comes respsonibility (or it should for high profile writers), when expressing 'scientific opinoins' should we not tell the whole truth? How does a good debate come out of a piece like this? Dr Singh has abused his position. Science is about facts, right?
Singh and The Guardian offered to apologise
Both Singh and The Guardian offered to apologise, but the BCA insisted on suing Singh personally (The Guardian was not party to the suit).
Read Singh full account of the story
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340
This case is not unique. In
This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy. I suggest you should try or visit this site mesa chiropractor.