Over the past few years, a handful of chiropractors have gone viral because of aggressive neck adjustments that make a loud crack and provide a quick thrill for viewers of their YouTube videos. A recent article in The Guardian discussed the phenomenon, but it doesn't go far enough.
Upper cervical chiropractors continue to offer an atlas adjustment to treat a variety of health problems, despite lack of credible evidence to support such treatment.
Many people visit chiropractors’ offices seeking relief from back pain. Appropriate use of spinal manipulation provided by a chiropractor can be helpful in treating mechanical-type back pain, but there are good reasons to avoid chiropractic manipulation based on correction of “vertebral subluxations,” and there are red flags to look for before undergoing any kind of manipulative treatment for neck or back pain.
Legally licensed, unbridled subluxation-based chiropractors who offer unproven treatment for a broad scope of health problems endanger public health, stigmatize appropriate use of spinal manipulation, and deter development of chiropractic as a legitimate back-care specialty.
Spinal Manipulation for Back and Neck Pain: Does It Work? You would think it does if you read the article but not if you actually read the literature.
The research on chiropractic has been far from rigorous. One of the problems is that studies of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) can’t be double blinded, and it is very difficult to even do single blinding. So most studies resort to non-manipulation control groups like “usual care” or “wait list” or “pain medication.” Those studies are practically guaranteed to lead to false positive...
I debated which of two topics to blog about this week that appeared in my feeds. The first was “Graduate slams CQU for offering ‘pseudoscience degree’,” where an Australian is upset that her University is offering an undergraduate Bachelor of Science in Chiropractic and a postgraduate Master of Clinical Chiropractic degree because chiropractic is “complete pseudoscience”. And the second was: “Foundation for...