‘Straight’ chiropractors believe that ‘vertebral subluxation complex’ is the leading cause of all disease. ‘Reform’ chiropractors reject this altogether, and ‘Mixer’ chiropractors are on the fence.
Meanwhile, the whole foundation of one branch of chiropractic – ‘Upper Cervical Chiropractic’ – is that subluxation complex is real but occurs in the upper cervical vertebrae only.
Yet the UK regulatory authority, the General Chiropractic Council, advises that chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex "is not supported by any clinical research evidence that would allow claims to be made that it is the cause of disease or health concerns”. http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/Guidance_on_claims_made_for_the_chiropractic_VSC_18August10.pdf
And the British Chiropractic Association states: "For many years, the BCA has not supported the concept of the Vertebral Subluxation Complex in the light of the absence of evidence supporting claims made it can be the cause of disease and serious illness"
Can anyone shed any light on this mess?
Which type of chiropractor (if any) can you trust for valid treatment and advice?
@Mr E, thanks – that’s an interesting answer.
@Doctor J: ‘Straight’ chiropractic is defined as: “ the practice of chiropractic in strict accordance with the principles of its founder, D.D. Palmer, without additions made by later practitioners. The original definition of subluxation as a vertebral displacement is adhered to..” http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/straight+chiropractic
D.D. Palmer stated: "A subluxated vertebrae . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column." http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Daniel_David_Palmer#cite_note-textbook-1 So where do you get the "myth" conspiracy from?
Yes I do frequently read chiropractic literature, usually when some chiropractor sends it to me. Overall it’s weak, like the stuff you have posted:
The first paper you cite refers to tests carried out on CATS, which concluded “…these parameters MAY be important DETERMINANTS of an HVLA-SM’s therapeutic benefit”.
The second paper you cite is a review of EXPERIMENTAL evidence that concludes: A theoretical framework exists from which HYPOTHESES about …… can be developed, and that more experimental work is warranted.
The third paper you cite is a HYPOTHESIS only. Not research.
These papers mean NOTHING with respect to my question and furthermore they prove NOTHING about the efficacy of any form of chiropractic or the validity of subluxation complex. It really doesn’t matter where they are published, that’s an appeal to authority.
“Allopathy” has nothing to do with my question, alternative medicine or chiropractic, please stay on topic.
You would do better if you just answered the question.
@Dave, thanks – you put it so much better than me… and thanks for that citation.
I’m hoping some more chiropractors will answer. @Lightning, come on – I’m keen to know your opinion too.
@Lightning, thanks – but the founding principles of your profession are not seriously confused, nor disowned by your regulators and associations, are they? So which type of chiropractor (if any) can one trust for valid treatment and advice, in your opinion?
@Lightning, awesome – thumbs up!
@thenoseknows, re: appeal to authority – nonsense, you have no idea. Publication in respected journals does not validate the material. Look at Andrew Wakefield. Citing ‘Natural News’ is what I call an appeal to FALSE authority.
Technorati Tags: association states, bca, british chiropractic association, cervical vertebrae, chiropractor, d d palmer, daniel david, david palmer, general chiropractic council, health concerns, medical dictionary, quot, regulatory authority, research evidence, straight chiropractic, strict accordance, upper cervical chiropractic, vertebral column, vertebral subluxation complex, worldlingo
