Hey! I'd love that kind lifestyle...now where's that list of chiroquacktor colleges...

Damn! My honesty, integrity and innate scepticism won't let me... :-(

Just to clarify (sorry if stating the obvious) the ASA doesn't regulate claims made by an organisation on their own website. They don't view this as advertising.

No they don't, but Trading Standards do, and the wording of the GCC is just "promote". Also they're just up the road from me, so while their website may be off limits to the ASA, their leaflets/posters etc maybe aren't...

Sure - didn't mean to discourage you. Just that if lots of people are going to to the ASA about chiropractors - worthwhile, imo - it's a good idea to make sure that the complaints are focussed on things they do regulate.

Leaflets, posters etc generally will be covered by the ASA. Go for it :)

Sorry, messed up the tags there. I'd just meant to link this URL re ASA complaints http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/

JonHW

But, chiroquacktors MUST abide by the GCC's Code of Practice (it's a condition of their GCC registration, without which they cannot practice or call themselves a chiroquacktor) and that states (in paragraph C1.6) that any claims that are made by or on behalf of chiroquacktors MUST comply with ASA guidance!

The ASA guidance clearly states that they consider scientific evidence. Testimonials and other nonsense just don't cut it with the ASA. That's the final link in the chain!

Chiropractors are essentially con merchants. Self deluded as well no doubt. I had a look at the Windsor web site and it's full the usual Chiropractor nonsense.

How they can say that a particular vertebrae has an impact upon a particular organ is completely beyond me. Sure nerves etc pass through the spinal cord inside the spine etc., but a particular stretch of cord that runs through a particular bone, somehow affects a particular organ? I am no medical type, but what connection is there between the brain/spinal cord and the kidney? And if there is, and I am guessing here that the 'nerve' runs all the way down the spinal column, why is vertebrae x rather then y the one to twiddle?

That's like saying a piece of wire in the house running to all appliances can control all and any appliance by bending it in a particular place. Nonsense. or maybe i am setting up my own straw man? don't care.

It will be interesting to hear the squirming that comes from the chiropractic centre, if any.

If they do respond it will be with anecdotal evidence from many satisfied customers no doubt. And let's face it they must be doing well to afford to have a. the centre and b. the web site, and finally c. the lifestyle. such things don't come cheap.

If you haven't already, read the book 'trick or treatment', by Singh and Edzard. it's not exactly light reading, it's hugely repetitive. But the essential truth is that apart from a few herbal remedies, nearly all alternate medicine is bunk.

None more so that Chiropractic.

Hope that your attempt to get a response from the windsor office is successful.

Kind regards

Bill.

ps. are they really doctors too?

Bill

Unfortunately, the word 'chiropractor' is a reserved title that only those registered with the General Chiroquacktor Council can call use. Anyone can call themselves a doctor. Perverse, isn't it?

They can call themselves 'doctors of chiroquacktic' and can use the title 'Dr', but they must not do it so as to mislead, but that's why they want to use 'Dr' - most people would trust someone with 'Dr' in front of their name.

You're right about nerves, vertebrae, etc: like all quacks, they use a mickey-mouse simplistic system of medical knowledge that does not stand up to any scrutiny. As Ben Goldacre says: "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that."

Good luck with this Martin.

After numerous requests for info I've now submitted a complaint to Victoria Chiropractic in Woking: http://cargo-cult-science.blogspot.com/2009/05/victoria-chiropractic-cli...

I want to give them the opportunity to remove the offending parts of their site before a formal GCC complaint.

Keep up the good work!

NZ Website

I see you point on chirotwatters and doctors and raise you one more, here's a bit from the nz chiropractors website, it's enough to make your teeth grow hair

"Please note: Chiropractors are primary health care providers and are entitled to use the title "Dr". Use of the honorary title doctor on this website refers to a Registered Chiropractor not a Registered Medical Practitioner unless specified. Chiropractors specialise in restoring function to the neuro-musculo-skeletal system and how this relates to overall health. We do not prescribe medications."

the web site where this and other atrocities exist can be found here:

http://www.chiropractic.org.nz/

I live in Auckland, hence the peculiar GMT times that I respond.

kind regards

bill

do you have nothing else to do that complaining about other professionals...?

Lots, but I think that tackling people in my neighbourhood who make dodgy health claims is worthwhile - just doing my bit for the community :).

PS - Please don't spam comments. You can make your point in one comment, not three.

I am amazed how vehement some of you sound about Chiropractic. There are obviously some deep underlying issues here.
Some of your comments are so misinformed it should be criminal.
For the record, in Australia, Chiropractic taining receives more hours of Anatomy and dissection than Medical School students. Fact. Does this make them better, no, but think they may know a bit more about neurology than the 'no-medical type Bill ramsey'....no-one goes to University to train in being a 'conman'....because you do not understand something fully is no reason to attack it.
Do yourself a favour....go out, hurt your back....go and see a Chiropractor and spend some time understanding what they do....then criticise.

By the way, why not post your profession up online,and then we ca put your field under the microscope and pick it apart....and assess your 'value' to society.

Have a great day and go get rid of some of that anger...

Very good, but you discredit yourself by making references to Russel Dean's lifestyle and spending habits which are his choice and none of your business, and changing Chiropractic to chiroquactic which I guess you plagarised from Steven Barret's website.

There's actually a very specific and valid reason why I made references to Dean's lifestyle. It's that alternative medicine practitioners have a habit of trying to pretend that they're the "little guys" taking on the might of Big Pharm, and unable to afford the sorts of rigorous trials that we demand of them, when in reality alt med is a multi-billion dollar industry in which plenty of people are getting rich. I have nothing against people making money, but I do think it's important to highlight that alt-med is big business.

Seems to me that Mr Dean runs a business which has employee's in the UK and lives a nice life. He probably got there through hard work and sacrifice, as do most people who run businesses and are succesfull. Mr Dean's success speaks for itself, and the fact he lives in Spain is no-ones business. Perhaps he should spend all his hard earned money designing and implementing RCT's to appease his uninformed critics in the UK....oh wait, the news on the wire is that RCT's are not all they are cracked up to be and open to statistical manipulation....what now?

I have to take issue with that, how do you know that Russel Dean does not make contributions of money or time to research? As you have issue with his business, have you ever taken the time to meet him or raise your concerns in person? Much easier to do things through correspondence I suppose.
What has Pfizer and the like got to do with the issues you have raised against this practice or how Russel Dean chooses to distribute his income?
As far as I can tell, this office offers a valuable service to the community. Is it your intention to deprive the people of Windsor of this service? Or would you just be satisfied that the people in the office lose their right to practice?
I can undertand taking issue with people making spurious claims based on fantasy, but I don't understand what you want to achieve.

Vehemence? No. Puzzled mirth that some can believe that twiddling with the spine to cure colic is closer to the mark.

As for your comment hurting your back and getting it looked at is a very long way from prodding your back to solve a kidney problem.

BTW I'm not the one making ludicrous claims. Chirotwatters are.

To me it looks like your the one who's angry, Mr/Miss/Ms/Master ANONYMOUS

Ernst asserts about chiropractors (as he seems to continually do these days), that to some degree, all are convinced that ‘95% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae’. Evidently this statistic, quanitified as ‘to some degree’ is acceptable to your journal as evidence based by the peer reviewers? I never learned this at the largest chiropractic university system in the world that bears its founder’s name. One could equally assert of MDs that 95% of all diseases are thought to be treatable by drugs. I have treated several medical practitioners for conditions such as vertigo, mutiple sclerosis symptoms, and various sources of pain. They found answers in the scientific application of chiropractic.

All chiropractors know that not all early claims of chiropractic ‘philosophers’ were substantiated, nor scientifically tested in many cases. Just as Merck makes good drugs and then embarks on a journey to sell them, so did Palmer sell his cure in 1895 by the common methods of the day; in a context that included selling leeches and putting cocaine in popular beverages. I know which remedy I would have chosen. But that was as early as 1895, and I am not sure Ernst’s discourse is purely historical.

Ernst’s dug-up dogma is taught as history now. For contemporary dogma disguised as science, Ernst may want to turn his radar to information reported by The Australian newspaper about Vioxx maker Merck in attempting to pay the Arthritis Foundation of Australia to "influence messages to patients, physicians and government". Or to a new Spine journal study that stated, in the title, that ‘Doctors with a special interest in back pain have poorer knowledge about how to treat back pain’ – where advice provided by medical back pain doctors included bed rest – known as potentially harmful. This is tantamount to peddling snake-oil is it not? Chiropractors observed active rehabilitation years ago. Chiropractors used physiotherapy before physiotherapists did . As well as ingeniously observing that children have spines also, and that they can be injured in the thousands of insults and falls they likely endure in the course of just attempting to stand upright. The problem is indeed claims of cure without evidence.

There are many notions in medicine, notably those of Hippocrates, that we know are not true or backed by reliable evidence today. Now, a survey of chiropractors beliefs is actually a survey of clinical experience, not some kind of religious chiropractic fervour that creates angst in Ernst. A true statement from this chiropractor would be “I have obverved clinical changes in children under my care for spine-related dysfunction that also impacted upon nocturnal enuresis, epilepsy, colic…etc”. It is indeed my experience. It behoves every clinician to report, as Hippocrates did, what they see. But I do not pretend that its definite proof. Any more than Band-Aid claims it heals cuts faster.

He then affiliates the token anti-vaccination sentiments with chiropractors. It would be my personal observation that the vast majority of ‘anti-vaccination” sentiment comes from medical, not chiropractic, sources. I can back my opinion citing numerous medical texts. I completed my university studies mesmerised by the writings of Robert Mendelsohn, MD, and Candace Pert PhD, Bruce Lipton, PhD… all medically trained who spoke out as heretics against mainstream practices of treating people like cattle, and treating with the same dose, at the same time, regardless of race, colour or body composition. Is that scientific?

Ernst is certainly quick to highlight the lack of evidence that chiropractic can help children. This is not anything new and I agree with the relative paucity. In what can only be intended to shock, he quotes the literature in stating that chiropractors can cause serious harm to chidlren. This is true for ALL interventions. Serious harm can come from paracetamol and vitamins, but he fails, as always, to put some perspective on it. That is, that serious harm is rare in any case, even, as he would conced, for vaccinations. Yes, chiropractors can maim and harm children, but hundreds, if not thousands, of times less in incidence than any medical care. He fails to mention this fact. In fact, in Australia, I am unaware of any paediatric deaths under the care of a chiropractor that would excede the fingers of one hand… if any at all. Wenban reported rampant false accusations against chiropractic, quite well, recently.

Ernst fails to mention this fact: manipulation plus spine does not equal chiropractic (alone). Ernst fails to explain the existence of manipulation of the joints in medical specialties and physiotherapy. Is he not aware of the medical manipulators? He also fails to mention another profession, Osteopathy, long revered in the UK and USA, and why they choose to manipulate the spine of children and research very well on it. Has he failed to see their research? If yes, what is the agenda here? Is it against manipulation or chiropractic? He fails to mention articles of the German school physicians such as Biedermann who has written an entire textbook on manual treatment of children with a host of international medical orthopaedic and neurology specialists from Europe, Asia and America; and reporting on suboccipital strain in newborns . He fails to mention these doctors’ treatment of children. He fails to back up his notions with real research and instead uses bits of web sites and opinion surveys. That’s all fine in the realm of light tabloid entertainments. But its also quite a bit of failure, indeed.

DON'T BE SO IGNORANT AND GET INFORMED FIRST!!!!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au

Buchbinder R, et al. Doctors with a special interest in back pain have poorer knowledge about how to treat back pain. Spine 2009 May 15;34(11):1218-26; discussion 1227

http://web.mac.com/jierano/chiropracticsafety/Whos_a_Specialist.html

Wenban, A. Inappropriate use of the title 'chiropractor' and term 'chiropractic
manipulation' in the peer-reviewed biomedical literature. Chiropractic & Osteopathy 2006, 14:16 doi:10.1186/1746-1340-14-16

Biedermann, H. (Ed.) Manual Therapy in Children. 2004. Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 0 443 10018 7

Biedermann, H. Kinematic Imbalances Due To Suboccipital Strain In Newborns. Journal of Manual Medicine. June (No. 6) 1992, pp1

Martin, you are pathetic

GET INFORMED FIRST!!!!

Do you have nothing else to do that complaining about other professionals...?

DON'T BE SO IGNORANT AND GET INFORMED FIRST!!!!

You discredit yourself by making references to Russel Dean's lifestyle and spending habits which are his choice and none of your business.

Dr. Dean is doing a fantastic job in Barcelona, I’m going every week to his clinic, he offers a valuable service to the community. Is it your intention to deprive the people of Windsor and Barcelona of this service or what????

There are obviously some deep underlying issues here. Some of your comments are so misinformed and CRIMINAL... I'm a lawyer and I would go against you by the English and spanish courts for what you are saying about him.

Even you don't understand something fully is no reason to attack it. I think you have too much time free…YOU ARE SO PATHETIC.

@Anonymous:

Your entire rant is predicated on the idea that Ernst (who you seem to have a bit of an obsession with) doesn't realise that " manipulation plus spine does not equal chiropractic (alone)." In fact, this is precisely the point made above - manipulation of the spine is not a chiropractic treatment, simply a treatment that many chiropractors use. And use pretty badly as it happens, with chiropractors responsible for inflicting far more damage during these procedures than real doctors (http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50).

I have to say, it is strange how keen chiropractors are to try and conflate chiropracty with the standard medical practise of spinal manipulation.

Another point I'd like to pick up on is your complaint that Ernst highlights the dangers implicit in chiropractic but doesn't cover conventional medicine. There is a reason for this - in conventional medicine doctors are careful to state risks, and drugs and treatments are by law required to list potential side-effects. Chiropractors on the other hand behave like the dodgiest of Big Pharm companies - the reason Ernst and others have highlighted these risks is because chiropractors continually try to pretend that their interventions are safe or risk free, and rarely give an honest appraisal of the dangers involved. This in addition to the use of chiropractic for complaints which there is no scientific evidence it can treat (e.g. colic), makes it a serious problem.

Many of the criticisms of chiropractic would go away if chiropractors proved that they were capable of self-regulation, and the open and honest appraisal of evidence. To be fair, some are, and those people I have much less of a problem with.

@Susan Ortuño

"I'm a lawyer..."

Are you really? Wow. That is really impressive.

Unfortunately, I came across your website the other day and I must say that I'm absolutely shocked on what you say. You obviously have no idea about chiropractors and have never been treated by one, so I don't understand on what you base all your statements against them.
My family and I have been treated at Winsdor Remedy Centers for many years now (6). I supose nothing I say will change your mind, it's a shame there's people with so much anger and hate like you, but I'll tell you my case, anyway.
I suffered from terrible pains due to sciatica and lumbalgia and I was almost an adict to painkillers. One day a good friend of mine told me about chiropractors so after getting well informed about this science, I decided to give it a try as I had nothing to lose. I'm not limping anymore and I don't know what being in pain is. I can also tell you about my daughter, who was born with back and neck problems. I was told by many specialists that she wouldn't walk properly until she turned 4-5 but she is a "normal" healthy girl of 3. (Thanks to the Chiropractors at Windsdor Remedy Center).
I supose you have lots of free time as you spend it this way so I really recomend you to get informed about what chiropractors study over the long years they spend at University instead of writing nonsense about them.

Anonymous said on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 08:30: “Ernst’s dug-up dogma is taught as history now.”

That doesn’t seem to square with a recent survey of UK chiropractors which revealed that traditional chiropractic beliefs were deemed important by 76% of the respondents, whilst 63% of them considered subluxation to be central to chiropractic intervention:
http://www.cam-research-group.co.uk/POI/The%20scope%20of%20chiropractic%...

(Note to Martin - the above link comes up with a 404 on your page carrying my article)

Anonymous said on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 08:30: “It behoves every clinician to report, as Hippocrates did, what they see.”

And that would include any adverse reactions to treatment that they witness. It’s interesting to note that in a recent survey on British Chiropractic Association members’ attitudes towards the (under-utilised) Chiropractic Reporting and Learning System, it was reported that some chiropractors are reluctant to report adverse events associated with their treatments for fear of retribution:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1479235408000321

....I feel sorry for you....

Yet again more proponents of woo argue that in order for rational people to be able criticise woo, we must first hand over our money to the practitioners of the woo and try it for ourselves.
This is not the way the world works. If snake oil salesmen want me to purchase their product they must supply good evidence that it works. If they repeatedly fail to do so then I feel quite justified in criticising them and their brand of magic. I feel no need to buy a bottle of snake oil myself in order to do this.
Remember; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. the burden is not on the skeptic to disprove the efficacy of the snake oil, but on the salesman to prove its efficacy.

@ Martin

You are a complete moron, arent you???

That article was written in 1999. You seem to have so much free time on your hands so am quite surprised you havnt googled any of the latest articles. Maybe time to get up to date with the latest research or are you still living in the past or perhaps digging up whatever you can find?

http://journals.lww.com/spinejournal/Fulltext/2008/02151/The_Bone_and_Jo...

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/10/1253-a

Oh and could you please tell me of a GP who goes through all the risks of any medication that they prescribe or perhaps tells their patient of the number of deaths that are caused each year due to adverse drug reactions???

I have seen a Chiropractor since birth as have my children and believe me they are a lot healthier than some of the other kids around them and rarely get the illnesses that other kids do. Is it because of the fact the the Chiropractors treat their illness....no, their body is in a more adaptable state to fight things off and my kids dont need to keep popping pilss which could potentially cause more harm. But thats from my own research, not from the GPs warning of potential dangers...which I have never heard of.

I also find it quite funny how you attack Chiropractors yet physios, osteopaths and some GPs manipulate. You dont seem to be having a dig at them. Someone rub you the wrong way perhaps????

Dont you have anything better to do than to slate people off who are actually providing a great service and helping their community?

Peter Hunt on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 11:12 wrote: “Maybe time to get up to date with the latest research...”

For the benefit of uninformed readers:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=170
http://www.chirowatch.com/Chiro-strokes/gm080120stroke.html
http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/7/330

Peter Hunt on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 11:12 wrote: “Oh and could you please tell me of a GP who goes through all the risks of any medication that they prescribe or perhaps tells their patient of the number of deaths that are caused each year due to adverse drug reactions”

OTC and prescription drugs invariably carry Patient Information Leaflets listing their side effects, benefits, and contra-indications. What is the chiropractic equivalent?

Peter Hunt on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 11:12 wrote: “ I have seen a Chiropractor since birth as have my children and believe me they are a lot healthier than some of the other kids around them and rarely get the illnesses that other kids do.”

Fortunately, my children are also very healthy and rarely ill – no chiropractor in sight.

Peter Hunt on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 11:12 wrote: “I also find it quite funny how you attack Chiropractors yet physios, osteopaths and some GPs manipulate.”

As Martin has already pointed out above (with a citation), it is apparent that chiropractors are responsible for inflicting far more damage during their procedures than other manual therapists.

@ Blue Wade

You must be Martins boyfriend??

Obviously sit down all day writing blogs together with nothing better to do.

For the uninformed reader:
http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/errback.htm

I feel really sorry for your kids. thank god im not one of them.

@ Peter Hunt

Actually, the manipulation bit is not (by and large) what we rationalist object to. There is some credible evidence that massaging a bad back can bring a certain degree to relief to the person with the bad back (though, as with any treatment, manipulation is not risk free).

Most of the theory of chiropractic is, however, completely unsupported by conventional medical theory or by (good quality) empirical studies of outcomes. Ditto for the more outlandish claims regarding the treatment of infant colic.

Were it not for the libel action, we should not be here slating chiropractic. After all (by promoting exercise and providing massage and advice about posture) chiropractic does actually provided some benefit to some patients (unlike say homeopathy which is 100% bogus).

We rationalist did not start this fight. The BCA threw down the gauntlet when it sued Simon Singh - a man who has the temerity to believe that claims of medical efficacy should be backed up by hard evidence.

"Dont you have anything better to do than to slate people off who are actually providing a great service and helping their community?" - Just so we're clear, this article is about chiropractors. I just thought I'd point that out as it seems you were suggesting chiropractic might be of some use.

Two things amuse me no end about these comments.

The first is that Pete and the other Very Angry People have not actually addressed the points raised in the post - indeed Pete seems determined to change the subject to talk about medical safety in general or about spinal manipulation - anything but actual chiropractic.

The second is that I've actually sided with the GCC here. I'm following GCC guidelines, and pointing out that the clinic in question doesn't look like it meets them, in response to which I'm writing to ask for a clarification. Apparently, this merits a stream of abusive comments from supporters of chiropractic. Why that should be, I do not know, but it's not exactly a great advert for chiropractic that its advocates are so hysterical about criticism.

I'm quite simply amazed at how many people have waded in here to attack a series of straw-men.

The point is not that all chiropractic procedures are inherently ineffective, but that chiropractic manipulations don't treat some of the things that some chiropractors claim they do.

If a doctor deliberately prescribed antibiotics for an uninfected bad back and actually advertised that it was effective then they would quickly be accused of malpractice. The difference is that chiropractic is not currently capable of such self-regulation and so concerned citizens need to make a stand.

Take your anecdotes about your back problems and post them where they are relevant.

I wouldn't call any of the responses hysterical, although it suits you to assume hysteria to discredit people with an opposing view point. You realise that after your little exercise the most that will happen is the wording will be changed to something along the lines of....."there is emerging evidence that a healthy spine and nervous system can help to prevent infatile colic, chiropractors specialise in the assessment of spinal dysfunction" or words to that effect. Over-activity of the vagus nerve can cause colic and other systemic issues. My background is in neurophysiology and biochemistry, not computer science. I know....."that is really impressive".

You all still don't get it...Chiropractors do not treat back pain, colic, etc...as any webiste keeps repeating all the time!...They treat people and never promise any result.
Are not anecdotes are real stories and facts.

So you're suggesting that they are indeed wrong to make the claims for colic that they do now? Fascinating.

Edit: That's at the first anonymous above, not the second. All these anonymous people are getting confusing.

One thing amuses me Martin.....YOU.

Guess you forget what you wrote:

"So I'm going to train my guns on them. For me is a bit of a test"

and lets not forget the personal attack on Dr Dean.

The only angry person here is you, Martin.

If your so called concern was only about GCC guidelines then you would have left it at that....your comments sum you up.

"your comments sum you up."

I like to think so :)

When chiropractic has the balls to take criticism without sueing and the integrity to prevent its members making unfounded claims, it might be taken more seriously by those of us capable of recognising that anecdotes are not evidence and pseudoscience can have dangerous consequences.

BTW, as an anatomist I would be keen to see the research on how chiropractic techniques are able to reduce over-activity of nerves, could you point me in the direction of some references please?

I don't know, I don't go snooping in other people's premises with the intention of causing trouble, you should work in politics!. I have no idea what their litterature says or how it is worded. You're infering things from my statement which are not there in black and white. Anyway, I'm done. Your experiment will, possibly, go as far as the ASA, they MAY have to change slightly the wording of their advertising to comply with their regulatory body. End of. If you had any real cause for complaint I would imagine that after a regulatory body saw your website and blogs, they would be inclined to side with the clinic, you don't come accross as objectively as I believe you like to think.
Anyway good luck, I hope the whole thing gives you some level of satisfaction and don't give up on the pHD. You'll get there one day.

Good letter, Martin.

Your letter is good and pertinent and I'm really horrified by the number of angry comments it has attracted. Did you have any idea you'd encounter such censure?

For the anatomist, last time I checked there are no studies on nerve conduction and manipulation in cadavers, but I'll have a look. If you are seriously that worried about seeing research why don't you look for yourself? Start with JMPT would be my suggestion. I ask myself though, why do you care? Oh, I would look for influence rather than specifically an increase or decrease. OK, I'm really done this time.

L. M. A. O. Seriously, people. Do you have any clue just how frothy-mouthed your arguments for chiropractic come across?

One of the problems with people who espouse or follow an ideology is their failure to examine evidence, both for and against, and take a rational stance based on that evidence, and all of that evidence, not just the cherry-picked evidence that supports their assertions. Over the past couple of weeks I'm beginning to get comfortable with lumping the pro-chiropractic group in with religious fundamentalists: their arguments are almost identical.

There seems to me to be a lack of credible scientific evidence as to the efficacy of chiropractic in its assertions of successful treatments for ailments, other than for back problems for which there is sufficient evidence that it can be as beneficial as standard physiotherapy. Anecdotes are not evidence.

Though on the subject of anecdotes, I did take my daughter to a chiropracter for treatment of infant colic when she was a baby. We were misguided - having been referred by a midwife (and there's a case for malpractice...) and went to see one. She shuffled us into a room for half an hour to watch a video by some dodgy American second-hand-car-salesman who ranted about the benefits of the manipulation of 'subluxations'. When, dazed and bored, we were ushered back in to see the chiropracter, she ran her hands over my daughter's spine, then offered to show my wife where the subluxation in question was. She placed my wife's hand 3 inches above my daugher's back and then 'bounced' it with her own hand (never making contact with her spine), then did the same thing at various other points, returning to the 'subluxation' to demonstrate the increased resistance offered through her hand when it was pressed at that point. Did she suppose that the 'subluxation' could increase the density of air above my daughter's spine at that point? We left. Turns out colic was just a phase and she sleeps like a baby now, excuse the pun, with no chiropractic treatment.

Perhaps chiropractic could gain some credibility if it:

• Ceased to make outlandish claims of positive benefits with lack of rigorous evidence
• Took to publishing scientific papers in academic journals, not peer journals which have a vested interest in the continued 'success' of chiropractic

And I'm neither a lawyer, doctor, neurologist, biologist, physiologist, neuro-physiologist, anatomist, any other bio-med subject ending in 'ist', or a chiropracter.

Sorry, the way you phrased your earlier post suggested that you were actively involved in neuroscience and had knowledge of pertinent literature. You also implied that over-activity of the vagus nerve is a recognised cause or causative factor in colic, I just wanted to know if you were mentioning it as a piece of trivia or as a supporting statement for chiropractic. If for the latter I thought you might like the opportunity to elucidate just how manipulation of the spine might be beneficial.

Cool website: http://www.capitalchiropractic.co.uk/childconditions.html

Stuart was one sick kid...

Also some ludicrous claims about chiropractic and its ability to cure, amongst other things, bed-wetting and ADHD.

How anyone can wonder why chiropractic is fast becoming the biggest laughing stock in the country is beyond me. If the GCC wants to retain credibility it's going to have to move hard and fast to stem these outlandish claims.

@Suzanne: "Your letter is good and pertinent and I'm really horrified by the
number of angry comments it has attracted. Did you have any idea you'd
encounter such censure?"



Lol, I can honestly say that I didn't, no.



Censure is the right word as well - the comments are incredibly
cynical. Nobody seems to want to address the actual point of the
article, instead it's a stream of abuse... how dare I criticise a chiropractor!

@Martin said,

"how dare I criticise a chiropractor!"

It was the sheer vitriol of the replies that surprised me. I'm only just beginning to realise how difficult it will be for CAM and skeptics ever to have meaningful discussions because their approaches are worlds apart.

CAM (Compelmentary and Alternative Medicine) folk "believe" that their treatments and therapies work, in the same way that a religious person believes in their god.

Skeptics "believe" in scientific method and want proof before they believe anything else.

My fear is that even if the skeptics can prove beyond reasonable doubt that a particular treatment really does not work, it will still not weaken the "faith" of the CAM brigade.

@Susan

You didn't need to state you were a lawyer, it was obvious by the legal language and attention to detail.

Lawyers often use four explanation marks or question marks at the end of a sentence, and accuse people of being CRIMINAL in block capitals.

It's rare that a lawyer in court does not start his address with the lines "GET INFORMED FIRST!!!!".

@Simon Perry

Indeed :-)

Crikey Martin.

You must really have made it blog-wise by the look of this thread... it closely resembles some of the more flaming ones over at Respectful Insolence (for connoisseurs of outraged chiropractors I can recommend starting below and reading down the thread:).

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/the_most_ridiculous_kerfuffle_...

As ever, the outrage of the cult-friends doth bespeak the Most Righteous True Believer.

Wow.

I note that none of the chiro-sympathizers defended the claim for treating colic, to which Martin objected.

@Suzanne, you are right. chiropractic is a cult that cannot abandon DD Palmer's (the founder) notions. That is a general feature of CAM, 2-3 years ago a doctor challenged us to cite any quack treatment that has bee abandoned in the light of new evidence. It was a fascinating exercise because anything we could suggest was refuted by somebody's citation to current CAM practice. For example, 80 years ago a quack would transplant goat testes into men who felt "inadequate." I thought that must be gone; but, it turned out that if one goes to the right place it is still done.

The chiropractic subluxation and Innate are wholly imaginary. I did not see a suggestion to consult JMPT, which is a chiro fanzine. One would do as well to consult an astrology fanzine for facts.

Hi Martin

Looks like you should be writing to NBC news as well.

http://www.turnto10.com/jar/lifestyles/health_med_fit/article/health_che...

and CBS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpgxqfDECP4

Only problem is the Chriopractor makes it clear he doesnt treat the symptoms!!!