The Advice Prospective Patients Get About Chiropractic?

5avg.rating 37 votes.

Reading time: < 1 minute Sometimes we don't realize just how much of a battle it is to persuade prospective patients to get started (and continue) with chiropractic care. I found this video to by hysterically absurd, yet within the realm of reality, for many potential chiropractic patients.

I would love to hear your thoughts… as well as how you equip new chiropractic patients to handle these type of conversations with well-meaning friends.

Share your comments below.

The Advice Prospective Patients Get About Chiropractic?



Leave a comment
  1. dr scott einhorn 16. Jan, 2012 at 5:57 pm #

    Problem #1 is teh ending. The very last phrase is “paralyzed or die”. So that is what sticks. Though it seems to be so very obviously tongue in cheek, It will take a very agile, and non-average mind, to understand all the implications and real message.

  2. Dr Ralph Krutulis 16. Jan, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    Clearly I don’t like the ending on a negative, while it is supposed to be positive, most of the time it was not. I must agree with Dr Einhorn. The digital voices need to be smoother as well. They had this level of quality 20 years ago. I would not use it or post it in the current form.

  3. Todd Brown 16. Jan, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    Oh, totally. The video quality and production is ridiculous (whoever did it).

    Yet, the absurd barrage of negative comments and feedback from the one friend is… unfortunately… a reality for lots of potential and existing patients.

    What do you go to help equip patients when dealing with those type of friends?

  4. Skeptical Health 16. Jan, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    Ernst 2011 found that spinal manipulation is not an effective treatment for any medical condition.

    I have summarized chiropractic as a profession here: http://www.skepticalhealth.com/2012/01/02/chiropractic-an-indefensible-profession/

  5. Skeptical Health 16. Jan, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    In 1991, a systematic review assessed the efficacy of spinal manipulation for patients with back or neck pain. The review found that although some results are promising, the efficacy of manipulation had not been convincingly shown. (Koes 1991)

    In 1992, a systematic review investigated the efficacy of spinal manipulation as a treatment for low back pain. The authors found that spinal manipulation may provide short-term benefit for patients with uncomplicated acute low back pain. The authors found no evidence of the effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation for chronic low back pain. The authors identified several complications of lumbar spine manipulation, including paraplegia and death. (Shekelle 1992)

    In 1996, a systematic review assessed the efficacy of spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. The review found that efficacy of spinal manipulation for patients with acute or chronic low back pain has not been demonstrated with sound randomized clinical trials. (Koes 1996)

    In 1998, a study investigated how well chiropractors followed U.S. guideline recommendations for spinal manipulation in patients with lower back pain. The authors were hoping to find that if chiropractors adhered to guidelines, they may see more referrals from medical doctors. The study found that less than half (46%) of chiropractors treated patients in an appropriate manner. The standard of care was uncertain in 25% of cases and was inappropriate in 29% of cases. The authors concluded that the number of inappropriate decisions to use chiropractic spinal manipulation should be decreased. (Shekelle 1998)

    In 2003, a systematic review evaluated the evidence supporting the use of chiropractic care for any type of non-spinal pain. Studies related to fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel syndrome, infantile colic, otitis media, dysmenorrhoea and chronic pelvic pain were found and examined. The review found the studies did not demonstrate that chiropractic manipulation is an effective therapy for any of these conditions. (Ernst 2003)

    In 2003, an article examined the trends and issues of the chiropractic profession in the United States. The authors noted that although chiropractic has been established for over 100 years, the profession’s efforts to validate the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy, its principal modality, have yielded only modest and often contrary results. The article also noted that the declining reimbursements from insurance companies for chiropractic care is essentially requiring chiropractors to broaden its activities in alternative medicine. Perhaps this explains why many chiropractors incorporate forms of quackery such as iridology and energy healing into their practice. (Cooper 2003)

    In 2003, a meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain compared to other therapies. For patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was superior only to sham therapy or therapies judged to be ineffective or even harmful. Spinal manipulative therapy had no statistically or clinically significant advantage over general practitioner care, analgesics, physical therapy, or exercise. Essentially, spinal manipulative therapy was found to only be better than doing nothing. (Assendelft 2003)

    In 2003, a systematic review examined the effectiveness of non-surgical treatments (other than steroid injection) for carpal tunnel syndrome. While the review found several non-surgical treatments for carpal tunnel that were effective (for example, wrist braces), the review found that chiropractic care did not demonstrate symptom benefit when compared to placebo or control. (O’Connor 2003)

    In 2004, a systematic review examined the efficacy of spinal manipulation for neck pain. The review found a lack of evidence that spinal manipulation therapy is effective for any type of neck pain. (Bronfort 2004)

    In 2005, a systematic review aimed to determine the extent of current evidence supporting the use of chiropractic manipulation for the treatment of acute neck pain. They found no evidence supporting the use of chiropractic manipulation to treat acute neck pain. (Haneline 2005)

    In 2005, a systematic review examined the use of different types of physical treatments (physical therapy, massage therapy, and chiropractic) for headache. The review found no convincing evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective in the treatment of either tension-type headache or migraine headache. (Biondi 2005)

    In 2005, a systematic review investigated noninvasive interventions for whiplash-associated disorders. The review found no high-quality evidence that chiropractic manipulation was effective for the treatment of whiplash. (Conlin 2005)

    In 2006, a systematic review (Ernst 2006) evaluated the evidence from recent systematic reviews of clinical trials of spinal manipulation. The review found that recent reviews found no evidence for the use of spinal manipulation for the treatment of any medical condition, with the possible exception of back pain where spinal manipulation was considered superior to sham manipulation but not better than conventional treatments. The review concluded:

    Collectively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment.

    In 2006, a systematic review assessed the efficacy of manual therapies in reducing pain from tension-type headache. The authors found no rigorous evidence that manual therapies have a positive effect in the evolution of tension-type headache. (Fernández-de-Las-Peñas 2006)

    In 2006, a systematic review examined alternative medical therapies for efficacy in the treatment of fibromyalgia. The review found that chiropractic care has neither well-designed studies nor positive results and concluded that chiropractic care is not recommended for fibromyalgia treatment. (Sarac 2006)

    In 2007, a study evaluated the perceptions of research, frequency of use of research findings in practice, and the level of research skills of chiropractors. Surveyed chiropractors acknowledged the importance of research to validate their practice, but had little confidence in their research skills and the overall application of research in practice was limited. The study concluded that chiropractors do not consistently apply research in practice, which may result from a lack of research education and research skills. (Suter 2007)

    In 2007, a systematic review evaluated the use of nonsurgical treatments such as chiropractic for scoliosis. The review found no evidence that chiropractic care is an effective treatment for patients with scoliosis. (Everett 2007)

    In 2008, a systematic review investigated the scope, type, and quality of chiropractic research conducted on the management of upper limb peripheral conditions (problems involving the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, forearm, and arm.) The review found that most of the existing research was of low quality and found no high-quality research that suggested chiropractic treatment had any positive effect for upper limb conditions. (McHardy 2008)

    In 2008, a critical evaluation of chiropractic care found that with the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition. Despite this lack of evidence, the article found that many chiropractors attempt to treat conditions beyond back pain. It was further noted that manipulation is associated with frequent mild adverse effects and with serious complications of unknown incidence. The evaluation concluded, “The concepts of chiropractic are not based on solid science and its therapeutic value has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.” (Ernst 2008)

    In 2009, a systematic review examined the effectiveness of chiropractic care in patients with fibromyalgia. The review found no evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for fibromyalgia. (Schneider 2009)

    In 2009, a systematic review examined the use of chiropractic treatment for fibromyalgia. The review found that existing studies were of poor methodological quality and generated no evidence to suggest that chiropractic care is effective for fibromyalgia. (Ernst 2009)

    In 2009, a systematic review (Proctor 2009) examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for patients with dysmenorrhea (painful menstrual cramps.) Results from trials found that spinal manipulation was no more effective than placebo for the treatment of dysmenorrhea. The authors concluded:

    Overall there is no evidence to suggest that spinal manipulation is effective in the treatment of primary and secondary dysmenorrhea.

    In 2010, a systematic review examined studies using chiropractic spinal manipulation for the treatment of asthma. The review found that chiropractic care was not significantly better than placebo, and that spinal manipulation is not an effective treatment for asthma. (Kaminskyj 2010)

    In 2010, a systematic review examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for neck pain. The review did not find any high-quality evidence that manipulation was effective in decreasing either acute or chronic neck pain, or its associated headaches and pain radiating down the arms. (Gross 2010)

    In 2010, a systematic review examined the evidence for the use of manipulation technique for the treatment of shoulder pain. The review found no evidence to support the use of chiropractic manipulation for shoulder pain. (Pribicevic 2010)

    In 2010, a systematic review of combined chiropractic interventions (that is, a combination of therapies, other than spinal manipulation alone) for low-back pain was performed. The review found that combined chiropractic interventions slightly improved pain and disability in the short-term and pain in the medium-term for acute and subacute low-back pain. However, there was no evidence that these interventions provide a clinically meaningful difference for pain or disability in people with low-back pain when compared to other interventions. (Walker 2010)

    In 2011, a systematic review assessed the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for treating migraine headaches. The review found no evidence to support the use of spinal manipulations for the treatment of migraine headaches. (Posadzki 2011)

    In 2011, a Cochrane review assessed the effects of spinal manipulation therapy for chronic low-back pain. Studies including sciatica were excluded. The review found that there is high quality evidence that spinal manipulation therapy has a small, but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief and functional status. (Rubinstein 2011)

    In 2011, a systematic review examined the up-to-date literature as it relates to the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulation in the management of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar-related extremity pain. The review found no high quality evidence that spinal manipulation is effective for the treatment of any type of cervical, thoracic, or lumbar-related extremity pain. (Leininger 2011)

    In 2011, a study investigated whether spinal manipulation would be a useful adjunct therapy to home exercise for patients with chronic neck pain. The authors found that the addition of spinal manipulation did not improve the outcome in patients with chronic neck pain who were already performing regular home exercises. (Martel 2011)

    In 2011, a systematic review critically evaluated the effectiveness of chiropractic treatments for gastrointestinal disorders. The review found that existing studies had serious methodological flaws. The author concluded that there is no supportive evidence that chiropractic is an effective treatment for any gastrointestinal disorder. (Ernst 2011)

    In 2011, an update to the 2006 systematic review of systematic reviews found that spinal manipulation is not an effective intervention for any condition. (Posadzki 2011)

  6. John Gosselin 16. Jan, 2012 at 8:44 pm #

    I watched this video with my 5 year old and I believe he caught the undertone of this video better than I…

    …IT WAS A JOKE!!! (For the serious folks out there) “Dad, it’s a dumb video but can we watch it again?… BTW, will I really die if I see somebody like that?”

    Keep up the lighter side of a heavy topic Todd,

    John Gosselin

  7. Thaddeus 16. Jan, 2012 at 9:18 pm #

    It sounds more in support of chiropractic in my opinion. The guy with the back pain is more knowledgeable than the opponent who is making claims on admittedly unsubstantiated information.

    At a Stephen Barrett local hospital lecture in Florida several years back when I was still at Palmer, he said chiropractic had come along way and that it was actually pretty good stuff~

  8. Chad Woolner 17. Jan, 2012 at 12:26 am #


    Thanks for posting my video. I actually created this several months back using a free service on Youtube that actually creates all the cartoons and voices for you…Kind of silly I know but it was fun. I did it as a means of poking fun at so many of the so-called “experts” out there who claim to have all the answers but so conveniently seem to gloss over all the legitimate research that overwhelmingly proves the efficacy and safety of chiropractic care.

    @John, glad to hear that you and your son enjoyed a video that was indeed meant to be “dumb”…Precisely!!! They are like Nacho Libre style cartoon wrestlers for crying out loud! Glad I could provide a few laughs and hopefully at the same time provide a few decent points of food for thought.

  9. Todd Brown 17. Jan, 2012 at 9:44 am #

    Chad… I think the video does a great job of showing how ignorant many folks are about chiropractic care. You can clearly see how foolish the one friend is. Kudos.

  10. Skeptical Health 17. Jan, 2012 at 4:24 pm #

    I think if anything, it shows that chiropractors are completely unaware of what the research shows.


  11. Skeptical Health 17. Jan, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

    Dear Chiropractors:

    Please read the following link, published by one of your colleagues. In it, this lady advocates “ileocecal valve syndrome”, which is a completely fictitious diagnosis. It’s 100% made up, and there is not a shred of proof on all of planet earth that it exists.


    So – do you accept that absolute QUACKERY like “ileocecal valve syndrome” exists? If so, you should see why the public has such a horrible view of chiropractors. It’s because you promote fictitious disease in order to drum up business for your failing pathetic profession. Or absolutely bogus crap like “network spinal analysis”? QUACKERY!

  12. steve 17. Jan, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    Wait a minute check out this link from Dr OZ Show. http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/back-pain-relievers

  13. Dr. Eriidina Ojiiwawh 17. Jan, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    @ Chad thanks for the video. @ Skeptical Health Chiropractors do not claim to treat any disease. Our job and only job is to remove nervous system interference via specific spinal adjustments not manipulations from which no one has ever died nor has been paralyzed. Secondly we are not an alternative to medicine medicine is an alternative to us and every other natural healing profession. How can anything man made be superior to anything God made, only the body heals, not us or any toxic chemical put out by the pharmacutic

  14. Dr. Eriidina Ojiiwawh 17. Jan, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

    Pharmaceutical companies. Lastly, keep doing what you are doing, pouring energy into Chiropractic, whether negative or positive will only ensure Chiropractic’s existence!

  15. LCP 17. Jan, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

    I have enjoyed these characters in the past as one of them is totally ignorant about the subject. Can’t wait to see the one pertaining to Big Pharm and that over 100,000 people die annually by taking prescription medicine according to the label. My in-law worked at a major hospital for 30 years, became ill, hosptialized there, was not attended to and developed a staph infections, and died there. No attorney will handle a law suit against the employees or hospital. After providing chiropractic care to my patients for 30 years, not one was paralyzed or died.

  16. Skeptical Health 17. Jan, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

    Eriidina, the idea that you “remove nervous system interference” is pure quackery and is part of the reason medical doctors look down on your profession. I’d love to see one legitimate systematic review showing that chiropractic manipulation “removes nervous system interference.” The entire statement is pseudoscience, and you should be embarrassed for writing that.

    Also, I love the double-standard of your quackery. Some of you claim that you “don’t treat disease”, and the other of you claim to be able to treat everything with just a little crack of the spine.


  17. Dr. Eriidina Ojiiwawh 17. Jan, 2012 at 9:17 pm #

    Skeptical Health as I stated earlier, keep sending us that energy!
    Love ya big guy!

  18. Dr. Michael McIrvin 17. Jan, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    Skeptical Health, its very interesting when I have patients come to me after seeing a ‘real’ doctor that tells them there is nothing wrong with them when they have back pain, headache, arm pain, leg pain, fibromyalgia, RSD, Regional Pain Syndrome(or add in any type of pain you can imagine) I diagnose them, adjust them, treat them and their pain is gone. Or maybe is it that the MD just doesnt know what THEY are doing. Almost all my patients have failed medical treatment. If the medipractors had all the answers, Id be out of business.

  19. Dr. April Goebel 17. Jan, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    I think that anyone that gives energy to people or INDUSTRIES that stoop to calling names is wasting their time. Skeptical Health should possibly stop using Ambien and sleepwalking through life. This is from another nervous system interference removing Doctor of Chiropractic. Okay, so now I am done wasting MY time!

  20. Chiro works 17. Jan, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    I feel all healthcare practitioners have their place. Maybe if we focused on patient health as opposed to who is more of a doctor, everyone would be better off. I had skeptical MDs in the past. Reason being, they had no clue what we do. I now have an Md, DPT, and a PA workin for me. I have many OB/GYN and orthos referring patients to me.
    True doctors working together to get patients better. All under a chiropractors roof.

  21. Dr. Michael 17. Jan, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    @ Skeptical health,

    What would you consider a “non-quackery” type of healthcare?

    Also, I’m curious as to where your real name and credentials are published on your site? Certainly someone who is so adamant about “exposing others” would be completely transparent about their own qualifications.

  22. Dr. Rod 17. Jan, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

    The Skeptical Health article is indefensible. The evidence continues to pile up that chiropractic is extremely safe and effective at treating back pain. I’d like my patient (who is an orthopedic surgeon) to read your article which attempts to dismiss an entire profession that is thriving and growing by leaps and bounds worldwide. He had nagging low back pain for over a decade and followed the medical route to no avail. On the advice of one of my patients, he came to my office. His LBP that had shadowed him for years was gone in 3 visits. Now I treat his entire office staff on his dime and he is a constant referral source…

  23. Matthew Loop 17. Jan, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    Hey Todd… Glad you don’t censor blog comments like the “Quack master” at Skeptic Health does.

    Anyone know his real name? Looks like he hides behind an alias.

    Too bad he’s never actually studied the origins of western allopathic medicine, which was founded on private interest… not science.

  24. Scott R Corbin RNDC 17. Jan, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

    in response to the recent chiro tape as reviewed it is clear that stupidity is alive and well and remains the only tool of use by those who lack real edcuation and understanding of chiropractic healthcare.

    I doubt there is a cure for such terminal dumbness and i don’t have any clinical based evidence that shows any improvement with adjustments. Maybe a course of ECT or large doses of thorazine might be able to clear there thinking

  25. Chad Woolner 17. Jan, 2012 at 11:13 pm #

    @ Skeptical Health

    I originally hadn’t intended on wasting my time to refute your, quite frankly, pathetic attempts to dismiss the validity and safety of chiropractic because I know that regardless of what I or any other chiropractor has to say you will always have a quick rebuttal. But let me quickly state a few points here.

    First, your vehement disdain for the chiropractic profession is completely overshadowing any objectivity in your claims. The video I created that Dr. Todd posted that got all this started in the first place was created to poke fun and people just like you…Did you get that?

    Your incessant rants about how chiropractic is “quackery” and how there is no research to support it is the equivalent of someone today still claiming that the world is flat. Dude, get over it, the research is in whether you like it or not, and unlike the “research” you cite on your blog, the research validating chiropractic care comes from legitimate, peer reviewed scientific journals like SPINE and many other well respected sources.

    As far as the evidence you seek…Let me simply end with a quote from one of my heroes, Dr. Scott Haldeman, who by the way happens to be an MD, DC, and PhD…So I am fairly confident in citing him.

    “Chiropractors are extremely fortunate in these times of evidence based health care. There was a time, not long ago, when there was little or no evidence to support the practice of manipulation that is the mainstay of chiropractic practice. There were also widely advertised claims that manipulation could have very serious complications and therefore should not be offered patients in the absence of evidence. There has, however, been a rapid growth in the number of clinical trials that have studied the effectiveness of manipulation, mobilization and massage over the past 20 years and, as this document demonstrates, there is now little dispute amongst knowledgeable scientists that manipulation is of value in the management of back pain, neck pain and headaches that make up 90% or more of all patients who seek chiropractic care.”1

    Make sure you get the point that he states above that there is little dispute amongst “knowledgeable” scientists…What does that say about you and your blog?

    Thanks again Todd for the post, and to all the other chiros who have posted here, thanks for defending our profession!

    1.Commentary on the United Kingdom Evidence Report About the Effectiveness of Manual Therapies. Chiropractic & Osteopathy 2010, 18:4doi:10.1186/1746-1340-18-4

  26. Dr. William 17. Jan, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

    After struggling through this computerized nonsense, it is good to see we have chiropractic doctors defending non-functional human bodies that improve with great bedside manner,directive soft tissue work and therapy. I wish medical doctors could see the patients I have helped after 27 years of dedicated service to conservative treatments without a pill. I will still attempt to persuade patients to evaluate their medication to see if it really will “fix” their back and neck and extremities without touching the area. Keep using the Rx pad. Now, who is practicing without harm. Just trying to help patients with God as my helper.

  27. Skeptical Health 17. Jan, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

    The dichotomy seen here is pretty hilarious:

    Scope of practice: On one hand, you have the energy healing cranks who believe that chiropractic care is “restoring the body’s balance” and “detecting neurological interference”, and on the other hand you have the wackos that believe they can cure all sorts of disease, including diseases that are completely invented by chiropractors such as “ileo-cecal valve syndrome” (QUACK QUACK!)

    Evidence basis: On one hand you have the goobers who think that saying “I saw improvement in my patients!” (anecdotes) counts as some sort of evidence, and then on the other hand you have scientifically illiterate chiropractors claiming the research shows chiropractic works.

    It’s probably too much to assume that you understand a systematic review is essentially the strongest form of evidence we have because it takes into account all investigations into a topic. In my scathing article on chiropractic I linked almost exclusively to systematic reviews that consistently find that chiropractic is ineffective and dangerous.

    You, on the other hand, pick and choose one crappy study that may show some effectiveness, or the one study by chiropractors published in the “journal of manipulative therapy” that says stroke isn’t a real risk, meanwhile every other study says it is a real risk.

    It’s no wonder they call chiropractic care “manipulations.”



  28. Dr. Chris 17. Jan, 2012 at 11:58 pm #

    @Skeptical Health,
    Let’s compare notes:

    Your notes: “In 2002, a study of the perceptions of risk of vertebral artery dissection after chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine acknowledged at least 23 incidents occurring between 1988 and 1997.”
    My notes:
    According to the CDC (that’s the Center for Disease Control, in case you didn’t know), deaths resulting from prescription drugs have risen to become the second-largest cause of unintentional deaths in the United States. Such deaths increased by 61 percent in 1999, growing from 4.4 per 100,000 people in that year to 7.1 per 100,000 people in 2004.

    Deaths from psychotherapeutic drugs, such antidepressants and sedatives, nearly doubled, jumping from 671 deaths to 1,300.

    The biggest jump among any age group was for those aged 15 to 24, which may be related to a rise in recreational prescription drug use. However, all age groups, except for those over 75, experienced increases of more than 35 percent. Those aged 45 to 64 saw a jump of more than 90 percent.
    Somehow the math doesn’t add up in your favor. These aren’t chiropractors numbers I presented, they are published statistics. Read ‘em and weep.

    One of tens of thousands of chiropractors who have never killed anyone…. let alone, given them a stroke.

  29. Jason 18. Jan, 2012 at 4:20 am #

    @ skeptical health
    Go look at your posture, reflect on your own departure(s) from health, look at the meric chart (which was assembled by the medical profession) and try to tell us there is quackery associated with interference to the nervous system. Your cut-n-paste-n-delete loooks rather convincing but the truth lies in results. The only cure all lies in death…not medicine, not Chiropractic. It is how we LIVE , how we move, how we function, which determines our health.
    You are so well versed, could you please tell me the origin of the word “pharmacy”. Where is the quackery now?
    And just out of curiosity, why is dysproving Chiropractic so important to you? Why not take on a real issue like drug abuse or big government?

  30. Dr Geoffrey Reed 18. Jan, 2012 at 7:26 am #

    This could be considered defamatory or even tortious interference, both of which are legally actionable. Whoever posted that should be aware that they might be treading on thin legal ice. Frankly, as a profession, we need to go after our detractors legally. That’s the big boys game and we need to pony up.

  31. Dr Geoffrey Reed 18. Jan, 2012 at 7:32 am #

    The ultimate truth actually lies in what our professional liability (medical malpractice) rates are. I pay $3,000/yr for a 1 mil/3 mil aggregate policy in New Jersey, one of the most litigious states in the US. And have never been sued. Go ask your part time family practitioner what they pay; $20,000 and up, dependent upon claims history.

  32. will 18. Jan, 2012 at 10:45 am #

    I was wondering if the skeptical health guy has formal education relating to what he is talking about?

    I am a healthy person who does not eat gmo food and is fairly active for a 39 year old male.

    My own research shows that the brain sends signals/electricity of sorts down the spine and the body does miraculous things like raising an arm or wiggling toes.

    So why is it so hard to believe that the electric signal can be improved upon by a professional specializing in spinal medicine? I have friends who no longer have asthma and some who now sleep at night where they did not before. Another no longer has chronic bronchitis.

    I do not believe regular medicine has a clue and would rather pump toxic medicines into our problem to treat the problem.

    I don’t know about you but I stopped being treated when i was 19 and now if I have a problem I only get cured. I demand it. With 80% of all antibiotics used on livestock I am sure everyone gets enough drugs from their food that they should not need more a doctor drug dealer.

    Happy New Year,

  33. Dr Joe Stanfield 18. Jan, 2012 at 10:53 am #

    Todd- I really don’t think its worth responding to- however I understand the undertones. True, it is a cartoon. It really is just quite silly. Slander is a hard thing to nail down. Things like this fly in the face of the judicial system and its ability to contain legal precedents,ie.,Dr Wilkes. Reality is people who are searching for truth will find it regardless of the lies.

  34. Skeptical Health 18. Jan, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    It’s rather telling that a chiropractor would rather threaten legal action than defend their position with, you know, facts.

  35. Dr. Rich Roth 18. Jan, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    Thanks for the opportunity to respond to Skeptical health. I would like to point out that manipulation was practiced by Hippocrates, father of modern medicine. Additionally, osteopaths perform manipulation….even in military hospitals. I know since I served in the US Army and sought it ought long before I became a chiropractor. I have seen the evidence of the benefit of manipulation with my own eyes as most of you have.

    The problem with folks like Skeptical Health is that their credibility is shot when they target one thing such as chiropractic. Where are the questions about harmful drugs, surgeries etc? I think it is ok to question any treatment but the questioning should be fair and balanced. Otherwise one’s credibility is in the crapper.

    Skeptical’s approach reminds me of past experiences with religious zealots (and I am a Christian) who become so blinded by their own impartiality and hatred of something or someone that they ignore what is right in front of them.

    Frankly, I just prefer to ignore those who just aren’t informed. Every day we all get to see patients who aren’t finding the relief they need with drugs or surgery get the relief with chiropractic care.

    By the way, my father was a skeptic of chiropractic when I was young. He and I both chose to become chiropractors at the same time. He was 37 and I was 16. There are now 5 of us and in a few years there will be 6. I love succeeding where traditional medicine fails!

  36. Skeptical Health 18. Jan, 2012 at 11:36 am #

    It’s rather disturbing that the majority of posters here think that anecdotes are a legitimate form of evidence. I guess that explains this study:

    In 2007, a study evaluated the perceptions of research, frequency of use of research findings in practice, and the level of research skills of chiropractors. Surveyed chiropractors acknowledged the importance of research to validate their practice, but had little confidence in their research skills and the overall application of research in practice was limited. The study concluded that chiropractors do not consistently apply research in practice, which may result from a lack of research education and research skills. (Suter 2007)

  37. Rich Sommers DC 18. Jan, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    Seems to be more pro chiropractic, because the arguments against it are so flimsy.
    I am a chiropractor, and for 26 years have been helping patients feel better.
    I have never paralyzed or killed anyone, nor have I ever known of someone injured by a chiropractic adjustment.
    There is a book titled “Death By Medicine’, written by an MD that shows statistically that medical treatment is the leading cause of death in America. Scott Haldemann’s book “Confessions of a Medical Heretic” reveals a lot of problems with modern medicine being ‘health care’.
    Go Natural, eat vegetables, rest, exercise and have a chiropractor relieve the stress from your spine and nervous system. It works. I have seen it work for 26 years.

  38. John R. Wyatt, D.C. 18. Jan, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    If there were no detractors such as Skeptical Health then we as a Profession clearly would not be worth existing. In regards to the research I have poured through articles and articles of it and the research is only as good as the execution. I am sure our friend Skeptical Health knows this and would surely exclude any such sub-standard research from his/her opinion or website.

    By the way Skeptical Health have you ever had the need to review a double blind research study on the effectiveness of a parachute to know if it works? Or do the results simply speak for themselves?

    There is a reason we are the largest, most regulated non-drug prescribing healthcare profession in the world, beacause the results we provide to the public make us so.

  39. Dr. Todd Caughey 18. Jan, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

    How can someone devote so much of their time disproving something that has absolute validation, scientifically? Does not make sense. Take the time to read and follow up.
    Vertebral Subluxation Complex- Lantz CRJ, Dishman R. Review of the literature supporting a scientific basis for the chiropractic subluxation complex JMPT 1985; 8 (3),
    No subluxation based chiropractor has EVER published a claim that subluxation is the cause of disease. It is claimed that VSC represents dis-ease. There is a huge difference. Still, even dis-ease is not unicausal. James Chestnut.
    Dishman, R.W. JMPT 1988;11(2)
    Lantz, Charles A. CRJ 1988;1(1)
    Lantz,Charles A. CRJ 1989;1(3)
    Lantz,Charles A. CRJ 1990;1(4)
    Bolton,P JMPT 2000;23(2)
    How about some info on decreased mechanoreceptive input resulting in less inhibition of nociception(less inhibition of stress response and sympathetically induced muscle spasm and vasoconstriction) and to decreased essential afferent input into the cerebellar-brainstem-cortical loops that have been recently shown to coordinate homeostatic cognition, affect (emotion), visceral function (including immune organs) (WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAAATTTT?-you mean getting adjusted by a chiropractic can boost the immune system!) as well as movement, muscle tone and posture.
    Jiang et al. SPINE 1997; 22(1)
    Schmahmann Int Rev Neuro Vol 41
    the list goes on and on.
    I suggest at this point that you get a life Skeptical Health. Or at least, go see a good chiropractor.

  40. Skeptical Health 18. Jan, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    Todd, you are arguing for the existence of subluxations. Subluxations do not exist. In fact, many chiropractors who wish to be “evidence based” have eschewed the concept of a “subluxation.”

    Subluxation = pure quackery.


  41. Dr. Todd Caughey 19. Jan, 2012 at 11:45 am #

    I knew that you would not read the information I posted. Subluxations DO exist. Maybe the “definition” of subluxation is where your confused. But they absolutely exist, based on research done by some of the TOP P.H.d’s and Neurologist in the world.

  42. Jason 19. Jan, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    People with so much to say, I find, exhaust their audience into boredom and finally withdraw. This is done to circumvent answering questions, getting to the truth or initiating rebutte. Liars and those with something to hide do this all the time. Skeptical health hides behind his computer, point and clicking…sort of like using a telepromptor to deliver a speech. He is no more than a chimp with a vocabulary. And an evil agenda to profit from something chiropractors are keeping him from achieving. Hell, if he worked for rabbis Mae-freddie mac, he’d have a multimillion dollar golden parachute and a seat in obamas cabinet. What a “copulate Richard”
    Chiropractors, this guy is feeding off our frustrations..don’t feed the beast

  43. Skeptical Health 19. Jan, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    Lots of insult, but no data.

    I just finished a post on “craniosacral therapy” – which is pure, unadulterated quackery. If any of you practice this, you should be ashamed of yourself.


  44. Jason 19. Jan, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

    Thanks for the research. I will put that ro good use.

  45. Rob 20. Jan, 2012 at 4:27 am #

    Skeptical Health,
    Have you EVER stopped to consider the MILLIONS of people worldwide that have benefitted from Chiropractic care?
    Your suggestion that chiropractic manipulation does not reduce spinal nerve irritation has no backing. Why do people suffering from leg pain, arm pain or cervicogenic headaches gain full resolution of there pain and/or parasthesia with chiropractic care.
    Professor Ernst really is not the best person to be quoting or referring to as he does not a good grasp on the research that has been conducted and the papers that show the efficacy of chiropractic care. Bronfort (2004) showed strong evidence for neck pain, back pain, cervicogenic headaches and dizziness, arm and leg pain and extremity joint conditions.
    Ernst has been proven time and time again to be misquoting studies and not portraying all of the facts. Perhaps that is why he had his funding taken away and left the UK.
    Chiropractic has lear less serious adverse incidents that taking NSAID’s. Think about that Skeptical Health. …………

  46. Rob 20. Jan, 2012 at 7:06 am #

    As a extra revelation for your you skepiltical health are you aware that almost 80% of all orthodox treatments have little or no supporting RCT evidence backing them. Perhaps the time in your sad littke life might be better spent investigating those procedures that risk people’s lives and kill everyday. Are these unsupported procedures and treatment protocols acceptable because of the billions of pounds/dollars behind the drug companies?? Is that why you fail to address this part of healthcare?? Get a real job and read all of the articles that have ready been suggested to you above and get the facts straight before you start minuting off with your inaccurate uneducated opinion of the chiropractic profession. We have educational standards are regulated the same as orthodox medicine and Dentistry and are the third largest primary healthcare profession in the world behind the aforementioned. This cannot be based on quackery or lies. I do not remember receiving any lectures or coaching during my five year chiropractic education in the UK about deceit and fraud and how to make money by conning the public!!!!!

  47. Skeptical Health 20. Jan, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    Rob, there is no high quality evidence (on planet earth) that chiropractic manipulation “reduces spinal nerve irritation.” You can’t “pick and choose” your science. Systematic reviews are the highest quality evidence we have on earth. In case you don’t know, they look at all the studies, and weed out the low-quality ones (such as those with poor methodological quality or no control group or inadequate controls) and synthesize the data of the best studies to see what they support. If you read me “Indefensible Profession” article, you’ll see that I refer almost exclusively to high quality data, because this weeds out the crappy trials.

    Let me ask you this. Please give me your brief opinion on:

    - Energy healing (Reiki, Therapeutic Touch, etc)
    - Ileocecal valve syndrome
    - Craniosacral valve syndrome
    - Candida hypersensitivity syndrome (intestinal candidiasis)
    - Iridology
    - Reflexology

  48. Ruth 22. Jan, 2012 at 11:44 pm #

    Magnificent! (As usual. :-P )

  49. Skeptical Health 01. Feb, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    I’m glad to see I’m still getting hits from the scummy chiropractors who market fake diseases to lure patients in.

  50. Ron Fischer 02. Feb, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    Skeptical Heath: another devout follower in the Church of Scientism. If you dare stray from the holy scriptures of the RCT you must be an infidel (quack), and a holy jihad will be waged upon the quacks! LOL

    Funny thing, he doesn’t have issues with DO’s manipulating the spine, or the fact PT’s are fighting tooth and nail to get the right to manipulate. Wonder why?

    Cranio-Sacral Therapy? CST is an osteopathic technique, and extensively researched at Michigan State University. You really going to tell the Spartans their research is quackery?

    Fake diseases? Pharmaceutical companies do it every day. You don’t have a problem with that.

    One or two people getting relief from chiropractic would be anecdotal, but when millions get relief over a period of over 100 years, the trend is quite evident.

    Skeptic, why don’t you and your buddies James Randi, Steven Barrett, etc… quit making fools of yourselves. It’s embarrassing.

  51. Rob 03. Feb, 2012 at 3:42 am #

    Hear hear Ron!!!! If Skeptical is so convinced by his “argument” of misquoting and poppycock why does he have to hide behind a pseudonym???!! He obviously has no need for Chiropractic because he is completely spineless!!!
    Skeptical your ridiculous sole targeting of Chiropractic makes your comments look weak and pathetic. DO’s manipulate, physiotherapists manipulate. In the UK the National Institute of Clinical Excellence-a Government body- recommends use of manipulation in the treatment of back pain. The Royal College of General Practitioners recommends the same. Chiropractic treatment is available on the National Health Service. Need I go on??!!….. Get a life Skeptical

Leave a Reply

SEO Powered By SEOPressor
The #1 symbol of authority you can have as a chiropractor... Click Here
Read more:
Do You Know These 2 Crucial Chiropractic Practice Numbers?