Clinical trials Complementary and alternative medicine Integrative medicine Medicine Pseudoscience

A horrifyingly unethical study of chiropractic treatment of infants with torticollis

Orac encounters a study of chiropractice manipulation under anesthesia for infant torticollis. Iit takes a lot to horrify Orac any more, but subjecting infants to unnecessary anesthesia and radiation to crack their necks did it.

I don’t often write about chiropractic, although perhaps I should do so more often, at least about chiropractic itself. Usually, when I write about chiropractic, it’s in the context of quackery other than chiropractic that many chiropractors have added to their armamentarium of woo, such as when I recentlywrote about a “functional neurologist,” basically a chiropractor who embraced the additional quackery of functional medicine as applied to neurology or the other time when I wrote about functional medicine as done by a chiropractor. Alternatively, I sometimes write about the antivaccine activities of chiropractors, such as Heather Wolfson, a chiropractor who happens to be the wife of Dr. Jack Wolfson, the rabidly antivaccine cardiologist in Arizona. What I don’t often write about is chiropractors doing chiropractic, other than perhaps the occasional post about the risk of stroke from chiropractic neck manipulation. Oh, sure, I posted a video of a chiropractor manipulating the back of a duck as an example of the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen from a chiropractor. However, there is funny as in “Haha!” and there is funny and horrifying. This next example is funny and horrifying. No, strike that. It’s just horrifying. I’m referring to a study that reader made aware of, Manipulation Under Anesthesia in Infants With Arthrogenic Newborn Torticollis: A Retrospective Case Series. Yes, it’s exactly what you think it is. It’s a case series reported by a chiropractor named Inga Paravicini, DC, MME from Universitätsklinik Balgrist in Zurich.

First, I wanted to know who Inga Paravicini is. Unfortunately (for me), her website is—surprise, surprise, given that she practices in Switzerland—in German. Looking at her list of services, I see that it’s a fairly unremarkable list of conditions chiropractors treat, such as osteoarthritis pain, intervertebral disc complaints, sciatica, and the like. There were others, such as “psseudoangina pectoris” (chest pain in blocked vertebral or rib joints) and, yes, torticollis. But what is infant torticollis? In the US, it’s more commonly called congenital torticollis, and it’s a condition in which one of the sternocleidomastoid muscles, the two muscles that extend down either side of the neck, is tight and shortened. The condition is usually diagnosed between 6-8 weeks of age, when the baby starts to gain more control of his head and neck. The usual treatment consists of stretching exercises and changes in how the infant is held or positioned, which gradually lengthen the muscle and correct the problem. Well under 10% of children with torticollis will require surgery to correct the problem by lengthening the sternocleidomastoid muscle, which is usually carried out when the child reaches preschool age. Causes are thought to include abnormal position in the uterus, such as breech, or the use of forceps or a vacuum device during delivery.

You can see where this case series is going. Here, we have a condition that usually responds to physiotherapy, exercise, and teaching the parents to position the infant differently that usually doesn’t need surgery. Also, interestingly, if you do a Google Search for “arthrogenic torticollis,” what you will find high on this search list is this very case series, plus articles in German, Finnish, and Czech, among others. Be that as it may, let’s look at this case series. The first thing I noticed is that I couldn’t find much, if anything, about “athrogenic torticollis.” This is what Paravicini writes about it:

Another category of newborn torticollis is the arthrogenic type. In Germany, this condition sometimes is called kopfgelenk induzierte symmetrie störung.1 According to Kraenzlin and Kind, this type of torticollis indicates a joint dysfunction caused by capsular adhesions at the atlantoaxial joint.3 The arthrogenic and muscular types sometimes coexist. The arthrogenic atlantoaxial dysfunctions are most likely secondary and due to the fibrotic changes in the sternocleidomastoid muscle.4 In the German literature, they both fall under the term muskuloskelettaler Neugeborenen-Torticollis (musculoskeletal newborn torticollis), which means that the cause of the torticollis lies within the musculoskeletal system. In the English literature, the term congenital torticollis is more common and it is subdivided into 2 groups: postural and muscular.

Most of the references were in German, and the Kraenzlin and Kind didn’t show up when I clicked on it, and various attempts to use Google Scholar to search for it failed. Also, I couldn’t find anything implicating the atlantoaxial joint in congenital torticollis, only in acquired torticollis, and even then it’s a rare condition. Now here’s the passage that horrified me:

Because the fixation of the atlantoaxial joint is not due to a neuromuscular reflex mechanism but rather due to capsular adhesions, the specific mobilization is without impulse and the sound that is heard during the mobilization is not a cavitation but rather the breaking up of adhesions.6 Approximately 2.5% of the children will not respond to in-office chiropractic therapy and therefore may be candidates for manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). This may be due to a lack of compliance or having a mixed form of an arthrogenic and muscular torticollis that needs a partial tenotomy of the M. sternocleidomastoideus or because the conventional radiography shows a severe form of torticollis with a subluxated C1/C2 articulation. These numbers are anecdotal data originating from 1 specialized chiropractor in Switzerland who treats approximately 400 infants per year with arthrogenic newborn torticollis. From these 400 infants, 10 will end up needing MUA due to the reasons mentioned above.

You read that right. This chiropractor is talking about manipulating babies’ necks and how the cracking sound heard is the “breaking up of adhesions.” It gets worse. Paravicini openly admits the risks of anesthesia and radiation in infants:

Currently, as far as the author is aware, all of the published studies on MUA have been done on adult patients. It is unknown from the scientific literature how infants with torticollis respond to MUA. Certainly the risks of administration of general anesthesia and computed tomography (CT) scans in children need to be discussed. Looking at the literature, the main concern for applying anesthesia in children seems to be the effects it has on neurodevelopment and later cognitive function. The most current prospective clinical studies show that shorter general anesthetic exposures in early life (under age 2) and of short duration (<1 to 2 hours) are safe.7, 8 A retrospective matched cohort study with 18 056 children below the age of 4 years done in 2016 was able to show that general anesthesia exposures in children between 2 and 4 years of age did show a decrease in the Early Development Instrument score but not so between birth and 2 years.9 A similar population-based cohort study with children aged 5 to 6 years, done in 2016, showed the same results.10

Yes, the risk is small, but this is why we don’t subject infants to general anesthesia unless there is a clear benefit to the procedure that requires general anesthesia. Ditto the radiation from CT scans. So, basically, Paravicini knows that there’s a small risk from anesthesia and radiation due to CT scans, but used them anyway to do chiropractic manipulation of infants’ necks, even though there is no possible benefit and quite a bit of potential harm, up to and including a fractured vertebrae, but none of that stops chiropractors from doing neck manipulation in infants for torticollis.

Before the manipulation under anesthesia (MUA):

The MUA procedures were performed on an outpatient basis and in the operating room of a children’s hospital. The author was the assistant chiropractor. Along with the doctor of chiropractic and his assistant, a children’s anesthesiologist, 1 to 2 operating nurses, a children’s radiologist, and in 1 case a pediatric surgeon were present.

Written informed consent for publication of the material was obtained from the parents of the 6 infants.

Before the procedure, the patient was connected to a cardiac monitor, blood pressure cuff, and oximeter. The patient then was sedated with intravenous, short-acting anesthetics such as Diprivan (propofol, a lipophile, fast-acting derivate of alkylphenol) and finally intubated.

Just reading this passage enraged me. Treating infants this way with no evidence was unethical, given that, as was admitted by Paravicini herself, there was no evidence for MUA as a treatment for congenital torticollis. As for the study itself, of course Paravicini found a benefit in all six infants. Not surprisingly, there are lots of issues. It’s retrospective, and thus prone to selection bias. It’s very small. It’s uncontrolled. It had no scientific basis to justify it. The followup times were highly variable. Even Paravicini herself admits that the range of motion measurements are “only moderately reliable” because of “variations in the level of activity and cooperation of the infant that cannot be avoided on clinical examination.”

I’ve discussed dubious chiropractic “research” before, although not recently, including using chiropractic to treat autistic children as part of a meaningless study. As I discussed then, what the chiropractors did to autistic children was to take a plunger, stick it between the mastoid process right near the ear and the back part of the mandible, and hit it to “impart energy,” all accompanied by unnecessary radiation exposure and trauma of being held down in order to obtain completely unnecessary X-rays of the cervical spine. It is a procedure that my good bud Mark Crislip described as “frightening autistic children for no good purpose.” I guess that I should be grateful that this study actually placed the children under general anesthesia. Oh, wait. No I shouldn’t Again, the risk of general anesthesia in infants, although small, is not zero, as is the risk of radiation from CT scans. without a demonstrable benefit, there is no ethical justification for submitting children to these procedures.

Of the various forms of unscientific and pseudoscientific medicine, chiropractic is probably the most “respectable,” with state licensure in all states and their presence seemingly as ubiquitous as dentists. Indeed, there are at least five chiropractors within walking distance of my house, albeit a long walk for a couple of them. Unfortunately, when it comes to treatment they are physical therapist wannabes with delusions of grandeur who think they can treat all manner of illnesses that have nothing to do with the spine and will subject infants to the risk of general anesthesia in order to manipulate their necks.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

141 replies on “A horrifyingly unethical study of chiropractic treatment of infants with torticollis”

Smug, willfully ignorant monsters. In a truly enlightened society they would be barred from any and all professional practice involving human (and duck) medicine.

Exposing anybody, let alone a baby to the known risks of a GA for a study whose findings you must know will be worthless is, I think, bordering on negligent. How did she ever get that past an ethics committee?

In a similar but less horrific vein the following report was broadcast by the ABC broadcasting service in Australia last month. Thankfully the chiropractor involved had been banned from working with anyone aged under 12. Note that the footage carries a content warning.

It’s worse than that. It’s a retrospective case series. The babies were treated with MUA inder general anesthesia of protocol with no evidence to support doing it. Then Paravicini decided to do a retrospective case series on these already treated infants.

Yep and did the “study” admitting she had no knowledge of the effectiveness of the “treatment” – the same treatment she’s been doling out for some time apparently (since only 2.5% of the infants she “treats” for this already rare condition are being put forward for the MUA I shudder to think how long it must have taken for her to accumulate 6 cases) . I wonder if this lack of knowledge regarding the effectiveness (or lack of the same) formed part of the informed consent she obtained from the parents to do this “treatment” in the first place.

Smells like a phony baloney retrospective study for a study really done prospectively by this chiroquacktor

Okay, Orac. You certainly have opinions.
Here’s my facts : chiropractic saved my life from a wheelchair. It jeeps me and my two sons from conditions that worsen without alignment. I would never pit my baby under general anesthetic for a chiropractic situation. But if he had torticolis, or other issues, he would go there B4 a primary doc. My newborns both got completely adjusted the 2 and day of life.

Amanda, you AND your two sons needed ‘adjustment’? Sounds like you are quite a gold mine for someone.

How on earth is this guy not in jail? Preferably sharing a cell block with the parents who agreed to this insanity in the first place.

Apologies for mistaking the gender of the scum chiro in the above comment. It’s the 21st century after all and men don’t hold the monopoly on being child abusing scammers.

I suppose the picture above doesn’t help much to use the correct gender.

You find the right photo! That’s just a generic photo! And I do refer to the chiropractor by the right gender in the text. Sheesh!

“picture makes a bigger impression than words”

A picture is only worth 1000 words, so Orac wins.

It’s hard to imagine, as a parent, standing by, watching someone make those noises with my unconscious baby’s body.

“Exposing anybody, let alone a baby to the known risks of a GA for a study whose findings you must know will be worthless is, I think, bordering on negligent. How did she ever get that past an ethics committee?”

It’s been my experience, having been fascinated by the travesty of chiropractic for more than four decades, that even if such a thing as an ethics committee exists its only function is to accept everything practiced by the “doctors” as being an integral part of the profession. The best definition I’ve ever seen of “what is chiropractic?” is that it’s what chiropractors do. IOW, if a “doctor” of chiropractic does it, it’s chiropractic.

Yes, but it wasn’t just chiropractors participating in the study. There were anesthesiologists, nurses, etc.

Which makes me wonder where this was done. I can’t imagine a hospital giving OR privileges to a chiropractor to do something like this. So it must have been an outpatient surgical center or office procedure.

A truly horrifying development but not totally surprising. There are a lot of nurses who fall for woo, and CAM therapies are regularly included in nursing textbooks so students often are under the impression these therapies are science based.

So no ethics committee, OK. This leads to my next whinge, which is about the “Journal of Chiropractic Medicine”, which is apparently peer reviewed. How did the editors allow the study to be published? Again,anaesthetising freaking babies, and then manipulating their cervical spine – red flags anyone? It was nice that she had a paediatric surgeon on hand; although if things got that far out of hand ….

That’s the part I found particularly upsetting–aside from doing any of it to an infant for something so relatively trivial.

@Shelly: I’m sure if someone mentioned the Belmont Report to those jokers we’d get blank stares. >:(

As a pediatrician, this absolutely makes the hair on my neck stand up. I have practiced for 29 yrs (!) and have never seen a case of congenital torticollis that was not amenable to physiotherapy. PT, time and patience is the cure for (in my anecdotal experience, but it is a long series) 100% of these guys. The concept of subjecting them to general anesthesia with its attendant risks for a chiropractic adjustment is just unthinkable. And I agree with the poster above, what were the nurses and anesthesiologist thinking to participate in the monstrosity?

I’m a chiropractor. I concur with everything you’ve written. I don’t do MUA but this is the first time I’ve ever seen it in an infant. As you stated, the risk far outweighs the reward, particularly with more conservative options showing good results. The only cases I’ve ever seen of MUA were in older adults with so much scar tissue buildup they can’t move their neck (similar to frozen shoulder). Our malpractice insurance requires an addon to practice this way because it’s inherently risky.

I practice muskuloskeletal, evidence based care. I used to bristle at the generalizations of my profession but the longer I’ve practiced, the more I see many practitioners’ way of practicing is inviting the criticism. We’ve got a lot of cleaning up to do.

Shane, I am not a chiropractor, but have had two for close family friends. One went to guess where?…Australia (like the very unfunny joker in Shelly’s video) and was deeply into every kind of unscientific nonsense. When he visited, he would work on my mother’s neck, against my advice to her. She had a C3-C4 fusion long ago, so I continually worried about what kind of damage he might do; fortunately, there was none.The other, much younger, while providing some relief for my daughter’s back pain, was well aware of the limits of what she could promise or try to accomplish and was not afraid to say so. She also advised us never to permit a chiropractor to touch the neck, something I was already aware of.
It’s nice to see another chiropractor who tries to practice straight chiropractic. I have had some limited experience with chiropractic for back pain, with reasonably good results from single sessions, so I don’t dismiss it out of hand but I do keep a wary eye when it touches close to me.

Internationally reknowned pediatrician Robert Mendelsohn fully endorsed the adjusting of infants and older children when clinically indicated.

A litte less drama would be nice here.

I’ve adjusted many babies over 25 years in practice, the youngest 5 hours old and none have done anything but benefit from safe, gentle and effective spinal adjustments.

Tell a new mother who’s just gotten a full night’s sleep because her colicky baby was adjusted and slept peacefully, that what we do is quackery or harmful.

They know who the real quacks are.

“Internationally reknowned pediatrician Robert Mendelsohn fully endorsed the adjusting of infants and older children when clinically indicated.”

And Nobel-prize winning chemist Linus Pauling claimed vitamin C cured heart disease and cancer. International renown is no subsitute for actual evidence.

Robert Mendelsohn was a well renowned quack, you mean. Anti-vax to the core, so it hardly surprises me that he would be into chiropractic woo.

You, sir, are a quack. There is no newborn or infant on God’s Green Earth that needs a spinal adjustment.

If you want me to believe other wise, please provide a peer reviewed, PubMed indexed references on an IRB approved clinical trial.

That you haven’t killed or paralyzed a kid along those 25 years you brag about is a miracle . . . for the babies, not you. I don’t believe for a New York minute you’ve cured any baby’s colic.

Internationally reknowned pediatrician Robert Mendelsohn


Nutritionist Kurt Butler described Mendelsohn as a “Whiney-voiced crackpot who made himself rich and famous by leading the bash-doctors movements now in vogue. Mendelsohn, now deceased, made a career of telling Americans that their doctors are out to rob and kill them. He urged everyone to avoid doctors and go instead to chiropractors, naturopaths and health fraud store clerks for their health care.”

Are you really defending doing potentially dangerous things to an infant “patient” so someone else can get a good night’s sleep? Yes, we expect far too much self-sacrifice from mothers, but maybe consider getting someone else to watch the baby for a couple of nights so the mother can sleep, rather than drugging one person to solve another’s insomnia.

I’ve adjusted many babies over 25 years in practice, the youngest 5 hours old

You sir, are a vile child abusing charlatan who belongs in jail. The fact that you’ve been doing it for 25 years makes it worse not better.

Oh and Robert Mendelsohn was an attention-seeking crackpot who was essentially the medical equivalent of a shock jock.

Inwould gladly tell a new mother that she threw money away to put her child in danger. You should not be touching any infants at all

If there’s truly concern for a subluxation (aka instability or malposition) at C1/C2, then either a pediatric neurosurgeon or pediatric orthopedic spine expert is the next rather rapid stop for my patient, not some chiroquacktic neck cracker who could leave a baby paralyzed or dead from their idiocy. This is truly a horrifying study. I’m also very disappointed that the chiroquacks were able to recruit physicians specializing in anesthesia, radiology and surgery to attend their abuse of infants.

The only ignorant monster here is the author of this fake news article. If the person who wrote this article truly did their research then they would understand what Chiropractic truly is and what it isn’t. We don’t manipulate any disorder or treat any condition or disease. Rather our profession is based upon the simple premise of ADJUSTING the HUMAN spine to correct the vertebral subluxation complex and let the body do the rest. Ignorance fails to acknowledge the fact that the human body is a self healing self regulating organism, period. However, nerve interruption from vertebral subluxations will interfere with that process. MUA is NOT Chiropractic! And not all Chiropractors are anti-vaccine as you profess. Your article is full of false accusations and blasphemy. In fact it’s really professional racism. Maybe we should hire Nick Sandman’s the student from Covington Highschool to Sue you for such actions. And don’t forget medicine is the third leading cause of disease in this country ( world health organization stat) maybe that’s who you should be investigating!

And…blasphemy? That would appear to suggest that you view chiropractic as a religion.

Agreed.. I mean even Daniel Palmer never went quite that far! From what little coherence I can wring from his witterings he tried to posit that chiropractic was a “religious duty” of the practitioner, essentially as a way to borrow the religious protections provided under the US Constitution. He resoundingly denounced the idea that there was any “superstition” involved in Chiropractic, of course that was in practically the same breath as casually mentioning that it was taught to him by a ghost so make of that what you will!

Sorry Orac but you appear to lump all chiropractors into the same philosophy as Inga. Unscrupulous providers appear in all medical fields and are ever willing to prey on the misinformed, desperate or under educated.

@ Scott: even if I accepted that your premise is true (and I could certainly cite examples of unscrupulous physicians, nurses, and so on), that’s beside the point. It does not excuse the dangerous and unscientific practices that are being heaped upon defenseless newborns.

Anyone who does this to any newborn is despicable by definition.

MUA is NOT Chiropractic

This so-called “treatment” is described by a chiropractor, who teaches chiropractic medicine at the University of Zurich in a journal called “Journal of Chiropractic Medicine” it describes a technique for ADJUSTING the HUMAN spine [sic] to correct a subluxation.

Well, frankly I’m utterly flabbergasted how anyone might consider this to be “Chiropractic” /rollseyes

So if we accept your assertion that this particular instance of a Chiropractor adjusting the spine to correct a “subluxation” somehow is special and not the same as other chiropractors adjusting the spine to correct a “subluxation” (let’s call it Khriopractic for ease of differentiation) are you willing to pass comment on the “Khriopractic” practice of MUA, specifically to treat torticollis in infants?

By the way, Scott, what was the ultimate resolution of Bongiovanni v. Cavagnuolo? All I’m finding without coffee is the appeal on expert testimony and areticles about it (“Defendant failed to define for the court the very standards that he claimed were not violated.”)

Hah, I knew you’d find that and comment. I see our esteemed chiroquack used the ebil “medical establishment” to help get him out of that bit of trouble. Somehow I don’t think Scott will be back.


The failed appeal by Cavagnuolo in 2016 is the latest update I can find too.

At first I had to reassure myself that today is not April 1st.

Rereading today’s blog offering to better understand it leaves me stuck on the issue of clinical equipoise, which means that there is genuine scientific/medical uncertainty over whether a treatment will be beneficial. Obviously in this case clinical equipoise wasn’t considered by the lead investigator or her hapless co-investigators (if we can label them investigators), which is when we count on IRBs to protect subjects from harm (and doesn’t appear to have occurred).

I’m left wondering if the hospital is aware that such a complete failure to protect subjects involved in “research” occurred under their roof? I hope the answer would be “no” followed by corrective actions to prevent recurrence, though if the answer is “yes” it would be fascinating to read.

That is the most beautiful image I’ve seen at the beginning of a RI post. A father lovingly messaging his wonderful child.

@ Orac,

Can you change the image with a picture of Inga Paravicini? Thanks!

If you think that’s the right way to hold a baby I’ve got some questions for whoever taught your parenting classes.

Seriously, I think I was six when I had the whole “you must hold up the baby’s head for them and be very gentle with their head and neck” talk. (Before that it was just “be gentle and careful with your baby brother”, which is plenty for a four year old.) Why some adults think they can ignore really basic safety stuff I just don’t get.

@ JustaTech,

We view the world so differently, it’s amazing that we still like each other. 🙂

BTW – The infant in the image at the beginning of Orac’s post is comfortably positioned on the father’s lap who is sitting on hypoallergenic pillows.

“A father lovingly messaging his wonderful child.” Bullshit. It took me less than three minutes to find multiple instances of that photo on TinEye.
Here’s a caption:
“The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners is telling members not to refer patients to chiropractors, after a video emerged of chiropractor Ian Rossborough (pictured) ​manipulating a premature baby’s spine”
Here are some quotes:
“But paediatrician Dr Chris Pappas, said he was concerned by the footage particularly because “no scientifically proven benefits of chiropractic manipulation for young babies and children” exist.
“There are documented complications and injuries that have occurred because of spinal manipulation,” Dr Pappas told
“What is concerning here is that the conditions which are being treated [colic and reflux] are harmless and self-limiting.” In fact you should read this short article in its entirety:
Here’s another ariicle from
There was one instance without a caption bearing a subscript of “ChiropracticExcellence/YouTube”
Here’s a little excerpt from a news article, and even though it’s from the Daily Fail, at least it’s sourced: “The Chiropractic Board of Australia has raised concerns about the number of practitioners who claimed that there is a relationship between spine manipulation and treating diseases and infections.
‘There is insufficient scientific evidence to support these claims. Of particular concern is the number of treatment claims in advertising relating to infants and children,’ the board said ”

(MJD – Doctor of Junk Medicine)

@ Old Rockin’ Dave,

Thanks for the additional images, and articles, on Ian Rossborough who is pictured at the beginning of Orac’s post.

If criticizing chiropractic is blasphemy, does that make Daniel Palmer the true son of God??

“We don’t manipulate any disorder or treat any condition or disease.”

You’re going to have your hands full advising your colleagues of this, as virtually all of them make such claims. Infant colic, diabetes and heart ailments are among the many internal medical complaints chiros say they can treat.

If any infants develop a fatal bleed from a damaged neck artery after neck cracking, chiros can always blame a congenital arterial malformation, the baby turning its head too suddenly etc.

Haha, if medicine is such an exact science why does US healthcare costs rank highest according to The WHO, meaning the US is the sickest among the most civilized countries in the world? Medicine is a pseudo science, the philosophy of treating the symptoms (the body’s way of adapting to a toxic or deficient environment) is quackery. Isn’t medical egoing to run out of money soon, what until the baby boom population starts to fail; then you will see a true healthcare crisis. Let’s not forget about the opioid epidemic. The US is not practicing healthcare, they practice sick care and this philosophy is failing. But go ahead keep pushing your pens ? Pat, DC, BSN, RN

Well, unlike the rest of the developed world, we don’t offer Universal Access to Healthcare…..

Science has nothing to do with the cost of health care in the USA. The cost of health care in the USA is a function of business practices.

Moving on.

So if you think that all medicine is false, what do you suggest be done for someone who was just hit by a truck? Or shot? Is trauma surgery right out? How about insulin for Type I diabetes?

Come now, Nurse Pat, would you use an AED on someone in sudden cardiac arrest?

Some country has to have the highest healthcare costs in the world unless nobody on the planet was spending any money at all on healthcare. Would you suddenly think more highly of medicine if the US got its costs down enough that it had only the third-highest healthcare costs in the world?

I have plenty of objections to how the US handles this–like the fact that I have no idea how much the surgery I just had will wind up costing me–but that we’re paying too much to line the pockets of insurance companies doesn’t make the care I do get less, or more, effective.

Pat, you bring shame to the profession of nursing with that ill considered comment. Do nursing a favor: if you’re going to defend chiropractic woo, drop the BSN, RN from your name. It’s the appeal to authority fallacy.

The cost of healthcare has nothing at all to do with the science behind evidence based medicine. You are making a strawman argument by bringing up the very real problem of health care costs in relation to the quality of healthcare that most people can afford to obtain.

Seriously: if you’re going to deny the science behind medicine, then you deny the science behind nursing since we use the same foundation of knowledge in both fields. Turn in your nursing license if you still have one, and refrain from calling yourself a nurse.

“The cost of healthcare has nothing at all to do with the science behind evidence based medicine.”

Which in turn has nothing to do with the fact the cost of healthcare itself is also a scientific question. Moreover making someone broke because he has been forced/tricked into healthcare can hardly be argued to be a positive development. That exact argument has been made against quacks, often without realizing that it carries on to some extent onto conventional medical care.

I’m definitely against leaving out healthcare costs outside of the scientific understanding of medicine.

Oh, please. Don’t conflate two totally separate issues.

Yes, there are problems with health care policy in the United States, and in other places.

That has nothing at all to do with whether or not chiropracty has a scientific basis, or homeopathy, or any other kind of woo. It has nothing at all to do with whether or not a particular medication works, or with the nature of our physiology.

The issues with health care policy are not problems of medical science. They are social problems, and belong in the realm of economics, sociology, and political science.

Pat’s still a jackass for using her nursing credentials to bolster her chiropractic bullshit.

The US is not practicing healthcare, they practice sick care

Great! Let’s all practice “healthcare”, then. But who will look after the sick (because I assure you, they’re not going away)?

Who claimed that medicine was such an exact science? Certainly not its practitionners and you should know given both of your last titles. That said, medicine ought to be based on science, evidence and ethics, which, again, does not make it an exact science but rather, an art.


“Who claimed that medicine was such an exact science? Certainly not its practitionners”

I tend to disagree. From personal experience, I’ve met much much much hubris in the medical profession.

Maybe. I’ve certainly known my fair share of doctors with God complexes.

But it doesn’t matter if your doctor is a a jackass or a superhero. If he diagnoses and treats your medical condition correctly, he is utilizing the science correctly. If he attempts to diagnose and treat your medical complaint, but is unable to reach the right diagnosis for some reason, it doesn’t invalidate medical science. It simply means that medicine is not an exact science, as Alain notes.

Pat, a few things.

Firstly, sometimes all you can do is treat the symptoms, I’m thinking end of life care and intractable diseases.

Secondly, what can chiropractic medicine do about an aging population? Tell me how chiropractors, specifically, would manage things like diseases of aging, age appropriate housing, elder abuse and social isolation?

Thirdly, the cost of a country’s health care system has more to do with politics and philosophy than the actual cost of health care. If you want health outcomes like some of the European countries get then you will need to accept those country’s philosophy on how healthcare is funded and rationed among their people. This applies to my above comment on the aging population too.

Finally, I’ll give you one for the opioid epidemic, but, this is a very complex problem involving among other things, the drive for big profits, a quick fix culture, short sightedness and problems of addiction. None of these are specific to the healthcare industry.

“Firstly, sometimes all you can do is treat the symptoms, I’m thinking end of life care and intractable diseases.”

You can also put an end to their miseries. But that is something that needs actual courage to recognize that it is the rational thing to do (under the right circumstances of course).

You would be surprised. Doctors use the principle of secondary intent (double effect) which allows the use of high levels of analgesia and sedatives in terminally ill people. Knowing it will shorten their lives, but their remaining time will be pain free, the doctor can give as much medication as the patient needs. I think that even the Catholic Church accepts the ethics of this practice.

“You would be surprised.”

I do not think so. Not satisfied with principle of secondary intent.

F68.10: I don’t care if you’re satisfied with secondary intent or not.

I worked in hospice for seven years. We certainly never managed symptoms with the intention of shortening a patient’s life, and we were alert to and had social workers to help manage patients who were depressed or suicidal.

But as long as the medications weren’t causing noxious side effects that were distressing a patient (morphine in too high doses can cause a nasty form of myoclonus) we really didn’t worry too much about life expectancy. We were more concerned with comfort.

And Shelly is right about the Catholic Church’s stance on this.

“I don’t care if you’re satisfied with secondary intent or not.”

Well, I really do care that, for instance people like Bertrand Kiefer are confusing all things up. Editorialist of the Swiss Medical Review, MD and theologian, he’s a skillful master at confusing all concerns. I’m very much concerned when religious considerations masquerade as reasonable ethical concerns and “medicine”. I’m at the receiving end of things, and I’ve never signed up to be cared for by a cult.

I understand that my position is a bit extreme, but this mixing up of genres is a real concern me and other people have. And we’re a bit fed up of being shut down with the “It’s science” gambit. It’s not.

Which completely misses the point Shelly was making. She wasn’t saying anything about religions influencing how end of life care is managed. She simply said that one religion (the Catholic Church) is comfortable with the way hospice practices.

“She simply said that one religion (the Catholic Church) is comfortable with the way hospice practices.”

Which in turn missed my point:

“Not satisfied with principle of secondary intent.”

I could not care less whether or not the Catholic Church has any point of view on end of life care. That’s why I ignored this particular statement about the Catholic Church’s point of view, since I did not care to make a fuss over it.

My comment about the Catholic Church and secondary intent was simply meant to illustrate the fact that this practice is so well accepted and uncontroversal that even an organisation as ridgidly against euthanasia as the church has no quibble with it.

Personally I subscribe to Stephen. J. Gould’s concept of “non overlapping magisteria.”

“Personally I subscribe to Stephen. J. Gould’s concept of “non overlapping magisteria.””

To me, that’s capitulation to religious dogmatists. Specifically on moral issues, we flatly admit defeat when it comes to grounding morality in a naturalistic worldview. I find that very much problematic.

But let’s drop the discussion here, and return to chiropracty.

Well, Pat, maybe you should go to the Microsoft app store. There you will find the wonderful works of Dr. Jakob Bargak. He advocates for the use of acupressure for such conditions as asthma, diabetic coma (You read that right!), menstrual hemorrhage, :”extremely high blood pressure”, “breathing difficulty”, “allergy with tongue oedema”, “allergy with rash”, menstrual irregularity, and hyperglycemia.
Here are some other qualifications you can earn, believing as you do:
malpractice defendant, prison inmate, disgraced former nurse…

Acupressure for diabetic coma???!?!!! So, a person is literally dying and he’d recommend giving them a few prods?

Calli – it’s for real. I have written to Microsoft telling them that someone is going to rely on those apps and someone will die, and aside from the ethical failure of having those apps, the legal and publicity exposures will be costly.
Their reply:

Haha, if medicine is such an exact science why does US healthcare costs rank highest according to The WHO, meaning the US is the sickest among the most civilized countries in the world?

Goodness me, it must be Non-Sequitur day, and once again no-one bothered to remind me.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, why are Eewoks so much smaller?
If humans evolved from earlier primates, why are monkeys?
If rabbits are lagomorphs rather than rodents, why is a mouse when it spins?

Pat, The US is ranked the highest because of the insane Private Medical Care system. That’s why it’s cheaper in all other countries.
I am curious though; how would you treat illnesses?
Holistically isn’t an answer.

The most intelligent comments on RI generally begin with “Haha”.

I would expect no less from a D.C.

“Why Chiropractors are Idiots, Your Stinking Well-Being, and Other Topics”

A bit more surfing brought me to this site:

Among other things, the author mentioned two chiropractic customers who wound up in his care with serious illnesses after having been “treated” by “doctors” of chiropractic for a week. Having described the issues, he commented: “Is this kind of dangerous ignorance typical of all chiropractors? Probably, although some are probably quicker to push the panic button than others. Sending a patient to the Emergency Department costs them nothing after all, and you can always get the patient back if he lives. I note with interest that some people consider chiropractors to be primary care and that many chiropractors would like this recognition for themselves. The problem is that, their laughable primary treatment modality aside, chiropractors are not qualified to be primary care physicians because they know nothing about it.”

The infant mortality rate went up in the US this past year and it isn’t bc if Chiropractic. The real trauma is that medicine treats babies and infants as a disease and with all the supposed “science” that we have in the US it’s a shame that we have such a horrible infant mortality rate vs other modern nations. Instead of grasping at straws to villainize Chiropractic maybe the mockery of medicine should get its shit together.

Brandon, even if I assume your claim about infant mortality in the US were true (citation is needed), that doesn’t make chiropractic a valid form of health care.

Please submit properly designed studies that show safety and efficacy, PubMed indexed, peer reviewed, with proper IRB controls.

Um, I’m not doing your work for you. You look it up. Chiropractors are given the title of DC, to break that down for you it means Doctor of Chiropractic, they are licensed in every state and there is plenty of scientific research to back up their profession. They can diagnose using the same diagnoses codes as MD’s and DO’s, they can bill insurance and get reimbursed just like the drug pushing doctors who kill thousands every year from medical malpractice and opioid overdoses. Now you can look it up.

“Um, I’m not doing your work for you.”

You made the claim. You’re not substantiating it. We’re free to call bullshit on your claim.

F68.10, the beauty is whether you call bullshit or don’t believe it doesn’t really matter bc it is what it is. Chiropractors are licensed doctors in the US just like all other licensed doctors in the US.

“Chiropractors are licensed doctors in the US just like all other licensed doctors in the US.”

My mother’s a doctor. That doesn’t stop her from having been a dangerous quack for decades. (She’s doing marginally better now…)

Couldn’t care less whether or not chiropractors are licensed doctors in the US.

Brandon you made a claim. You must support your claim and you are refusing after I asked for supporting evidence.

That means I can completely disregard everything you say as false, untrue, unsupported, unsubstantiated.

I’m not asking you to do my work in this discussion. I’m demanding you do yours if you want to be taken seriously. You’re refusing, so your comment is therefore considered BS of the highest order.

You also completely misunderstand the the title “Doctor.” Doctor is an ACADEMIC title; it means you’ve completed a program of education that comes with title as part of the degree. That’s why a chiropractor’s title is DC: Doctor of Chiropractic. PHYSICIANS have one of two titles: MD (Medical Doctor) or DO (Doctor of Osteopathy).

All three are addressed as “Doctor” but only MDs and DOs can sit boards for a license from a state medical board.

Chiropractors are in no way, shape, or form remotely like doctors as the lay public perceives them (that is, physicians which is the correct professional title).

Just because Chiropractors use ICD codes does not make them equivalent to real physicians. Hell, it doesn’t even make them equivalent to nurse practitioners or physician’s assistants! Chiropractors are not primary care providers, no matter how much they try to delude themselves into thinking they are. The evidence to support the efficacy of chiropractic is very weak, and there is a known risk of harm. That insurance reimburses for chiropractic “care” is not in itself evidence of anything to support a scientific foundation for chiropractors or to make them in any way equivilent to licensed physicians.

You need to cite evidence to support your claim that physicians are “drug pushers” who kill “thousands of patients” every year from medical malpractice and opioid overdose. Be very clear here; don’t just tell me about the opioid crisis or overprescribing. Cite evidence of “thousands of deaths” from prescription opioids every year.

The main reason the US has such a high infant mortality rate is that US doctors treat even the very youngest premature infants. The percentage of the very tiny ones that pass away is sadly high, but they count as infants. Many other countries don’t go as far as the US does in trying to save the super premies, and don’t count them as infants.

Panacea, “it doesn’t even make them equivalent to nurse practitioners or physician’s assistants!” It sure doesn’t. And where does that “even” come from?
I am a physician assistant, now retired, but for 21 years I practiced evidence-based and scientific medicine, and played a role in scientific investigation. PAs and NPs are not some inferior kind of wannabe physicians, we are members of real and distinct professions with a distinct and valuable place in medicine. We are part of a team with the physicians we work alongside. Please don’t place us in the same basket as chiroquacktors.
Also, the correct term is physician assistant, not physician’s assistant, which is outmoded and rapidly falling out of use.

The real trauma is that medicine treats babies and infants as a disease and with all the supposed “science” that we have in the US it’s a shame that we have such a horrible infant mortality rate vs other modern nations.

So what is different about these other “modern nations”? As far as I know, their medical systems are science based as well. Medical research, journals and conferences are available to and consumed by medical providers of all nationalities. All of these countries embrace immunization and science based prenatal and neonatal care. Alt med including chiropractic is no more respected in these other countries.The only significant difference is financial.

The rising infant mortality rate in the USA is most likely due to cutting access to prenatal care by your Republican overlords. Chiropractors and other alties would make no difference whatsoever.

Thank you!

Yes, Brandon, do tell us about how chiro care would improve the pre-natal health of low-income women? Are you checking their blood pressure and making sure they’re getting a nutritious diet? Making sure they can get their flu shot? Checking their blood sugar?

Or are you doing absolutely nothing to actually help people who need it?

So…. there are other problems in the world….. let’s leave chiropractors alone? Is that it? Why not deal with both?

“The real trauma is that medicine treats babies and infants as a disease”

As opposed to those chiropractors who say all infants require manipulations to treat subluxations?

Medicine absolutely does not treat babies as a disease; the vast majority of babies get a checkup at birth, a vaccine, vitamins, and then pretty much just get looked after while their mothers start to recover from childbirth. (And honestly, we don’t let mothers have anywhere near enough time to recover.) The reason we have such a high infant mortality rate is mostly that when babies do develop diseases, we really suck at making sure they actually get any medical care for it at all until it’s far too late. And that’s problem throughout healthcare. It’s also why we have such poor outcomes across the board. Lack of access to care (due to geography or finances or other reason) is a huge problem in America.

Another reason infant mortality is high in the US is that the gestational age for “live birth” in the US is younger than other countries, so some babies that are born and die (say 24 weeks) would count as infant mortality in the US and stillbirth in other developed countries.

Cal Sagan put succinctly what everyone in the fact-based professions accept: “Extraordinary claims demand an extraordinary level of proof.”
You made the claim, you back it up. Anyone here who knows Yiddish will understand me when I say, “Tuchus affen tisch.”.

Question for the physiological experts: My lay understanding is that children, especially infants, have bone tissue which isn’t really so bony. Just mechanically, this seems like it would make the idea of weird massage or whatever it is chiropractitioners do, potentially a long term risk. Sort of pre-maturity plastic surgery, but of bones, not skin.

Hi, Steve,

Yes, you’ve got it about right. It’s what allows for physical growth and development. Newborns also have poor muscle tone at birth (they do have some) especially in the neck; they literally can’t lift or support their own heads. This develops rapidly after birth; all the kicking and squirming babies do improves that muscle tone very quickly.

Real injuries have occurred because of this. This is why many of us here are so upset:

Can anyone post any incidents of infants or children becoming injured by the chiropractic adjustments? There appears to be many conflicting opinions on this thread. Peer reviewed and double blind clinical studies would be impossible to do to substantiate this study. What is the anecdotal evidence from parents who had their children adjusted support for causation in supporting chiropractic care for infants and children?

Below is a link to a review of one piece of research looking at adverse events and chiropractic spinal manipulation in paediatric patients. I haven’t see the full paper but the results discussed herein are interesting. It’s one of the studies mentioned in the ABC article I posted above.

Not all chiros practice this type of treatment. Quit bashing the profession over a few bad apples

Problem is, it’s more than a few bad apples.

According to the literature, there are two lines of thought in chiropractic care: the conservative and the liberal position. Conservative chiropractors believe their care is limited to manipulation of the spine to manage pain. They do not expand their scope of practice to cover medicine. Liberal chiropractors believe their manipulation of the spine can diagnose or treat disease. They are anti-vax, and push a lot of unnecessary supplements that have nothing to do with manipulation of the spine.

Surprise, surprise, the vast majority of the liberal point of view in chiropractic is the liberal position (

So, until chiros clean up their act, expect people here (including me) to continue to bash away.

It is estimated that chiropractors treat over 27 million Americans annually, with a chiropractic adjustment being performed around 1 million times every business day in the US.In fact Doctors of Chiropractic are used by all 32 National Football League Teams to deal with ongoing back and neck problems, as well as the overall conditioning of the players.
What is the success rate of chiropractic treatment?
Through extensive research, chiropractic statistics widely report chiropractic to be an effective treatment.

Research by The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, found that replacing a visit to a doctor with a visit to a chiropractor for back pain, could save Medicare $83.5 million every year.

A study that looked into prescribed medications vs spinal manipulation found that 56% of patients who saw a doctor saw a 30% reduction in low back pain after 4 weeks. But 94% of patients who underwent chiropractic treatment saw a 30% reduction in low back pain after 4 weeks.

In fact, another study found that 4 out of 10 Americans, will approach a chiropractor before a doctor when suffering from lower back pain!

People choose to see a Chiropractor nobody forced them to, if they become primary physicians it’s because people choose them, if you want to be angry you should be angry at people not the chiropractor!

Please provide the references for the studies you cite.

A critical examination of the literature does not support your case:

Chiropractic is surrounded with allegations of unethical practices, and rates dead last for ethics and honesty among health care providers, and has done so for years in a Gallup poll. You know who rates highest? Nurses, for the past 17 years, has rated number one (

Chiropractors are not and never will be primary care providers. It is beyond your scope and training to do that kind of care.

That’s what you thought about Osteopath doctors not long ago, the reality is regardless of our individual opinion we need different specialists in our healthcare system, we need Chiropractors as much as we need any other specialist and getting angry shows weakness, people are choosing their health care wisely more than any time, now days.
Please instead of all the unhealthy arguments think about the best way of helping people so the get the best care and providers, helping patients to the right treatment, surgery or physical therapy or chiropractic care and stop putting your ideas before the patient best intrest!

Then osteopaths started training in standard MD residencies and became more or less indistinguishable from MDs after the completion of their training, after which they were accepted as equivalent to MDs. Are chiropractors ever going to embrace evidence-based care, the way osteopaths did?

That’s what you thought about Osteopath doctors not long ago, the reality is regardless of our individual opinion we need different specialists in our healthcare system….

Um, my favorite cardiologist was a D.O. and section chief. Yes, different specialists are rather handy. He did not crack my bones to deal with my heart.

One of my favorite ER docs was a DO. He was very good at adjusting my back on night shift when it started acting up. Osteopaths still learn spinal adjustments in school. They also learn science, and utilize the scientific method, and accept EBM, as Orac notes.

I miss working with him. Both because he was just that good, and because I miss him adjusting my spine when I have back pain. I won’t see a chiropractor anymore. The ones where I used to live were all into woo, and their technique scared the living daylights out of me.

getting angry shows weakness

f­µck off. Bottling up any emotions, including angryness lead to weakness. Have you ever pictured yourself being unable to cry at a significant other persons’ funeral? This ain’t a way to live, period.


.. for back pain, could save…

..reduction in low back pain…

when suffering from lower back pain!

Can you spot the theme? There is (as you correctly point out) evidence to support that Chiropractors and spinal manipulation can help in cases guessed it Lower back pain!

Primary care on the other hand is rather more than just lower back pain..

if you want to be angry you should be angry at people not the chiropractor!

Sure nobody forces people to go to a Chiro for non-lower back pain related primary care but the Chiros are hardly blameless, if I turn up at my physio’s clinic and ask him to treat, say, cancer he’d tell me to go see an oncologist or a GP.

When a patient’s lack of knowledge leads to them asking the wrong person to treat a given condition that’s not a free pass for that practitioner to then take advantage of that ignorance and sell them a boondoggle.

And of course there are those (not all but a depressing number) who continue to peddle Palmer’s nonsense that everything that ails the human race – from typhoid fever to criminality (I’m not exaggerating here folks – those are actual examples from Palmer’s claims) can (and should) be cured via vertebral manipulations and these are the ones claiming they can treat conditions that they can’t, and then taking the patient’s money. That’s all on them.

When someone defrauds someone it’s the fraudster not the victim who is at fault.

Given the physical state of players that are churned out by the NFL, you’ll forgive me if I’m not impressed by anything they do or any expert they use.

If the NFL was willing to refine the sport they wouldn’t have so many neck injuries. Or head injuries. But what do they care, they’re making money hand over fist.

It’s a shame chiropractic can’t do anything about brain injuries, the most tragic aftermath of football careers.

@Brandon Do you know about politics ? Politicians can pass any law, and this does not mean any scientific validation.
Perhaps we should go into details. What is nerve energy ? How does it heal ? How fixing unseen subluxations liberate it ?

Brandon, if chiros are so proud of being licensed “just like other doctors” how come they routinely minimize or omit any reference to chiropracttic in their ads?

The ones who blanket my local newspaper with advertising might list “D.C.” once along with their other bullshit titles, but otherwise it’s “Doctor” this and that.

That quack heritage (continuing to the present day) seems to bother them…

Hey everyone, I am a chiropractic student. And while I don’t agree with her methods. I believe and most schools believe , at least in the USA, this is to aggressive and she is operating outside her scope. For something like this, I totally agree with the musculoskeletal re-education especially in a new born by using stretching and repositioning to correct issue. There is no need for Anastasia and then manipulation. Having said this I do believe in adjusting new borns for the main reason of the birthing process is very demanding of the mother’s and infant’s bodies (I can go through this in better detail if you want). However this is a new fragile spine, and is able to adapt very well and should not require force like this. If anything all you should have to do is put no more pressure then pushing a button on your remote to fix an infants subluxation. That is if you are adjusting an infant. Force should not be needed for a couple years and even then it should be fairly light with plenty evidence showing why you are treating that patient.
Unfortunately in this world there are great doctors who want to see a patient get better and others who just want to make money. And I hope
all of you agree this is the case in both emergency medicine and preventative medicine. I can only speak for myself when I say I have experienced first hand the benefits of chiropractics performed right, as well as wrong. You can cause harm as well as great good for a patient, just like any other profession.
Moments where I see someone doing something like this makes me mad and hope that justice prevails.
I hope I did not miss speak and that I can give you a new perspective on my soon be profession. Have a wonderful week and God bless.

Hey everyone, I am a chiropractic student.

Save what’s left of your $100,000 and train to become a PT.

Branden, we have 10,000 years of human history, and no newborn ever needed a spinal adjustment until some chiropractor in recent years decided to start doing it.

The idea of someone like you in an ER scares me to death.

“There is no need for Anastasia”
I agree. There is no role in the medical or chiroquacktic treatment of any condition for a tragically murdered teenaged Russian princess.
If this is the level of the medical education you claim to be receiving, you should demand your money back, or else wear a dunce cap while treating patients.
Right there you proved that any comments you make here are worthless.

You all sound like a bunch of people who have ZERO clue how effective chiropractic is. I am a third generation chiropractor who closed my office moved to another state and recently moved back to the state I used to practice in. My old patients were so happy they no longer had to rely on drugs, including opiates. Maybe clean out your OWN bullshit with the drug companies before you start trying to commit libel. What you have written has been written before. In all cases the party writing this crap has had the literal pants sued off of them. So keep up the anger nutjob, some chiropractic will see this and take you to court.

It isn’t libel if it’s true, and every thing I’ve said about chiropractors is true.

I got threatened with a lawsuit regularly when I worked in the ER, always by patients with minor medical complaints who were unhappy about wait times. My response to them was always some form of, “Good luck with that.” No one ever followed through and you won’t either. You’re just piss and vinegar, Richard.

Yeah been there done that, or my personal favourite, the threat to call a TV current affairs programme – usually just after they have been told something along the lines “this is a public hospital not a hotel” (but in much more polite terms) – although one of our CMO’s said those exact words to a very unpleasant patient who refused to go home (I swear you could hear the cheering coming from the nurses desk).

Yup, I’ve said that one too 🙂 But that was when I was working in corrections.

and recently moved back to the state I used to practice in. My old patients were so happy they no longer had to rely on drugs, including opiates.

No other chiropractors available while you were away? What godforsaken place was this?

So keep up the anger nutjob, some chiropractic will see this and take you to court.

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the legal concept of “standing,” Richard.

Hey Orac, You cleverly pointed out the bias of your opinions, which unfair your to your readers. So they go full retard without even reading the main study that you review in the first place. And then of course commenters digression about left field shit that just triggers nay and yayers.


Speak for yourself Thomas, I read the study – shock of the day it was trash. Nothing more than a despicable excuse for a healthcare professional patting themselves on the back for their unethical and unwarranted practices.

Not everyone who read’s Orac’s article on this will be able to read the study because it’s behind a paywall. Your complaint doesn’t address the central criticism of the article: the ethics of experimental treatments on children with no IRB controls.

I’ll concede I didn’t initially read the study. Since the topic is unethical by its very nature, there really didn’t seem a need. However, since I’m in academia, I was able to get access to it, and I’ve now read it.

It’s just as horrifying as Orac describes. I assumed given the nature of what was going on that this was being done outpatient. Oh no. It’s actually being done in a hospital.

It amazes me the hospital would permit a procedure with no evidence to support to be done under anesthesia to be performed, that the CMO or CEO of the hospital would permit it. Worse this was done at a CHILDREN’S hospital. Too bad which one is not identified.

It’s not the way I would hold a baby either, but I am not a chiropractor.

I would never take a baby to a chiropractor. And if I needed a back massage, I would go to a licensed therapist.

Check out the namelink. I find it irrationally amusing that Gonstead died in Mount Horeb, former home of the National Mustard Museum.

How about that!

I drove by a Gonstead Chiro office on the way back from the bank this afternoon.

Comments are closed.


Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading