Nov 03 2011
A spirited exchange about chiropractic arose in response to a recent post proposing “The Cure” for the legalization of implausible and unproven diagnostic methods and treatments. Some comments pointed to the implausibility of the chiropractic “subluxation” and the lack of robust evidence of efficacy/effectiveness for spinal manipulation, as well as the difficulty of understanding what exactly “chiropractic” is, or does, that distinguishes it from other manual therapists. In response, other comments were posted positing that the Science-Based Medicine blog “is not informed on contemporary chiropractic practice,” that “the profession does not support [the chiropractic] subluxation as a cause of disease,” that chiropractors who treat the chiropractic subluxation are “on the fringe,” and that the chiropractic “subluxation” is no longer taught in chiropractic colleges as a clinically relevant concept, but merely as an artifact of chiropractic history.
However, a review of recent chiropractic literature does not appear to support the latter opinions. The same concerns as raised on SBM are shared by chiropractors themselves and are discussed in articles appearing in peer-reviewed chiropractic journals. Nor is the chiropractic literature as sanguine on the demise of the chiropractic “subluxation” as a clinically relevant condition which is both diagnosable and treatable.
Despite the concerns expressed by chiropractors themselves, the chiropractic literature continues to discuss the chiropractic “subulxation” as if it were a clinically relevant condition subject to diagnosis and amenable to treatment for both non-musculoskeletal and musculoskeletal conditions. This same view of the “subluxation” is taught in chiropractic colleges in North America and Australia. Continue Reading »