Comments on: The Role of UK Universities in Chiropractic http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/08/role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html Experiments and Thoughts on Quackery, Health Beliefs and Pseudoscience Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:52:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Janine http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/08/role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-10028 Janine Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:18:42 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/08/the-role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-10028 McTimoney does not represent main stream chiropractic, so why has the analysis of chiropractic education been based on that college? Would using the AECC or Glamorgan not back up your arguments sufficiently? Perhaps due to the level of the quality of education, based on applying the principles of EBM to chiropractic taught at these establishments. (EBM being the use of best available current research, patient choice and clinical experience NOT just RCTs!!!!!). The level of uninformed argument around the issue of chiropractic is insulting to the good, conscientious, caring and well educated chiropractors! McTimoney does not represent main stream chiropractic, so why has the analysis of chiropractic education been based on that college? Would using the AECC or Glamorgan not back up your arguments sufficiently? Perhaps due to the level of the quality of education, based on applying the principles of EBM to chiropractic taught at these establishments. (EBM being the use of best available current research, patient choice and clinical experience NOT just RCTs!!!!!). The level of uninformed argument around the issue of chiropractic is insulting to the good, conscientious, caring and well educated chiropractors!

]]> By: Le Canard Noir http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/08/role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-9232 Le Canard Noir Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:14:03 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/08/the-role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-9232 Well Rob, it looks like your trainers are indoctrinating you well. Welcome to the cult of chiropractic. I hope the money you spend on your course is worthwhile! Well Rob, it looks like your trainers are indoctrinating you well. Welcome to the cult of chiropractic. I hope the money you spend on your course is worthwhile!

]]> By: Rob Wood http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/08/role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-9231 Rob Wood Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:09:29 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/08/the-role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-9231 A neurological "injury" which resolved in 1 day? Hmm, not really. An "insult" to neurological structure, by either a good adjustment, freeing up a fixation or narrowing, or a bad adjustment doing the opposite, is more likely...but that's not an injury.<br /><br />Christina Cunliffe only became a GCC council member long after the college had put in a couple of years of work producing a new, longer (5 year) programme against the newest and highest GCC standards.<br /><br />In any case, the educational review teams from the GCC are made up of people from RIVAL colleges.<br /><br />Actually i'm not sure what the value is picking your article apart as it's all a bit hyperbolic and lacking in facts.<br /><br />Talking of lacking in facts, yes, Chiropractic needs to raise its game with research and effectiveness. Any sensible chiro would agree. Certainly beware those that speak about magic. :) Saying it's based on pseudoscientific principles though is a bit redundnant. Modern medicine was founded on pseudoscience.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, a well educated modern chiropractor (in the UK, that's certainly anyone in the last decade), is a primary physician specialising in musculo-skeletal and neurological disorders, including the early diagnosis and treatment thereof.<br /><br />I'm still a student but I know several qualified chiropractors who regularly see GP's, even just for checkups, and NOT just LBP. These are well-qualified, informed patients, who in spite of the low numbers of gold-standard studies, still see considerable benefit themselves. A neurological "injury" which resolved in 1 day? Hmm, not really. An "insult" to neurological structure, by either a good adjustment, freeing up a fixation or narrowing, or a bad adjustment doing the opposite, is more likely…but that's not an injury.

Christina Cunliffe only became a GCC council member long after the college had put in a couple of years of work producing a new, longer (5 year) programme against the newest and highest GCC standards.

In any case, the educational review teams from the GCC are made up of people from RIVAL colleges.

Actually i'm not sure what the value is picking your article apart as it's all a bit hyperbolic and lacking in facts.

Talking of lacking in facts, yes, Chiropractic needs to raise its game with research and effectiveness. Any sensible chiro would agree. Certainly beware those that speak about magic. :) Saying it's based on pseudoscientific principles though is a bit redundnant. Modern medicine was founded on pseudoscience.

As far as I'm concerned, a well educated modern chiropractor (in the UK, that's certainly anyone in the last decade), is a primary physician specialising in musculo-skeletal and neurological disorders, including the early diagnosis and treatment thereof.

I'm still a student but I know several qualified chiropractors who regularly see GP's, even just for checkups, and NOT just LBP. These are well-qualified, informed patients, who in spite of the low numbers of gold-standard studies, still see considerable benefit themselves.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/08/role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-8087 Anonymous Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:01:47 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/08/the-role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-8087 Did you know that the sympathetic chain ganglion comes off anteriorly to the segmental spinal nerve roots or are you just blowing smoke up the preverbial?<br /><br />I think you need an adjustment! Did you know that the sympathetic chain ganglion comes off anteriorly to the segmental spinal nerve roots or are you just blowing smoke up the preverbial?

I think you need an adjustment!

]]> By: SVETLANA PERTSOVICH http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/08/role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-6683 SVETLANA PERTSOVICH Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:57:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/08/the-role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-6683 <i>"...the chiropractor never finds out that he paralysed or nearly paralysed his patient."</i><br/><br/>Aha... And if he finds out it, then he will sue against his patient like BCA against Simon Singh, eh? :(<br/><br/>What an outrage! :( “…the chiropractor never finds out that he paralysed or nearly paralysed his patient.”

Aha… And if he finds out it, then he will sue against his patient like BCA against Simon Singh, eh? :(

What an outrage! :(

]]> By: BillyJoe http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/08/role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-6682 BillyJoe Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:01:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/08/the-role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-6682 The warning reminded me of an acquantance of mine who had chiropractic manipulation of his neck and suffered a neurological injury as a result. Fortunately the symptoms resolved over the next day or so. <br/>After a bit of prompting from me, he decided to write to the chiropractor to inform him of what had occurred - so that others would not be harmed. When I asked him about it later, he said he decided to just forget about that sorry incident. He never did contact that chiropractor.<br/>I'm wodering how widespread that result would be that the chiropractor never finds out that he paralysed or nearly paralysed his patient. The warning reminded me of an acquantance of mine who had chiropractic manipulation of his neck and suffered a neurological injury as a result. Fortunately the symptoms resolved over the next day or so.
After a bit of prompting from me, he decided to write to the chiropractor to inform him of what had occurred – so that others would not be harmed. When I asked him about it later, he said he decided to just forget about that sorry incident. He never did contact that chiropractor.
I’m wodering how widespread that result would be that the chiropractor never finds out that he paralysed or nearly paralysed his patient.

]]> By: Blue Wode http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/08/role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-6681 Blue Wode Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:14:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/08/the-role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-6681 An update. The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) has just published its Annual Report on its website, and the Chairman’s foreword states the following:<br/><br/>Quote:<br/>“With effect from July 2008, our duty to promote the profession has been removed. This implements one of the recommendations of the White Paper ‘Trust, Assurance and Safety – The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century’, that health regulators should have a more consistent statutory purpose – that of protecting the public by setting and maintaining<br/>professional standards.”<br/><br/>http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/ANNUAL_REPORT_2007_FINAL.pdf<br/><br/>Well, let’s hope this sees the GCC setting some meaningful standards. It would get off to a good start if it (1) denounced subluxation-based and other pseudoscientific chiropractic practices such as applied kinesiology and craniosacral therapy, (2) admitted that the frequency of serious injuries following chiropractic spinal manipulation is currently not known, and (3) implemented an independent reporting system for patients who experience adverse events following chiropractic treatment. <br/><br/>It would also be good to see on its website, and in its Patient Information Leaflet, what Simon Singh and Professor Edzard propose (on p.285 of their book ‘Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial’) that all chiropractors be compelled by law to disclose to their patients about chiropractic therapy:<br/><br/>Quote:<br/>“WARNING: This treatment carries the risk of stroke or death if spinal manipulation is applied to the neck. Elsewhere on the spine, chiropractic therapy is relatively safe. It has shown some evidence of benefit in the treatment of back pain, but conventional treatments are usually equally effective and much cheaper. In the treatment of all other conditions, chiropractic therapy is ineffective except that it might act as a placebo.” An update. The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) has just published its Annual Report on its website, and the Chairman’s foreword states the following:

Quote:
“With effect from July 2008, our duty to promote the profession has been removed. This implements one of the recommendations of the White Paper ‘Trust, Assurance and Safety – The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century’, that health regulators should have a more consistent statutory purpose – that of protecting the public by setting and maintaining
professional standards.”

http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/ANNUAL_REPORT_2007_FINAL.pdf

Well, let’s hope this sees the GCC setting some meaningful standards. It would get off to a good start if it (1) denounced subluxation-based and other pseudoscientific chiropractic practices such as applied kinesiology and craniosacral therapy, (2) admitted that the frequency of serious injuries following chiropractic spinal manipulation is currently not known, and (3) implemented an independent reporting system for patients who experience adverse events following chiropractic treatment.

It would also be good to see on its website, and in its Patient Information Leaflet, what Simon Singh and Professor Edzard propose (on p.285 of their book ‘Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial’) that all chiropractors be compelled by law to disclose to their patients about chiropractic therapy:

Quote:
“WARNING: This treatment carries the risk of stroke or death if spinal manipulation is applied to the neck. Elsewhere on the spine, chiropractic therapy is relatively safe. It has shown some evidence of benefit in the treatment of back pain, but conventional treatments are usually equally effective and much cheaper. In the treatment of all other conditions, chiropractic therapy is ineffective except that it might act as a placebo.”

]]> By: Le Canard Noir http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/08/role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-6680 Le Canard Noir Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:01:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/08/the-role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-6680 Acleron - 'Does it work?' is not the only interesting question about alternative medicine. Indeed, the answers to that question are largely in, but this appears to make no difference to the amount of alt med in society. <br/><br/>I hope I am raising other interesting questions here. Essentially, 'Given that alt med does not work (largely), how did we get here and how does it persist?' There are lots of intersting answers to that question. Acleron – ‘Does it work?’ is not the only interesting question about alternative medicine. Indeed, the answers to that question are largely in, but this appears to make no difference to the amount of alt med in society.

I hope I am raising other interesting questions here. Essentially, ‘Given that alt med does not work (largely), how did we get here and how does it persist?’ There are lots of intersting answers to that question.

]]> By: Blue Wode http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/08/role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-6678 Blue Wode Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:33:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/08/the-role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-6678 IMO, the UK chiropractic regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC), is little more than a self-interest group, not least because it has, as part of its remit, a duty to “promote the profession”. In essence, that would appear to mean that it is committed to pushing an expensive (and sometimes dangerous) woo-laden therapy that offers about the same benefit to its back pain patients as would be derived from taking a couple of paracetamols:<br/>http://www.acatoday.org/pdf/Lancet_Acute_Back_Pain_Nov.07.pdf<br/><br/>It’s also worth noting that [1] although the GCC requires that “all chiropractors must ensure that all the information they provide, or authorise others to provide on their behalf is factual and verifiable, is not misleading or inaccurate in any way, does not abuse the trust of members of the public in any way, nor exploit their lack of experience or knowledge about either health or chiropractic matters”, and “does not put pressure on people to use chiropractic, for example by arousing ill-founded fear for their future health or suggesting that chiropractic can cure serious disease”. See page 7 here…<br/>http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/FITNESS_TO_PRACTISE_REPORT_2007_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf<br/><br/>and that [2] although section A2.3 of its Standard of Proficiency requires that “chiropractors’ provision of care must be evidence-based”…<br/>http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/COPSOP_8Dec05.pdf<br/><br/>…the GCC appears to (intentionally?) confuse the public by failing to make clear on its website - and elsewhere - the essential differences between scientific manual therapy and chiropractic subluxation-based philosophy. It also seems to make no attempt to specify the common chiropractic techniques and practices which it does not consider legitimate:<br/>http://www.gcc-uk.org/page.cfm?page_id=6<br/><br/>How that can be reconciled with its other statutory duties to “protect patients” and “set standards” is beyond me. IMO, the UK chiropractic regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC), is little more than a self-interest group, not least because it has, as part of its remit, a duty to “promote the profession”. In essence, that would appear to mean that it is committed to pushing an expensive (and sometimes dangerous) woo-laden therapy that offers about the same benefit to its back pain patients as would be derived from taking a couple of paracetamols:
http://www.acatoday.org/pdf/Lancet_Acute_Back_Pain_Nov.07.pdf

It’s also worth noting that [1] although the GCC requires that “all chiropractors must ensure that all the information they provide, or authorise others to provide on their behalf is factual and verifiable, is not misleading or inaccurate in any way, does not abuse the trust of members of the public in any way, nor exploit their lack of experience or knowledge about either health or chiropractic matters”, and “does not put pressure on people to use chiropractic, for example by arousing ill-founded fear for their future health or suggesting that chiropractic can cure serious disease”. See page 7 here…
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/FITNESS_TO_PRACTISE_REPORT_2007_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf

and that [2] although section A2.3 of its Standard of Proficiency requires that “chiropractors’ provision of care must be evidence-based”…
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/COPSOP_8Dec05.pdf

…the GCC appears to (intentionally?) confuse the public by failing to make clear on its website – and elsewhere – the essential differences between scientific manual therapy and chiropractic subluxation-based philosophy. It also seems to make no attempt to specify the common chiropractic techniques and practices which it does not consider legitimate:
http://www.gcc-uk.org/page.cfm?page_id=6

How that can be reconciled with its other statutory duties to “protect patients” and “set standards” is beyond me.

]]> By: Acleron http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/08/role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-6677 Acleron Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:08:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/08/the-role-of-uk-universities-in-chiropractic.html#comment-6677 I've just re-read my own contribution and realised it sounds more condemning than I meaned it to.<br/><br/>My comment above is more about the emphasis of your post than the content, I do realise you question the effectiveness of these woo merchants and it is of value to point out they just reinforce themselves in different contexts. I’ve just re-read my own contribution and realised it sounds more condemning than I meaned it to.

My comment above is more about the emphasis of your post than the content, I do realise you question the effectiveness of these woo merchants and it is of value to point out they just reinforce themselves in different contexts.

]]>