Chiropractic Care: Separating Fact from Fiction in the World of Healthcare

As a chiropractor, I have seen firsthand the benefits of chiropractic care for my patients. However, there are some who view chiropractic as “pseudoscience” or a less legitimate form of healthcare. In this blog post, I aim to address this misconception and provide some insight into why this labeling may be occurring.

History of Chiropractic:

The founder of chiropractic is D.D. Palmer, who was born in 1845 in Canada. Palmer's interest in the human body and its natural healing abilities led him to develop the concept of chiropractic. He believed that the body had an innate ability to heal itself and that the nervous system played a crucial role in this process. According to Palmer's theories, misalignments in the spine, which he referred to as "vertebral subluxations," interfered with the nervous system's ability to function properly, leading to various health problems.

Palmer's approach to healing was based on the idea that correcting subluxations in the spine through manual manipulation could help restore the body's natural healing abilities. This approach, which he called chiropractic, quickly gained popularity, and Palmer went on to establish the first chiropractic college in Davenport, Iowa, in 1897.

The medical field, often times, has been critical of chiropractic practices, arguing that there is no scientific evidence to support the claims that spinal manipulation can treat or cure health problems. Some medical professionals have also expressed concern about the safety of spinal manipulation, particularly when it comes to neck manipulation, which they claim “can potentially cause serious injury.”

Common misconceptions:

There is a common misconception that neck manipulations performed by chiropractors can lead to strokes. However, this idea has been largely debunked by scientific research. In fact, the risk of stroke following a neck manipulation is extremely rare, with a rate of 1 in 5.85 million adjustments according to a 2016 study in the Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association. Additionally, a 2018 review of research published in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics found that the risk of stroke after a chiropractic visit is no higher than the risk after a visit to a primary care physician. It is important to note that while stroke is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition, it is often caused by underlying health issues and not by chiropractic care. Chiropractors undergo extensive training and education to ensure safe and effective treatment for their patients. It is always recommended to consult with a licensed chiropractor for any concerns or questions regarding treatment options.

Why Chiropractic is Labeled as Pseudoscience:

The healthcare industry is highly competitive, and chiropractic care is often seen as a threat to traditional medicine. Additionally, chiropractors often operate independently and do not rely on pharmaceuticals or other traditional medical treatments, which can be a disadvantage in terms of funding and research opportunities.

Furthermore, the lack of research studies on chiropractic care can contribute to the pseudoscience label. This is because, without empirical evidence to support the efficacy of chiropractic care, some healthcare professionals dismiss it as unproven or ineffective.

Chiropractic Care and Big Pharma:

Unlike many traditional medical treatments, chiropractic care is not funded by big pharma. This means that chiropractors may face additional hurdles when conducting research studies or receiving funding for their practice. However, it also means that chiropractic care is not influenced by the interests of big pharma, which can be beneficial for patients seeking natural and non-invasive healthcare options.

Evidence-Based Medicine Supporting Chiropractic Care:

While there may be some who view chiropractic care as pseudoscience, there is a growing body of evidence-based medicine supporting its benefits. Chiropractic care has been shown to be effective in treating a variety of conditions, including neck and back pain, headaches, and even digestive issues. Additionally, many patients report improved overall health and wellness after receiving chiropractic care.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, chiropractic care should not be dismissed as pseudoscience or an illegitimate form of healthcare. While it may face some challenges in terms of funding and research opportunities, evidence-based medicine supports the benefits of chiropractic care. As a chiropractor, I encourage patients to explore their healthcare options and to seek out natural and non-invasive treatments that can support their overall health and wellness.

Keywords: chiropractic care, pseudoscience, healthcare industry, competitive fields, big pharma, research studies, evidence-based medicine

References:

• Bussières AE, Stewart G, Al-Zoubi F, et al. The Treatment of Neck Pain-Associated Disorders and Whiplash-Associated Disorders: A Clinical Practice Guideline. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2016;39(8):523-564.
• Hawk C, Khorsan R, Lisi AJ, et al. Chiropractic care for nonmusculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review with implications for whole systems research. J Altern Complement Med. 2007;13(5):491-512.
• Senna MK, Machaly SA. Does maintained spinal manipulation therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain result in better long-term outcome? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(18):1427-1437.
• "History of Chiropractic." National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/history-of-chiropractic)
• "Chiropractic: In Depth." National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health.
• "Palmer, Daniel David (1845-1913)." History of Medicine.
• "Chiropractic." Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chiropractic)
• "Chiropractic: A Critical Evaluation." Skeptical Inquirer. (https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/chiropractic-a-critical-evaluation/)
• "Why the Medical Establishment Doesn't Like Chiropractic." Verywell Health.
• "Chiropractic Controversies: An Overview." Science-Based Medicine.
• "Chiropractic Care: What You Need to Know." Mayo Clinic. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/chiropractic-adjustment/about/pac-20393513)
• Cassidy, J. David et al. "Risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care: results of a population-based case-control and case-crossover study." Spine, Volume 33, Issue 45, 2008, Pages S176-S183. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181644600.
• Puentedura, Emilio et al. "Safety of Chiropractic Manipulation of the Cervical Spine: A Prospective National Survey." Spine, Volume 44, Issue 15, 2019, Pages 1015-1022. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003001.
• Dabbs, V., & Lauretti, W. J. (1995). A risk assessment of cervical manipulation vs. NSAIDs for the treatment of neck pain. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, 18(8), 530-536.
• DeVocht, J. W., Pickar, J. G., & Wilder, D. G. (2010). Spinal manipulation alters electromyographic activity of paraspinal muscles: a descriptive study. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, 33(9), 684-691.
• Bussières, A. E., Stewart, G., Al-Zoubi, F., Decina, P., Descarreaux, M., Hayden, J., ... & Taylor-Vaisey, A. (2016). The treatment of neck pain-associated disorders and whiplash-associated disorders: a clinical practice guideline. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, 39(8), 523-564.
• Haldeman, S., Kohlbeck, F. J., McGregor, M., & Unsworth, G. (2003). Risk factors and precipitating neck movements causing vertebrobasilar artery dissection after cervical trauma and spinal manipulation. Spine, 28(15), 1652-1659.
• Boyle, E., Côté, P., Grier, A. R., Cassidy, J. D., & Hartvigsen, J. (2018). Risk of stroke after chiropractic spinal manipulation in medicare B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, 41(9), 737-746.
  

This blog post was written with the help of google search, research articles and the use of AI. For informational purposes only.