Step on a Quack, Break Your Child's Back
One of the big difficulties when dealing with pseudoscience is it's ability to hide its misinformation behind a thin veil of scientific jargon. As far as popular pseudosciences go, chiropractic is one of the best at this; and it is incredibly frustrating. Chiropractic, at its core, depends on magic. To use that as a basis of medical practice is unethical to say the least. To use it on children, as we'll discuss further down, is simply obscene. Some chiropractors even practice on infants (even newborns) which can lead to disastrous consequences.
But before we get too far, lets unmask this "alternative therapy" and show its true, baseless face. Chiropractic was started by Daniel David Palmer in 1895. He firmly believed that a life force, that he called “Innate,” was responsible for good health and was blocked by “vertebral subluxation,” that could be cured by spinal manipulation. So from jump, we have a magical life force being the basis of the practice; this is a problem. You will, no doubt, find some chiropractors who say they do not attest to the existence of such a nonsense idea but still use a hand-wavy "connectedness" explanation for how their practice can work. This might as well be filed under magic as they will never be able to explain specific mechanisms on how it all works. And before protests of "not all chiropractors" erupt, this is not a fringe belief. For example, a study on a Canadian chiropractic college suggests that it is a common belief among chiropractors to attribute improvement of non-spine related conditions to chiropractic care. Something that should be another huge red flag is that, curiously, only chiropractors can find the "sublaxations" they claim are the basis of disease. So basically, we have to trust them that the problem is even there. So if everything is basically magic, is it even good for anything? The answer is maybe. There is very weak evidence that it may be helpful in dealing with lower back pain. Beyond that, the answer is a resounding no. This doesn't stop them from claiming otherwise; nor does the mounting evidence of the risks deter them.
Chiropractors claim to be able to treat or cure a number of conditions. Among the most common are neck pain, allergies, and asthma. When it comes to chiropractic treatment these conditions have one thing in common: neck manipulation. Now, I crack my neck a lot. It does loosen up some tension in and around the general area. But it has never cleared up my nose. In fact, a 2004 review stated,
So where does that leave our children? Well, in the hands of a chiropractor, in a very dangerous place. I linked above the heartbreaking story of the infant who's back was broken by a chiropractor. This is an extreme case but adverse effects are not rare in general; or in children. A common theme in the literature is that existing conditions can greatly increase the chances of adverse reaction. However, given there are no standards among chiropractors, they are less likely to do their due diligence in determining if the treatment will cause harm. This is especially bad for children who will not know themselves if they are likely to be harmed by the procedure.
The bottom line here is that chiropractic is not for children or infants. Despite their claims to treat or cure conditions like ADHD, autism, depression, anxiety, infantile colic, and ear infections there is next to no evidence that any of it is remotely true. Given the massive risk, and minute benefit, I know I won't be taking my children to get their back cracked.
But before we get too far, lets unmask this "alternative therapy" and show its true, baseless face. Chiropractic was started by Daniel David Palmer in 1895. He firmly believed that a life force, that he called “Innate,” was responsible for good health and was blocked by “vertebral subluxation,” that could be cured by spinal manipulation. So from jump, we have a magical life force being the basis of the practice; this is a problem. You will, no doubt, find some chiropractors who say they do not attest to the existence of such a nonsense idea but still use a hand-wavy "connectedness" explanation for how their practice can work. This might as well be filed under magic as they will never be able to explain specific mechanisms on how it all works. And before protests of "not all chiropractors" erupt, this is not a fringe belief. For example, a study on a Canadian chiropractic college suggests that it is a common belief among chiropractors to attribute improvement of non-spine related conditions to chiropractic care. Something that should be another huge red flag is that, curiously, only chiropractors can find the "sublaxations" they claim are the basis of disease. So basically, we have to trust them that the problem is even there. So if everything is basically magic, is it even good for anything? The answer is maybe. There is very weak evidence that it may be helpful in dealing with lower back pain. Beyond that, the answer is a resounding no. This doesn't stop them from claiming otherwise; nor does the mounting evidence of the risks deter them.
Chiropractors claim to be able to treat or cure a number of conditions. Among the most common are neck pain, allergies, and asthma. When it comes to chiropractic treatment these conditions have one thing in common: neck manipulation. Now, I crack my neck a lot. It does loosen up some tension in and around the general area. But it has never cleared up my nose. In fact, a 2004 review stated,
There is currently no evidence to support the use of chiropractic [spinal manipulative therapy (SMT)] as a primary treatment for asthma or allergy. Based on reported subjective improvement in patients receiving chiropractic care, certain clinical circumstances may warrant a therapeutic trial in patients with asthma. Further properly designed, collaborative research is needed to determine if there is a role for chiropractic SMT in the care of asthma or allergy.which pretty clearly sums the situation up. Furthermore, there is evidence that a risk of stroke is present in neck manipulation. Despite this risk being present, chiropractors will not inform patients before getting consent; an incredibly unethical practice.
So where does that leave our children? Well, in the hands of a chiropractor, in a very dangerous place. I linked above the heartbreaking story of the infant who's back was broken by a chiropractor. This is an extreme case but adverse effects are not rare in general; or in children. A common theme in the literature is that existing conditions can greatly increase the chances of adverse reaction. However, given there are no standards among chiropractors, they are less likely to do their due diligence in determining if the treatment will cause harm. This is especially bad for children who will not know themselves if they are likely to be harmed by the procedure.
The bottom line here is that chiropractic is not for children or infants. Despite their claims to treat or cure conditions like ADHD, autism, depression, anxiety, infantile colic, and ear infections there is next to no evidence that any of it is remotely true. Given the massive risk, and minute benefit, I know I won't be taking my children to get their back cracked.
Comments
Post a Comment