Chiropractic 'Spinal Survey'

[Worm]

My knowledge of chiropracty is pretty patchy, but I was slightly concerned by this bulletin posted on our organisation's intranet:

Quote:

Do you suffer from any of the following ailments?

Headaches, Chronic tiredness, Stiff neck
Pain in the arm, Bronchitis, Rheumatism
Eczema, Cramps, Sciatica

Then why not book a Spinal Survey with A Consultant Chiropractic Doctor?

There will be a number of consultations available on Thursday
30th October 2008

Appointments available 12.00 to 14.00 and take 15 minutes.

Is this pretty mainstream stuff, or verging on the woo? Headaches, Sciatica, Stiff Neck sounds pretty logical to me - but Eczema? Bronchitis?

[Formerly]

Originally Posted by Worm

Is this pretty mainstream stuff, or verging on the woo? Headaches, Sciatica, Stiff Neck sounds pretty logical to me - but Eczema? Bronchitis?

This sounds like a variant of the 'get a free workup blah blah' that chiropractors often have to drum up business. It sounds like just pure chiropractic, through and through.

You could always go, if you can hold down your laughter long enough, to check it out but I wouldn't let them do any 'adjusting' on your neck.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Worm

{snip} Is this pretty mainstream stuff, or verging on the woo? Headaches, Sciatica, Stiff Neck sounds pretty logical to me - but Eczema? Bronchitis?

I agree with Formerly.

Moreover, treatment of headache and stiff necks may seem logical; but, that is where the chiros maim, even kill, you by ripping your vertebral arteries- causing strokes. Check out www.chirobase.org specifically, the article titled (something like) "Chiropractic's Dirty Secret."

At chirobase you can also read surveys showing that healthy people are almost always found to be in need of treatment- even serious, expensive treatment. One chiro said that a healthy girl needed $5,000 worth of treatment to avoid trouble later in life. What parent could ignore that?

One amusing thing about the advert is what is missing. One thing that is in demand is treatment for low-back pain of short duration. There are indications that chiro may be as safe and effective as massage for this. However, http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/cont.../100/7/330#top mild, adverse effects of spinal manipulation (e.g., short-term discomfort) occur in 30-60% of chiro treatments. A masseur would not last long with that track record.

[jhunter1163]

I used to work for a chiropractor, and I've read all the literature regarding chiropractic and strokes. There is a risk of stroke with chiropractic, but it is quite small (1 in 400,000 is the lowest figure I've seen, going up to one in millions). It does happen, though, and a reputable chiropractor will do a thorough exam to ensure that the patient doesn't have any contraindications for chiropractic.

And there's the rub; in my estimation (based on considerable experience), less than half of all chiropractors are what I would call reputable. Too many of them want to start you on lengthy, expensive and (to my mind) unnecessary "spinal health" programs.

Chiropractic is a complementary therapy, nothing more. It is effective for low back and neck pain, and that's all. These claims that chiropractors make about otitis media and eczema and the rest of it are nonsense.

[Galaxie]

That bulletin reminds me of a flyer that came in the local paper a few months ago. The flyer made the same kind of claims, but what really stood out is that they claimed they had cured an infant who had colic.

Chiropractic "treatment" for infants sounds very dangerous. Is this something that is widely practiced?

[JJM]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

{snip} There is a risk of stroke with chiropractic, but it is quite small (1 in 400,000 is the lowest figure I've seen, going up to one in millions). It does happen, though, and a reputable chiropractor will do a thorough exam to ensure that the patient doesn't have any contraindications for chiropractic.

Symptoms of an incipient stroke include headache and neck pain. Most chiros have not figured that out. In the recent case of Sandra Nette, she was asymptomatic (totally- why was a chiro "treating" her); yet her chiro ripped both of her vertebral arteries. Chiros have not figured out that they simply should not snap people's necks, no matter the symptoms (or lack, thereof).

Can you provide evidence that chiro neck-snaps do anything that safer therapy cannot do? I doubt it. Therefore, the risk/benefit ratio requires division by (benefit= zero)- which is a very big number indicating risk, no matter how small the actual risk.

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

{snip} Chiropractic is a complementary therapy, nothing more. It is effective for low back and neck pain, and that's all. {snip}

Complementary to what?

Chiro certainly is not safe (you left that out) and effective for neck pain, unless the intended effect is a stroke. As for low-back pain, the literature is mixed. It may be as effective as massage, it may cause more temporary discomfort than massage (I cited that, above). I would rather see a masseuse who does not share the chiro's delusions of grandeur (and inflated fees).

[Wowbagger]

I took one of those offers from a Chiropractor, but instead of getting examined, I spent the time talking with him. If you are feeling diplomatic enough, you might want to consider the same. You can gauge how far up or down the Woo scale this one happens to be, because it does vary!

A few years ago, I started a thread asking "Is there such a thing as a good chiropractor?", which I recycled when I interrogated one, in May.

The whole thread originally began here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65430

However, the more recent story, about responding to the sales call, starts here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...34#post3698234

Or, you can skip to the part where I actually talk about the visit: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...64#post3729964

If anyone does decide to replicate this sort of effort, remember: Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy!! And they will likely have all your contact information, so it is best not to write about it in such a way that will get you sued.

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by JJM

Symptoms of an incipient stroke include headache and neck pain. Most chiros have not figured that out. In the recent case of Sandra Nette, she was asymptomatic (totally- why was a chiro "treating" her); yet her chiro ripped both of her vertebral arteries. Chiros have not figured out that they simply should not snap people's necks, no matter the symptoms (or lack, thereof).

The point of any musculoskeletal therapy (massage, osteopathy, chiropractic) is to relieve pain. Chiropractic does provide relief from pain. I am not familiar with Ms. Nette's case; however, I agree with your point that if she was asymptomatic, she did not need to be treated (see my comment in #4 above re: "spinal maintenance")

Quote:

Can you provide evidence that chiro neck-snaps do anything that safer therapy cannot do? I doubt it. Therefore, the risk/benefit ratio requires division by (benefit= zero)- which is a very big number indicating risk, no matter how small the actual risk.

The anti-chiropractic faction comments on the risk of spinal manipulation; however, the risk of adverse events from standard therapies (medication, surgery) is much, much greater. And, again, chiropractic manipulation relieves pain. Granted, that is subjective, but if the patient's pain is relieved, isn't that a benefit?

Quote:

Complementary to what?

Chiro certainly is not safe (you left that out) and effective for neck pain, unless the intended effect is a stroke. As for low-back pain, the literature is mixed. It may be as effective as massage, it may cause more temporary discomfort than massage (I cited that, above). I would rather see a masseuse who does not share the chiro's delusions of grandeur (and inflated fees).

We'll just have to disagree on this point. Chiropractic is (to my mind) safe; and I have seen enough people get messed up on narcotics after a back injury or back surgery to be pretty well put off narcotics as the answer.

I would see a chiropractor in conjuction with a massage therapist or physical therapist for an acute condition or an injury. I would not see a chiropractor for "maintenance" or "wellness" care; that is simply not necessary.

[jhunter1163]

From the BBC:

Quote:

However, he points out: "The number of chiropractic manipulations performed in the US each year is in the millions, and the incidence of stroke from all causes is only 10 per 100,000 - so we're not talking about large numbers of victims.

"But rare incidences do happen and physicians and patients should be aware of spinal manipulation therapy as a rare but potentially causal factor in stroke."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3020923.stm (bolding mine)

Odds of dying after spinal fusion surgery: 1 in 160 (0.6%)
Odds of dying after scoliosis surgery: 1 in 250 (adult), 1 in 600 (pediatric)

Source: http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Santarelli,J

I agree completely that all risks should be disclosed, however small, and also that the effectiveness of chiropractic neck manipulation has not been rigorously studied and needs to be demonstrated in more than an anecdotal fashion.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

and I have seen enough people get messed up on narcotics after a back injury or back surgery to be pretty well put off narcotics as the answer.

Where has anyone claimed that narcotics are 'the answer'?

And the answer to what question?

Is there a particular connection between back injury/surgery and narcotic addiction (which is what I guess you mean by 'messed up') or is the addiction something that happens when narcotics are taken for pain-relief for other ailments also, or just taken for the hell of it?

[Uncayimmy]

Originally Posted by JJM

Chiro certainly is not safe (you left that out) and effective for neck pain, unless the intended effect is a stroke.

How do you define safe? You can leave "pain relief" off the table and just assume that it causes the patient/victim a moment of pleasure as justification for wanting it done.

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Where has anyone claimed that narcotics are 'the answer'?

And the answer to what question?

Is there a particular connection between back injury/surgery and narcotic addiction (which is what I guess you mean by 'messed up') or is the addiction something that happens when narcotics are taken for pain-relief for other ailments also, or just taken for the hell of it?

The question, in its broadest sense, is "what's the best method for relieving spinal pain?" I want to emphasize that I do not believe chiropractic is the answer to this question, except in quite limited cases. However, there is heavy reliance among MDs on medication as "the answer": they feel that a few Percosets and a couple days bed rest will take care of the problem.

There is no single "best answer" to the question I posited; it depends on the patient's condition, age, gender, medical history, and a host of other factors. I do, however, feel that narcotics are significantly overprescribed. Non-pharmaceutical treatments (massage, physical therapy, and yes, chiropractic) should be considered as part of the treatment universe as well.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

{snip} The anti-chiropractic faction comments on the risk of spinal manipulation; however, the risk of adverse events from standard therapies (medication, surgery) is much, much greater. And, again, chiropractic manipulation relieves pain. Granted, that is subjective, but if the patient's pain is relieved, isn't that a benefit?

Citations showing safety and efficacy are missing ...

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

We'll just have to disagree on this point. Chiropractic is (to my mind) safe [citations, inre the crippling/murderous neck-snap?]; and I have seen enough people get messed up on narcotics after a back injury or back surgery to be pretty well put off narcotics as the answer.

I would see a chiropractor in conjuction with a massage therapist or physical therapist for an acute condition or an injury. I would not see a chiropractor for "maintenance" or "wellness" care; that is simply not necessary.

Why not? Their rationalization is equally compelling? Your unsupported notions are not compelling.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

From the BBC: {snip}

Oh, where better to get medical info than the telly ...

[JJM]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

How do you define safe? You can leave "pain relief" off the table and just assume that it causes the patient/victim a moment of pleasure as justification for wanting it done.

What?? Can you assume that it causes the victim "locked-in" a lifetime of inability to communicate with the outside world as justification? Or, were you being sarcastic?

[JJM]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

The question, in its broadest sense, is "what's the best method for relieving spinal pain?" {snip}

There is no single "best answer" to the question I posited; it depends on the patient's condition, age, gender, medical history, and a host of other factors. I do, however, feel that narcotics are significantly overprescribed. Non-pharmaceutical treatments (massage, physical therapy, and yes, chiropractic) should be considered as part of the treatment universe as well.

On what basis do you include chiro? Citation to reliable literature required here.

[fls]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

The question, in its broadest sense, is "what's the best method for relieving spinal pain?" I want to emphasize that I do not believe chiropractic is the answer to this question, except in quite limited cases. However, there is heavy reliance among MDs on medication as "the answer": they feel that a few Percosets and a couple days bed rest will take care of the problem.

There is no single "best answer" to the question I posited; it depends on the patient's condition, age, gender, medical history, and a host of other factors. I do, however, feel that narcotics are significantly overprescribed. Non-pharmaceutical treatments (massage, physical therapy, and yes, chiropractic) should be considered as part of the treatment universe as well.

Manipulation can be a useful part of an evidence-based approach. However, that limited use hardly justifies Chiropractic as a profession. Instead, the manipulation can easily be subsumed under physical therapy (the studies show that it doesn't really who does it). Otherwise you are left with the example in the OP - Chiropractors attempting to drum up business by offering unnecessary services.

Linda

[Jeff Corey]

My students often express amazement when I tell them that chiropracters are not MDs or DOs (who are similarly treated in NY) and that "subluxations" causing diabetes and heart disease is leaping screaming gaping flaming BS.

[Uncayimmy]

Originally Posted by JJM

What?? Can you assume that it causes the victim "locked-in" a lifetime of inability to communicate with the outside world as justification? Or, were you being sarcastic?

You coupled safe with effective at pain relief. I maintain that safe can be defined independent of its effectiveness, so I tossed aside pain relief and substituted pleasure as the reason someone may choose to do it. If you don't like that, then uncouple safe from effective and answer the question:

How do you define safe?

[luchog]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

How do you define safe?

A ratio between demonstrated benefit and demonstrated risk. Relative safety must balance the benefit provided for the purpose intended, vs. the risk and potential of adverse effects. Nothing that is effective can ever be 100% safe; but there is a degree of risk that is acceptable, and a degree of risk that is not.

For chiropractic, the demonstrated benefit is effectively zero, according to all reliable, peer-reviewed medical literature. The demonstrated risk is very far from zero, with the severity up to and including paralyzation and death. Therefore it is not even a remotely safe treatment for any ailment. Unlike, say, homeopathic remedies, which are safe because they do absolutely nothing at all.

[Uncayimmy]

Originally Posted by luchog

A ratio between demonstrated benefit and demonstrated risk. Relative safety must balance the benefit provided for the purpose intended, vs. the risk and potential of adverse effects. Nothing that is effective can ever be 100% safe; but there is a degree of risk that is acceptable, and a degree of risk that is not.

What you've done is to define safe as an acceptable risk-benefit ratio. In my mind it's never "safe" to play Russian Roulette. By your definition it's "safe" to do it if somebody is threatening to kill you if you don't pull the trigger.

So, at least now I understand what you're saying. I'm a noob here, but I still feel comfortable saying that an acceptable risk-benefit ratio is not what people think of when they think of the word safe.

Originally Posted by luchog

For chiropractic, the demonstrated benefit is effectively zero, according to all reliable, peer-reviewed medical literature. The demonstrated risk is very far from zero, with the severity up to and including paralyzation and death. Therefore it is not even a remotely safe treatment for any ailment. Unlike, say, homeopathic remedies, which are safe because they do absolutely nothing at all.

This site (randi.org) states, "...there doubtless is some value to chiropractic in respect to massage relief of strains and muscle spasms..." I agree with this. I have found immediate, short-term relief by way of manipulations done by myself, my brother, and chiropractors. Sometimes the short term relief is all the body needs to get a handle on healing itself.

Beyond that I don't think there's any value to it.

[jhunter1163]

Quote:

[citations, inre the crippling/murderous neck-snap?];

Appeal to emotion noted. I could argue, and with better evidence than you have presented here, that MDs are dope-peddling child-killers. We both know that isn't the case, so let's just leave the emotion out of it, shall we?

There is a wealth of literature regarding the safety and efficacy of chiropractic; however, most of the research was, naturally, done by chiropractors and therefore would not be (to your mind) "reliable". By your standard of evidence, we should throw out any studies on drugs that are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, because after all they have a vested interest in the outcome of those studies. That would, by the way, disqualify most if not all pharmaceutical research.

You have, unfortunately, seized on a few very rare cases to besmirch an entire profession. This is unfair. I'm not saying there isn't dishonesty and quackery among chiropractors; there certainly is, to the extent (as I said before) that I believe there are more dishonest chiropractors than honest ones.

If you had read the article I linked without dismissing it as being from the BBC, you would have seen that I was quoting the leader of a major study of vertebral artery dissection conducted at Stanford and the University of California-San Francisco. This study concluded that arterial dissection after chiropractic adjustment is extremely rare, but does occur.

As an aside, I wonder where your righteous indignation is regarding osteopathy? They perform the same types of spinal manipulations as chiropractors, and yet they are allowed hospital privileges, can perform surgery, and do basically everything an MD can. You might want to do a little research to find out why this is. I already know the answer, but I'll let you find out for yourself.

Finally, there is the issue of effectiveness. This is inherently subjective; someone goes to a chiropractor, gets adjusted, and feels better. Did the chiropractor actually do anything for the patient? Well, yes. Whether there's anything to chiropractic philosophy or the whole thing is based on the placebo effect, who knows? I was always skeptical of the concept of the "subluxation": it seemed to me that vertebrae have to move in order to allow the spine to function.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

There is a wealth of literature regarding the safety and efficacy of chiropractic; however, most of the research was, naturally, done by chiropractors and therefore would not be (to your mind) "reliable". By your standard of evidence, we should throw out any studies on drugs that are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, because after all they have a vested interest in the outcome of those studies. That would, by the way, disqualify most if not all pharmaceutical research.

I don't dismiss chiro research because of vested interests, I dismiss it because it is abysmal. It is performed by people who are incompetent, and their peers (as in peer-review) are fellow quacks. Pharma companies and the FDA employ qualified scientists.

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

You have, unfortunately, seized on a few very rare cases to besmirch an entire profession. This is unfair. I'm not saying there isn't dishonesty and quackery among chiropractors; there certainly is, to the extent (as I said before) that I believe there are more dishonest chiropractors than honest ones.

Causing a stroke is not about honesty, it has all to do with incompetence. PTs do not cause strokes http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50 according to that study. That is because they are more selective using manipulation, and better at doing it.

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

{snip} As an aside, I wonder where your righteous indignation is regarding osteopathy? {snip}

If you want to start a thread on osteopaths- go ahead.

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

Finally, there is the issue of effectiveness. {snip}

Yes there is. The point about neck manipulation is that there are effective procedures that do not risk a catastrophic stroke. That makes the risk/benefit equation an unacceptably large number (division by zero) since there really is no benefit to chiro, compared to other treatments.

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by JJM

The point about neck manipulation is that there are effective procedures that do not risk a catastrophic stroke. That makes the risk/benefit equation an unacceptably large number (division by zero) since there really is no benefit to chiro, compared to other treatments.

(my bolding)

So there is a benefit to chiropractic compared to doing nothing?

My point is, any intervention carries risk. What's the risk that you'll get hooked on pain meds? It's quite small, but it's not zero. What's the risk that your PT or massage therapist will exacerbate your condition rather than make it better? The study you cited above puts that risk around 1 in 1,600. Again, it's small, but it's not zero.

The highest risk factor I've seen for stroke connected with chiropractic (from your article above, and thanks for that) is 1 in 40,000. Again, it's not zero, and it should be disclosed before any adjustment is done. I'm a firm believer in fully informed consent.

And run, don't walk, from any chiropractor that tells you that you need maintenance or wellness treatment. You don't.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

(my bolding)

So there is a benefit to chiropractic compared to doing nothing?

No, let me try to make this really clear, there is a benefit to a chiro doing nothing. In that case, stroke is even less likely.

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

My point is, any intervention carries risk. What's the risk that you'll get hooked on pain meds? {snip}

I will say it again, chiro offers no benefit in exchange for that risk. You are free to be the first to show contradictory data in a reliable source.

If you want to discuss pain medication, start a thread.

[Blue Wode]

Originally Posted by JJM

The point about neck manipulation is that there are effective procedures that do not risk a catastrophic stroke. That makes the risk/benefit equation an unacceptably large number (division by zero) since there really is no benefit to chiro, compared to other treatments.

Interestingly, Edzard Ernst more or less made that same point in 2003…

Quote:

Spinal manipulation for neck pain is a treatment with unknown benefits and unknown harm. Because of this and the fact that serious risks are on record, a responsible risk–benefit assessment cannot ignore the risks and cannot come out in favour of spinal manipulation. Remember the supreme law in medicine: first do no harm. Other therapies for neck pain exist, e.g. exercise, which are supported by at least as good evidence for benefit and which are at the same time free of significant risks. The inescapable recommendation based on the best evidence available today is to use exercise rather than spinal manipulation as a treatment for neck pain.

Spinal manipulation for neck pain – more good than harm? Focus Altern Complement Ther 2004; 9: 107–10
http://www.medicinescomplete.com/jou...0902a06d01.htm

…and also in his 2007 systematic review of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation:

Quote:

The effectiveness of spinal manipulation for most indications is less than convincing. A risk-benefit evaluation is therefore unlikely to generate positive results: with uncertain effectiveness and finite risks, the balance cannot be positive.

-snip-

It is, of course, important to present any risk-benefit assessment fairly and in the context of similar evaluations of alternative therapeutic options. One such option is drug therapy. The drugs in question—non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)—cause considerable problems, for example gastrointestinal and cardiovascular complications. Thus spinal manipulation could be preferable to drug therapy. But there are problems with this line of argument: the efficacy of NSAIDs is undoubted but that of spinal manipulation is not, and moreover, the adverse effects of NSAIDs are subject to post-marketing surveillance while those of spinal manipulation are not. Thus we are certain about the risks and benefits of the former and uncertain about those of the latter. Finally, it should be mentioned that other therapeutic options (e.g. exercise therapy or massage) have not been associated with significant risks at all.

http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/7/330

As for informed consent,

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

I'm a firm believer in fully informed consent.

I am also a firm believer in it, but apparently it’s not a strong point with many chiropractors:

Quote:

Consent: its practices and implications in United Kingdom and United States chiropractic practice

Results from this survey suggest a patient’s autonomy and right to self-determination may be compromised when seeking chiropractic care. Difficulties and omissions in the implementation of valid consent processes appear common, particularly in relation to risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum

Quote:

Consent or submission? The practice of consent within UK chiropractic

Results suggest that valid consent procedures are either poorly understood or selectively implemented by UK chiropractors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en..._uids=15726031

Indeed, according to the following video link (approx. 3 mins) tetraplegic chiropractic victim Sandra Nette wasn’t fully warned that stroke might be a rare complication of her neck adjustment:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/clas...uit/#clip59878

If only she had been told what British scientists Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst propose that all chiropractors should be compelled by law to disclose to their patients prior to treatment, she could well have avoided such a life-wrecking injury:

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.”

[Ref. ‘Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine On Trial’, p.285]

[fls]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

(my bolding)

So there is a benefit to chiropractic compared to doing nothing?

My point is, any intervention carries risk. What's the risk that you'll get hooked on pain meds? It's quite small, but it's not zero. What's the risk that your PT or massage therapist will exacerbate your condition rather than make it better? The study you cited above puts that risk around 1 in 1,600. Again, it's small, but it's not zero.

The highest risk factor I've seen for stroke connected with chiropractic (from your article above, and thanks for that) is 1 in 40,000. Again, it's not zero, and it should be disclosed before any adjustment is done. I'm a firm believer in fully informed consent.

And run, don't walk, from any chiropractor that tells you that you need maintenance or wellness treatment. You don't.

It's a bit disingenuous for you to compare the frequency of fairly mild or moderate adverse events from PT or medication with the frequency of catastrophic events from chiropractic manipulation. Instead you should be asking whether PT or medication even have a risk of catastrophic events. And you should be looking at the frequency of mild or moderate adverse events of chiropractic, which the study JJM referenced earlier put at one to two-thirds of the patients.

Linda

[jhunter1163]

It's also a bit alarmist to harp on something that even your own sources concede is extremely rare. It's like harping on aircraft accidents; even though they are extremely serious when they occur, they are also extremely rare.

I noticed that no one addressed the far higher risk of death and injury attributed to spinal surgery. If one in 600 chiropractic adjustments was fatal, chiropractic would be outlawed. Yet this rate of mortality is perfectly acceptable for a relatively simple surgical procedure.

I really don't feel like continuing this argument, as it doesn't seem to be productive. No one's changing their opinion, and that is their (and my) right.

Cheers, John

[fls]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

It's also a bit alarmist to harp on something that even your own sources concede is extremely rare. It's like harping on aircraft accidents; even though they are extremely serious when they occur, they are also extremely rare.

I think that if air travel accomplished very little to nothing (i.e. it had the effect of moving you a few miles toward your destination or you simply took off, flew around for a few hours and then landed back where you started), that harping on about aircraft accidents wouldn't be considered unreasonable.

Quote:

I noticed that no one addressed the far higher risk of death and injury attributed to spinal surgery. If one in 600 chiropractic adjustments was fatal, chiropractic would be outlawed. Yet this rate of mortality is perfectly acceptable for a relatively simple surgical procedure.

No one addressed the rate of mortality associated with chemotherapy, either. Your comparison would be relevant if chiropractic was proposed as a reasonable substitute for spinal surgery.

Quote:

I really don't feel like continuing this argument, as it doesn't seem to be productive. No one's changing their opinion, and that is their (and my) right.

Cheers, John

Seriously? That I have suggested that you actually make relevant comparisons is enough for you to take your ball and go home?

Linda