Chiropractic Pseudoscience

What's the rationale behind the chiropractic field?

It's easy to trace the hierarchy and progression of scientific ideas behind most medical science (just as it's easy to show that medicine was pretty primitive 100 years ago). 

Medical students learn the biology, physiology, biochemistry, anatomy, pharmacology, pathology, and so on, of human diseases. Treatment of these diseases is mostly based on evidence, the gold standard being the double-blind, controlled clinical trial.

Most physicians and most of the public have no idea what chiropractic treatment is based on, beyond a vague notion of spinal manipulation. Evidently chiropractors themselves split themselves into a wide number of camps, depending on their belief systems regarding how much spinal manipulation can affect physical conditions, and how widely they wish to wander into other areas of alternative (non-evidence based) care, such as acupuncture, herbs, homeopathy, etc.

Here is an excellent video designed to educate the public of the philosophy behind chiropractic care. What intrigues me is that it most resembles a pre-scientific, faith-based belief system, rather than a science. 

The video was made in response to the incredible lawsuit by the British Chiropractic Association against the free-speech rights of a British scientist, Simon Singh, who publicly criticized chiropractic. 

It is important that science be able to advance without being stifled by the legal intimidation of lawsuits such as this. It is also important that the public be made aware of the lack of a rational foundation behind practices such as homeopathy and chiropractic. (I'm not sure, though, if what most people believe is really guided by reason).

Luckily, few chiropractors, that I am aware of, make claims that spinal manipulation is effective in treating disorders of the eye. This may be, in my opinion, because most eye diseases have fairly objective measurements, such as visual acuity, refractive error, or intraocular pressure, which are measurable and less susceptible to the placebo effect, which is the only likely benefit of many non-scientific treatments.

There are many ways to treat physical conditions, but not all of them are based on reason or evidence. Caveat emptor.

Comments

[Alan Henness]

An excellent video, Blake. Keep up the good work!

If anyone wants information on my 524 complaints to the General Chiropractic Council about claims chiros have been making in the UK, see my blog: http://www.zenosblog.com.

I am also building up a new website about chiropractic that will be a source of scientific evidence for chiropractic: http://www.discoverchiropractic.co.uk.