Jonathan Ward Instructor Ms.

Caruso English 1102 2/21/2013 Chiropractic Medicine

Ward1

http://prezi.com/nlrb2-dfgosb/untitled-prezi/?kw=view-nlrb2-dfgosb&rc=ref-31362375

Since the early twentieth century a form of alternative medicine has been attempting to become an established form of health care. It is the largest of all the forms of alternative medicine used in the United States today, yet is one of the more controversial forms. It is called chiropractic medicine and is best known for its method of spinal manipulation, or cracking the back. However, despite the fact that it is more known in todays society and more widely used then when it got its start almost a hundred years ago, the public is still somewhat skeptical. Is chiropractic medicine effective? If it is effective, then in what illnesses is it effective in treating? While some readers would think that the answer to that question is a simple yes or no, when we take a closer look into the world of chiropractic medicine, we find that the answer is not so cut and dry. According to researchers Ian Coulter and Paul Shekelle, only around seven percent of the U.S. population utilizes chiropractic care (http://www.chirobase.org/05RB/AHCPR/04.html, paragraph 7). However with that being said, recently chiropractors have caught the attention of the media in the news, with their miracle methods, healing patients that Allopathic Physicians were unable to heal. One such chiropractor is Dr. Ted Carrick, who specializes in neurological disorders, and has been a practicing chiropractor for a many number of years. ABC News conducted an interview with Dr. Carrick, and even spoke to some of his patients about the treatments they were undergoing. In the interview when asked about how he came up with this treatment, Carrick states that We arent

Ward2 really doing anything new, just combining stuff together that people have been doing for a number of years. His methods have gained him national attention, along with referrals from medical neurologists. However, according to the medical community at large, his methods are controversial because they do not pass scientific rigor, and are more of a placebo effect, says the ABC News Anchor. In response to this he states, Well if it is a placebo then we are doing a very good job at it because we are seeing the same results every time. He does not deny the idea of the possibility of it being a placebo, nor does he get upset with that question. It is apparent that he truly cares for the well-being of his patients, and only wants to see them get better. One of the individuals who scrutinize Carricks work is Steven Novella. Steven Novella is a Medical Neurologist, with faculty appointment at Yale School of Medicine, and is an investigator of skeptical medicine/claims (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/about/, paragraph 1). He published an article on a site devoted to science based medicine. In the article Novella dismisses Carricks methods as nothing more than a placebo effect. It should be noted that neurological symptoms are often especially vulnerable to placebo effects. Many symptoms, like vertigo, or fogginess, are highly subjective (Novella, paragraph 8). Stating that with a placebo as long as the patient you are treating thinks that you are doing a good treatment for them then they will get better. Novella makes claims that chiropractic neurology is nothing more that pseudoscience, and does not have any scientific research to support its treatments (paragraph 7). The basis for Novellas argument and the argument of many is that chiropractic medicine is not based on scientific research and cant pass scientific rigor. However, you must then wonder why is it that this Medical Neurologist Dr. Steven Novella would write an article attacking Carricks work when his colleagues (other medical neurologists) are the ones who refer these patients to Carrick to be treated?

Ward3 While Carricks work can been seen as very controversial, we can wonder how controversial the effectiveness of chiropractic medicine is as a whole. Chiropractic medicine, like a lot of fields today, has its own association that promotes the field through lobbying efforts and such. That association is called the American Chiropractic Association, and has made an effort to conduct research on how effective chiropractic care is and for what aliments. The research conducted has been on the effectiveness of chiropractic medicine to treat chronic pain, as compared to the traditional methods of drugs and surgery. According to the ACA, research has been conducted on treatments of neck pain, back pain, acute/chronic pain, and headaches. With regards to acute and chronic pain one article states Patients with chronic low-back pain treated by chiropractors showed greater improvement and satisfaction at one month than patients treated by family physicians. Satisfaction scores were higher for chiropractic patients. A higher proportion of chiropractic patients (56 percent vs. 13 percent) reported that their low-back pain was better or much better, whereas nearly one-third of medical patients reported their low-back pain was worse or much worse. (http://www.acatoday.org/level3_css.cfm?T1ID=13&T2ID=61&T3ID=150, paragraph 2). Summaries of other articles were posted on the site all concluding that evidence supported chiropractic care for the treatment of all of these aliments over the tradition methods of western medicine. So then is chiropractic care is effective for only those aliments? Why then does Carrick only treat neurological injuries when it is not supported by the ACAs research? What about all the chiropractors practicing in the U.S.? Do they only treat those injuries backed by research of the ACA? To look more closely at this, we take a look at what conditions five practicing chiropractors in the Charlotte area are claiming to be able to treat. When examined the claims

Ward4 ranged from those injuries supported by the ACA i.e. headache, neck pain, back pain-to illnesses such as metabolic disorders, and neurological disorders. Also, one chiropractor claimed to not treat any particular disorder but instead their method was simply restoring balance back to the body so that the bodies innate intelligence could fix the problem. All of the chiropractors had testimonials posted on their website at how effective the care was and for what illness that patient was treated for. Ironically, they had at least one testimonial for each of the injuries they claimed to treat. How is it that these chiropractors can provide treatment for illnesses when those treatments have not yet been proven to be effective by a body of research? Especially by a body of research such as the American Chiropractic Association that is pro-chiropractic care. What about the last chiropractor, who claimed innate intelligence, what is that about? Where is the research supporting that? It is this idea of innate intelligence that these chiropractors are able to treat illnesses not currently backed by research, and it is through lobbying efforts that they are licensed to do so. Innate Intelligence is a term by Daniel Day Palmer (the father of Chiropractic), and it is the bodys ability to heal itself, the belief that the body already acquires the stuff it needs to heal itself, it just has to be allowed to do so. All a chiropractor does is remove interferences to this innate intelligence by cracking the back and keeping the spine in line, allowing the nervous system to communicate correctly with the rest of the body, stating that it is through the nervous system that innate intelligence works. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_intelligence, paragraph 1). Innate Intelligence is not backed by current research, and it is this idea of innate intelligence that makes it so controversial. Dr. Steven Novella talks about innate intelligence in his article stating, After a century of such belief there isnt a bit of evidence to support the notion of innate intelligence, chiropractic subluxations, or health benefits from this approach.

Ward5 (Novella, paragraph 3). However, despite the fact that there is no research on Innate Intelligence, chiropractors still practice it today as we see evident in one Charlotte chiropractors practice. Chiropractic Medicines theory on Innate Intelligence is not the only reason as to why people question its effectiveness. The creator of Chiropractic Medicine, D.D. Palmer, was in school only till the age of eleven and had no formal medical training. He taught himself about medicine and was known to be a magnetic healer. Also, it was believed that he was part of a cult and he came up with this idea of innate intelligence. There were claims that he cured an individual of deafness yet he was charged with practicing medicine without a license four times. The college of Chiropractic Medicine that he opened is still running today. (http://www.nndb.com/people/816/000166318/, paragraph 1-3). D.D. Palmer was seen as a quack by the medical community and it is this foundation as to why Chiropractic Care is controversial, and why its effectiveness is questioned. However, is Chiropractic Care effective despite the fact that it was founded by someone with no medical training, has been deemed a placebo and is only backed by research supporting a few injuries? If it is effective, then for what injuries is it effective in treating? You could argue that it is effective in treating back pain, headaches and neck pain because those are the ones that are back by current research. If that is the case, then why do practicing chiropractors claim to treat other injuries not backed by research? Why is its care constantly dismissed by the medical community if it was so effective? Also, if its care is effective as some of its practitioners claim, then why does only seven percent of the U.S. population utilize its care?