A Canadian Lawyer’s Rant

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE:   A Chiro.Org Editorial about Canadian Family Physcian 2013(Oct); 59 (10): 1052

After reading the first 2 paragraphs of this… what… letter to the editor? … I had some thoughts…

As an attorney and advocate for patient safety, I believe the authors of the Motherisk article that appeared in the August 2013 issue of Canadian Family Physician give an insufficient account of the risks that might be associated with chiropractic treatment of pregnant patients. [1]

Many chiropractors continue to base their treatments on the “detection” and “correction” of “subluxations,” ill-defined and unproven spinal lesions unknown to the medical profession. Nevertheless, chiropractors “adjust” these subluxations with any number of treatments, including manual therapy. Thus, the physician whose patient is receiving manual therapy from a chiropractor might be wholly unaware that the chiropractor is actually adjusting these nonexistent subluxations. These adjustments cannot effectively treat back pain or any other condition or disease.

Have we been hoist on our own petard?

I love how this author ramps up his misinformation campaign, stating that the subluxation is: first


unproven, and their final death stroke:


Then, emboldened, he crows that:

“These adjustments cannot effectively treat back pain”

At this point, I am rolling in the aisles!


As a graduate of Palmer, *perhaps* I’m biased, but I see NOTHING wrong with calling That-Thing-We-Adjust a subluxation. Isn’t that what Medicare calls it? Doesn’t the ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes clearly define it as something chiropractors treat?

However, whether we call it a *manipulable-lesion*, or call it *Lucy-In-The-Sky-With-Diamonds* makes no real difference.

That-Thing-We-Adjust causes inflammation, pain, radiculopathy, muscle spasm, and eventual degenerative changes, and is most-often EXTINGUISHED with chiropractic care.

Our Low Back Pain Page, the Chronic Neck Pain Page, the Headache Page and numerous other pages are LOADED with studies that demonstrate the efficacy and cost effectiveness (compared to standard medical treatment) for managing the supposedly non-existent subluxation.

One could ALMOST forgive this lawyer, since their specialty is for stating opinions, rather than facts, but we should never forget that medicine regularly treats the same conditions and complaints that we do on a daily basis, BUT a whole lot less effectively!

So, speaking of petards… who really looks the fool?

Those who actually CAN and DO help every day, or those who stand back and carp, while they collect their fee?