Comments on: Australian chiropractor claims to be able to treat colic.

By: AndyD

AndyD — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:51:15 +0000

In Australia, chiropractors in almost every state and ACT should qualify the title “doctor” by noting they are a chiropractor (eg Dr J Smith, Chiropractor). In NSW they must hold suitable university qualification. In NT I believe there’s no restriction. I sourced (almost all) this info from the various state chiropractic bodies.
.
On the issue of assessment – are you serious? I don’t need to be a financier to know some guy in Nigeria hasn’t really got a bag full of cash to share with me. Those drugs that get pulled are pulled after inexperienced people (patients) complain about side effects. Can you name any ailments chiropractors have changed their minds about treating – and why?
.
I think most writers have acknowledged that chiro might have some efficacy for bad backs – that isn’t what he Singh saga is about.

By: m

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:43:23 +0000

Sensitivity or God Complex! Get off the whole Dr thing! We are given that title and YES clarification is not required! DRs come in many shapes & sizes. Vet, dentist, PHD, medical, osteopath. Naivety guys. Seems like you have a sensitivity to chiropractors claiming effectiveness with various visceral ailments! The clinical application of sound chiropractic techinques are intended to reduce locked spinal bones that may be responsible for nerve pressure. So are you an expert on chiropractic? If you cannot find a spinal problem and reduce it how can you maintain no validity in what we do? Medical acedemics like you spend your lives trying to disprove everything that doesn’t involve a study subject to the same standards as medical journals. Well Drugs come onto the market after proven safe with a big fanfare only to be pulled after sinister reactions! Touted as safe today, condemned as dangerous tommorrow! Happens all the time. You know it does. Respect the fact that studies are conducted by chiropractors and appear in chiropractic journals demonstrating the outcomes of clinical trials. So if you have a bad back will you refuse chiropractic because you disagree with our premise? Some may equate that to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Food for thought. Open your eyes, experiential learning. Some of my patients are in fact MD’s

By: GerryC

GerryC — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:31:55 +0000

This whole UK thing piqued my interest in the topic of Chiropractic and how insidious it is here in Adelaide.
A local chiropractic (who calls himself a doctor but doesn’t indicate that he is a doctor of chiropractic) has this page on his website:

http://www.paradechiropractic.com.au/research/safety.htm

On it, he talks about a New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Chiropractic in 1978 which said that chiropractic was “remarkably safe”. Has anyone got any other information about this commission – it is a little hard to pin down.

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:55:58 +0000

My local paper in Sydney had Homeopathy and Astrology in the news section … The Journalist was “treated” and reccommends it to readers.
… oh look the Newsagent has “New Age” magazines in the Science section…
It’s going to be one hard slog for eternity.

By: Mick

Mick — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:22:10 +0000

Goddam it, that’s my local paper ! I saw this article and was going to write a letter to editor. Been too distracted by the recent fluoridation debate to do it though….

By: AndyD

AndyD — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:53:30 +0000

Not alone…
.
A search for “chiropractor colic” limited to Australia, turns up quite a few Aussie results on page one.

By: Grendel

Grendel — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:37:42 +0000

It suddenly occurred to me while reading this post that chiropracters probably get most of their information from industry journals and thus it is the editorial standards of these journals that are critical. if they do not hold to the same standard as a medical journal then they will be passing on ‘clinical’ information to chiropracters that is quite probably only good as passing comment or anecdote.

The ‘chiropracter-on-the-street’ with no real training in discernment of such information or critical evaluation of research is therefore likely to take it as chiropractic gospel and try to treat conditions that they are totally unqualified to diagnose let alone treat.

This does not absolve the individual practitioner but it does indicate that standards for the quality and veracity of informations must start at the top of any industry and remain consistent all the way through.

And with that, there is no way you’ll find me receiving chiropractic treatment for any reason!

By: @eemyoo

@eemyoo — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:57:27 +0000

Oops, I meant to add that according to the Chiropractors definition of “Advertising” (including “advertorials”), the claims may be in breach of section 94(1d) of the Victorian Health Professions Registration Act 2005 Act No. 97/2005 http://bit.ly/PVLUf:
“94. Advertising
(1) A person must not advertise a regulated health
service or a business providing regulated health
services in a manner which—
(d) creates an unreasonable expectation of
beneficial treatment;”

But then again, is “equivalent to placebo” considered unreasonable?

By: @eemyoo

@eemyoo — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:46:09 +0000

I’ve done a little research that suggests the article might have crossed the line, especially if you use the Board’s own Advertising guidelines:

CHIROPRACTORS REGISTRATION BOARD OF VICTORIA – STANDARDS OF PRACTICE GUIDELINES (ADVERTISING) MARCH 2008
http://www.chiroreg.vic.gov.au/docs/gl_advertising.pdf

Of note:
Section 2, Paragraph 3:
“Advertising also includes situations where practitioners make themselves available for, or provide information to, media reports, magazine articles or advertorials.”

Section 5, Paragraph 2:
Practitioners should … be mindful that some consumers may have particular vulnerabilities in relation to the advertising of, and the provision of chiropractic services.

Section 5, Paragraph 4:
In determining whether an advertisement is misleading, or whether it creates an unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment or directly, or indirectly, encourages the indiscriminate or
unnecessary use of chiropractic services, the Board will consider the overall impression of the advertisement and the likely impact the advertisement may have on a member of the public, Specifically, the Board will consider what conclusions a member of the public can reasonable infer from material contained within an advertisement and whether the material is likely to mislead or deceive either directly or by omission.

Section 6.3, Paragraph 2:
Scientific information in an advertisement should:
.. Be presented in a manner that is accurate, balanced and not misleading,
.. Use terminology that is readily understood by the audience to whom it is directed,
.. Identify the relevant researchers, sponsors and the academic publication in which the data appears.”

Also for reference:
Victorian Health Professions Registration Act 2005
Act No. 97/2005 http://bit.ly/PVLUf