Re: (Fwd) Re: guidelines/ethics

Kennita Watson (
Mon, 30 Dec 1996 22:09:10 -0800

>If I sound like a lackey of the AMA, allow me to correct that. I have
>no love for them, or the FDA, or any other forced monopoly. I simply
>wish to debunk the "The establishment supresses cheap cures" meme that
>charlatans employ to justify their snake oil.

Please leave chiropractic out of this. Yes, there are charlatans,
even some chiropractors are probably charlatans, but chiropractic is
not by nature a charlatan's art. BTW, I take one thing I said back.
For my own amusement, I tried looking up studies on chiropractic, and contains an article titled:
"A Progress Report of Chiropractic Efficacy in the Treatment of Chronic Low
Back Pain, Neck Pain, Headaches and Related Peripheral Conditions: a
Double-blinded Time-series Study.". There's apparently a study
technique called "crossover" that allows a form of double-blinding even
for treatments like chiropractic. Intriguing study, though I think it has

In further support of its having been borne out over time, more and more
(I'd say most by now) insurance companies cover chiropractic treatment. I
think some are starting to cover acupuncture. Massage therapy is rarely
covered. I don't know of any that cover herbal/homeopathic treatments.
Not conclusive, but insurance companies don't want to lose money, so they
tend to cover only treatments shown to be "safe and effective" (especially

"The Magna Report -- commissioned by the Ontario Ministry of Health --
which studied ways to reduce health care costs associated with lower back
pain concluded that chiropractic care is the most cost-effective and safest
way to treat lower back pain. This study in combination with the fact that
the American Spine Society considers chiropractic care as the number one
treatment for lower back pain and an article in the Journal of Occupational
Medicine which stated that chiropractic treatment costs only 10% of the
traditional treatment suggests that chiropractors may soon become the
gatekeepers for back pain management in the near future."

A synopsis of various studies can be found at

A debate, with pro and con views, can be found at
reviews a book that, while it admits chiropractic can be useful for low
back pain, cautions against using it for other ailments.

A legal case:

Virtually every other reference (of 200) to "chiropractic" near "effective"
is from the chiropractic community, so I skipped them as biased even though
some of them probably refer to neutral-party studies. None of the 8
references to "chiropractic" near "ineffective" actually is anti-chiropractic.
I was actually surprised at how little anti-chiropractic material I could
find. You'd think the chiropractors were doing the suppressing.

As with any treatment, "use only as directed".


Kennita Watson | The bond that links your true family is not one of blood,| but of respect and joy in each other's life. Rarely do
| members of the same family grow up under the same roof.
| -- Richard Bach, _Illusions_