by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Chiropractic Journal of Australia : CJA March 2013
34 Chiropractic Journal of Australia Volume 43 Number 1 March 2013 Science in Medicine' ('FOSIM'), funded by the Australian Skeptics, Inc. (‘AS’)?2 Has the MU Executive ('UE') been infuenced by their activities to request the name change? The commentary states that 'The word "chiropractic" is seen as synonymous with non-evidence based practice.’, and inaccurately cites Ernst in support.3 Is the UE relying on one paper by Ernst, in spite of his record?4,5 His book's 43-page chapter on chiropractic, published fve years ago, is supported by just fve references. He refers those seeking more to the book's web site, which still offers only the statement ‘References coming soon.’ 6,7 Has the UE used this standard of evidence to judge chiropractic as synonymous with non-evidence based? Is it ignoring the evidence supporting chiropractic?8,9 The commentary states that '... "subluxation" has a more political and clinical meaning than a scientifc meaning. The Skeptics and FOS perceive the word subluxation as "dogma", or a word that is intended to be self-evident as opposed to a word that is embedded in evolving scientific principles.’ 'Subluxation' is 'clinical', as that is where they are found and corrected. By the accepted defnition, 75% of the evidence-base of practice is ‘clinical.’10 What is its 'political' meaning? What about the substantial evidence contrary to these claims?11,12 To which static model, historical model and historical concepts does the commentary refer? With what should they be replaced, and on what basis of evidence? Which 'similar language' should be used 'that expresses what chiropractic does', so 'we relate better to our health delivery colleagues'? The language of medicine? What is it that chiropractic does, expressed in that language? What evidence is there that the changes suggested would lead to relating better? What in the UE's standards of critical thought has apparently led it to disregard the evidence supporting chiropractic? Dennis Richards BSc, DC, Grad Cert Phil Studies, ACP, FACC, FICC REFERENCES 1. Accessed at: https://www.friendsodscience.org/index.php?id=1 2. Accessed at: http://www.scienceinmedicine.org.au/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=132&Itemid=161 3. Ernest E. Chiropractic: A critical evaluation. J Pain Sympt Management 2008; 35(5):65-78. 4. Morely J, Rosner AL, Redwood D. A case study of misrepresentation of the scientifc literature: Recent reviews of chiropractic. J Altern Complement Med. 2001;71:65-78. 5. Tuchin P. A replication of the study ‘Adverse effects of spinal manipulatiuon: a systemic revie. Chiropr Manual Ther 2012; 20:30. Accessed at: http://chiromt.com/content/20/1/30. 6. Sing S, Ernest E. Trick or Treatment. London: Corgi Books 2009, p.391-3. 7. Accessed February 6, 2013 at: http://trickortreatment.com/references. html. 8. Redwood D. Chiropractic research and practice. Kansas City: Cleveland College of Chiropractic 2010. 9. Anon. Studies on chiropractic. National Board of Chiropractic Examiners 2010. Accessed at: https://www.nbce.org/pdfs/practice- analysis/studies.pdf. 10. Straus SDE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB. Evidence- based medicine. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, 2005:1. 11. Gatterman MI, Ed. Foundations of chiropractic subluxation. 2nd ed. St Louis: Elsevier Mosby. 12. Accessed at: http://smcc.ca/page.aspx?pid=751. Editor 's note: Dr Eaton declined to respond LETTERS
CJA December 2012
CJA June 2013