|
I always find it unfortunate when people write articles which either by design or by ignorance include references from individuals who are known liars. Stephen Barret, Samual Homola and Murray Katz's primary claims to fame are their long standing bias against chiropractic. In Dr. Katz's case, he has been thrown out of courtrooms for purgery. They consistently and vocally report on a very few studies which show little benefit of chiropractic and ignore a tremendous number of studies (published in medical not chiropractic journals) which show tremendous benefit to chiropractic care.
The topic of stroke following chiropractic adjustments is the most telling. Many studies show that the risk is around 1 in 2 to 4 million adjustments. Compare that to the risks of medical treatment for similar ailments. Just using OTC ibuprofen carries a risk of death at the rate of 1 per 40 thousand doses. The assessment that most cases of back pain clear up on their own was shot down by a large study published in the British Medical Journal. Do some cases clear up on their own? Of course. However as many as 80% of patients continued to report pain, even though they had stopped medical care because it wasn't working.
The bottom line is this: If you are going to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of a profession, at least include sources on both sides of the issue. Inform yourself so that you can retain some objectivity. By only including information from the fringe group such as NACM (of which Barrett, Katz and Homola are all operatives of) you are doing your readers a great disservice.
Eric L. Smith, D.C.
|
Linear Mode
