The answer to back pain is simple

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Chiropractors are on the march

Chiropractor Simon King is one of around 250 professionals who are telling patients that the answer to their chronic back pain could be very straight-forward indeed.

"I've always been fascinated and confused that some people with massive injuries made a quick recovery while others with minor strains took forever to get better," he said.

"Then I made a remarkable discovery. Most patients who struggled to recover from pain or injury had metal touching or piercing their skin."


Mr King says earrings are a common cause of back and neck pain, dentistry and jewellery such as necklaces and watches can cause pain and arthritis.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...onic-pain.html

[Mongrel]

So The Wail is back to normal then.

Still the readers are getting better, 5 replies and 4 of them are rubbishing the piece.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I wonder why they put part of the heading in quotes.

Metal earrings and tooth fillings 'cause chronic back pain'

At least they didn't make it into a question, because the answer to a headline question in the Mail is always a NO

[mwmmitchell]

Simon King practices at the Naturality Wellness Centre in Berkhamsted. I wonder if he has mentioned this theory to his colleague Sean Heneghan (an acupuncturist!)

[Graham Lappin]

As someone with osteoarthritis (originating from a motor cycle accident many years ago) this really makes me very angry. Arthritis (of any type) is painful and believe me you'll try anything to get relief from chronic pain. I really do know this from experience. But then some cowboy charlatan of a woo merchant comes along and starts spouting this crap. I don't care if it's chiropractor, acupuncture or some crystal dangling druid, it all amounts to exploitation of the vulnerable. Their stupidity is dangerous and damaging.

Sorry for the rant - I rather lost my sense of humour on this one

[Blue Wode]

...some cowboy charlatan of a woo merchant comes along and starts spouting this crap. I don't care if it's chiropractor, acupuncture or some crystal dangling druid, it all amounts to exploitation of the vulnerable. Their stupidity is dangerous and damaging.

Sorry for the rant - I rather lost my sense of humour on this one

What particularly incenses me is that Simon King - a registered chiropractor – is required by the UK regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Council, to provide care that is evidence based. See section A2.3 on page 28 here:
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/COPSOP_8Dec05.pdf

However, what the regulators don’t specify is of what quality of evidence is required. When you add to that the fact that the scope of practice for chiropractors in the UK isn’t defined by law, you can only conclude that anecdotes and testimonials - often encompassing a vast array of woo - are perfectly acceptable to the regulators – the same regulators who published a Fitness to Practice Report last week which says:

Abuse of trust or exploitation of lack of knowledge

The trust that the public places in chiropractors can be abused in a variety of ways. It may be through inappropriate marketing activities and the provision of inaccurate information that exploits the public even before they become patients.

-snip-

Marketing, advertising and promotion

Chiropractors have a responsibility to be aware of any marketing, advertising and promotional material published, or circulated, by any practice with which they are associated. Patients and the public need factual information about the health services available to them, and chiropractors should apply their judgement when providing it.

All chiropractors must ensure that all the information they provide, or authorise others to provide on their behalf

_ is factual and verifiable

_ is not misleading or inaccurate in any way

_ does not abuse the trust of members of the public in any way, nor exploit their lack of experience or knowledge about either health or chiropractic matters

More…
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/FITNESS_TO_PRACTISE_REPORT_2007_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE. pdf

Where to start?

[Graham Lappin]

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) the regulatory body in the UK is funded by those who choose to obey the law (ie those dealing with real medicines). The MHRA is not funded from the tax payer but rather from fees levied for inspections and registrations. There are no funds for dealing with those who choose to peddle woo, because the woo peddlers don’t pay any fees. This seems to be to one very big hole in the regulatory net!

[Pebble]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]What particularly incenses me is that Simon King - a registered chiropractor – is required by the UK regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Council, to provide care that is evidence based.
However, what the regulators don’t specify is of what quality of evidence is required. When you add to that the fact that the scope of practice for chiropractors in the UK isn’t defined by law, you can only conclude that anecdotes and testimonials - often encompassing a vast array of woo - are perfectly acceptable to the regulators – the same regulators who published a Fitness to Practice Report last week which says:

Where to start?

Interesting links, thank you.

I wonder if the Fitness to practice council would respond to a complaint about this article? I think it would be very difficult to argue that a statement that most back pain is due to metal contact is either factual or verifiable. So this could be regarded as scare-mongering to increase one's own practice, do you think it is worth a shot?

[Blue Wode]

I wonder if the Fitness to practice council would respond to a complaint about this article? I think it would be very difficult to argue that a statement that most back pain is due to metal contact is either factual or verifiable. So this could be regarded as scare-mongering to increase one's own practice, do you think it is worth a shot?

Probably not, Pebble, for the following reasons:

Firstly, in addition to supposedly ‘protecting patients’ and ‘setting standards’, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) has, as part of its remit, a duty to promote the chiropractic profession in the UK. See here:
http://www.gcc-uk.org/page.cfm?page_id=7

This has seen it frequently countering negative reports in the media about chiropractic. See here for some of its recent letters to editors:
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=40405&postcount=3

However, when any woo-laden promotion of chiropractic appears in the press, it invariably seems to turn a blind eye to it. For example, here’s a link to a wholly misleading article about chiropractic, written by a UK chiropractor, which recently appeared in a national newspaper:
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=38134&postcount=229

It’s well worth a read.

Secondly, the activist group, Action for Victims of Chiropractic, has written to the GCC several times in the past and it hasn’t really got anywhere with its enquiries. Indeed, the most recent reply it received from the GCC confirmed that adjustment of the atlas, cranioscral therapy, and applied kinesiology, all fall within the definition of evidence-based care:
http://www.chirovictims.org.uk/images/GCC%20letter%20to%20AVC%2017.11.06%20page%202%200f %203.jpg
(See the answer to Question 5 (1) – easier to read if you print it out)

Some people may be taken aback by that response from the GCC, but perhaps it isn’t too surprising when you consider that half of the chiropractic members who currently serve on the its committees not only buy into chiropractic subluxation theory (total woo), but also are members of one or more of the UK’s four chiropractic associations, all of which appear to support chiropractic subluxation theory:

The British Chiropractic Association’s website says “As you go through life, a loss of proper function (movement) in the vertebrae, which some chiropractors call a subluxation, may interfere with the healthy working of your spine and the nerves that run through it. This may affect your body’s natural ability to recover from injury and you may find yourself increasingly unwell, unable to shake off apparently minor aches, pains and even some illnesses.”
http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Servicing%20your%20spine.pdf

The UK McTimoney Chiropractic Association says “By correctly training hands as an instrument of innate intelligence, healing can be encouraged to take place by the detection and correction of bony subluxations (slight displacements)”:
http://www.mctimoney-chiropractic.org/mca_objectives.htm

The UK United Chiropractic Association says (on the subject of ‘vitalism’) “We ascribe to the idea that all living organisms are sustained by an innate intelligence, which is both different from and greater than physical and chemical forces. Further we believe innate intelligence is an expression of universal intelligence…We recognize that interference to innate intelligence (subluxation) diminishes healing capacity, with an alteration in the dynamic interrelationship between mental, physical and social aspects of the whole person”:
http://www.united-chiropractic.org/modules/content/index.php?id=4

And the Scottish Chiropractic Association says “Chiropractors are able to examine and evaluate a child’s spine to determine if they can help problems such as colic, asthma, bedwetting, eczema and sleeping difficulties. Chiropractors advise that a child’s spine be checked for subluxations and postural distortions before any symptoms are even present”:
http://www.sca-chiropractic.org/index2.htm

Now what’s really interesting, in view of the above, is that a massive lawsuit was filed in Alberta, Canada, on 12th June 2008 (see here http://www.chirobase.org/08Legal/nette.html ) which has an 81-page Statement of Claim which contains two paragraphs which appear to very closely describe the way in which chiropractic is currently practised in the UK:

[85] The absence of a scope of practice and standards of practice regulating against the promotion, offer or supply of Inappropriate and Non-beneficial Adjustment in the practice of the profession rendered the College’s [the regulators] legislatively mandated complaints and discipline process of the College a sham…

[193] The bad faith, abuse of power and abuse of public trust of the College in promoting Inappropriate and Non-beneficial Adjustment constituted a marked, persistent and conscious departure from the standards of conduct required of it. It disregarded measures it knew were necessary to protect the plaintiffs and other Class Members from economic predation that threatened their bodily integrity and to protect them from injury in contumelious disregard of their personal safety and rights. The College’s indifference to the consequences warrant the condemnation of this Court through the imposition of punitive damages.

http://www.casewatch.org/mal/nette/claim.pdf

One can only hope that the GCC is paying very close attention to the progress and eventual outcome of that lawsuit because, if successful, it is likely to have quite a substantial knock-on effect here in the UK.