Question

3 comments

1. Dr Isaac • 11 July 2010

   These papers were indeed ground-breaking. They did not get “lost in the mail” as the previous submitter suggests. In fact, its my hope that the doctors submitting these papers didn’t waste their time trying to submit them to JAMA. JAMA is a MEDICAL journal steeped in medical, mechanistic, reductionistic philosophy. JAMA is not the authority on health. If anything its the authority on sickness and disease. These are two completely different things.

   What’s more, JAMA is practically OWNED by the pharmaceutical industry. Drug companies contribute exorbitant amounts of money in the form of sponsorship and ad revenue to this and most other medical journals. Do you see ANY conflict of interest when it comes to publishing research that suggests that chiropractic adjustments over the course of a lifetime optimize the function, performance, and health of a human being? Do you see ANY conflict of interest on the part of these journals when it comes to publishing studies that add to the already overwhelming body of knowledge and human experience that suggests that chemicals, pills, potions, serums, and injections have absolutely NOTHING to do with health and are only a blessing in emergency situations? I see a conflict of interest. In fact i see billions of them.

   Why did JAMA publish, in the infamous CLASS study, only the first 6 months of the study data, leaving out the remaining 6 months? It was because this study was designed to compare the risk of serious gastrointestinal problems in people taking Celebrex with those taking ibuprofen. And guess when six out of seven serious gastrointestinal complications occurred in this study… that’s right, the SECOND six months, the ones that were mysteriously omitted (or perhaps this data got lost in the mail).

   Why did the New England Journal of Medicine publish the notorious VIGOR study touting the supposed miraculous gastrointestinal benefits of Vioxx when the subjects studied in this study were vastly different than the majority of people for whom doctors prescribe NSAIDS? More than half the people in this study were taking steroids in addition to the NSAID. Only a small percentage of people for whom Vioxx is prescribed in the general public concurrently take a steroid. Why is this important? Because buried in the fine print of the NEJM article was the finding that among the people in the study who were not taking steroids, the reduction in the risk of serious gastrointestinal complications was NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

   Its smoke and mirrors folks. Its so easy to manipulate the outcomes or interpretations of these studies and the only ones published are the ones allowed through by the gatekeepers. You can only trust these journals as far as you can trust Big Pharma. Drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex killed 60,000 people before they were finally taken off the shelves. But not before the drug companies raked in billions.

   Be careful where you choose to seek your information. Understand the bias of those writing and publishing the studies. And above all, do not speak negatively against those things you do not understand.

2. Jason • 21 June 2010

   Note both of these were published in Chiropractic journals. Presumably their submission of this ground-breaking work to JAMA was lost in the mail. Calling either paper “real evidence” is more than a stretch.

   The 1st reference is available on PubMed, and there is no mention in the abstract that there was a control group used, so the study doesn’t appear to answer whether the results were due to placebo, human contact, or actual spinal manipulation.

   “Conclusion: The initial evidence is inconclusive, however, the potential relationship demands further investigation.”

   The 2nd is light on details, and i wouldn’t go so far as to call it a research paper, it’s more the author’s summary of his work. I don’t think anyone could attempt to reproduce these results without more information.

   “This needs confirmation. We need to look at this more seriously. But, it’s very interesting that whatever this particular group is doing — and one thing we all recognize they did is have long-term chiropractic care — it does seem to have aborted this particular relationship to immune competence.”

   I would encourage the questioner to at least take a look at Dr. Carroll’s excellent treatment of Chiropractic, from a more skeptical standpoint, located here:

   http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

   (Note Dr. Carroll holds a PhD in Philosophy, he is not a medical doctor.)

3. j geres • 16 May 2010

   Here is some real evidence

   The effect of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy on salivary cortisol levels.  Tuchin PJ. Journal  of Australasian Chiropractic and Osteopathy, July 1998; 7(2), pp. 86-92
   Saliva samples were analyzed and results showed reduction or no increase of salivary cortisol suggesting that chiropractic care had a measurable calming, physically soothing and restorative effect.

   Pero R. “Medical Researcher Excited By CBSRF Project Results.” The Chiropractic Journal, August 1989; 32.
   initial three-year study of 107 individuals who had been under chiropractic care for five years or more, the chiropractic patients were found to have a 200% greater immune competence than people who had not received chiropractic care, and 400% greater immune competence than people with cancer and other serious diseases. The immune system superiority of those under chiropractic care did not diminish with age. Dr. Pero stated:

   “When applied in a clinical framework, I have never seen a group other than this chiropractic group to experience a 200% increase over the normal patients. This is why it is so dramatically important. We have never seen such a positive improvement in a group…”

   Go get your spine adjusted, it is the best thing you can do for your health.