This post is an update on my earlier discussions with the General Chiropractic Council on the subject of the evidence to support various claims surrounding the Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Complex (VSC).
The background to this post can be found here:
Subluxations: We’ve never considered the research Pt1
Subluxations: We’ve never considered the research Pt2
This resulted in the GCC issuing some guidance to its members. To say this new guidance was unpopular with chiropractors would be something of an understatement. Chiropractors in the UK (and abroad) became very vocal in demanding this guidance be changed.
An organisation calling itself the Alliance of UK Chiropractors (AUKC) was formed and they proceeded to put pressure on the GCC to reinstate their beloved subluxation. Afterall, chiropractic without subluxations is little more than a vigorous back rub!
Eventually the GCC gave way and issued an amendment to their guidance. More on this can be found here: GCC under pressure over subluxations
The GCC’s original statement was that there was no evidence to support subluxation claims, yet after this meeting they changed the guidance. If they are going to allow subluxations to be linked to health concerns, then surely they must now have some evidence. The AUKC had submitted a ‘120 page dossier’ they describe as:
“A lengthy and detailed presentation was made by the Alliance about the VSC and a substantial 120 page dossier entitled The Vertebral Subluxation Complex – The History, Science, Evolution and Current Quantum Thinking on a Chiropractic Tenet was also presented to Council members”.
Maybe that contains the evidence!
So on 27 Aug I wrote to the GCC asking if they could explain the reasoning behind changing the guidance and asked if they now had any evidence. My personal view was that these changes had more to do with chiropractic politics than actual evidence.
My letter can be found here: GCC_SubluxRevisionX
The GCC’s response is here: GCCSubluxReply
I also asked for a copy of the 120 page dossier. At present I don’t have a copy of the dossier and this is ongoing as part of an FOIA request to the GCC. There will be more on this in a later blog post.
However it is clear that whilst the AUKC may consider this dossier important, the GCC very clearly do not. They have stated that
“the changes to the GCC’s guidance on the chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex (VSC) were not based on the contents of the dossier”
And ….
”the Council has not discussed the dossier, either during or after the meeting with the professional associations, and has no view on it”
At first glance it seems odd that although this dossier was presented to the GCC during discussions on the VSC the GCC seem keen to distance themselves from it and are reluctant to make any public comment on its contents.
That alone speaks volumes for the quality of the information contained in the dossier. If it contained any credible evidence to support claims surrounding the VSC then I think we could be sure it would have played a part in the decision making.
What we do know is that the dossier contains input from Christopher Kent D.C (a confirmed anti-Vax campaigner ) and Bruce Lipton (a chiropractic supporter with some ‘fringe’ ideas on genetics ), I’m sure it will make an interesting read, even though the AUKC seem reluctant to release it.
Reading the GCC’s response you’ll see there is no mention of new evidence linking the VSC and ‘health concerns’. They do mentions the NHS Clinical Knowledge Summary on low back pain (without radiculopathy), linking lower back pain to ‘disturbance of function’.
What they fail to mention is that this report doesn’t actually cover the VSC and the only condition it mentions is ‘lower back pain’. Current NICE guidelines only consider that chiropractic can be considered as a treatment option for ONE condition – Lower Back Pain.
Even if we were to accept this as suitable evidence for the VSC, then perhaps the GCC’s guidance should limit itself to ‘lower back pain’ rather than allowing more general ‘health concerns’.
Chiropractors & the GCC would do well to look at NHS information that specifically relates to chiropractic!
NHS Patient Information: Common uses for Chiropractic
NHS Patient Information: Chiropractic Evidence
What should not be overlooked in the GCC’s letter is their comment that:
“Council considered whether to replace the words ‘and health concerns’ with ‘and specific conditions’ but this was considered unnecessary as ‘disease’ would include specific conditions”
So if ‘disease’ is to be taken to mean any ‘specific condition’ then it is clear that chiropractors should not be making any specific claims linked to the presence of the VSC. If the VSC is not actually responsible for any specific condition, then chiropractors have no reason to conduct X-rays based on the supposed presence of a VSC!
I’ll finnish this post by repeating a comment from a study called ‘An epidemiological examination of the subluxation construct using Hill’s criteria of causation’), this research concludes that:
“No supportive evidence is found for the chiropractic subluxation being associated with any disease process or of creating suboptimal health conditions requiring intervention”
Again it is important to remember that any evidence should not only establish a link between a ‘disturbance of function’ and a particular condition, but MUST also show that chiropractic manipulation is justified as a treatment!
I’m sure the AUKC will look favourably on my request for a copy of the dossier!
Paul
October 26, 2010
Quackwatch – reliable? Don’t make me laugh LOL
Is this the same quackwatch run by an unlicensed Pennsylvania psychiatrist who by self admission in court failed the certification exam despite providing supposed expert testimony in numerous court cases and whom has also variously claimed to be a legal expert despite having no formal legal training. Might make one ask who was the quack?
BTW the same chap has conceded his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Not a great example of non bias then …
Try harder Blue Wode
Blue Wode
October 26, 2010
@ Paul
I’m interested to know what you consider to be inaccuracies on the Quackwatch website:
http://www.quackwatch.com/
Please list them.
Thank you.
Richard Lanigan
October 26, 2010
I was curious to know why they did not just collaborate with EBMfirst when you have done all the work and they will just regurgitate the stuff you have regurgitated from Ernst, Hall and Barrett et al.
Sorry I should have said with the exception of Steven Barett and Hariet Hall, neither of whom practice and like you devote much of their time to slagging off chiropractic. Surely you would agree David Sackett holds much more credibility in the world of EBM that Hall, but as I have said before you do like to cherry pick your evidence.
Dont know what “cacophony” means so can not comment on that.
As I sign off from this discussion, I am happy for Blue Wode to have the last word. Blue Wode do you agree with David Sacketts point http://www.bmj.com/content/312/7023/71.full “Good doctors use both individual clinical expertise and the best available external evidence, and neither alone is enough. Without clinical expertise, practice risks becoming tyrannised by evidence, for even excellent external evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual patient”. Without current best evidence, practice risks becoming rapidly out of date, to the detriment of patients.”
Try not to woffel on all, or go off the subject and tell me about all the people who must have have died in my practice etc etc. Just answer one simple question if you can. Do you agree with Sacketts definition of EBM?
For those that dont know David Sackett is recognised as the father of “evidence based medicine”.
Paul
October 26, 2010
@Blue Wode – too many and too time consuming – provide better sources to quote from you are starting to look like a dick …
Blue Wode
October 26, 2010
@ Richard Lanigan
Re the Nightingale Collaboration – when it comes to rational thinking and the publishing of factual and accurate information, the more the merrier. I find it flattering that the Nightingale Collaboration might rely on my website as a source of good information.
Re Sackett, yes I agree with him, but not to the point where it might allow patients to be exploited and their lives put in danger by deluded or greedy therapists who work in private practice.
Blue Wode
October 26, 2010
@ Paul
I can only conclude that you are unable to provide any examples of inaccurances on the Quackwatch website.
Paul
October 26, 2010
@ Blue Wode
Of course you would – others might conclude the same as I have and in light of Stephen Barratt’s bias, lies and established vested interests – might also conclude you are a dick for continuing to hold on tight to a discredtied source.
I ‘d leave this one for anyone interested to decide upon as I too bow out.
JDean
October 26, 2010
Paul said “…bias, lies and established vested interests”
Oh the irony! There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
JDean
October 26, 2010
Paul
OK, let’s talk about bias and vested interests. Without getting into whatever reasons you may have for thinking Stephen Barrett is biased or what his vested interests are, all he is doing is providing information on a website. If he is biased, you are free to ignore it. He is not treating patients.
Chiros, on the other hand (who make money out of treating their customers), keep bleating on about being regulated by people who just don’t understand chiro and how they need yet more chiros on the GCC so they can be ‘properly’ regulated.
Then we’ve got the Bronfort report, written by chiros, but the wrong sort of chiros, apparently, but still a misrepresentation of the evidence.
If you really are worried about bias and vested interests, don’t you think you need to look a bit closer to home?
JDean
October 26, 2010
Paul said “@Blue Wode…you are starting to look like a dick …”
Too late! That title has already been bagged.
skepticat
October 26, 2010
Richard said “Even the sketics realise it is biased and have launched a new forum for information on CAM http://www.nightingale-collaboration.org/“.
This is very interesting but I don’t see anything about being a ‘forum’ or ‘information on CAM’ on that website.
Blue Wode
October 26, 2010
David wrote:
I disagree, I think it demonstrates – or rather tries to conceal – the difficulty chiropractors are having in producing even half-decent evidence for what they do.
David wrote:
And it sounds pretty meaningless to me. It’s a definition which has similarities to the one produced recently by the World Federation of Chiropractic in its attempt to rebrand the industry. The well-respected veteran chiropractor, Samuel Homola, had the following to say about it:
David wrote:
Once again, I disagree. I think it’s very relevant to the point – i.e. where do chiropractors go from here considering the mess that they’re in? Once again I would refer you to Samuel Homola’s astute observations:
In view of everything that’s been discussed above, it almost seems that chiropractors are flogging a dead horse – one that they’ve slaughtered themselves.
Paul
October 26, 2010
@ Blue Wode
“The well-respected veteran chiropractor, Samuel Homola”
LOL
JDean
October 26, 2010
Good gawd, SB! Whatever happened to professionalism? Doesn’t their code say-
“You must not discriminate against or unjustly criticise another health professional.”
Or is Homola not a health professional any more because he is retired and therefore fair game?
Paul
October 26, 2010
@ JDean
“The well-respected veteran”
ROLMAO
JDean
October 26, 2010
So Paul do you think he not a veteran or do you think he is not well-respected, or both? If so, why?