(Note: this is the infamous article on chiropractic that got Simon Singh sued. It is being reposted all over the web today by multiple blogs and online magazines.)

---

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

---

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

The boy who was in the news recently for his Hodgkin lymphoma that his family wanted to treat with ineffectual homeopathy and herbs is actually getting better — now that the courts have ordered him to continue the medically functional chemotherapy treatments.

He doesn’t like chemotherapy, though (and who would?), and there are these interesting rationalizations going on.

Daniel Hauser was not at the court hearing but later told The Associated Press he had hoped he would be able to stop chemotherapy, which he said makes him ill.
“I get really sick when I do it,” the teen said during an interview at his family’s farm at Sleepy Eye. “You get so dizzy and I get a headache right away.”

Daniel said he believes his tumor’s improvement comes from alternative treatments he’s doing such as supplemental drinks and pills.

His parents also remain concerned about the risks of chemotherapy, which they initially rejected for religious reasons, saying it harms the body. But they told Brown County Judge John Rodenberg during the today’s hearing that they would take their son to a Wednesday chemo appointment.

Colleen Hauser told the AP at her home that doctors said it would take six months to treat her son’s Hodgkin’s lymphoma when he was first diagnosed, but they’ve now seen improvement in the past few weeks.

“Wow,” she said. “Something’s working.”

But when asked if she credits the chemotherapy, she said, “I’m not going to say it’s not, but I just want to make it clear that I would like a better plan, a better treatment plan, for Danny.”

You just know that if Daniel is cured, and we all hope he is, he and his mother will blindly give full credit to whatever magic water she has him drinking…anything other than the icky chemotherapy that actually does the job.

It’s called Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal gel. Unfortunately, it doesn’t do a thing for colds…all it can do is destroy your sense of smell. It wasn’t caught before it was put on the market, because, get this:

The FDA said Zicam Cold Remedy was never formally approved because it is part of a small group of remedies that are not required to undergo federal review before launching. Known as homeopathic products, the formulations often contain herbs, minerals and flowers.

Minerals. Like lots of zinc, which can cause nerve damage.

Look here: Britain’s National Health Service threw away £12 million on homeopathic treatments. It’s a complete waste; millions were spent on teeny-tiny bottles of ‘special’ water that could have been had for pennies from the local water tap.

But hah! America is #1! We spent $2.5 billion on remedies that don’t work! Doesn’t that make you all feel so good right now? Now one might reasonably argue that paying all that money for clear negative results really isn’t that bad; good science doesn’t begin with your conclusion, and good studies can show that a hypothesis was wrong. Unfortunately, these were studies that a) were begun with no good reason to think they would work (the principles of sympathetic magic are not valid premises for research), and b) despite the fact that the treatments were disproven, quacks will continue to peddle them, and gullible people will continue to use them.

While I’m complaining about altie nonsense, remind me to never get in an auto accident in Maryland. I might get tucked into a helicopter and flown to this:

At one of the nation’s top trauma hospitals, a nurse circles a patient’s bed, humming and waving her arms as if shooing evil spirits. Another woman rubs a quartz bowl with a wand, making tunes that mix with the beeping monitors and hissing respirator keeping the man alive.
They are doing Reiki therapy, which claims to heal through invisible energy fields.

Thanks, Rogue Medic, you’ve just increased my fear of hospitals.

It looks like an admission of guilt to me. The McTimoney Association, a British chiropractic group, has sent out mail to its members urging them to immediately shut down all of their websites. Why? Because, as a result of the Simon Singh fracas, people are becoming aware that chiropractors are making “claims for treatment that cannot be substantiated with … research”, so they’re trying to make the quackery go away fast. (By the way, my ellipsis removed the word “chiropractic”; I would not trust chiropractic research, but they can’t even provide that). It’s a hilarious message — they flat out admit that common claims made on chiropractic websites put them at risk for prosecution.

About time! Now we just need something to trigger American watchdog groups to clamp down on the quacks over here.

(via Phil Plait)

I’m impressed. It’s a highly critical article about Oprah’s peddling of quackery, and it’s about time one of the big media players pointed out that she is promoting dangerous fake therapies…all with a happy smile, of course, and a message of positive self-esteem for women. It’s still credulous glop, though.

It also summarizes why she’s successful.

At some point, it would seem, people will stop looking to Oprah for this kind of guidance. This will never happen. Oprah’s audience admires her as much for her failings as her successes. In real life, she has almost nothing in common with most of her viewers. She is an unapproachable billionaire with a private jet and homes around the country who hangs out with movie stars. She is not married and has no children. But television Oprah is a different person. She somehow manages to make herself believable as a down-to-earth everywoman. She is your girlfriend who struggles to control her weight and balance her work and personal life, just like you. When she recently related the story of how humiliated she felt when she arrived for a photo shoot to find that she couldn’t fit into the clothes she was supposed to wear, she knew she had every member of the audience in her hand. Oprah’s show is all about second and third and fourth chances to fix your life, and the promise that the next new thing to come along will be the one that finally works.

And then it goes on to talk about how she touted “The Secret”.

I have just read the most awesomely insane but calmly stated collection of dangerous medical advice ever. Andreas Moritz claims cancer is not a disease — it’s a healthy response to stress. Guess what causes cancer? Guilt, low self-esteem, and insufficient spirituality.

Cancer has always been an extremely rare illness, except in industrialized nations during the past 40-50 years. Human genes have not significantly changed for thousands of years. Why would they change so drastically now, and suddenly decide to kill scores of people? The answer to this question is amazingly simple: Damaged or faulty genes do not kill anyone. Cancer does not kill a person afflicted with it! What kills a cancer patient is not the tumor, but the numerous reasons behind cell mutation and tumor growth. These root causes should be the focus of every cancer treatment, yet most oncologists typically ignore them. Constant conflicts, guilt and shame, for example, can easily paralyze the body’s most basic functions, and lead to the growth of a cancerous tumor.

After having seen thousands of cancer patients over a period of three decades, I began to recognize a certain pattern of thinking, believing and feeling that was common to most of them. To be more specific, I have yet to meet a cancer patient who does not feel burdened by some poor self-image, unresolved conflict and worries, or past emotional trauma that still lingers in his/her subconscious. Cancer, the physical disease, cannot occur unless there is a strong undercurrent of emotional uneasiness and deep-seated frustration.

It goes on and on like that — it’s a whole chapter of a book that I presume must go on even longer with this quackery. The whole thing is this illogical mish-mash of unsupported claims and ridiculous conclusions. Cancer has been known for ages; it wasn’t that rare. Animals get cancer, and I doubt that it is caused by “emotional uneasiness”. We see more cancers now than we did a thousand years ago because today you are less likely to be slaughtered by the pox, poor sanitation, or a spear in the belly, and are more likely to live a longer life. We know many of the genetic causes of cancer: somatic mutations that knock out portions of the apoptotic pathways (cells are always on the knife edge of spontaneously killing themselves if errors occur in replication, for instance, and removing the hair trigger can allow more errors to accumulate) will increase the cell’s predisposition to become cancerous. Those mutations are not induced by subconscious worries.

The entire premise behind this guy’s schtick is false. Anyone who thinks an essential question to ask yourself if diagnosed is “What is the spiritual growth lesson behind cancer?” is a quack who’s out to take advantage of you and the worries that having cancers will naturally cause.

Another clue is to look at his qualifications.

Andreas Moritz is a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist.

Dear sweet jebus, if that guy asked me to blow my nose I wouldn’t trust his medical advice. What the hell is a “medical intuitive”? Someone who doesn’t have a scrap of knowledge or evidence, but diagnoses and prescribes on the basis of his feelings? That’s the impression I get from the collection of lies he has written.