Beware the spinal trap

Beware the spinal trap

by Simon Singh

Editor’s note

On 19 April 2008, Singh wrote an article in the UK based newspaper The Guardian, which resulted in him being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

Libel, yes. Criticize a scientific claim and you could be guilty of defamation.

Fortunately, Simon Singh is fighting this, with the help of an increasing number of supporters. Many have reprinted the article, as I do here.

I originally wanted to reprint the original in full, with the offending paragraph. However, that is not possible.

Not because I am afraid that the British Chiropractic Association will also sue me, along with Simon Singh.

The reason is much, much worse, and clearly illustrates why the law in question is pure insanity.

When I contacted, the charity that runs the campaign in support of Simon Singh, and expressed my desire to reprint the original article, I was informed that each subsequent reprint of the original article is, under English libel law, a new instance of libel by Simon Singh – not whoever prints it.

No law should ever be constructed in such a manner. It eradicates personal responsibility and substitutes it with guilt by proxy: You are twice guilty because I did what you did – even if I do it outside English jurisdiction.

The following article is therefore a lawyer-sanitized version. However, the offending paragraph can be found on the Wikipedia entry on Simon Singh.

Please do yours to support Simon Singh in his fight against this blatant attack on freedom of speech and scientific freedom. The law has no place in scientific disputes.

Claus Larsen

Beware the spinal trap

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.

October 12, 2009

Chiropractor lodges complaint against Australian Skeptics

“Following the publication of Simon Singh’s article on the Australian Skeptics website, chiropractor Joseph Ierano wrote a letter to the organisation with a detailed if somewhat rambling rebuff of the article. Being an organisation of volunteers we thought a detailed response by Australian Skeptics President, Eran Segev, within three weeks was a good effort, but two weeks after responding we received a letter from the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) indicating Mr Ierano has lodged a complaint against Australian Skeptics.”

Read the full story here.