Public should be wary of alternative therapies

[Guest guest]

http://www.news-journalonline.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2010/09/17/publi\

c-should-be-wary-of-alternative-therapies.html

Public should be wary of alternative therapies

By REMIGIO G. LACSAMANA, M.D., Daytona Beach

September 17, 2010 12:05 AM

This is in response to the story " Retired general crusades for chiropractic

care, " in The News-Journal on Aug. 26.

I applaud retired Brig. Gen. Becky Halstead for her 27 years of military

service, but I find troubling her advocacy of chiropractic as an " integral part

of health care, " including providing it in the military services.

Gen. Halstead did not provide any reason as to why she believes chiropractic

adds anything to mainstream medicine other than to say she felt better with

chiropractic treatment for her fibromyalgia when conventional treatments

provided by physicians did not help her. But isolated testimonials like this do

not provide scientific evidence that chiropractic works, particularly for an

ill-defined disease-complex like fibromyalgia for which a lot of controversies

still exist.

A chiropractic student's statement that " all forms of health care are important "

and that there is no right or wrong way, just a different approach, ignores the

reality that a lot of pseudo-science is being peddled to the public.

Science-based health care should be grounded on established laws or principles

of human biology including anatomy, physiology and chemistry. Chiropractic has

been an utter failure in that regard. It was founded in 1895 by a charismatic

magnetic healer, D.D. Palmer, on the notion that all human illness is caused by

so-called " subluxation, " or misalignment of the vertebrae, and through which a

force he called Innate Intelligence flows. But chiropractic has never provided

scientific validity for this ideology and, in fact, has been discredited by

multiple scientific reviews. A noted anatomist from Yale University, Dr. Edmund

S. Crelin, demonstrated beyond doubt in 1973 that subluxation of the vertebrae

as an anatomical concept is nonexistent, except in very rare circumstances in

which the spine is damaged by trauma or disease like cancer. Chiropractic

treatment in the form of manipulation, therefore, ought not to work for a long

list of problems that chiropractors treat.

Many chiropractors claim they are capable of treating illnesses like asthma,

allergies, menstrual cramps, colic, bed-wetting, autism and ADHD. Some even

believe that the process of birthing gives rise to subluxation, which explains

why they schedule regular chiropractic treatment for infants and babies.

But the advocacy by chiropractors of regular " spinal adjustments " to maintain

health, in essence, constitutes a useless therapeutic exercise. Yes, it costs a

lot of money, but for what?

I begin to wonder whether Gen. Halstead, in this age of science, really believes

in what she is advocating. The fact is, a significant number of chiropractors

have distanced themselves from D.D. Palmer's antiquated notion of subluxation,

giving rise to the " mixers, " as opposed to the " straights " who still embrace the

chiropractic founder's philosophy. It's not surprising, therefore, that a number

of chiropractors today engage in other " alternative practices " like acupuncture,

homeopathy, reflexology, herbal medicine and megavitamin therapy.

Multiple analyses of chiropractic treatment in the form of back manipulation,

including the famous RAND study, have shown that it is only marginally effective

for the short-term relief of back pain, but is not better than that given by

physicians, osteopaths and physical therapists. Beyond that, it is useless for

most things that chiropractic is being touted for.

Although mainstream or science-based medicine does not have all the answers to

human disease, it at least embraces only those drugs, other forms of treatment,

and diagnostic methods that have undergone rigorous clinical trials. That means

accepting new discoveries and discarding others when better ways of diagnosing

and treating disease are found. That is not true for most of " alternative

medicine, " including chiropractic.

I find regrettable that Gen. Halstead, in advocating for chiropractic, has not

given us any compelling reasons why this would add any value to conventional,

mainstream and science-based medicine. As a physician, I reject her stand on

chiropractic as shortsighted and unacceptable.

Copyright © 2010 The Daytona Beach News-Journal