I’m not a farmer, so I’m not up on all the practices and regulations
regarding manure spreading, but I’m pretty sure you’re not
supposed to stuff it into people’s newspaper and mail delivery
boxes. That calls into question the mystery material the Antigo
Daily Journal prints in its occasional “Family/Primetime” tabloid
insert.
First question: Are these things articles, or ads? Who gets paid,
and who does the paying? There are no “This is an advertisement”
disclaimers, but they sure look like ads, to me.
Next, whether its an ad or a “legitimate” article, isn’t someone
supposed to be in charge of maintaining the Truth? There are some
“truthiness” problems in ADJ’s February 2010 issue of “Primetime”
in Amy Stuber’s article “Elmininating stubborn childhood ear
infections”. Let’s take a look.
Skip the generic Wikipedia stuff covering acute otitis media in the
first 2/3 of the article, and go to the paragraph with the lead, “As a
holisitic health care profession, chiropractic doesn’t believe in
writing prescriptions after prescription for the treatment of AOM”.
Well, that’s understandable, because chiropractors CAN’T WRITE
PRESCRIPTIONS. But Amy doesn’t tell us that.
Then, in discussing “more of a preventative approach to AOM”, Amy
explains, “This lifestyle centers on the correction of dysfunctional
areas in the spine called vertebral subluxations.” Newsflash: only
chiropractors call it “subluxation”. No one else can detect “vertebral
subluxations”, or see them on x-rays or CT or MRI scans. Vertebral
subluxations are an imaginary artifact invented by chiropractors.
The have exactly as much scientific validity as Santa Claus’s flying
reindeer, or a palm reader’s interpretation of the signifance of the
“life line” on your hand.
Then we have a little indirection. Amy asserts “researchers stated
that spinal manipulation resulted in fewer episodes of AOM…” etc.,
quoting the source “Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2003″. I looked it up.
You can too. It’s titled, “The Use of Osteopathic Manipulative
Treatment as Adjuvant Therapy in Children With Recurrent Acute
Otitis Media”, at
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/157/9/861
Nothing in the abstract about spinal manipulations, vertebral
subluxations, or even chiropractors! The study used the services of
a doctor of osteopathy, a field involving the manipulation of joints
and the tissues surrounding them, for instance the
temporomandibular joint, your jawbone’s connection to the head,
which is in direct proximity to the eustacheon tube whose
inflammation and swelling is at the core of AOM. In other words, we
seem to be talking about manipulation of the actual offending
sturctures directly! No distant adjustments to correct dysfunctional
“vertebral subluxations” here, folks! I don’t have access to the
complete study, but would be happy to read and analyze the
detailed original for you if Amy would provide it to me… if she has
it… or ever read it.
Finally, the real corker. Amy claims, “In a study of 46 children, all
under the age of five, 93 percent recovered with chiropractic
intervention alone.” Impressive, but totally unsubstantiated. Even
though Amy did not cite the source for this one, I looked it up (I
have my ways…). The abstract for R. M. Froehle’s “Ear infection: a
retrospective study examining improvement from chiropractic care
and analyzing for influencing factors” is at
http://www.mdconsult.com/das/citation/body/182494952-2/jorg=jo
urnal&source=MI&sp=837971&sid=0/N/837971/1.html?issn=
The “study” is a retrospection. That means cherry-picking the data
from existing treatment records instead of designing a scientific
study carefully, with controls and double-blind structure, deliberately to get relevant results. Treatment, from the study’s abstract:
“INTERVENTION: All treatments were done by a single chiropractor,
who adjusted the subluxations found and paid particular attention to
the cervical vertebrae and occiput. Sacral Occipital Technique-style
pelvic blocking and the doctor’s own modified applied kinesiology
were also used.”
Head-twisting and pelvic blocking and “the doctor’s own modified
applied kinesiology”, to “adjust” imaginary “vertebral subluxations”,
all for treating ear aches which usually resolve themselves. If they
don’t resolve, they could require prescription antibiotics and perhaps surgery, neither of which can be provided by chiropractors.
The Conclusion from the abstract: “CONCLUSION: Although there
were several limitations to this study (mostly because of its
retrospection but also, significantly, because very little data was
found regarding the natural course of ear infections), this study’s
data indicate that limitation of medical intervention and the addition
of chiropractic care may decrease the symptoms of ear infection
in young children.” Wrap your head around that one… just don’t
twist your neck while you’re doing it.
Here’s an explanation from a blog article tracking a lawsuit by the
British Chiropractic Association (BCA) against a critic,
http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/ – “The BCA claim that
Froehle RM (1996) shows that ‘93% of all episodes improved. The
study’s data indicates that … the addition of chiropractic care may
decrease the symptoms of ear infection in young children’. The
study has no control group and is little more than a collection of
case notes on the duration of ear infection, of which the author
notes ‘very little data was found regarding the natural course of
ear infections’. Therefore the study says nothing about the impact
of chiropractic care on the duration of ear infection compared to
the natural course of healing but it does say infections get better
over time. This is not evidence supporting the use of chiropractic
care in ear infection so much as supporting evidence for the old
adage that time heals all wounds.”
In other words, the study, and Amy Stuber’s handling of the
references and facts, are little more than bovine excrement, brought
to you by the Antigo Daily Journal’s manure wagon, polished and
buffed and offered up as factual health care information. Hey! Watch
where you step, there!
—-
Very thorough information. I am just curious if you are a Chiropractor yourself?
Me, a chiropractor? No. I wouldn’t set foot in a chiropractor’s office. Check out the info on Antigo native Scott Tatro’s web site, and follow the links under “Chiropractic Adjustments”, and you’ll adopt my example. See http://scottslockedin.com
The Simon Singh case in Great Britain came about when the British Chiropractic Association took umbrage to the use of the word “bogus” in the article reprinted here: http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2008/10/beware-spinal-trap-simon-singh.html
Instead of folding up, Singh fought back. BCA was eventually forced to back up their claim that they had evidence to show the effectiveness of treatment of ear aches, colic, and asthma by so-called “pediatric” spinal manipulation. They provided 29 citations, including the Froehle mess that Stuber cited, as referenced above. Within hours of the BCA publication of citations, researchers had demolished their validity. Ten of the citations actually had nothing to do with chiropractic, several of them weren’t even studies, and the rest were so desperately flawed that they couldn’t qualify as “research” by accepted scientific standards.
The BCA’s court case has opened a can of spineless worms. Activists began challenging chiropractors’ advertising throughout the country. Now one out four of the chiropractors in Great Britain are now being investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority for making misleading claims about their practices.