Terry A. Rondberg, DC | Wellness for Mind and Body

By Terry A. Rondberg

In recent years, researchers have piled up the proof that many of the prescription and OTC pills sold to “treat” colds and flu in kids are ineffective. Even worse, they all have potentially negative side effects. One study, conducted by researchers at Penn State, found that placebos were just as effective as OTC drugs in suppressing coughs due to colds.

“Consumers spend billions of dollars each year on over-the-counter medications for cough,” said Ian Paul, assistant professor of pediatrics, Penn State Children’s Hospital, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. “Our study showed that the two ingredients used in most over-the-counter medications were no better than a placebo, non-medicated syrup, in providing nighttime relief for children with cough and sleep difficulty as a result of upper respiratory infection… The desire to ease symptoms is strong for both parents and clinicians. This study, however, questions whether over-the-counter medications have a place in the treatment of these illnesses for children.” (“Effect of Dextromethorphan, Diphenhydramine and Placebo on Nocturnal Cough and Sleep Quality for Coughing Children and Their Parents,” July 2004 issue of Pediatrics.

Another study showed a significant percentage of children with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder improved when placebos replaced some of their daily meds.

“In ADHD, you can reduce the dose of the real medicine, substitute placebo pills and get the same effect on ADHD,” Walter Brown, MD, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Brown University and Tufts University School of Medicine, stated.

One theory is that the caring and hopeful attitude of the parents or caregivers has a powerful effect on the child. If the parent and child have a strong belief in the efficacy of the remedy, it will work. In the tests, participants had no more “faith” in one pill over another, so they all worked about the same. That’s the very definition of placebo effect.

You’d think that, given this evidence, parents — and their medical doctors — would be convinced that grabbing the pill bottle isn’t the best response to sniffles and sneezes.

But that’s not the way some people see it. Now, there’s a new pill being marketed to parents for use on their kids: a chewable, cherry-flavored tablet called Obecalp. You guessed it: that’s placebo spelled backwards, and the pill is nothing but sugar.

Giving a child a sugar pill is definitely an improvement to giving them chemical medications. But this still teaches the child that health can be delivered in pill form from outside. Why not skip the pill altogether and try activities such as yoga or meditation, both of which can be presented as a game or healing action? Health comes from INSIDE and the sooner we truly understand that, and share that understanding with our kids, the sooner they’ll take control of their health and wellness.

Vitamins and calcium supplements appear to reduce the risk of breast cancer, according to findings presented at the American Association for Cancer Research 101st Annual Meeting 2010.

“It is not an immediate effect. You don’t take a vitamin today and your breast cancer risk is reduced tomorrow,” said Jaime Matta, PhD, professor in the Ponce School of Medicine in Puerto Rico. “However, we did see a long-term effect in terms of breast cancer reduction.”

Matta said the findings suggest that the calcium supplements are acting to enhance DNA repair capacity, a complex biological process involving more than 200 proteins that, if disrupted, can lead to cancer.

“This process involves at least five separate pathways and is critical for maintaining genomic stability,” said Matta. “When the DNA is not repaired, it leads to mutation that leads to cancer.”

The study included 268 women with breast cancer and 457 healthy controls. Women were more likely to have breast cancer if they were older, had a family history of breast cancer, had no history of breastfeeding, and had lower DNA repair capacity.

The risk of breast cancer appeared to be reduced by about 30% in the case of vitamin supplements, 40% with calcium supplements. After controlling for the level of DNA repair capacity, calcium supplements were no longer as protective, but the link between vitamin supplements and breast cancer reduction remained.

“We’re not talking about mega doses of these vitamins and calcium supplements, so this is definitely one way to reduce risk,” said Matta.

When DD Palmer called our profession “chiropractic” — combining the Greek words cheir (hand) and praxis (action) — he couldn’t have chosen a better name. While there are a few doctors who substitute mechanical devices for their hands, even those practitioners have some hands-on work with patients — palpation, adjusting or just placing the hands on affected areas.

We, and our patients, have always known that the success of chiropractic has a great deal to do with the “personal touch” we provide (metaphorically as well as literally). Surveys on patient satisfaction almost always emphasize the influence of our personal involvement with those under our care, particularly when compared to the cold, impersonal treatment received from many medical providers.

A recent research study, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and presented at the 6th International Conference of the Society for Integrative Oncology, reinforces our understanding of the importance of true “by hand” practice, whether it’s provided by a health care practitioner or a caretaker.

Researchers found that touch — particularly massage — administered by care partners significantly reduces the effects of cancer and the side-effects from its treatment while providing comfort and improvement in the quality of life.

In the study, 97 family caregivers learned touch and massage techniques from a 78-minute instructional DVD, called “Touch, Caring, and Cancer: Simple Instruction for Family and Friends.” They then used these touch techniques to safely care for people living with cancer. “The magnitude of the impact of family members was unexpected. Our research found significant reductions of pain, anxiety, fatigue, depression and nausea when massage was routinely administered at home by family and caregivers,” lead researcher William Collinge, PhD, revealed.

The study found massage by family members reduced stress/anxiety (44% reduction), pain (34%), fatigue (32%), depression (31%), and nausea (29%).

“The discovery that family members can learn and administer simple massage techniques that can consistently reduce stress is significant. Stress is a constant that negatively impacts the lives and wellbeing of cancer patients,” Collinge wrote. “Both cancer patients and caregivers benefit because massage appears to strengthen the relationship bond. Massage provides the caregiver a way to make a difference.”

This research not only reminds us of the significance of personal touch between doctor and patient, but might be a good incentive to bring a massage therapist into your practice. The synergistic effect of the two disciplines would no doubt benefit many patients and might increase patient volume.

You may even want to provide certain patients with the video used to train the participants in the study (it’s available from Amazon.com). I believe strongly that the “hands on” approach works for all people, regardless of the state of their health. Since it reduces stress — the primary cause of most health issues — it would be effective on most people, not just those with cancer.

By Terry A. Rondberg

For years, I’ve been railing against the over-use, misuse and outright abuse of antibiotics. Time and again, I’ve reported on the evolution of “superbugs” that have built up a resistance to traditional antibiotics.

Plants as medicine?

Recently, I heard some good news about the topic. Researchers have found that inexpensive plant-derived essential oils might be a natural alternative to many chemical antibiotics.

According to research presented at the Society for General Microbiology’s spring meeting in Edinburgh in May, the essential oils of thyme and cinnamon were found to be particularly efficient antibacterial agents against a range of Staphylococcus species.

Strains of these bacteria are common inhabitants of the skin and some may cause infection in immunocompromised individuals. Drug-resistant strains, such as meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are extremely difficult to treat.

“Not only are essential oils a cheap and effective treatment option for antibiotic-resistant strains, but decreased use of antibiotics will help minimise the risk of new strains of antibiotic resistant micro-organisms emerging,” said lead researcher Professor Yiannis Samaras of the Technological Educational Institute of Ionian Islands, in Greece.

Dr. Samaras and colleague, Dr. Effimia Eriotou, tested the antimicrobial activity of eight plant essential oils. They found that thyme essential oil was the most effective and was able to almost completely eliminate bacteria within 60 minutes.

The Society’s announcement about the research provided additional information on essential oils, which have been recognized for hundreds of years for their therapeutic properties, although very little is still known about how they exert their antimicrobial effects in humans.

Australian aborigines used tea tree oil to treat colds, sore throats, skin infections and insect bites, and the remedy was sold commercially as a medicinal antiseptic from the early 20th century. Various scientific studies have demonstrated that essential oils are not only well tolerated, but are effective against a range of bacterial and fungal species. Their therapeutic value has been shown for the treatment of a variety of conditions, including acne, dandruff, head lice and oral infections.

The Greek team believes essential oils could have diverse medical and industrial applications. “The oils — or their active ingredients — could be easily incorporated into antimicrobial creams or gels for external application. In the food industry the impregnation of food packaging with essential oils has already been successfully trialled. They could also be included in food stuffs to replace synthetic chemicals that act as preservatives,” the researchers added.

I have mixed feelings about this report. Of course I’d like to see more attention paid to health care that doesn’t rely on chemical drugs. But I think this type of report only goes half way to the goal of changing the prevalent mindset about health.

It isn’t enough to switch to phytochemical substances as “treatments” for disease. We need to get to the point where we’re balancing the human system and optimizing its own ability to counteract any environmental stresses it encounters. As long as researchers keep thinking of plants and foods as “medicine” we aren’t making the fundamental changes that are vital for true wellness.

As most of my readers know, I regularly point out biased claims from organized medicine (often parroted by the mainstream press) that chiropractic is not supported by research. That’s why it’s always welcome news when studies are published that DO point out research proving the effectiveness of chiropractic.

Jaguars Running Back Maurice Jones-Drew relies on chiropractic to put him on top of his game.

The latest, a report published by Australia’s Cochrane Collaboration, confirms what may seem obviously to chiropractors and their patients — that chiropractic can be effective in helping people overcome low-back pain.

The research, led by Bruce Walker, DC, of the Murdoch University School of Chiropractic and Sports Science in Australia, analyzed a number of different techniques provided by chiropractors. Walker and his colleagues at Murdoch studied 12 randomized controlled trials that included 2,887 participants. Each trial compared combined chiropractic interventions to some other therapeutic approach to low-back pain.

The result: in the short-term (within one month after the study began), pain improved in patients treated both with chiropractic and comparison treatments. Benefits were somewhat greater in the chiropractic group , although the difference was not considered “clinically significant,” the study’s authors wrote.

“If consumers have acute or subacute back pain they can have some confidence that if they go to the chiropractor they’ll see some improvement,” Dr. Walker reported.

References: Walker BF, et al. Combined chiropractic interventions for low-back pain (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 4, 2010.

About the Author – Terry A. Rondberg, DC
Dr. Terry Rondberg is an outspoken supporter for research on chiropractic care for not just back pain, but total body wellness. He is founder and CEO of the World Chiropractic Alliance, and is a much sought-after speaker worldwide on the issue of drug-free chiropractic.

Tragic news yesterday as a 23-month-old girl died following an overdose of a blood thinner (Heparin) at Nebraska Medical Center. The story says “hospital officials are investigating,” but we already know what they will discover. This tragedy was preventable.

Percentage of ANA nurses who "worry" about medication errors (2007 survey).

Just ask actor Dennis Quaid. It was announced today that he is starring in a new documentary to help raise awareness about medical errors — three years after his newborn twins were given a drug overdose (also happened to be Heparin) at an L.A. hospital — which almost killed them.

Following is an article I wrote a few years back on medication errors. It’s a sad commentary on our healthcare system that these errors are still so commonplace. Prescription errors are so prevalent in hospitals and long-term care facilities that it has been estimated an average of one mistake per patient per day is made. Of course, most of these errors are not so serious as to lead to serious injury or death, but just ask yourself: are non-lethal errors any more acceptable?

-Dr. Terry Rondberg

Hospital admission = medication errors

By Terry A Rondberg, DC

According to an article appearing in the Archives of Internal Medicine, hospital admissions commonly produce medication errors, some with the potential to be harmful. Background information pointed out that although the admission process routinely includes a medication use history, errors in the history may mean a failure to detect drug-related problems, or lead to interrupted or inappropriate drug therapy during a patient’s stay.

While previous studies had suggested these errors are a potentially serious safety issue, the current study was designed to identify unintended discrepancies between physicians’ admission medication orders and a comprehensive medication use history, and the potential clinical significance of the discrepancy.

Patricia L. Cornish, BScPhm, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues screened medical charts from three months of admissions to the general internal medical clinics at an affiliated hospital. One hundred and fifty-one patients were included in the study who reported use of at least four medications and were either able to communicate or had a caregiver who could communicate for them.

A pharmacist or trained pharmacy or medical student visited patients after allowing 48 hours for clarification of admission medication orders and corrections of problems in the normal course of care. The team member conducted a thorough history of the patient’s regular medication use, relying on a patient or caregiver interview, an inspection of prescription vials, and follow up with a community pharmacy.

Discrepancies between physicians’ admission medication orders and the follow-up history were divided into four types of discrepancies: a drug omission, incorrect dose, incorrect frequency of dose, and an incorrect drug.

These were then further judged to fall into one of three classes of potential severity: Class one – unlikely to cause patient discomfort or clinical deterioration; class two – having the potential to cause moderate discomfort or clinical deterioration; and class three – with the potential to cause severe discomfort or clinical deterioration.

53.6% of patients had at least one unintended discrepancy.

“We identified 140 unintended discrepancies among these 81 patients,” wrote the authors. “The most common error (46.4%) was omission of a regularly used medication. Most (61.4%) of the discrepancies were judged to have no potential to cause serious harm. However, 38.6% of the discrepancies had the potential to cause moderate to severe discomfort or clinical deterioration.”

The authors concluded: “The data presented herein suggest that the processes for recording medication histories on admission to the hospital are inadequate, potentially dangerous, and in need of improvement. To improve patient care and minimize the potential costs of preventable adverse drug events, the health care system should explore ways to improve the accuracy of the hospital admission medication history.”

SOURCE: Patricia L. Cornish; Sandra R. Knowles; Romina Marchesano; Vincent Tam; Steven Shadowitz; David N. Juurlink; Edward E. Etchells: “Unintended Medication Discrepancies at the Time of Hospital Admission,” Archives of Internal Medicine, 165:424-429.

by Terry A. Rondberg, DC

The media constantly communicates to its vast audience the recent medical breakthroughs. Traditional medicine dominates our society. The recent medical mishaps such as dangerous prescription painkillers, are associated with the failures of regulators who ignore the apparent loopholes of allopathic medicine.

However, alternative health care is gaining attention. It is commonly utilized by the general population. A recent study by Hong at Ohio State University found that nearly three out of four adults over age 50 use some type of alternative medicine. Hong noted, “The most commonly used…was chiropractic, which about 43% of respondents had used.” [1]

Unfortunately, the general public is unaware of chiropractic’s potential contribution to overall wellness.

According to the results of the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) survey titled, “Identity of the Chiropractic Profession,” only five percent of participating DCs believed the public considers that chiropractors are doctors who correct subluxations, while 81% believe the public defines chiropractic as doctors who help treat back and neck pain.” [2]

Eighty‑five percent of the chiropractors said the nervous system is essential to the practice of chiropractic, and 65% indicated the public should define chiropractic as stress and  subluxation correction.

In 2003, the Institute for Social Research at Ohio Northern University conducted a survey of  North American chiropractors.  The results showed that 89.8% of respondents felt adjustments should not be limited to musculoskeletal conditions and 88.1% felt that the term vertebral subluxation complex should be withheld. [3]

Some chiropractors have expressed that the public perception should identity the profession. Others wish to limit our role to musculoskeletal pain practitioners, justifying their position by claiming that only low back pain has sufficient research evidence and backing. Both sides are incorrect for reasons I have discussed elsewhere. [4,5]

A successful public relations approach should match the public’s interest with our vision of chiropractic. It is necessary for the public to be properly educated on how chiropractic meets their needs.

The success of this strategy came to light when Dr. Madeline Beherendt’s study on infertility was published in the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research, (JVSR) which resulted in positive and credible media coverage for chiropractic.

Among the television programs reporting the study’s results were: KBCI Boise, WCBS New York, KING Seattle, KYW Philadelphia, WTNH New Haven, KUTV Salt Lake City, WCPO Cincinnati, WOAI San Antonio, KOLD Tucson, and KPTM Omaha. On one of the specialized health news wire services, the press release was accessed by journalists more than 700 times by the end of March. [6]

Furthermore, Dr. Erin Elster, an upper cervical chiropractor in Boulder, Colo., gathered data from 44 MS patients and 37 PD patients treated during the span of five years. After treating upper neck injuries in 81 patients, 91% of MS patients and 92% of PD patients improved, suggesting that correction of neck injuries may reverse MS and PD.

The Chiropractic Journal reported, “The World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA), publisher of JVSR, distributed a press release on the research results, which was quickly picked up by major news media, including Reuter’s wire service. The news was relayed to newspapers and television stations around the world, and the story showed up in a wide array of media.

“Viewers watching CNN coverage of the Florida hurricanes saw the headline scroll by on the late breaking news crawl … readers saw all the details in The Washington Post … Internet browsers found the story on sites as varied as the National Institutes of Health’s MEDLINE and the Armenian Medical Network. Yahoo News featured the story and it even appeared on the Merck pharmaceutical company’s website.

“Within days, millions of people were exposed to information about chiropractic and how correction of subluxations might result in an improvement or reversal MS and PD. Although the research examined the two specific diseases, the press release emphasized that the role of chiropractic was not to diagnose or treat those diseases directly, but to correct subluxations and, in doing so, affect the progress of the diseases.” [7]

More recently, a collaborative study of chiropractic care, oxidative stress, and DNA repair has peeked the interests of medical news services and alternative health websites. [8, 9]

The public and journalists are not interested in “manipulation” for the treatment of low back pain. However, they are interested in learning about chiropractic as a focal point on wellness and quality‑of‑life issues often neglected by traditional medicine.

The answer is university-based research and not just a few studies focusing on small case histories. Although encouraging, a long‑term solution must be implemented. The university based research, should involve thousands of patients, and published in prestigious, medical journals. The group QOLR has embodied this challenge but your assistance is paramount.

References

1. Hong G‑S: “About 70 percent of older adults use alternative medicine.” News release. Ohio State University . April 9, 2005.
2. “Consultation on Identity: Quantitative Research Findings.” World Federation of Chiropractic, Dec. 7, 2004.
3. McDonald W, Durkin K, Iseman S, et al: “How Chiropractors Think and Practice.” Institute for Social Research. Ohio Northern University. Ada , OH . 2003.
4. Kent C: “A challenge and three myths.” The Chiropractic Journal. September 2004.
5. Kent C: “Where are we going?” The Chiropractic Journal. August 1997.
6. “Infertility research still a top news story in U.S.” The Chiropractic Journal. May 2004.
7. JVSR, WCA hit two more publicity home runs. The Chiropractic Journal. October 2004.
8. “Chiropractic Influence on Oxidative Stress and DNA Repair.” Medical News Today. March 7, 2005.
9. “Doctors crack code on chiropractic care.” Mercola.com. 4/27/05.

About the Author – Dr. Terry Rondberg
Terry A. Rondberg, DC, is a tireless advocate for drug-free chiropractic, chiropractic patients, wellness, and the mind-body connection for physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being. As CEO of the World Chiropractic Alliance, he is a global activist for the interests of doctors of chiropractic and their patients.

By Terry A Rondberg, DC

Months following spinal surgery for back pain, patients remember their initial pain as worse than they rated it at the time, reports a recent study in the journal Spine.

A research team, headed by Dr. Ferran Pellisé of Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, concluded that studies relying on such after-the-fact ratings may overestimate the effectiveness of spinal surgery in relieving chronic back pain.

The researchers studied before-and-after ratings made by 58 patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. Before their operation, all patients completed standard evaluations of back pain and related disability. These prospective (“forward-looking”) ratings were compared with retrospective (“backward-looking”) ratings made an average of three years after surgery.

Patients consistently rated themselves worse than in their original questionnaires, when recalling their preoperative state. For example, on a simple 10-point scale, the patients’ original average pain rating was 7.0. On follow-up ratings, the patients recalled their pain as being significantly worse, with average rating of 8.2.

Based on the original ratings, surgery produced an average pain reduction of 3.3 points on the 10-point scale. Yet, if the recalled ratings were used, the average improvement would have been 4.6 points. Similar patterns were noted for other standard ratings of back pain and related disability.

Whether the time since surgery was shorter or longer, the extent of patient recall bias did not differ significantly. The ratings did not vary in any systematic way, so there was no way to adjust for them statistically.

Retrospective studies – in which patients are asked to remember and rate their state of health before treatment – are widely used in medical research. Few prior studies, however, have looked at how patients’ recollections measure up to actual pretreatment ratings. The use of retrospective studies to assess the results of spinal surgery has increased in recent years.

Relying on such after-the-fact pain ratings may give the impression that surgery for back pain is more effective than it actually is, the new results suggest.

“Our study shows that relying on a patient’s recall of his or her preoperative status a few months or years after surgery is not a valid method for establishing baseline status when treating low back pain,” Dr. Pellisé and colleagues concluded.

SOURCE: “Reliability of Retrospective Clinical Data to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Lumbar Fusion in Chronic Low Back Pain.” Pellise, Ferran MD; Vidal, Xavier MD, PhD; Hernandez, Alejandro MD; Cedraschi, Christine PhD; Bago, Joan MD; Villanueva, Carlos MD. Spine. 30(3):365-368

About the Author – Dr. Terry Rondberg
Terry A Rondberg, DC, is a tireless champion for drug-free chiropractic and mind-body wellness. As publisher of The Chiropractic Journal, on a monthly basis he reaches more than 70,000 chiropractors across the globe.

by Terry A. Rondberg, DC

Previously, researchers determined a patient’s level of health by measuring vital signs, recording frequency of symptoms, examining X‑Rays, and observing character. Rarely did they ask the patient how he or she felt. They took pride in judging the patient’s quality of life based just on objective measurements.

Recently, a new instrument allows researchers a more accurate picture into the patient’s state of well-being ‑‑ the health related quality of life survey.

According to a paper published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ 1998;316:542‑545), “It is now widely acknowledged that the personal burden of illness cannot be described fully by measures of disease status such as size of infarction, tumor load, and forced expiratory volume. Psychosocial factors such as pain, apprehension, restricted mobility and other functional impairments, difficulty fulfilling personal and family responsibilities, financial burden, and diminished cognition must also be encompassed. The area of research that has resulted from this recognition is termed ‘health related quality of life’ [HRQL]. It moves beyond direct manifestations of illness to study the patient’s personal morbidity.  That is, the various effects that illnesses and treatments have on daily life and life satisfaction. Although quality of life assessment was almost unknown a few years ago, it has rapidly become an integral variable of outcome in clinical research.”

The Internet has made these surveys more prominent and meritorious for scientists. The surveys are also more convenient for the researcher and the patient. “Instruments administered via the Internet appear to be reliable, and to be answered similarly to the way they are answered when they are administered via traditional mailed paper questionnaires,” reported Stanford University researchers in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (J Med Internet Res 2004;6(3):e29).

Measuring the impact of health care on the patient’s well-being has become so crucial that many medical experts say research that disregards such an element, may not be worthwhile for practitioners.

One research paper, published by Canada ’s Centre for Health Evidence, reports, “When the goal of treatment is to improve how people are feeling (rather than to prolong their lives) and physiological correlates of patients’ experience are lacking, HRQL measurement is imperative. For example, we would pay little attention to studies of antidepressants that failed to measure patients’ mood, or trials of anti‑migraine medication that failed to measure pain.” (“How to Use Articles about Health‑Related Quality of Life Measurements,” by Gordon H. Guyatt, et.al, for the Evidence Based Medicine Working Group).

Chiropractic care is no different.

If research fails to measure how patients view their own health, the results will be inaccurate and will fail to establish the relationship between subluxation correction and quality of life. Objective tests may show some stress reduction on the nervous system, but we must step out-of-bounds to clarify the effect of that reduction on the way people behave and feel.

We should not rely solely on health questionnaires, but combine the results with standardized clinical exams and observations.  This will enable us to answer many questions about chiropractic.

Prior to the Self‑Reported Quality of Life (SRQL) study, no specific outcome measurement existed for chiropractic care and very few non‑chiropractic quality of life surveys directed to chiropractic existed. With more than 7,000 records regarding the development and testing of patient‑reported health instruments indexed by the National Centre for Health Outcomes Development in Britain, only 17 engaged chiropractic. Of those 17, nine were specifically focused on back and neck pain, two on the symptom duration of myofascial pain, one on migraines, and two on general pain. One record was published in a non‑scientific trade newspaper when it should have appeared in a medical journal with comments and reviews from team experts.

Only one case out of 7,000 contained a broader application of chiropractic to quality of life issues – “A retrospective assessment of chiropractic care using a survey of self‑rated health, wellness and quality of life,” by Robert Blanks PhD, and colleagues, published in the Journal of Subluxation Research (JSR1997, 1:15‑31).

The quality of life questionnaire was created to specifically assess wellness via the patient’s self‑rating of the following: physical state, mental/emotional state, stress evaluation, life enjoyment, and general quality of life at two intervals: before and after they began chiropractic care.

I won’t regurgitate the technicalities involving the creation of this survey instrument.  The study revealed that patients reported significant change in all areas, including quality of life. They felt better physically and emotionally, experienced less stress and enjoyed themselves more simply thanks to chiropractic.

According to the results, improvements took effect about one month after care began. As long as they continued chiropractic care, they continued to make progress.  If this study had generated the international attention it deserved, thousands of people would have become better educated on how chiropractic could improve their well-being.  News flashes would have lit up the television screen while major newspapers would have posted such revolutionary news on the front-page.  Patients would have begun undergoing weekly adjustments and put aside their daily dose of aspirin.

There several reasons this did not occur.  The most obvious involves the domination of the pharmaceutical industry that pays advertisers a tremendous amount of money.

One research study out of 7,000 will not persuade the research community, the media and the general population. Data is necessary from thousands of patients along with dozens of well-conducted research papers published in major medical journals.

For every human being, we have composed a study to assess chiropractic’s influence on quality of life.  Mainstream media and the general public will not ignore this kind of evidence. It can transform health care to a higher level.

Millions of people around the globe have received chiropractic care and know its value. But the rest of the population dismisses the profession’s growth and patient testimonials as shoddy evidence.

Regrettably, scientists have only a few studies showing correlations between the quality-of-life changes and chiropractic care. Most scientific clinical studies suggest chiropractic as a treatment for adult low-back pain, thus limiting chiropractic care.

The public only hears: “…there is no evidence that any chiropractic treatment works for infants and/or kids.”  (Healthwatcher.net) – or – “I am not aware of any chiropractic research that has led to any significant improvement in patient care.” (Stephen Barrett, MD)

Supporters of chiropractic care are aware of this false perception and its negative affects on the general public.

“The dearth of defensible information about chiropractic and chiropractors is still hampering our external ability to integrate successfully with the rest of the so-called health industry…. Let’s face it. We have a massive fact deficit in chiropractic.” (William Meeker, DC, MPH, FICC, director of the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research)

“Whether the practice of chiropractic is of any value to the patient cannot be known with certainty until a scientific base has been established. …It is clearly apparent that it would be beneficial to the public for the profession to systematically study the subluxation as it relates to the health of the patient. Chiropractic can be observed and measured.” (The National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Research Association)

“The Committee believes additional research is necessary to further quantify the already‑known benefits of chiropractic care.” (US Senate Appropriations Committee hearings on ‘Health Care Access and Cost Containment Strategies’)

“Evidence of the value of spinal manipulation for problems other than low-back pain is less extensive, and the role that subluxation (of other forms of joint dysfunction) may play in causing and/or providing relief through adjusting is uncertain.” (“In the Quest for Cultural Authority,” Joseph Keating, DC, et. a., Dynamic Chiropractic, December 16, 2004.)

“The claim that loss of neural integrity influences ‘organ system function and general health’ is also unsubstantiated by currently available experimental data. … assertions may be appropriate as hypotheses (tentative assertions) and proto-theories (from which testable propositions may be derived), and deserve our critical attention by means of research. However, to assert their validity in the absence of hard scientific data is to engage in dogmatism.” (Joseph Keating, Dynamic Chiropractic, Dec. 16, 2004)

The answer lies in thoroughly conducted scientific research and observing the mechanisms surrounding chiropractic care such as stress reduction on the autonomic nervous system and wellness. The results must then be reviewed by chiropractic experts and other professionals with the appropriate credentials to write and review research reports.  At that time, reports should be submitted to major health journals for publication.

It’s insufficient to research solely manual manipulation’s effectiveness as a resolution for musculoskeletal conditions such as low-back pain. Such technicalities only reemphasize the false belief that chiropractic is just physical therapy that can be provided by regular physician and physical therapists. Should this remain to be the only field of chiropractic research, it will be utilized as evidence to limit chiropractic care.

The chiropractic theory claims that stress on the nervous system negatively impacts overall wellness.  Such health-like components like immunity, vitality, and well-being must be measured.  It is essential to conduct research to confirm this supposal.

Research must compare and contrast the individual’s state of health before and after receiving chiropractic care. Our goal is to develop a standard rating system measuring the severity of stress on the nervous system and integrating it to measure the noteworthy result of chiropractic care. With this rating system, the next step is to create a formula connecting outcome results and the impact on a patient’s level of stress.

This method has gained popularity in epidemiology. It is also used for studying sleep apnea severities. (Journal of Subluxation Research, 3:24-30, 1999.) Upon completion, this formula will function as a universal standard for chiropractic care and wellness.

A detailed analysis of database findings of millions of chiropractic patients can disclose direct links between stress and wellness. The findings could lead to ground-breaking information regarding the impact of chiropractic on the human nervous system and overall health.

About the Author
Terry A. Rondberg, DC, is a leading proponent of research to demonstrate the benefits of chiropractic care on patients, not only for back pain but also for the brain, the heart, the nervous system and total body wellness. He is a sought-after public speaker, author and advocate for millions of chiropractic patients and practitioners.