Online Degrees and CLEP and DSST Exam Prep Discussion
Effectiveness and Basis of Chiropractic - Printable Version

+- Online Degrees and CLEP and DSST Exam Prep Discussion (https://degreeforum.net/mybb)
+-- Forum: Miscellaneous (https://degreeforum.net/mybb/Forum-Miscellaneous)
+--- Forum: Off Topic (https://degreeforum.net/mybb/Forum-Off-Topic)
+--- Thread: Effectiveness and Basis of Chiropractic (/Thread-Effectiveness-and-Basis-of-Chiropractic)

Effectiveness and Basis of Chiropractic - PearsonOTHMQualifi7654 - 10-12-2026

(10-04-2026, 04:20 PM)sanantone Wrote:
(10-04-2026, 01:50 PM)Sagan Wrote: I've made a very profitable living for more than 40 years in leadership development. The off-handed dismissal of leadership degree programs is laughable on its face. Notice how none of these cranks bother to actually back up their statements. This isn't an endorsement of any particular degree program, of course. But I reject the notion that degrees in leadership are "check the box" actions or other such nonsense. Prove it.

Leadership development is not a doctoral program. You are making the case for non-credit, professional development programs, which doesn't help your argument that leadership doctoral programs are needed.

McDonald's has made a lot of money off selling low-quality food. Chiropractors make money off pseudoscience. What is the point you're trying to make? Crank? Highly emotional and lacking logic. Am I threatening your income?

While I appreciate the exchange of views here, I think we've veered off topic by dismissing chiropractic as pseudoscience. Which ironically, is making me veer off the topic Smile

Chiropractic is certainly not without its problems, and some of its traditional theories remain scientifically unsupported. However, there are over 6,200 scientific publications associated with chiropractic research, including clinical studies, case reports, and educational research. There are also numerous randomized controlled trials examining chiropractic interventions and spinal manipulation.

The evidence is particularly supportive of spinal manipulation for certain musculoskeletal conditions, especially lower back pain.

One can certainly argue about the validity of specific chiropractic claims, but dismissing an entire healthcare profession as pseudoscience ignores evidence-based interventions and groups them with unsupported theories.

I also think people are far too quick to label things as "pseudoscience" or "quackery," often without examining the actual scientific literature.

Some of this perspective has historical roots going back to the 1910 Flexner Report, which helped fundamentally reshape American medical education. The reforms favored a particular biomedical model consisting of patentable, synthetic (pharmaceutical) drugs and surgery, while contributing to the marginalization and eventual closure of numerous alternative medical schools. 

Some assert that it's because John D. Rockefeller was profiting from petroleum, that it made business sense to promote pharmaceutical drugs, of which 99% to this day, inclusive of both prescription and over the counter medications, contain petroleum byproducts. There are claims that Rockefeller funded the Flexner Report, which was commissioned by Dale Carnegie. Abraham Flexner, a non-physician who wrote the report, later was appointed to serve on Rockefeller's Education Reform Board. 

Meanwhile, throughout his life, starting from birth, Rockefeller had 4 "alternative" physicians. 
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12318542/

If you want to characterize homeopathy as pseudoscience, that's a more natural stance to have, given the longstanding questions surrounding its proposed mechanisms and clinical efficacy. Interestingly, many of the fundamental criticisms of homeopathy date back almost to its inception and remain largely the same today, particularly regarding extreme dilutions and the proposed mechanisms of action.

Chiropractic, on the other hand, is a rather different discussion. It has a substantial body of clinical research behind it, including randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews demonstrating benefits for lower back pain.

The American Medical Association (AMA) actively opposed chiropractic for decades, particularly during the mid-twentieth century. That opposition eventually became the subject of a major federal antitrust lawsuit, Wilk v. American Medical Association.

The AMA's Committee on Quackery, established in 1963, explicitly sought to contain and ultimately eliminate chiropractic as a competing healthcare profession.

In 1987, a federal court found that the AMA had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to restrain competition by restricting professional cooperation between medical physicians and chiropractors. The ruling was subsequently upheld on appeal in 1990.

Anyways, I suspect that some people who dismiss chiropractic as pseudoscience are speaking from personal experiences with individual chiropractors, some of whom may make exaggerated or scientifically unsupported claims.

And I can understand why those experiences might leave someone skeptical. But there's a difference between criticizing the practices or claims of individual practitioners and dismissing an entire healthcare profession.

Or, quite frankly, I suspect that for some people, the reasoning is as simple as: "I went to a chiropractor, didn't feel any better, or actually felt worse. Therefore, chiropractic is pseudoscience."

But that's not how science works. An individual experience, whether positive or negative, doesn't establish the scientific validity of an entire discipline.

By that logic, someone who underwent an unsuccessful surgery or experienced adverse effects from medication could just as easily dismiss surgery or pharmacology as pseudoscience.

We wouldn't accept that reasoning in conventional medicine, so why should we accept it when evaluating chiropractic?

That doesn't mean negative experiences should be dismissed. They're important, particularly when assessing safety and treatment effectiveness. But personal experiences are not substitutes for controlled clinical evidence.

RE: Doctor of Arts in Theological Leadership - wow - 10-12-2026

Hi mods! Maybe it's time to split off a new thread.

The underlying philosophy of chiropractic as established by Daniel David Palmer is non-scientific. It was not developed through a scientific process and its major claims are not substantiated by science (and cannot be substantiated by science, because they are not based in physical/measurable principles).

This is separate from the efficacy or non-efficacy of specific techniques used by chiropractors, or trends within chiropractic where some schools of thought have turned toward the scientific method and away from chiropractic's founding philosophy (which is that virtually all human disease can be attributed to irregularities in the spine).

RE: Doctor of Arts in Theological Leadership - PearsonOTHMQualifi7654 - 10-12-2026

(10-12-2026, 11:38 AM)wow Wrote: Hi mods! Maybe it's time to split off a new thread.

The underlying philosophy of chiropractic as established by Daniel David Palmer is non-scientific. It was not developed through a scientific process and its major claims are not substantiated by science (and cannot be substantiated by science, because they are not based in physical/measurable principles).

This is separate from the efficacy or non-efficacy of specific techniques used by chiropractors, or trends within chiropractic where some schools of thought have turned toward the scientific method and away from chiropractic's founding philosophy (which is that virtually all human disease can be attributed to irregularities in the spine).

Happy to have the thread split off. I'm not really interested in discussing chiropractic further, but below are some of the scientific research publications, historical references, and legal proceedings for anyone interested in examining the evidence for themselves.

1. Chiropractic Research and Clinical Evidence 2. American Medical Association and Chiropractic Antitrust Litigation 3. Flexner Report and the History of Medical Education My point was never that every chiropractic theory, practice, or claim is scientifically valid. Clearly, they are not all supported by the same quality of evidence.
Rather, I object to categorically dismissing an entire profession or field as pseudoscience without distinguishing between specific interventions, the available clinical evidence, and the historical circumstances surrounding the profession.

The scientific literature can be evaluated on its own merits, just as the historical and legal records can be examined independently.
Anyone interested can read the sources and draw their own conclusions. I have no particular interest in prolonging a debate about chiropractic.

In summary, my argument is quite simple. Just because D. D. Palmer's original philosophy contained scientifically unsupported or far-fetched claims does not mean that everything subsequently developed within chiropractic is inherently unscientific.

Chiropractic has evolved considerably since its founding. Over the decades, numerous interventions have been subjected to scientific investigation, including randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and clinical studies demonstrating measurable benefits for certain musculoskeletal conditions.

We should distinguish between the historical philosophy that inspired a profession and the scientific evidence supporting its contemporary practices. A profession can simultaneously contain outdated theories, unsupported claims, and scientifically validated interventions.

Conventional medicine itself is an excellent example of this. Consider the historical use of lobotomies, which were performed into the 1970's, a once accepted medical procedure before falling into disuse as their devastating consequences became better understood. Bloodletting was practiced for centuries under theories of disease that modern medicine has largely rejected. Likewise, before the development and widespread acceptance of germ theory, physicians had fundamentally different and often mistaken understandings of infectious disease transmission.

Yet we don't dismiss the entirety of modern medicine as pseudoscience simply because some of its historical theories and treatments were profoundly mistaken. Instead, we recognize that medicine has evolved through scientific investigation, accumulating evidence, correcting errors, and abandoning practices that could not withstand scrutiny.

Why should we apply a fundamentally different standard to chiropractic?

To dismiss an entire field solely because of its founder's questionable theories risks committing what is known as the genetic fallacy, judging something by its origins rather than its actual merits.

Scientific claims should stand or fall on the quality of the evidence supporting them, not on the reputation, beliefs, or mistakes of the person who originally proposed them.

RE: Effectiveness of Chiropractic - Jonathan Whatley - 10-12-2026

This thread is split from the thread about Kentucky Christian University’s Doctor of Arts in Theological Leadership.