I would like some input from our skeptic friends for this article about chiropractic care and neck pain?

In the May 1, 2012 issue of the Annuls of Internal Medicine from the American College of Physicians is a letter from researchers defending their work against criticism from medical doctors and other researchers who are not happy with the results of the original study. The original study, published in the same... show more In the May 1, 2012 issue of the Annuls of Internal Medicine from the American College of Physicians is a letter from researchers defending their work against criticism from medical doctors and other researchers who are not happy with the results of the original study. The original study, published in the same journal on January 3, 2012, showed that patients suffering from acute neck pain did better with chiropractic adjustments and showed a statistically significant advantage over medication after 8, 12, 26, and 52 week follow ups.

The authors of the original study responded in the journal by saying, "Our study was a pragmatic trial designed to assess the comparative effectiveness of three commonly used management options for neck pain. The design was chosen to represent as closely as possible what happens in the real-world clinical setting in which treatment is tailored to individual patients."

Some of the letters criticizing the positive chiropractic study tried to question the safety of chiropractic, to which the authors responded, "We disagree with Mr. Chapman about the documented risk for significant adverse outcomes related to cervical spine manipulation. The best available evidence about the relationship between spinal manipulation and vertebral artery dissection comes from several large casecontrol studies. These studies show that, although there is an association between visits to chiropractors and the subsequent development of vertebral vascular stroke, this type of stroke is extremely rare. Of importance, the risk is no greater than if patients seek care from their family medical physicians, who are very unlikely to apply spinal manipulation."

Dr. Robert Braile, a chiropractor for over 30 years and past president of the International Chiropractors Association and current president of the Georgia Council of Chiropractic responded by adding, "It is interesting to note that there are still some pockets of medical prejudice against a science and practice that have clearly stood the test of time both scientifically and clinically with millions of patients." Dr. Braile continued, "The bottom line has to be the welfare of the patients, and research such as this, plus many other studies shows the benefits of chiropractic over medications for people suffering from many health issues."

So what I am reading here is that the medical community did their own study with chiro and neck pain and found it to be more helpful than medication. Which is contrary to what may skeptics say ie "Chiropractic is only temporarily helpful for mild lower back pain". I am aslo seeing that despite this info there are medics who are still saying that the risk does not outweigh the benefits despite the article in one of their own peer reviewed journals. It this just outright prejudiced? Why cant the medics who rely on "science" drop their own biased opinions?

I have not read the actual article. I am not a researcher and I admit I do not have the background to scrutinize research. If you would please elaborate on this study as many of you have full access to pubmed and other sites that may contain the full article.

If you choose to use this question as a jumping point to promote your own biased agenda please save it. Please respond with professionalism and objectivity. I am looking to further my own understanding of this piece of medical literature. Thank you.
Update: Edit : Nygdan- Thank you for your reply. However this article is NOT discussing subluxation or disease care. It is saying that CMT is effective for the treatment of neck pain. Further it says that CMT is more effective than medication. So we are not addressing outlandish claims of chiro, we are seeing medical... show more Edit : Nygdan- Thank you for your reply. However this article is NOT discussing subluxation or disease care. It is saying that CMT is effective for the treatment of neck pain. Further it says that CMT is more effective than medication. So we are not addressing outlandish claims of chiro, we are seeing medical research that says chiro helps people with neck pain. That is it. Although I appreciate what you have said, it is not part of this discussion.
Update 2: Edit James: I do not have the paper...that is why I asked those who might have access to it to explain it in more detail. I did supply the date of the journal. I am not trying to misrepresent the paper. I am asking learned people to evaluate and explain. I am not a researcher as I have stated and I do not... show more Edit James: I do not have the paper...that is why I asked those who might have access to it to explain it in more detail. I did supply the date of the journal. I am not trying to misrepresent the paper. I am asking learned people to evaluate and explain. I am not a researcher as I have stated and I do not pretend to understand the statistical analysis.
"Basing your guesses on supposition from a letter is NOT how you review a paper. " I agree!!! That is the entire purpose of me asking this question!!!
"Citing the paper would have been a good idea don't you think so we could go look it up" - I cannot access the entire article as I would have to purchase it...I found this...http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid... but it is difficult to read and I do not desire to purchase the paper. There are those on here who have subscriptions to these sites and can access and provide educated perspectives on this paper. Your answer is somewhat inflammatory an
Update 3: Edit Gary: Although I do not agree with your personal views, you actually answered the question. You provided me information regarding this piece that I was not aware of before. The funding source is important and all the information relevant to that. You also gave me information about the actual study that I... show more Edit Gary: Although I do not agree with your personal views, you actually answered the question. You provided me information regarding this piece that I was not aware of before. The funding source is important and all the information relevant to that. You also gave me information about the actual study that I did not have before. SO it is not a "bullet proof" piece of scientific literature, fine. However, I think you will agree that there is NEVER 100% incontrovertible scientific papers. That is the very nature of the research world. To ask a question, test it and submit it for scrutiny. This then raises more questions and so on and so on. At this point I am inclined to give you BA as your answer actually answers my question. I want to wait for other contributors. Thank you.
6 answers 6