So its fair to say the GCC is not a reliable source of information for a debate on subluxation and to quote from them only undermines any discussion questioning the existence of subluxations which are documented both in the medical and chiropractic literature.

The medical profession recognise subluxation in relation to hypermobility of a spinal joint so presumably dysfunction also applies to hypo mobility of a joint or am I mistaken?? The question sceptics have every right to ask; what is the scientific evidence for the theory behind “vertebral subluxation complex” and sadly I would have to hold up my hands and say, not a lot.

Before sceptics get too excited I would qualify that by saying the anatomical and physiological principles are there to make subluxation theory a legitimate hypothesis for scientific investigation and I would be delighted if chiropractic researchers put some of their resources into subluxation theory rather than the more profitable area of back pain. In the mean time my clients and I will just have to rely on anecdotes, not a perfect situation, but if they are happy with that so am I, we are where we are.

Having said that the president of the British Chiropractic Association Richard Brown has this week come out in agreement with the skeptic view of “subluxation”. As his “plethora of evidence” was rubished last year. I dont suppose traditional chiropractors should be too worried by anyone now trying to claim that Richard Brown is a reliable source because it suits a particular point of view. I believe thats called “confirmation bias”

The medical profession were making dodgy claims in 1998, perhaps they have cleaned up their act, better than the BCA did,
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC1113581

As far as my understanding of the chiropractic subluxation goes, I get the distinct impression that it’s whatever chiropractors want it to be.

“@IainD
my evidence to base what on? As I stated in my response to BW, that is the question. What assumption did I jump to?”

Eh? I assume you’re just confused, but, as I said in my last comment, you said:

““@BW how do you deduce from what I am writing that I “base my evidence” on my clinical experience?””

But Blue Wode did not say that he deduced that you based your evidence on your clinical experience – he *asked* you if you did. It was a question, not a statement. The question he asked was:

“Are you saying that you base your evidence on your clinical experience, i.e. what you see with your own eyes?”

@ Stefaan Vossen

I don’t find it easy to comprehend your comments.

Interestingly, Zeno highlighted a very pertinent question made by Christopher Kent, President of the Foundation for Verebral Subluxation:

Quote
“Are we a profession with a clearly defined mission or are we a profession simply seeking some niche which offers access to a slice of the health care pie?”

I think that gets near to the hub of the issue, i.e., are chiropractors evidence-based or anecdote-based? They cannot be all things to all people. Whether claims are advertised, or made in a clinical setting (upon which, it follows, treatment will be administered), one would expect them to be backed up with good, scientific evidence and a favourable risk/benefit profile.

“@BW how do you deduce from what I am writing that I “base my evidence” on my clinical experience?”

It looks to me like Blue Wode is *asking* you what you base your evidence on and he’s not made the assumption you jumped to.