Survival of the Fittest

Out of curiosity because chiropractic is celebrating its 107th birthday, I typed ”history of chiropractic” in a search engine, www.google.com. About half-way down, there was a hyperlink for “Chiropractic: A Skeptical Guide: Chirobase [www.chirobase.org]. In the “Breaking News” section, there is a paper or article by Stephen Barrett, MD, (one of the operators of the website) titled, “PBS Broadcast Angers Chiropractor,” which led me to PBS’s “Scientific American Frontiers [SAF],” offering online videos of an alternative health care series hosted by Alan Alda. The topics covered included herbal medicine, therapeutic touch, acupuncture, and chiropractic.

After viewing “Adjusting the Joints,” “Needles and Nerves,” and “Healing Touch,” I can understand why the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) and the International Chiropractic Association (ICA) wrote letters of protest to SAF, which Barrett included in his article. The ICA wrote, “This program is supposedly looking at alternative approaches to health care. It is clear, however, that the producers were anything but objective when gathering their material. Both the script and the clips included are designed to distort the public’s understanding of chiropractic in a most negative and damaging way...’It is crystal clear that the from start to finish, the objective of this production was to project the most negative picture of chiropractic possible,’ said ICA president DD Humber, [DC]. ‘The carefully crafted, demeaning language, the complete distortion of the most basic facts about chiropractic...reveal the editorial mission of this production.’”

Both the acupuncture and therapeutic touch stories began objectively, describing the theories and methods. But in the chiropractic piece, the first segment begins with a former chiropractor. Alda narrates, “John Badanes is a fully trained, former chiropractor. But he left the business after 7 years when he realized he had to face up to the fact that his profession made no sense to him.” Later in the story, when Alda and Badanes are discussing innate intelligence, Alda’s scathing and mocking tone colors the piece with the bias of the producers, editors, writers, and especially the narrator. While discussing “chi” in the acupuncture story, there was no mocking or incredulous tone. The piece featured a cardiologist and leading acupuncture researcher, John Longhurst, who supports teaching alternative forms of health care in medical school. Why weren’t medical doctors who support chiropractic—such as the medical professionals from the Texas Back Institute—interviewed or featured?

How is this in any way objective journalism? I object to the chiropractic story because of its lack of journalistic integrity in presenting it in a nonobjective manner and thereby not allowing the audience to come to their own conclusions.

SAF’s response in Barrett’s paper was, “The aim throughout the program was to ask what science has to say about these alternative approaches and their respective underlying theories.” What does science have to say about the hormone replacement therapy controversy? Or about the efficacy of both Prozac and the placebo?

Traditional Western medicine can continue to discredit the chiropractic profession, but there is a reason that chiropractic has been around since September 18, 1895—because it works. The public is tired of surgery and prescription drugs as their only options and are turning to alternative health care. And chiropractic will continue to thrive by meeting the needs of patients.

Miwon Seo
mseo@medpubs.com