Taking X-Rays for Subluxation Management is "Careless & Unsupported by Evidence" Says World Federation of Chiropractic
The issue of taking x-rays to characterize vertebral subluxation and assess its management in terms of outcomes has always been a contentious issue in chiropractic. Historically it was understood to be an issue related to insurance reimbursement, third party pay and the chiropractors who sold their souls to be paid for denying care and reimbursement to other chiropractors who manage vertebral subluxation. It had reached its peak in the 90's when the Mercy Guidelines came out and that document was used as a claims cutter bible as well as being used in malpractice and regulatory actions against chiropractors managing subluxation.
Though Mercy was defeated after a bitter struggle within the profession and the embarrassing exposure that the Mercy group had lied to the National Guidelines Clearinghouse in order to get the defunct document included. After they were exposed the document was pulled from NGC.
Fast forward almost 30 years and most of the profession has never even heard of the Mercy Guidelines. Which is why it was perfect timing for the American Chiropractic Association, World Federation of Chiropractic and the rest of the Chiropractic Cartel and Subluxation Deniers to dust it off and repackage it's x-ray fear mongering as part of the new re-branding strategy of the ACA.
This time under the moniker of "Choosing Wisely".
And this time its not just about third party pay. This time it doesn't matter who is paying for the care. They are using it as a form of professional birth control to eliminate the practice of subluxation management. It didn't take long for the usual suspects to jump on the bandwagon including Chiropractic Australia, the World Federation of Chiropractic and other anti subluxation groups throughout the profession.
Of course "Choosing Wisely", which does not allow the taking of x-rays to assess for vertebral subluxation, has been widely rejected by state and national chiropractic organizations and at least one school.
Nevertheless, since the Cartel has complete control over the profession, the subluxation camps can rant and rave all they want but the policy has now been adopted by third party payors and is quickly becoming the standard of care.
The paper in support of imaging for subluxation analysis and management was written by researchers Oakley, Cuttler and Harrison representing Chiropractic Biophysics non-profit.
The representatives of the WFC authoring the demand for the retraction of the paper stated they ". . . write to express our collective concern and alarm about the authors’ key messages."
They then go on to assert that using imaging to deliver care to the spine is ". . . unsupported by evidence and careless."
The WFC claims, despite much evidence to the contrary, that there are no guidelines that support the taking of x-rays in the analysis and correction of vertebral subluxation.
They then demand that the editors of Dose-Response ". . . retract the commentary in question immediately."
The WFC representatives include the usual suspects of subluxation deniers, mechanists, and critics of vitalistic chiropractic care.
- Greg Kawchuk
- Christine Goertz
- Iben Axen
- Martin Descarreaux4
- Simon French
- Mitchell Haas
- Jan Hartvigsen
- Carolina Kolberg
- Hazel Jenkins
- Cynthia Peterson
- John Taylor
X-rays are not the only area where the WFC attacks traditional, conservative chiropractic. At least two members states of the WFC allow for the prescribing of drugs, and many leaders within the WFC are known subluxation deniers. Despite this, the World Federation of Chiropractic enjoys widespread support from throughout the profession including from organizations such as the International Chiropractors Association which is a dues paying member of the WFC and just recently has been promoting the WFC conference in Berlin with ICA leaders on the speaking schedule.
Several decades ago the ICA had an exodus of members leave the ICA due to its support of the WFC. This exodus was led in part by Fred Barge DC, Chris Kent DC and Patrick Gentempo DC.
Nevertheless the ICA remained supportive of the WFC typically using the rationales that they were "going to change them from within", that we "needed to have a seat at the table" and that "compromise was necessary" in politics. This was the same rationale given by the ICA when it decided to change course and throw its endorsement behind the ACA and CCE during the accreditation crisis several years ago.
Of course nothing has changed from within, the seat is at the kids table and they have compromised the practice of subluxation management into oblivion.
CLICK Here for more on the WFC
