"Its Absolutely Rubbish" Claims WFC Researcher Jan Hartvigsen on Use of X-rays to Identify Subluxation

News Staff
"Its Absolutely Rubbish" Claims WFC Researcher Jan Hartvigsen on Use of X-rays to Identify Subluxation

Subluxation Denier Says its all in your Imagination

In a wide ranging anti-subluxation rant during his presentation at the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) Conference in Berlin in March 2019 Jan Hartvigsen DC, Ph.D attacked Life University and all chiropractors who manage vertebral subluxation calling it "absolutely rubbish". Hartvigsen is a member of the WFC's Research Council.

Harvtigsen was discussing the WFC's endorsement of the so called "Choosing Wisely" campaign adopted by the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) which does not allow for the taking of x-rays for the analysis of vertebral subluxations.

While the x-ray guidelines have been rejected by over two dozen chiropractic organizations, trade associations, schools and technique groups, Harvtigsen singled out Life stating:

"This institution comes out and says 'we are proud to denounce the Choosing Wisely Campaign'. Its absolutely rubbish."

He goes on stating:

"They have long advocated for the continued necessity of radiographs for the purpose of identifying vertebral subluxations, or whatever they imagine they are treating."

Harvtigsen continues in his denigration and lies about the practice of subluxation management to a cheering and clapping crowd stating:

"In order to practice as a good chiropractor, in order to deliver effective treatment you need to take an x-ray of your patient otherwise you cannot identify where the patient needs to be treated. It's absolutely rubbish. It's contrary to evidence. And I find it very difficult to be proud of and its something we just need to speak up against."

CLICK HERE to view a video of his comments

Just a few months prior the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) demanded the retraction of a paper outlining the evidence in support of taking x-rays for subluxation analysis published in the research journal Dose Response.

CLICK HERE for that story

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 that submitted the letter 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

Sadly, many organizations within chiropractic that purport to be subluxation focused support the WFC through money, membership and sponsorship.

X-rays are not the only area where the WFC attacks traditional, conservative chiropractic. At least two member 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 was 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

McCoy Press