FACT CHECK: Subluxation Deniers Publish Flawed & Biased "Research" on Student Attitudes

FACT CHECK: Subluxation Deniers Publish Flawed & Biased "Research" on Student Attitudes

Claim Devotion to Vitalism is an Impediment to Providing Best Clinical Care

Subluxation Deniers from the Anglo-European College of Chiropractic, Macquarie University and Logan College of Chiropractic have recently published a paper in a "research" journal controlled by the largest collection of Subluxation Deniers in one place.

The paper: Chiropractic students’ cognitive dissonance to statements about professional identity, role, setting and future: international perspectives from a secondary analysis of pooled data is written by Michael S. Swain, Jordan A. Gliedt, Katie de Luca, Dave Newell & Michelle Holmes. They also quote several other well known Deniers such as Innes, Walker and Leboeuf-Yde - all of whom also serve as Editors to the journal.

The paper trots out the usual subluxation denying talking points and unfounded accusations and claims that have have been previously debunked. The paper serves only to add another "peer reviewed" paper to the literature to be used against chiropractors practicing in a vitalistic, salutogenic subluxation model.

The Deniers claim that their "research" shows that "chiropractic students demonstrate philosophically opposing views about the chiropractic profession" because they embrace a vitalistic philosophy along with embracing evidence based practice. The deniers spin this as "cognitive dissonance" and claim one cannot hold a vitalistic philosophy while managing vertebral subluxation and practice clinical decision making based on an evidence informed model at the same time.

They labeled such abilities by adult professionals as "internally conflicting responses".

The truth is that these data they report on scares the hell out of the Chiropractic Cartel which is controlled by Subluxation Deniers because they found that out of 2396 students from around the world nearly half of the chiropractic students stated it is important for chiropractors to "hold strongly to the traditional chiropractic theory that adjusting the spine corrects dis-ease."

The effort to spin these students' responses as "cognitively dissonant" reflects their real fear that their efforts over the years to disparage, muzzle and marginalize those practicing in a vitalistic model have not reached deep enough to get to the students and that students are eager for much more than unsticking stuck joints for a narrow range of musculoskeletal disorders.

In fact, the Denying authors of the paper assert that only the treatment of a narrow range of musculoskeletal pain syndromes by chiropractors is evidence based.

They then claim that their make believe "ideological conflict" raise " . . . concerns about some students’ ability to learn and make clinical judgements, and potential for disharmony in the chiropractic fraternity".

The Deniers claim that chiropractic is "beleaguered with multiple groups asserting differing views of a predominant guiding ideological identity".

Since the majority of the profession embraces the concept of vertebral subluxation you can see the Deniers struggling to paint such practices as marginal and as a threat to public health and safety in their diatribe.

They even state this: ". . . an ongoing devotion to vitalism is an impediment to providing best clinical care and inclusion in multi-disciplinary models of practice".

Leboeuf-Yde, a rabid Subluxation Denier who has admonished the profession to "sanitize" itself from vitalistic, subluxation chiropractors, says it causes ". . . a significant, increasing and likely untenable disharmony within the chiropractic fraternity".

Walker, the Editor of the Journal where this nonsense was published claims ". . . that the presence of retrograde ideologies cause the chiropractic profession reputational damage and act as barriers to legitimacy as a worthy and functioning allied health profession".

The Denying Authors go further and make this absurd claim using circular referencing in a failed attempt to back it up:

"Scholars have raised concerns over the use of the term ‘subluxation’ in teaching of students because: (1) the construct lacks sufficient scientific evidence and validity to be at all meaningful in health practitioner (chiropractic) training, and (2) using the term ‘subluxation’ adversely affects the clinical judgements of chiropractic students."

This is how they claim subluxation does not exist and even if it does - its meaningless.

They close their paper by blaming the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) which has a monopoly control over the chiropractic educational and licensing system throughout the world.

Citing Subluxation Denier Innes they claim that the CCE "remain unclear in their directives to programs largely due to non-evidence-based input from stakeholders of ‘traditional’ chiropractic philosophy" and " . . . polite acceptance of ‘philosophical’ or ‘ideological’ views of some chiropractors" by the CCE for political reasons.

The bottom line is that this is just one more paper in a long line of papers by Subluxation Deniers published in their own Subluxation Denying journals with the intent to disparage those who manage vertebral subluxation in a vitalistic, salutogenic model. The paper will be added to the pile of rubbish that is used to attack chiropractors by regulatory board members who agree with them as well as in malpractice cases by "experts" who need to discredit a practitioner.

McCoy Press