TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Advanced search  


We are Allaxys
We moved our news front to

The Forum 1 on is only a backup archive!

Twin Update 8.5.2023

Warning to Amazon Data Services Singapore
Warning to Amazon Data Services Japan
Do stop your sabotage or you will be shot!

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Action for Victims of Chiropractic in UK  (Read 2182 times)


  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1201
Action for Victims of Chiropractic in UK
« on: September 23, 2007, 11:55:05 AM »

[SHIT! Die Domain ist abgeraucht. Schon vor über 10 Jahren. Aber Keine hat etwas gemerkt. Ayu]

Die Domain im Web Archive:*/*

Aber nur die Jahre bis 2009 nehmen!

This is a starter post to support x


email: neck999uk[bat]
Victims - Introduction

Action for Victims of Chiropractic was started by Chiropractic Victim Mrs Frances S Denoon on the 20th March 2001. This site represent the only known support and pressure group in the UK for victims of Complementary Therapies and in particular Chiropractic.
New -Read our 6 year review & commentary - click here.

Frances Denoon's story is fully detailed on this website. See Victims Case

AVC's principal aim is outlined below:

to raise public awareness of the risks involved with upper cervical
manipulation of the spine. (neck manipulation)

To raise public awareness of the approach and theory of Chiropractic
from the victim's perspective.

To offer non-financial support to Victims of any Chiropractic injury as far as the resources available to AVC

To keep up pressure within the Government and Chiropractic advocator's to carry out independent clinical trials of the benefits/risks of chiropractic neck Manipulation.

AVC is not an anti-chiropractic organisation. AVC is only interested in bona fide research information and correspondence from either victims or interested parties to engage in the dialogue of the safety and benefits of chiropractic.
AVC is totally self funded. No funds are required from new or existing
All statements and advice cannot be relied on and AVC cannot be held responsible for any content. You are warned regularly through the
website to ensure that you take professional legal advice before embarking on any medical claim.

[x-ed, Yulli]
« Last Edit: February 23, 2022, 05:49:04 PM by Yulli »
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik


  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 916
Re: Action for Victims of Chiropractic in UK
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2022, 05:58:29 PM »

Since the Web Archive can not be searched, things there can not be found. So we take this find into the publicly viewable archive:




[Das idiotische Skript fälscht die URL. Man muß die URL von Hand mit dem Browser nehmen und dann das "x" am Anfang löschen. Das funktioniert. Thymian]

(spidered on 7th. February 2007)

Action for Victims of Chiropractic (AVC)

It is Six years since we started this campaign, we detail below where we see the state of Chiropractic in the UK with special emphasis on Chiropractic Neck Manipulation. These are the opinions and views of AVC and should not be relied on for any decisions for treatment or making a complaint. Always seek advice from your GP for medical treatment and a Solicitor for any complaint regarding Chiropractic treatment.

Mrs Frances Denoon
January 2007

Introduction:  Is it safe?  Do they tell us all the facts?  Is the GCC working for the public good?

You the patient can only make fully informed choices about your health care if you have access to factual and accurate information that is clearly worded and unambiguous.  In our view this quality of information has always been lacking with regard to the practice of Chiropractic in the UK.

Action for Victims of Chiropractic (AVC) has written several times to the UK regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC), in an effort to obtain clarification on a number of serious Chiropractic issues.  Almost invariably, the GCC’s responses have been vague and evasive, serving only to strengthen AVC’s belief that the protection of the public is not what really lies at the heart of chiropractic regulation.

Drawing on AVC’s correspondence with the GCC, this six year review will look at much of the confusion that surrounds Chiropractic and offer some suggestions as to how the public might be better served by the profession.

The General Chiropractic Council (GCC):  Working for the public good?

In 1999, two years prior to its regulatory powers coming fully into force, the GCC issued a press release in which it made clear that it was determined to be an effective and transparent regulatory body. [1]   This ambitious policy of openness, undoubtedly designed to inspire public confidence, implied that the GCC could perform its statutory role without reproach. However, the last six years have indicated that its original aspirations have been largely unworkable, not least due to a significant incompatibility in its remit. 

In attempting to fulfil the first two of its three main duties - (1) protecting the public, and (2) setting standards of chiropractic education, conduct and practice - the GCC has simultaneously been actively attending to its third main duty, that of “promoting the profession”. [2]  In executing this duty, not only has it been remarkably reticent to inform the public that the origins of chiropractic are rooted in pseudoscience, but it has also been persistently reluctant to acknowledge that chiropractic has yet to demonstrate that it is a safe therapy. 

Chiropractic Subluxation Theory:  What is it?  Does anyone know?

Chiropractic was founded by Daniel David Palmer in the United States in 1895.  DD Palmer, as he is more commonly known, was a grocer and magnetic healer who had a deep interest in spiritualism and had come to believe, erroneously, that most diseases were the result of 'nerve interference' caused by misaligned vertebrae (‘subluxations’ – as defined by chiropractors), and that health could be restored and maintained by the administration of spinal ‘adjustments’ to correct these misalignments.  He hypothesised that such adjustments would help a patient to achieve optimal health or ‘wellness’ by allowing the spinal cord to express its 'innate intelligence' (a metaphysical, non-measurable entity, sometimes known as the 'vital force').

However, this vitalistic philosophy, which is exclusive to chiropractic, has never stood up to scientific scrutiny.  It has been shown to be anatomically impossible for misaligned vertebrae to interfere with the autonomic (involuntary) nervous system and no one has ever been able to demonstrate that subluxations exist or cause disease by theoretically compromising neural integrity. [3]

Put simply, Chiropractic subluxation theory is false. 

So why would a “transparent” regulatory body omit such crucial historical information from its two main public information resources? [2] [4]

Subluxation-based chiropractic practices:  Where is the evidence?

Based on the GCC’s claim that "the term subluxation is not fundamental to the overall practice of chiropractic in the UK", [5] it would be reasonable to assume that the omission is due to subluxation-based practices being rare in the UK.  However, on closer inspection there are several indications that the concept of subluxation, even when unstated or denied, is very much fundamental to the practices of many UK chiropractors. 

To illustrate this point one needs to look no further than the UK’s four main chiropractic organisations.  Three of them blatantly support the subluxation theory [6] [7] [8] and the fourth, although seemingly trying to distance itself from it by making little reference to it, does say that “subluxation” may indirectly cause people to be unable to shake off some illnesses. [9]   Although the GCC might say that these organisations are autonomous and that it cannot be responsible for the content of their external websites, the issues raised by them cannot be ignored. 

What many people do not seem to appreciate is that chiropractors’ reasons for using spinal manipulation can be very different from those used by evidence-based manual therapists. [10]

On more than one occasion AVC has asked the GCC to produce reliable scientific evidence in support of chiropractors’ claims that they can identify and correct “subluxations” and that such corrective treatment leads to improved health outcomes.  But rather than admit that here is no scientific evidence for chiropractic subluxation theory and insist that UK chiropractors abandon their ingrained beliefs about it, and discard their associated manipulation-based treatment approaches (specific spinal adjustments), the GCC has instead offered up complex and incomprehensible explanations for it in an apparent desperate attempt to validate it. [5] [11]

Particularly misleading has been its claim that “There is confusion over the term ‘subluxation’, because it has different meanings for different people.  There is, however, scientific evidence for many of the interpretations of the word”. [12]   The fact is that there are only two definitions for it: (1) The evidence-based medical definition (i.e. an incomplete or partial dislocation of a joint – frequently the result of trauma, it is a more severe abnormality which tends to occur in areas other than the spine and, as such, is rarely treated by chiropractors), and (2) the scientifically unproven chiropractic definition.

In view of the above, AVC is forced to conclude that any chiropractor who claims to correct chiropractic “subluxations” and who offers ongoing treatment to correct these alleged lesions (often under the guise of wellness care, family wellness care, or preventative maintenance care), is not only misrepresenting a patient’s condition and the therapeutic effects of treatment, but is also needlessly subjecting patients to the risks associated with chiropractic treatment.  As the GCC has stated very clearly to AVC that “unnecessary chiropractic treatment should not be provided to any patient”, [13] such practices must surely be indefensible.

So why does the GCC seem to be tolerating these practices instead of outlawing them?  Could the philosophical leanings of the GCC’s own members have something to do with this?  It would certainly seem so.

GCC Committees:  Who makes the decisions and are they working together?

As at least half of the chiropractors who currently sit on the GCC’s committees are members of chiropractic organisations that support chiropractic subluxation theory, it would seem that a fragile political unity is all that is binding the GCC together.  Moreover, with the number of ‘vitalist’ chiropractors in the UK increasing, and with the next GCC elections due to be held in June 2007, the practice styles of all 10 chiropractors who will be sitting on the GCC’s committees between June 2007 and June 2012 could be a cause for even greater concern. [14]

So are the contrasting outlooks of the GCC’s current chiropractic committee members responsible for its apparent focus on opinion rather than evidence? [15]   And how does the current regulatory set-up impact on the GCC’s duty to develop the profession using a model of continuous model improvement in practice amongst its registrants? 
Standards:  Who’s checking on who?  Are chiropractors checked enough?

In gaining the political credence required to achieve statutory self regulation, the GCC was required to develop and publish a Code of Practice and Standard of Proficiency [16] that would contain binding requirements on chiropractors.  These “set out for patients the quality of care they are entitled to receive from chiropractors” and in discharging its duties the GCC seems to rely heavily on chiropractors adhering to, and patients reading, all the requirements embedded in them. [5][11][12][13][17]   

But as the scope of chiropractic is not defined by law in the UK, [5] are either of these two documents of any real value to patients?   

For example, the GCC claims that its fundamental concern is that neither the advertising nor the application of treatment approaches, which it has acknowledged would include the following -

    • adjustment of the atlas and axis (high neck manipulation) to optimise health
    • free screenings of asymptomatic infants, children and adults to detect and correct “subluxations”
    • regular maintenance/wellness care involving the detecting and correction of “subluxations”
    • craniosacral therapy
    • applied kinesiology

- should be used to “alarm the public/patients, exaggerate the benefits of chiropractic care, or exploit the lack of understanding of the public/patients”. 

However, it claims that “appropriate use” of screenings and maintenance/wellness care “are acceptable aspects of the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders and (where they occur) reducing the impact they have on the health and wellbeing of patients”. [11] This is plagued by confusion since neither the GCC nor the Code of Practice and Standard of Proficiency defines the term “appropriate use”. 

In view of this, how can the GCC expect such vague terminology to be understood by patients and the public?  This also begs the question, how good is the quality of care that patients are entitled to receive from chiropractors? 

Benefits of chiropractic:  Are there any?  How much evidence do we need to believe?

Section A2.3 of the Standard of Proficiency states clearly that "Chiropractors' provision of care must be evidence based", and Section B2.7 of the Code of Practice requires that chiropractors “must offer enough information to patients for them to take the decision to consent or not.  If the patient is not offered as much information as they reasonably need to make their decision, and in a form they can understand, their consent may not be valid”.  A related footnote explains that this would include “information on the benefits and risks of the proposed method of assessment or care and any alternative methods”. [16]

Subluxation-based practices notwithstanding, this requirement means that patients who are suffering from low back pain or neck pain will have to be told that the most up-to-date scientific evidence shows that spinal manipulation for these conditions is no better than conventional therapies, [18] [19] [20] some of which are apparently safer, more convenient and more cost-effective.  For most other conditions, including migraine, asthma, infantile colic and menstrual pains, they will have to be told that there is no compelling evidence for either spinal manipulation [21][22][23][24] or ‘chiropractic’. [25][26]27][28]

In spite of this, the GCC’s current definition of chiropractic remains very broad and claims to treat a range of conditions. [4]   It has even dared to stretch its very strange definition of evidence-based care (which incorporates the “expertise” of chiropractors) to include applied kinesiology and craniosacral therapy [11] despite there being no scientific evidence whatsoever for either of these treatment approaches. But, conversely, it appears to make an allowance for this in its claim that "No health profession limits its approach to treatments for which there is evidence, because for most interventions in healthcare there simply is not yet good evidence”. [12]   Although there is some truth in this, it should never be abused by healthcare professionals to serve their own interests.  Certainly, it should not be twisted to allow irrational beliefs to override scientific evidence and ignore known risks. 

So what are the risks of chiropractic treatment and what is the GCC’s attitude to patient safety?

Risks:  Just what are the real dangers?  Does anyone know?  Should we find out?

As there have been several case reports of serious complications associated with chiropractic treatment (including stroke, paralysis and death), [29][30] it would be more than reasonable to assume that regulatory transparency in this regard would be imperative.  However, in view of the GCC’s persistent claims that “there is no evidence that neck manipulation causes stroke”, it would appear that it is very keen to reduce the significance of such reports. [5][12] [13].   It has even gone as far as to assert that "Associating spinal manipulation with ‘stroke and death’ is not supported by research evidence as a causal relationship, but is put forward by alarmist journalism only”. [31]

Nevertheless, the fact remains that serious adverse events associated with spinal manipulation are on record and their frequency is currently not known. [32]   Indeed, the risk estimates which are required to be divulged by chiropractors to their patients prior to treatment could actually be very much higher than currently estimated due to under-reporting. [33]   This would also include the under-reporting of adverse events experienced by children following chiropractic treatment. [34]

So does the GCC’s stance on this issue convey a genuine concern for patient safety?

Safe practice:  Advising potential alternatives would reduce their fees of course.

With regard to neck pain (a non-life-threatening condition which is often treated by chiropractors), it is an inescapable fact that the best evidence available today shows that exercise rather than spinal manipulation is the best treatment for it. [20]

However, rather than acknowledge this responsible risk-benefit assessment by issuing a public statement in support of it, the GCC currently passes off neck manipulation as being one of several treatment “options” available for chiropractors to include in their provision of care. [11]

As all health practitioners should always use the therapy that has the least potential to cause serious side effects, why isn’t the GCC instructing chiropractors to err on the side of caution and to stop using neck manipulation until its safety profile is better understood?  Or is the potential for neck manipulation to wreck lives by causing serious injuries - including devastating brain injuries - not to be taken seriously?

With most chiropractors in the UK being self-employed, AVC suspects that the GCC’s current overall position could be directly related to a conflict of interest, i.e. the disclosure of the risks associated with chiropractic treatment having the potential to work against the financial interests of chiropractors by deterring patients from proceeding with treatment.  This is underscored by the fact that the GCC’s Patient Information Leaflet doesn’t mention serious risks, [4] and that the GCC has never established a reporting scheme for patients who have experienced complications associated with chiropractic treatment.
Further underscoring AVC’s suspicions is the GCC’s insistence that it doesn’t prevent patients from undertaking their own assessment of the risks of chiropractic treatment. [11]

If that is true, then why wasn’t it prepared to make a strong public statement regarding the clinically unnecessary practices of ‘upper cervical specialists’?

Upper cervical specialists:  Of course the GCC say there is little risk!!

It is very possible that a considerable number of patients will, unwittingly, be receiving treatment from chiropractors who consider themselves to be 'upper cervical specialists'.  These chiropractors use a technique known as ‘a hole-in-one treatment’.  The hole is the top of the spine where the brain stem forms the spinal cord, which then passes through the skull and top two vertebrae to enter the vertebral column.  In keeping with original chiropractic philosophy, some chiropractors believe that there is some sort of ‘innate intelligence’ existing in the spinal cord and that highest neck manipulation will release it.  One well-respected American chiropractor has this to say on the subject:

"Some chiropractors believe that most human ailments are the result of misalignment of the atlas and axis and that every patient they see needs neck manipulation.  Unnecessary manipulation of the atlas, in the area where manipulation is most dangerous, is not uncommon in chiropractic offices.  You should refuse treatment by any type of chiropractic 'upper cervical specialist'." [35]

As this technique has no scientific merit, AVC asked the GCC to declare its position on it in the hope of receiving an assurance that it was forbidden in the UK.  But rather than condemning it, the GCC would only comment “The GCC does not have a position on a style of practice.  The Standard of Proficiency requires that chiropractors select care that is safe and appropriate for the patient concerned, their health and their health needs (section A2.2)”. [17]

With no other government body in the UK to which the public and patients can turn for advice on the risks and benefits of chiropractic treatment, the GCC’s responses thus far could easily be viewed as detrimental to the public that it is duty-bound to protect.

So how does the GCC’s apparent playing down of the risks associated with chiropractic relate to its duty to ensure that chiropractors follow correct informed consent procedures?

Informed consent:  It is just not happening.  Would you walk out if told all the risks?

In order to obtain informed consent from patients it is a fundamental legal and ethical requirement for chiropractors to provide full information to their patients on proposed treatments.  However, a recent survey suggested that valid consent procedures are either poorly understood or selectively implemented by UK chiropractors. [36]   As only 23% of survey respondents reported always discussing serious risks of treatments, it is evident that many UK chiropractors have been contravening the requirements set out in the Code of Practice and Standard of Proficiency.

When AVC confronted the GCC with the survey results, the GCC would only comment that it had “embedded the requirement” for chiropractors to provide full information to their patients on proposed treatments in its Code of Practice; that it investigated all complaints against chiropractors; and that it published “learning points for the profession” that arose from all cases that proceeded to hearings by its Professional Conduct and Health Committees.  It also said that Fitness to Practice reports were distributed directly to all chiropractors and these were also published on its website. [11]

But are these strategies realistic?  Is it really possible for the GCC to effectively enforce its requirement for chiropractors to be “honest and trustworthy” ? [17]

Protection of patients:  Much more yet to do.

As already pointed out, one of the GCC’s primary duties is to protect the public with regard to the regulation and practice of chiropractic and with a few disciplinary actions having been taken against UK chiropractors during the past six years it would appear that, on the surface, the GCC has been diligently executing its duty in this area.  To the public, this is bound to look very reassuring.  But is it?  Whilst such disciplinary actions are commendable and should encourage patients (and others) to continue to make complaints, there is a danger that these cases are somewhat isolated and, as such, might be giving a false impression to the public. 

With the GCC not having an inspectorate role, and with most of the UK’s 2,000+ chiropractors working unmonitored in private practice, in many cases dealing with patients who have sought chiropractic treatment independent of a GP referral, patients are constantly placed in a potentially vulnerable situation.  This situation is compounded by the fact that unless patients have been formally referred to them, there is no compulsion on chiropractors to communicate with their patients' GPs [13] or other healthcare professionals.   These circumstances give chiropractors an enormous advantage over their patients since most patients wouldn't be able to distinguish between reasonable therapeutic claims and implausible pseudoscientific theories. 

For example, how would patients be able to determine when treatments were being appropriately used and when they might not be valid? How would they know when they might be becoming dependent on particular forms of care? How would they be able to recognise when chiropractors were being dishonest and untrustworthy?  Bearing in mind that most patients would find it difficult not to comply with the recommendations of a figure of authority, especially one who holds the title of doctor*, it is worth noting some remarks made by one student of chiropractic history and philosophy in a criticism of the philosophical constructs of the profession:

"The trick to evading accountability, and yet keeping patients coming, is to imply a lot of benefits without saying anything specific.....There are few outcome measures by which patients can judge their progress..... When a patient begins to balk at further care, they can be frightened into continuing care by dire predictions of the 'devastating effects of subluxation degeneration.'" [37]

With regard to current professional standards, it seems that chiropractic is just about anything that chiropractors want it to be.  It is all very well having a regulatory body in place to deal with any problems that patients may have, but as long as patients are being deprived of a factual, accurate, and evidence-based resource that would equip them with enough information to recognise problems such as inappropriate treatment, or deceptive or unethical behaviour, then it follows that many of them will remain unprotected and the chiropractors treating them will evade accountability. 

* Although chiropractors are legitimately known as 'Doctors of Chiropractic’, it is important that their ‘doctor’ title is not confused with that of medical doctors.  A degree in chiropractic does not command the same depth and quality of training as a degree in medicine.

With chiropractic being promoted as suitable for people of all ages with acute or chronic conditions, apparently including those who are symptom-free, the modern day reality of chiropractic in the UK seems to be that almost any members of the public could be scared into believing that they require chiropractic care.

Those who do decide to seek chiropractic care will almost certainly be left with the following question to answer for themselves:  Is chiropractic about the regular adjustment of scientifically unproven “subluxations” which allegedly prevent a patient from achieving optimal overall health, or is it one of a handful of manipulative professions that can help to alleviate pain and discomfort arising from a limited number of recognised neuro-musculoskeletal conditions?  Even a few UK chiropractors have gone as far as to acknowledge this dilemma.  The following comments were published in a recent GCC survey:
“13 respondents called for the GCC to differentiate between the various styles of chiropractic.  The reasons given for this were that when asked by patients what the differences are they are not sure what they can say and this leads to confusion.  It was also said that some GPs will not refer patients to chiropractors because they do not understand the difference between the styles of practice.” [38]

Clarifying the confusion

As one of the GCC’s main duties is to “promote the profession of chiropractic so that its contribution to the health of the nation is understood and recognised” [2] the very least that it could do is to produce a very detailed, clearly worded, and easily accessible resource explaining the essential differences in chiropractic styles, along with reliable scientific evidence to substantiate them and a list of the individual practice styles of UK chiropractors. In doing so it should also provide a list of common chiropractic techniques and practices which it does not consider legitimate and an accurate risk-benefit profile for those which it does consider legitimate.

Hopefully, such a resource would also include a very precise description of the two different meanings of the term “subluxation”, as well as an explanation of the manner in which evidence-based chiropractic care differs from services currently being provided by other manual therapists. For example, if it is not duplicating services already being provided by physiotherapists, what extra services is it offering (apart from more rapid access for patients due to the profession’s primary care status)? 

Not only would such a resource reflect the GCC’s determination “to be an effective and transparent regulatory body”, [1] but it would also be in keeping with Section 5.14 of The House of Lords Select Committee Report on Complementary and Alternative Medicine which states that a feature of effective regulation is:

"…to understand and advertise areas of competence, including limits of competence within each therapy." [39]

It would also be helpful if the GCC would define its understanding of the word 'competence' and how it relates to those chiropractors who follow vitalistic subluxation-based practices styles as well as other pseudoscientific or potentially dangerous approaches to patient care.


It is probably fair to say that much of the current situation regarding the practice of chiropractic in the UK represents a microcosm of the way in which chiropractic is practiced elsewhere in the world. 

Fortunately, as with other countries, the UK does appear to have a small number of reformist chiropractors
who limit their practices to the conservative treatment of neuro-musculoskeletal conditions and reject chiropractic's subluxation theory and other pseudoscientific procedures. 

It is more than likely that these reformists were among the 11 respondents who, in the recent GCC survey, commented that ‘wellness care’ and the recommendation to patients that they required on-going care to prevent any disorder occurring was “unethical and must be stopped”. [38]  As these chiropractors obviously have the courage to address the profession's shortcomings by speaking out, it would be helpful if they made themselves known, perhaps by forming their own association, and thereby allowing the public to have easier access to chiropractors who prefer to administer treatments only for which there is a reliable scientific base.

In the meantime, the rest of the profession might like to heed some words which were written over 10 years ago but which, in many cases, would still appear to be applicable to the practice of chiropractic today.

On the issue of informed choice for patients:

"If relevant information is withheld (a covert lie), or if false information is supplied (an overt lie), there is deception.  Under such conditions, treatment is administered under false pretences.  Deceived patients are not able to choose freely.  Only an informed choice is a free choice.  Chiropractors who pre-empt their patients' ability to choose betray their trust and set them up for possible physical and psychological catastrophe." [40]

And regarding the profession itself:

"Perhaps they will reflect on the origin of their profession or reconsider the importance of a scientific attitude and methodology in helping to ensure that their treatment is safe and effective.  Only a scientific foundation can elicit the widespread acceptance and respect they desire." [41]

The message is clear.  But will it ever get through?

[17th January 2007]


1.    GCC Press Release, ‘General Chiropractic Council takes the lead’, 17th December 1999
2.    General Chiropractic Council, ‘What is the GCC?’
3.    Crelin E. A Scientific Test of Chiropractic’s Subluxation Theory. American Scientist 61:574-580, 1973
4.    GCC Patient Information Leaflet ‘What can I expect when I see a chiropractor?’, 2005
5.     General Chiropractic Council letter to Action for Victims of Chiropractic, 14th October 2004
6.    United Chiropractic Association
7.    McTimoney Chiropractic Association
8.    Scottish Chiropractic Association
9.    British Chiropractic Association ‘Servicing your spine’
10.  Homola S. Can Chiropractors and Evidence-Based Manual Therapists Work Together?
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy; Vol.14 No.2 (2006), E14-E18
11.  General Chiropractic Council letter to Action for Victims of Chiropractic, 17th November 2006
       (Page 1)
       (Page 2)
        (Page 3)
12.  General Chiropractic Council letter to Action for Victims of Chiropractic, 17th June 2004
       (Page 1)
       (Page 2)
13.   General Chiropractic Council letter to Action for Victims of Chiropractic, 8th April 2004
14.   Wight JLG. GCC elections in the UK. Chiropractic Choice 2002;Sept:18
15.  Action for Victims of Chiropractic letter to the General Chiropractic Council, 22nd October 2006
16.  General Chiropractic Council, Code of Practice and Standard of Proficiency
17.  General Chiropractic Council letter to Action for Victims of Chiropractic, 15th August 2005
18.  Assendelft WJJ, Morton SC, Yu EI et al. Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. 
      Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; 1 CD00047
19.  Gross AR, Hoving JL, Haines TA et al. Cervical overview group. Manipulation and mobilisation for
 mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; 3:CD004249
20.  Ernst E., Chiropractic spinal manipulation for neck pain - a systematic review. J Pain 2003; 4: 417-42
21.  Hondras MA, Linde K, Jones AP. Manual therapy for asthma.
 Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;2:CD001002
22.  Spinal Manipulation for Infantile Colic, CCOHTA, November 2003
23.  Proctor ML, Hing W, Johnson TC, Murphy PA. Spinal Manipulation for primary and secondary
dysmenorrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; 4: CD002119
24.  Ernst E, Canter PH. A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation. JR Soc Med. 
25.  Bandolier Extra – Migraine Special Issue
26.  Balon J et al. A comparison of active and simulated chiropractic manipulation as adjunctive treatment
for childhood asthma. New England Journal of Medicine 1998;339:1013-1020
27.  Olafsdottir E, Forshei S, Fluge G, Markestad T, Randomized controlled trial of infantile colic treated
       with chiropractic spinal manipulation. Arch Dis Child 2001;84:138-141
28.  Ernst E. Chiropractic manipulation for non-spinal pain: a systematic review.
New Zealand Medical Journal 2003;116(1179):U539
29.  Ernst E. Manipulation of the cervical spine: a systematic review of case reports of serious adverse
events, 1995–2001. Med J Aust 2002; 176: 376–80.
30. – Victims (10 pages)
31.  Coats M., Letter to Editor of Health Service Journal, 26th July 2004
32.   Ernst E. Cerebrovascular complications associated with spinal manipulation.
 Phys Ther Rev 2004; 9: 5–15.
33.  Stevinson C, Honan W, Cooke B, Ernst E. Neurological complications of cervical spine manipulation.
      J R Soc Med 2001; 94: 107–10
34.  Vohra S, Johnston BC, Cramer K, Humphreys K., Adverse Events Associated With Pediatric Spinal
Manipulation: A Systematic Review, Pediatrics, Vol. 119 No. 1 January 2007, pp.275-283
35.  Homola, S., (DC), Inside Chiropractic: A Patient’s Guide, p.86
36.  Langworthy JM, le Fleming, C, Consent or Submission? The practice of consent within UK
chiropractic, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 2005 Jan;28(1):15-24
37.  Donahue, J. H., (DC) The trouble with Innate and the trouble that causes,
       Philosophical Constructs for the Chiropractic Profession, 2(1):21-25 (1992)
38.   General Chiropractic Council, A survey of UK chiropractors, 2004
39.  The United Kingdom Parliament Select Committee on Science and Technology, Sixth Report,
       Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Chapter 5: Regulation
40.  Magner, G., Chiropractic: The Victim’s Perspective, p.178
41.  Magner, G., Chiropractic: The Victim’s Perspective, p.200

[Skriptfehler behoben, Thymian]
« Last Edit: March 16, 2022, 05:08:56 PM by Thymian »
"Freiheit für Grönland! Weg mit dem Packeis!"

Wer war das?


  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 916
Re: Action for Victims of Chiropractic in UK
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2022, 06:13:13 PM »

Her life nearly ended with 30...

A piece for the archive. Do not forget what happened to Frances Denoon!

Frances Denoon and son Fraser
VICTIM: Frances Denoon cuddles her year-old son Fraser    

How a neck massage put me in a coma

A YOUNG mother was plunged into a two-year medical nightmare in which she had part of her brain removed after being treated by a chiropractor for a stiff neck.

Frances Denoon, a 30-year-old insurance underwriter, went to see the registered chiropractor when she suffered stiffness following a gym workout.
But her massage went tragically wrong. A blood vessel burst and she was rushed to hospital, where she slipped into a coma and was given only an even chance of survival.

After emergency surgery she faced a long struggle to regain her life, re-learning how to breathe, swallow, walk and talk.

Now Frances is planning legal redress for the damage she says she suffered - including temporary blindness and paralysis - at the hands of the Bristol chiropractor.

She said: "I put my life in the hands of someone else without being told about the risks involved and things have got to change before someone dies." Frances and her husband Richard, 36, of Westerleigh, Glos., had been married for four years when she made an appointment to see the chiropractor in March 1998.

The former fitness fanatic said: "My neck had been a bit stiff for about a week. I probably just did it circuit training, but decided to see my GP."

He recommended she saw a chiropractor. As Frances lay on the couch during her second visit an artery at the base of her skull was ruptured during upper neck manipulation.

She said: "I felt dizzy and my eyesight became impaired and then I started vomiting.

"I was very scared, but couldn't speak to tell him how bad it was. He went to get a doctor and an ambulance was called."

Frances was rushed to the neurological unit at Frenchay Hospital, Bristol, where it was realised she had suffered a post-manipulative brainstem stroke. She slipped into a coma and had three hours of emergency surgery, during which surgeons relieved brain swelling and removed a piece of brain tissue which had died due to a lack of blood flow caused by a clot.

After surgery her family were told her chances of survival were only 50-50. For three days, she lay in a coma.

Chartered surveyor Richard said: "She went to see someone about a stiff neck - the sort of thing everyone gets - and ended up fighting for her life."

Regaining consciousness was just the beginning of Frances's problems. She had been left paralysed on her right side, blind, dumb, unable to swallow and needing help to breathe.

She spent eight more weeks in hospital. Frances's remarkable recovery is as complete as it will ever be and yesterday she and Richard celebrated the first birthday of their son, Fraser.The Reading-based British Chiropractic Association's executive director Sue Wakefield declined to comment due to the impending court action.

Express Newspapers, September 4, 2000 - A9


Canadian Quackerywatch
"Freiheit für Grönland! Weg mit dem Packeis!"

Wer war das?


  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1286
What's the harm in going to a chiropractor?
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2022, 08:27:05 AM »

"What's the Harm?" is an old website, which covers several topics. This page is about the danger by chiropractors. Since Google is Nazi dreck, I support the victims by archiving this list.

The web-page was archived by 8 years ago, and since then was not changed. So the old archive piece still is holding the momentary state.
archived in the Island Ice:

what's the harm?
What is this site?
List of Topics
Famous people
Scientific studies
RSS Feed New cases (RSS)

For more on this topic:
   368,379 people killed, 306,096 injured and over $2,815,931,000 in economic damages

What's the harm in going to a chiropractor?

In its original form, chiropractic is a form of energy medicine based on unscientific principles such as 'innate intelligence'. To be fair, not all current chiropractors still believe in these concepts.  Read more about chiropractic

Here are 312 people who were harmed by someone not thinking critically.
Linda Barter

Age: 42
Sutton Coldfield, England

Permanent neck injury
After a neck manipulation at her chiropractors, Linda now has a permanent neck problem and must take tranquilizers daily. Read more
Photo of Kristi A. Bedenbaugh
Kristi A. Bedenbaugh

Age: 24
Little Mountain, South Carolina

Kristi sought relief from sinus headaches from her chiropractor. A neck manipulation caused a brain stem stroke and she died three days later. The chiropractor later paid a $1000 fine. Read more
Photo of Samantha Cools (athlete)
Samantha Cools (athlete)

Age: 22
Airdrie, Alberta, Canada

Neck injury just before Olympics
May 2008
Her chiropractor over-rotated her neck during a routine adjustment, tearing tendons and muscles. This painful injury even limited her ability to eat, mere weeks before the world championships. She came in fifth, and DNFed at the Olympics. Read more
Frances S. Denoon

Age: 28
Bristol, England

March 1998
She visited a chiropractor to relieve some neck pain. On her second visit, "my world went into a dizzy spin" with nausea and loss of speech. The neck manipulation had caused a brain stem stroke. She now runs a web site for victims. Read more
Linda Epping

Age: 8
Los Angeles, California

December 29, 1961
Linda was scheduled for surgery to remove a tumor, when her parents met a chiropractor who said he could cure her. He had her swallowing up to 124 pills a day for months. He was convicted of second-degree murder in 1967. Read more
Donna Claire Fawcett

Age: 34
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

She had a chiropractic neck manipulation and died after several months in a coma. Read more
G. Fowden

Sandy, Utah

A lifelong believer in natural cures, she shunned conventional medicine. When she got sick she saw nearly every form of alternative practitioner. When she finally allowed herself to be taken to a hospital, it was far too late to help. Read more
Dr. Ronald Grainger

Age: 69
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

November 16, 2001
Chiropractic neck manipulation Read more
Brittmarie Harwe

Age: 40
Wethersfield, Connecticut

Unable to swallow
A chiropractic manipulation permanently paralyzed one of her vocal cords and left her unable to swallow food. She received $900,000 in a settlement. Later the chiropractor was given probation for harassing her by phone. Read more & more
Amy C. Hays

Age: 32
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Bullied into treatment
She feels she was duped and bullied by her chiropractor, read her story in her own words. Read more
Christa Heck

Age: 43
Mahopac, New York

November 2003
Ten minutes after visiting her chiropractor for headaches & back pain, she found herself crumpled & paralyzed in her SUV. She had been given a stroke. Read more
Photo of John Hoffman
John Hoffman

Age: 39
Gaithersburg, Maryland

August 5, 2004
His wife found him collapsed in their stairwell. He had had a chiropractic adjustment 3 hours earlier. His stroke was ruled to have been caused by the adjustment. He died 6 days later. Read more & more & more
Yvonne Hoskin

Age: 65
Geelong, Australia

Fractured back, chronic pain
She attended a chiropractor for backache. X-ray taken, and cancer of the vertebral body was missed. Subsequent manipulation caused major fracture which required 3-level fusion to fix and resulted in chronic pain.
J. Kesterson


She had an extremely bad experience with a chiropractor that she has documented on the web. Read more
Karen Labdon

Bellevue, Washington

Brain stem stroke
March 12, 1997
She had visited her chiropractor before for headaches and stress, but this time she felt sick after the visit. The alphabiotics practitioner had given her a brain stem stroke. She is now suing. Read more & more
Photo of Renate Dora Labonte
Renate Dora Labonte

Age: 40
Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Chiropractic neck manipulation for her migraines induced a stroke. Read more
Lana Dale Lewis

Age: 45
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

September 12, 1996
Two weeks after a chiropractic neck manipulation, she suffered a stroke. The chiropractic board ruled her death an accident. Read more
Photo of Les Limage
Les Limage

Age: 67
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Paralyzed by stroke
December 5, 2001
Les went to a chiropractor for some neck pain related to his hip replacement. The neck manipulation caused a brain stem stroke that paralyzed him and put him on a respirator. Read more
Jose Lopez

Age: 64
Sacramento, California

June 10, 2008
He went to see an unlicensed chiropractor at his home. A neck manipulation seriously injured him and left him unconcious. He was declared brain dead at hospital and the chiropractor faces murder charges. Read more & more
Photo of Laurie Jean Mathiason
Laurie Jean Mathiason

Age: 20
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

February 7, 1998
Laurie had a tailbone injury and sought out a chiropractor who manipulated her neck. She fell into a coma and died three days later. Read more
Kathryn McGlynn


Brain stem stroke
November 1994
After a chiropractic neck manipulation, she felt weakness down her right side. When she went to the hospital she was told she'd had an ischaemic stroke. Read more
Photo of Sandra Nette
Sandra Nette

Age: 41
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Multiple strokes, paralyzed
September 13, 2007
She felt dizzy after driving home from her chiropractor. Hospital physicians found she had suffered multiple strokes and required surgery. Paralyzed, disabled and under 24 hour care, she has filed a $500 million class action lawsuit. Read more & more
Pierrette Parisien

Age: 36
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

February 22, 2006
A regular chiropractic patient for nine years, she had neck pain, headaches and dizziness after two prior appointments. The third time, she fell into a coma and died. Read more
Charles Paynter

Age: 68
Columbus, Ohio

Hospitalized with kidney failure
He saw a chiropractor for help with his back pain. He was treated with heat, herbs, tonics and homeopathy. Three days after his last treatment, he was rushed to a hospital and barely recovered. A judgment for $147,500 was awarded by a court. Read more
Donald Pereyra

Ridgefield, Connecticut

Died (liver failure)
December 17, 1987
After a tumor on his back was surgically removed, his doctors recommended radiation and chemo. His chiropractor disagreed and injected him with unproven substances. He died of liver failure (he had no liver cancer) and a lawsuit resulted. Read more
Trevor Rhiner

Age: 17
Des Moines, Iowa

A year of unnecessary treatments
Trevor saw a chiropractor for back pain and numbness in his legs. He was diagnosed with a series of problems and told to take a year of treatments, paid up front. A second opinion from a doctor said there was nothing wrong with him. The family sued. Read more
Diane Rodrigue

Age: 36
Iroquois Falls, Ontario, Canada

Paralyzed by stroke
January 1994
She visited a chiropractor with help with her headaches. After a neck manipulation, her headache got worse. A second chiropractor manipulated her neck once more, and she had a stroke. She is now quadriplegic and requires a ventilator. Read more
Elizabeth A. Roth

Age: 49
Medway, Ohio

February 28, 1997
Chiropractor allegedly used a "Vega" energy machine to diagnose her but withheld information about her diagnosis. Another doctor diagnosed her with advanced breast cancer. A lawsuit resulted after her death.
Photo of Eric Sass
Eric Sass

Anthem, Arizona

July 3, 2008
Eric is a church youth counselor who is in fantastic physical shape. Following a routine spine & neck adjustment for "wellness" he experienced dizziness, impaired vision and headache. He'd had a stroke. Read more
Marilyn Senzell

Age: 59
South Holland, Illinois

She claims she suffered a torn carotid artery during a 2001 session with a chiropractor. A week later, she suffered a stroke which has left her disabled. The chiropractor paid her $500,000 in a settlement in 2008. Read more
Kelley Smith

Age: 40

Two ruptured disks
An iridologist at a psychic fair seemed accurate to her, and advised seeing a chiropractor. She now has two ruptured disks. Read more
Rachelle Smith

Age: 32
Olathe, Kansas

December 2006
Chiropractor Read more
Linda Solsbury

Age: 36
New London, Connecticut

Paralyzed & mute. Her $10 million judgement was avoided via bankruptcy
An LPN, she was left quadriplegic and mute after a neck manipulation. She sued, and became an advocate for changes in the laws regarding chiropractors. She died years later of complications from her illness. Read more
Kimberly Lee Strohecker

Age: 30
Hazleton, Pennsylvania

Died (epileptic seizure)
April 29, 1999
A chiropractor advised ceasing anticonvulsive medication and treated her with cranio-sacral therapy. When seizures returned, he insisted they were normal. She died in a later seizure. He got 18 months in prison. Read more
James Turner

Age: 11
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

July 24, 2000
He was taken by his parents to a chiropractor, who manipulated his back, but failed to notice he had a spinal cord tumor. His was left paralyzed. The parents sued for $2.75 million. Read more
Wendy Venegas

Age: 34
San Diego, California

Wendy, a mother of three young children, went to her chiropractor for help with sinusitis. A neck manipulation led to a brain stem stroke. Read more
Theresa Wilkin

Masterton, New Zealand

Delayed treatment for serious illness
February 2008
She was sick for a while and saw a chiropractor for the headaches. He told her that she had a pinched nerve in her back. She actually had a rare neurological illness that has had a local outbreak, and barely got to the hospital in time. Read more
Over 200 chiropractic patients

Age: 31 - 80

Serious harm including strokes, paraplegia
2001 - 2007
This meta-study in JRSM found more than 200 patients who were suspected to have been seriously harmed by spinal manipulation. Read more
34 child chiropractic patients

Age: 3 months - 15 years

Serious injury, delayed diagnosis of disease
December 18, 2006
This meta-study in Pediatrics found one death and 13 other serious injuries to children undergoing chiropractic manipulation. It also found 20 other cases of delayed diagnosis of disease or inappropriate use of chiropractic. Read more
36 Colorado patients

western Colorado

6 died, 10 colectomies, 36 total infections
This New England Journal of Medicine report is on an outbreak of amebiasis spread by colonic irrigation equipment at a chiropractic clinic in Colorado. Six patients died, thirty others required surgery or hospital care. Read more
"Mrs. A."

Age: 33
New Zealand

November 9, 2007
This mother of two saw a chiropractor for relief from headaches. After the fourth visit, she felt dizzy, lost sight in one eye and could not concentrate. This was caused by a stroke. A government commission recommended the chiropractor apologize. Read more
"A.K." (woman)

Tucson, Arizona

Died (untreated cancer)
Over the ten months she saw the chiropractor, he assured her at least twice that she did not have cancer. He even missed it on an x-ray at first. Finally he referred her to a doctor but it was too late. She died and he was suspended for a year. Read more
"Miss H."

Age: 43
Sheffield, England

Disabled, cannot work
July 18, 2000
Chiropractor Read more
"Margaret X"

Liverpool, England

Brain stem stroke
January 2003
She visited her chiropractor due to neck problems. She felt sick and nauseous after a neck manipulation. She had been given a brain stem stroke. Read more

Return to the list of topics

Écrasez l'infâme!
Pages: [1]