Many of our patients were referred to our office by their medical physicians. We maintain close relationships with primary care physicians, orthopedists, neurologists, neuro-surgeons and pain management specialists. They refer patients for chiropractic care as an additional treatment because they have witnessed the efficacy of chiropractic intervention, and have stayed up-to-date on the current medical professional journals that recommend chiropractic.
In 2007 the medical journal Annals of Internal Medicine’s published
A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society
The Guideline’s only recommendation for acute back pain unresponsive to self-care was to “consider the addition of non- drug therapy with proven benefits—spinal manipulation”
For chronic low back pain, the study recommended the following options: intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise therapy, acupuncture, massage therapy, and spinal manipulation
Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:478-491.
It can no longer be said that there is a lack of scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of chiropractic care, or any medical opposition to the use of spinal manipulation.
Simply stated, there is scientific evidence to support the notion that chiropractic care should be the standard treatment of choice for acute and chronic low back pain. In today’s healthcare world where “Evidence Based Healthcare” is becoming more popular, chiropractic care is more than holding its own in the scientific research arena. In fact, a strong case can be made that the curricula of all of our country’s medical schools should be amended to include training of tomorrow’s Medical Doctors to refer patients with some to doctors of chiropractic for care. This protocol is already under way in many of our military and Veteran’s hospitals, where economic and political bias is less influential.
When it comes to science, this is the most exciting time in the history of chiropractic!
See the “What the research Says” tab for more detail
Why Didn’t my Doctor Recommend Chiropractic Care
Your doctor may have been misled about the nature and value of chiropractic care.
Below is the preface to the 101-page US Supreme Court decision that found the American Medical Association guilty of conspiracy to discredit, contain and destroy the chiropractic profession.
Evidence at the trial showed that the American Medical Association took active steps, often covert, to undermine chiropractic educational institutions, conceal evidence of the usefulness of chiropractic care, undercut insurance programs for patients of chiropractors, subvert government inquiries into the efficacy of chiropractic, engage in a massive disinformation campaign to discredit and destabilize the chiropractic profession and engage in numerous other activities to maintain a medical physician monopoly over health care in this country.
Many doctors who are more recent graduates have been trained regarding the value of spinal manipulation. You medical doctor may be a DO (Doctor of Osteopathy) and be trained in spinal manipulation. However, since spinal manipulation is complicated in both assessment and in treatment, many doctors of osteopathy refer their patients to a chiropractor for manipulation*
The AMA and its officials instituted a boycott of chiropractors in the mid-1960s by informing AMA members that chiropractors were unscientific practitioners and that it was unethical for a medical physician to associate with chiropractors. The purpose of the boycott was to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession. This conduct constituted a conspiracy among the AMA and its members and an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section I of the Sherman Act.
On August 27, 1987, Judge Susan Getzendanner, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Illinois Eastern Division, found the American Medical Association, The American College of Surgeons, and The American College of Radiology, guilty of having conspired to destroy the profession of chiropractic in the United States. In a 101-page opinion, Judge Getzendanner ruled that the American Medical Association and its co-conspirators had violated the Sherman Antitrust Laws of the United States. Judge Getzendanner ruled that they had done this by organizing a national boycott of doctors of chiropractic by medical physicians and hospitals using an ethics ban on inter-professional cooperation.
Evidence at the trial showed that the defendants took active steps, often covert, to undermine
chiropractic educational institutions, conceal evidence of the usefulness of chiropractic care,
undercut insurance programs for patients of chiropractors, subvert government inquiries into the efficacy of chiropractic, engage in a massive disinformation campaign to discredit and destabilize the chiropractic profession and engage in numerous other activities to maintain a medical physician monopoly over health care in this country.
I. Summary of Judge's Opinion and Order
Judge Getzendanner ruled:
I conclude that an injunction is necessary in this case. There ore lingering effects of the
conspiracy; the AMA has never acknowledged the lawlessness of its post conduct and in fact to this day maintains that it has always been in compliance with the antitrust laws; there has never been an affirmative statement by the AMA that it is ethical to associate with chiropractors; there has never been a ublic statement to AMA members of the admission made in this court about the improved nature of chiropractic despite the fact that the AMA today claims that it made changes in its policy in recognition of the change and improvement in chiropractic; there has never been public retraction of articles such as "The Right and Duty of Hospitals to Deny Chiropractor Access to Hospitals"; a medical physician has to very carefully read the current AMA Judicial Council Opinions to realize that there has been a change in the treatment of chiropractors and the court cannot assume that members of the AMA pour over these opinions*, and finally, the systematic, long-term wrongdoing and the long-term intent to destroy a licensed profession suggests that an injunction is appropriate in this case. When all of these factors are considered in the context of this "private attorney general" antitrust suit, a proper exercise of the court's discretion permits, and in my judgment requires, an injunction. (Opinion pp. 11).
Evidence in the case demonstrated that the AMA knew of scientific studies implying that chiropractic care was twice as effective cis medical care in relieving many painful conditions of the neck and back as well as related musculoskeletal problems. The court concluded: There also was some evidence before the Committee that chiropractic was effective - more effective than the medical profession in treating certain kinds of problems such as workmen's back injuries. The Committee on Quackery was also aware that some medical physicians believed chiropractic to be effective and that chiropractors were better trained to deal with musculoskeletal problems than most medical physicians. (Opinion pp. 7)
The Opinion found:
The AMA and its officials instituted a boycott of chiropractors in the mid-1960s by informing AMA members that chiropractors were unscientific practitioners and that it was unethical for a medical physician to associate with chiropractors. The purpose of the boycott was to contain and liminate the chiropractic profession. This conduct constituted a conspiracy among the AMA and its members and an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section I
of the Sherman Act.
The AMA sought to spread the boycott to other medical societies. Other groups agreed to
participate in the boycott by agreeing to induce their members to forego any form of
professional, research, or educational association with chiropractors.
Follow this link to the full version of the US Supreme Court decision: (pdf)
*statistically less than 3% of doctors of osteopathy perform spinal manipulation despite their training