The C.A.M. Report
Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Fair, Balanced, and to the Point
  • About this web log

    This blog ran from 2006 to 2016 and was intended as an objective and dispassionate source of information on the latest CAM research. Since my background is in pharmacy and allopathic medicine, I view all CAM as advancing through the development pipeline to eventually become integrated into mainstream medical practice. Some will succeed while others fail. But all are treated fairly here.

  • About the author

    John Russo, Jr., PharmD, is president of The MedCom Resource, Inc. Previously, he was senior vice president of medical communications at, a complementary and alternative medicine website.

  • Common sense considerations

    The material on this weblog is for informational purposes. It is not medical advice or counsel. Be smart, consult your health professional before using CAM.

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Claims on chiropractic Internet sites that lack support

    Prof. Ernst criticizes chiropractic websites that make claims for treating conditions not support by research.

    And, the CEO of the World Chiropractic Alliance responds. 

    First, the details.

    • Over 2 months in 2008, claims by 200 chiropractor websites and 9 chiropractic association websites in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States were reviewed.
    • Researchers recorded the frequency of claims to treat conditions not supported by sound evidence:
      • Asthma
      • Headache/migraine
      • Infant colic
      • Colic
      • Ear infection/earache/otitis media
      • Neck pain
      • Whiplash
    • Condition supported by some evidence

    And, the results.

    • 95% of chiropractor websites made unsubstantiated claims regarding at least 1 condition.
    • When colic and infant colic were combined into one heading, 38% of chiropractor websites made claims about all the conditions listed above that are not supported by sound evidence.
    • 28% of websites and 44% (4) associations made claims about lower back pain.
    • 90% of websites and all 9 associations made unsubstantiated claims about headache/migraine.
    • Unsubstantiated claims were made about asthma, ear infection/earache/otitis media, and neck pain.

    The bottom line?

    It’s was concluded, “The majority of chiropractors and their associations in the English-speaking world seem to make therapeutic claims that are not supported by sound evidence, whilst only 28% of chiropractor websites promote lower back pain, which is supported by some evidence.”

    I’m confused. Why do so few chiropractors us their websites to promote their ability to help people with low back pain?

    4/15/10 22:37 JR

    Leave a Comment

    You must be logged in to post a comment.