Chiropractic is back in the news. For the second time in approximately two weeks, a story that challenges the value of chiropractic has appeared in the popular press.

A headline in the Tuesday, June 3 issue of the Wall Street Journal states that the, “Chiropractic benefit is questioned. Manipulating the spine appears no more effective in treating back pain than alternatives.” In mid-May, articles about the incidence of stroke following neck adjustment appeared in the Washington Post and other media.

The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) has issued a pre-emptive media response to the WSJ article, and the International Chiropractic Association (ICA) said it is asking for a Congressional investigation to find out if the permanent injunction issued as result of Wilk vs. the AMA has been violated.

The Journal article cites a new study appearing in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The study was on spinal manipulation and challenges the effectiveness of chiropractic for low-back pain. One of the co-authors of the study was Paul G. Shekelle, MD, PhD, who, ten years ago, had written a paper that was supportive of chiropractic as a method to alleviate back pain as a Rand Corporation researcher.

In a press release giving its official position on this study, ACA president Daryl D. Wills, DC, said, “This study indicates to me that consumers can avoid taking drugs for back pain in favor of a safer form of care, without sacrificing any of the benefit. Nowhere does the study indicate that analgesics or any other treatment is more effective than chiropractic care.”

According to Wills, the study is not without limitations. “A problem with this study is its very narrow evaluation of the available research. For example, it does not mention the Canadian Manga Reports which found that chiropractic care is more effective, safer and less costly than medical care and that many medical treatments for low back pain are untested, questionable or harmful in nature. The study also failed to address the federal government’s guidelines on low back problems which found that spinal manipulation was the only treatment that can relieve symptoms, increase unction and hasten recovery.”

At time of press, the ICA had not yet provided a news release concerning the Annals study. But Ronald M. Hendrickson, ICA executive director, told Chiropractic Economics that his organization is exploring the possibility of Congressional hearings into the use of the media for anti-competitive purposes. “This incident is part of a longstanding and well-organized pattern. Who is placing these stories?” he asked. “That is the bigger issue. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in public relations money to place these stories. I wonder if there is a relationship between the placement of these stories and the permanent injunction against the AMA and allied organizations.”

Hendrickson said that his organization has discovered that “some of these stories” have been placed by a Canadian public relations firm. “These are well-funded and organized efforts. These stories are not accidents,” he said. “Where is the funding coming from and how can we address that in the legal system? We are exploring the potential for Congressional hearings on these issues. If the hearing process reveals any hard data on what we suspect, the next step is for the Justice Department to see if there is any violation of the injunction.”

Chiropractic Economics was unable to reach the World Chiropractic Alliance for comment.