We were interested to see (among a number of documents sent in response to our FOIA request to the General Chiropractic Council) that the GCC acknowledges that
The available evidence of the efficacy of the chiropractic contribution to the management of some types of asthma, migraine headache and infant colic is inconclusive
While one might argue that the evidence re chiropractic treatment of some of these conditions is actually negative, this GCC acknowledgement is still significant (we were pleased to see that this letter is already discussed on the Bad Reason blog).
The BCA libel case against Simon Singh has generated significant criticism. BCA responded by arguing that
It has never been the BCA’s case that the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive. It is the BCA’s case that there is good evidence.
Does the UK chiropractic’s statutory regulator disagree with the BCA on this? And will we now see the GCC standing up for Singh and critiquing the BCA’s position?
Hi,
Wrong place I know
But just wanted to draw your attention to an Irish Times op piece that Holford (if it is him) has commented on, taking a pop at Ben Goldacre who the article favourably references.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0723/1224251143766.html
Thanks for the comment – very interesting to see.
Infant chiropracty blows my mind. How can people just hand BABIES over to those folks?
it is conclusive., because chiropractic is effective
Effective for what, exactly? Where’s the conclusive evidence that it works for colic?