Chiropractic doctors have been caring for patients with back pain for the last century with a great deal of success. Within the medical world, however, the cure for back pain seems more elusive than ever.

This was very clear at a meeting in 2004 of the Primary Care Forum, the world’s premiere organization devoted to low back pain research for primary care providers. This group set research priorities more than a decade ago when it was founded but despite more than 1000 randomized trials of the management of back and neck pain, founder Dan Cherkin PhD said, “We have not definitively resolved any of these research issues. ...We have not found the Holy Grail. It will be a while before we make much of a difference in people’s lives.”1 Their extensive research activity has found things that don’t work, like extended bed rest, and to that degree the research has been worthwhile. Still no miracle cures have been found and as one reviewer wrote, “new treatments and technologies produce outcomes that are suspiciously similar to those of older treatments – or worse.”2

One of the most telling examples of this is in surgery for chronic back pain. The rate of spine surgery for this has skyrocketed in the US over the last few decades, but without clear evidence that it is superior to conservative non-invasive measures. Indeed a recent study found surgery no better than exercise combined with cognitive therapy (principally to reduce fear of exercise).3 In light of this and as a result of other less than ideal outcomes from surgery a European commission recently studied all available evidence and scientific studies on the treatment of back pain and just released guidelines. For chronic back pain their guidelines would radically curtail the use of surgery, for they wrote:

Bulging or ruptured spinal discs, generally called degenerative disc disease, have often been blamed for chronic back pain. These are still routinely handled in this country with spinal fusion surgery but as a recent commentator wrote, “A massive and highly profitable spinal industry – the surgical treatment of degenerative disc disease – is standing on increasingly shaky ground.”5 Medical researchers have repeatedly compared this surgery to exercise and/or other conservative measures and too often find surgery no better. The real shame is that they don’t compare surgery to chiropractic care. On the other hand chiropractic care has been compared to exercise for low back pain and in a large recent study those receiving chiropractic care did better than the exercise group, and not surprisingly, those receiving chiropractic care and exercise did the best.6 There are indeed many studies that have found chiropractic care effective for low back pain. A recent review of the literature looked at studies that included both spinal manipulative therapy (SMP), which we call high velocity adjustments, as well as mobilization (MOB) which are low velocity adjustments. They considered only the most stringent, scientifically sound studies and concluded: “SMT/MOB provides either similar or better pain outcomes in the short and long term when compared with placebo and with other treatments such as McKenzie therapy, medical care, management by physical therapists, soft tissue treatment and back school.”7 The fact is that there is an alternative to medical care or surgery for low back pain and it is chiropractic care. Without the risk or cost of surgery or drugs, chiropractic care is a wonderfully effective and a conservative alternative to traditional medical care for back pain. The medical world has much to offer in many other areas but still struggles with back problems that chiropractic has been routinely handling for decades. And for disc problems back surgeons continue to recommend spinal fusion despite the lack of clear scientific support for it over conservative alternatives like chiropractic care or even exercise with counseling. So for back pain problems the obvious choice is chiropractic care but particularly if you are told you need spinal fusion, call us first and try chiropractic care.

1. D. Cherkin, at the Alberta International Forum VII, Edmonton, Alberta, 2004, (as reported by “Is the Back Pain Field Moving Forward?” February 2005, The Back Letter, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Vol. 20, No. 2, p. 13).
2. “Is the Back Pain Field Moving Forward?” February 2005, The Back Letter, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Vol. 20, No. 2, p. 13).
3. J. Brox, et al., “Randomized Clinical Trial of Lumbar Instrumented Fusion and Cognitive Intervention and Exercises in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain and Disc Degeneration, 2003, Spine, Vol. 28, No. 17, pp. 1913-21 (as reported by “New Chronic Pain Guidelines Offer a Skeptical View of Surgical Solutions,” February 2005, The Back Letter, Vol. 20, No. 2, p. 17).
4. J. Hildebrant, et al., “European Guidelines for the Management of Chronic, Nonspecific Low Back Pain,” November 2004, The Research Directorate General of the European Commission; www.backpaineurope.com (as reported by “New Chronic Pain Guidelines Offer a Skeptical View of Surgical Solutions,” Ibid.).
5. “Massive Spinal Treatment Industry on Increasingly Shaky Ground?” September 2005, The Back Letter, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Vol. 20 No. 9, p. 97.
6. UK BEAM Trial Team, “United Kingdom Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (UK BEAM) Randomized Trial: Effectiveness of Physical Treatments for Back Pain in Primary Care.” British Medical Journal, Online First, November 29, 2004, BMJ,doi:10.1136/bmj.38282.669225.AE, p. 1.
7. G. Bronfort, et al., “Efficacy of Spinal Manipulation and Mobilization for Low Back Pain and Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis,” 2004, The Spine Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 335-356 (as reported by D. Chapman-Smith, “Professional Notes,” July 2004, The Chiropractic Report, Vol. 18, No. 4, p. 4).

Nature programs us to seek out and discover new things as infants. And nature has also seen fit to have infants immediately put in their mouth just about everything they find on the floor or the ground.

And they find lots of things just loaded with all sorts of germs. While you might be inclined to try to prevent this, there is more and more evidence that infants actually need this exposure to germs. Instead of trying to shield your child from germs, allowing the child to naturally develop immunities by exposure to all the normal germs out there may prove beneficial later on.

A recent study supports this. Researchers found that people who grow up with younger siblings close to them in age are less likely to develop multiple sclerosis (MS) than those without such siblings.1 People who had one to five years of contact with their infant siblings had about half the chance of later developing MS compared to people with less exposure.2 As they wrote, “Sloppy kisses from baby brothers and sisters might fend off disease in later years.”3 The study suggests that exposure to infection early on teaches the immune system how to fight these same diseases later in life and how to distinguish between real foreign threats to the body and its own cells. MS is specifically sited as one disease that may be avoided from early exposure to germs because it is caused by the body’s immune system turning on itself.4

Previous studies also support this. One found that children raised in a house with two or more dogs or cats during the first year of life may be less likely to develop allergic diseases and were on average 66 to 77 percent less likely to have any allergic antibodies to common allergens as compared with children raised without pets.5 The pets bring into the house all sorts of germs and allergens that help to teach the immune system not to overreact to these things down the road. Then there was a study that found that only 12% of children with numerous siblings or who were exposed to day care with other children in their first 6 months became asthmatic compared to 21% of children with no day care exposure and no more than one other sibling. So exposure to other children with all their infections and germs reduced the risk of asthma.6 Still a third study of nearly 1000 children found that children who did not contract the normal childhood illnesses were more prone to asthma and allergies later in life7 suggesting the actual disease builds a stronger immune system than vaccinations.

This same line of reasoning has led some scientists and many chiropractic doctors to question the widespread use of many vaccinations in infants and children. Vaccines expose the immune system to a weakened version of a disease but may not develop and strengthen the immune system as well as overcoming the actual disease. There was a time when parents intentionally exposed their children to the common childhood diseases like mumps, measles, and chicken pox so that they would be immune later as adults when these diseases can be far worse. Now most children are vaccinated for these. Certainly some diseases like polio or smallpox in the past had serious enough consequences to possibly justify vaccination, but for the less serious childhood diseases, some question if the body would not be better off building its immune system.

There are other issues with vaccinations that parents should know about. Many vaccines themselves present risks. One of these risks is the presence of a preservative called Thimerosal, which is a mercury derivative.8 “Mercury is a toxic chemical that can cause permanent brain and nervous system damage to the developing bodies of unborn babies and young children.”9 Even modest doses can cause numbness in fingers and toes, impairment of motor coordination and speech, drowsiness, memory problems and tremors.10 Thimerosal has been used to preserve vaccines since the 1930’s. While in recent years its use has begun to decline, it is still in use and with the increasing number of vaccines being given to children each year, parents should be aware of the risks involved. Often vaccines are available both with and without Thimerosal and if parents choose to have their children vaccinated at all, they should insist on the ones without the mercury. You can find which do and which do not, and add up the total mercury dosage your child may be getting (or has already received) and learn much more about vaccinations by visiting the website of the National Vaccine Information Center at www.909shot.com/Issues/mercury.htm

While infant and child vaccinations have been increasing so have childhood developmental disabilities. The Center for Disease Control estimates that one in six American children are developmentally delayed with a diagnosis of autism, learning disabilities, attention problems or other learning or behavioral problems and as many as one in 166 specifically with autism.11 And a recent detailed study using data from the CDC concluded “The results of the present study, taken with data recently published by a number of researchers, demonstrate a connection between mercury exposure via infant vaccinations and the dramatic increase in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders in the United States.”12 That study found over 53 million DTaP13 vaccines containing Thimerosal were administered between 1997 through 2000 compared with fewer than 17 million of that vaccine without the mercury. So Thimerosal is still an issue in vaccines that parents need to know about.

We are not saying parents should or should not have children vaccinated. That is up to you the parents. But we are saying you should learn about vaccines and make informed decisions for yourself. The NVIC website has a wealth of information. And we are saying that exposure of infants and children to germs and childhood diseases is normal and natural and likely is beneficial to the developing immune system.