The June 1991 issue of McCall's magazine features one such article, "Beating Back Pain," in the publication's "Health & Nutrition" section. This article focuses directly on the Meade study published in the British Medical Journal last year (see July 4, 1991 issue of "DC," "British Researchers Show Chiropractic More Effective") and a second chiropractic study done in Florida.
The author emphasizes the study findings as proof that chiropractic is not only an acceptable alternative to conventional medical treatment, but that it is often a much better health care option than conventional medical treatment for certain back pain conditions. The article's introduction sets a clearly positive tone: "Although traditional medicine has long scoffed at the claims of chiropractors, two new studies may force physicians to rethink their opposition to a form of healing millions of people swear by."
The author, McCall's assistant editor Sandra Y. Lee, follows this quote by introducing the British Meade study, which demonstrates that chiropractic is often more effective than other treatments for low back pain. "In one study, British doctors found that people with chronic or severe low back pain fared better with chiropractic treatment than those who received more conventional hospital therapies."
The author chronicles the study in detail:
"In the British study, chiropractic patients received short, forceful thrusts along the spine in up to ten sessions over a period of 30 weeks. Hospital patients received a variety of conventional treatments, including physical therapy, traction, exercise, and anti-inflammatory medications, for an average of 12 weeks.
After six weeks of treatment, those who were seeing chiropractors showed more flexibility and range of motion than the hospital patients. Follow-up questionnaires also revealed that even after three years, chiropractic patients still felt significantly better than those who had received standard hospital care, reports the M.D. who led the study, Tom Meade of Northwick Park Hospital in Harrow."
Having obviously done her homework, the author quotes information from the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (FCER) on the second study she cites in the article. She writes, "In a study in Florida, researchers found that employees with back injuries who had seen MD's were absent from work nearly twice as long as those who had been treated by chiropractors," according to Steve Wolk, Ph.D., executive director of the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research. The author correctly chose to consult a chiropractic association for information on the profession instead of a medical organization. This is a welcome and long overdue trend.
The author also gives a somewhat limited but accurate description of the profession: "Chiropractic involves manual adjustments of body parts, such as the spinal column, to treat neuromuscular skeletal disorders, including back pain, whiplash, muscle tension and posture problems." The fact that the author made an effort to properly define chiropractic, instead of using a "canned" definition from an MD, signifies a new attitude of acceptance.
People are realizing that the typical "quick-fix" solution of surgery and drugs may not be the right answer. The gentler, natural treatment of chiropractic is often the better way, without promises of surgical or drug-induced "cures." As the author writes, "Though chiropractic treatment may take longer than conventional therapy, these studies indicate that the benefits seem to be greater and longer-lasting -- without the side effects of drugs or the need for surgery."
Thankfully, chiropractic is finally getting the positive attention it deserves, and is entering a new, promising era in the forefront of public health care.
Barbara Migliaccio
Second Assistant Editor