Chiropractic Cures Headaches Better

Nilsson N, Christensen HW, Hartvigsen J



Institute of Medical Biology (Biomechanics), Faculty of Health Science, University of Odense, Denmark


Of 53 individuals who were diagnosed with cervicogenic headaches, 28 individuals in the group received high-speed, low-amplitude spinal manipulation in the cervical spine two times a week for three weeks. 

The rest of the group received low-level laser to the upper cervical region and deep-friction massage in the lower cervical/upper thoracic region two times a week for three weeks. 

For those who received spinal manipulation treatment, the amount of headache hours per day decreased 69 percent; 

for those receiving laser treatment, the decrease was only 37 percent. 

Intensity of headache decreased 36 percent for those receiving manipulations and 17 percent for those receiving laser treatment. The use of pain relievers went down 36 percent for those receiving manipulations and was unchanged for those receiving laser treatment.

PURPOSE:   To study whether the isolated intervention of high-speed, low-amplitude spinal manipulation in the cervical spine has any effect on cervicogenic headache. 

DESIGN:   Prospective randomized controlled trial with a blinded observer. 



SETTING:   Ambulatory outpatient facility in an independent research institution. 



PARTICIPANTS:   Fifty-three subjects suffering from frequent headaches who fulfilled the International Headache Society criteria for cervicogenic headache (excluding radiological criteria). These subjects were recruited from 450 headache sufferers who responded to newspaper advertisements. 



INTERVENTION:   After randomization, 28 of the group received high-velocity, low-amplitude cervical manipulation twice a week for 3 wk. The remaining 25 received low-level laser in the upper cervical region and deep friction massage (including trigger points) in the lower cervical/upper thoracic region, also twice a week for 3 wk. 



MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:   The change from week 1 to week 5 in analgesic use per day, in headache intensity per episode and in number of headache hours per day, as registered in a headache diary. 



RESULTS:   The use of analgesics decreased by 36% in the manipulation group, but was unchanged in the soft-tissue group; this difference was statistically significant (p = .04, chi 2 for trend). The number of headache hours per day decreased by 69% in the manipulation group, compared with 37% in the soft-tissue group; this was significant at p = .03 (Mann-Whitney). Finally, headache intensity per episode decreased by 36% in the manipulation group, compared with 17% in the soft-tissue group; this was significant at p = .04 (Mann-Whitney). 



CONCLUSION:   Spinal manipulation has a significant positive effect in cases of cervicogenic headache. 

Dietitians Are Buying Coke’s Line: Sugar, Fluoride, Artificial Colors are SAFE for Children!

Registered dietitians are now being given formal education by the Coca-Cola Company on how safe its ingredients are.



The credentialing arm of the American Dietetic Association, the Commission on Dietetic Registration (CDR), has approved a program created by the The Coca-Cola Company Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness.This covers what it calls “urban myths” about the safety of food ingredients. Participating in this program will earn registered dietitians Continuing Professional Education unit credits.



“Children’s Dietary Recommendations: When Urban Myths, Opinions, Parental Perceptions & Evidence Collide,” tells dietitians that fluoride, sugar, artificial colors and nonnutritive sweeteners have been “carefully examined for their effects on children’s health, growth, and development.” The presenter, Dr. Ronald Kleinman, “explores prevalent misconceptions about these food ingredients” and suggests ways the dietitian can help quell unnecessary “concern among parents about their children’s health.”



At first glance, Dr. Kleinman should know what he is talking about. He is physician-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, chief of the Pediatric Gastrointestinal and Nutrition Unit, and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. Couldn’t sound better, could it? But he has also received a great deal of money from industry sources—like artificial infant formula manufacturers Mead Johnson and Nestle Ltd. His study on optimal duration of breastfeeding was funded by Gerber Products. He also served as a paid expert witness for Gerber when they were sued for deceptive advertising. And he contributed to a brochure intended for children entitled “Variety’s Mountain” produced by the Sugar Association.



Now he’s being sponsored by the Coca-Cola Company and telling dietitians that the ingredients in Coke which everyone is alarmed about are safe. The dietitians, in turn, will be telling parents that their fears are unfounded, and Coke can sell more Coke to kids.



Program materials include gems like “[a] majority of studies so far have not found a link between sugar and behavior in children generally or children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” This is certainly news to us, since we have seen many studies that say the opposite. Apparently the dietitians are to teach us that any connection between artificial colors and neurotoxicity, or fears of the dangers of fluoride, are imaginary and come from hysterical (or at least unduly concerned) parents.



As we reported recently, sugar and artificial sweeteners are anything but safe. Fluoride poses a significant risk to the kidneys. And commonly used food dyes pose risks which include hyperactivity in children, cancer (in animal studies), and allergic reactions. Even the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an organization that supports nuking food, agrees with this. And the British government and European Union have taken actions that are virtually ending the use of dyes throughout Europe.



The ADA is sponsored by the soda and junk food industries—which we feel greatly tarnishes the organization’s credibility. And you may recall that the ADA has mounted a state-by-state campaign to make sure that its Commission is the only one which will be accepted as a credentialing body for both registered dietitians and nutritionists.



There are, of course, significant philosophical differences between nutritionists and dietitians—they represent two different fields of study and practice. By accepting only a single credentialing agency—one run by the dietitians, not nutritionists—state boards are establishing a “one-size-fits-all” standard which removes all competition, essentially handing the ADA a government mandated monopoly over nutritional therapy.



Unfortunately, the Nevada bill we told you about last month passed both the Assembly and the Senate and was signed by the governor on June 5th. While some amendments were made, the most troubling parts of the bill still remain: only registered dietitians can practice “dietetics,” which is defined by the law to include nutrition assessment, evaluation, diagnosis, counseling, intervention, monitoring and treatment—everything that a good nutritionist does and should do.



We also told you about an ADA bill in New York, S.3556. The state’s Senate Finance Committee met on June 13 and decided to pass the bill to the Rules Committee so that it could be considered on the Senate floor. They are trying to rush these bills through, because next week the Assembly is scheduled to finish its work for the year, unless the chair calls a special session in the fall.


 Please click on our New York Action Alert here.

The ADA’s power grab is a complete travesty. We will keep fighting it state by state until we restore competition in nutritional counseling and stop gagging PhD-trained nutritionists who don’t become dietitians.

America's Healthcare System is the Third Leading Cause of Death

This Journal of theAmerican Medical Association article illuminates the failure of the U.S. medical system in providing decent medical care for Americans.     In spite of the rising health care costs that provide the illusion of improving health care, the American people do not enjoy good health, compared with their counterparts in the industrialized nations.  Among thirteen countries including Japan, Sweden, France and Canada, the U.S. was ranked 12th, based on the measurement of 16 health indicators such as life expectancy, low-birth-weight averages and infant mortality.     In another comparison reported by the World Health Organization that used a different set of health indicators, the U.S. also fared poorly with a ranking of 15 among 25 industrialized nations. Although many people attribute poor health to the bad habits of the American public, Starfield (2000) points out that the Americans do not lead an unhealthy lifestyle compared to their counterparts.   For example, only 28 percent of the male population in the U.S. smoked, thus making it the third best nation in the category of smoking among the 13 industrialized nations.  The U.S. population also achieved a high ranking (5th best) for alcohol consumption.  In the category of men aged 50 to 70 years, the U.S. had the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations among 13 industrialized nations.  Therefore, the perception that the American public’s poor health is a result of their negative health habits is false. Even more significantly, the medical system has played a large role in undermining the health of Americans.  According to several research studies in the last decade, a total of 225,000 Americans per year have died as a result of their medical treatments:      • 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery• 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals • 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals • 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals • 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs       Thus, America's healthcare-system-induced deaths are the third leading cause of the death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.       One of the key problems of the U.S. health system is that as many as 40 million people in the U.S. do not have access to healthcare.  The social and economic inequalities that are an integral part of American society are mirrored in the inequality of access to the health care system.  Essentially, families of low socioeconomic status are cut off from receiving a decent level of health care. By citing these statistics, Starfield (2000) highlights the need to examine the type of health care provided to the U.S. population.  The traditional medical paradigm that emphasizes the use of prescription medicine and medical treatment has not only failed to improve the health of Americans, but also led to the decline in the overall well-being of Americans.  Starfield’s (2000) comparison of the medical systems of Japan and the U.S. captures the fundamental differences in the treatment approach.  Unlike the U.S., Japan has the healthiest population among the industrialized nations.  Instead of relying on sophisticated technology and professional personnel for medical treatment as in the U.S., Japan uses its technology solely for diagnostic purposes.  Furthermore, in Japan, family members, rather than hospital staff, are involved in caring for the patients. The success of the Japanese medical system testifies to the dire need for Americans to alter their philosophical approach towards health and treatment.  In the blind reliance on drugs, surgery, technology and medical establishments, the American medical system has inflicted more harm than good on the U.S. population.  Starfield’s (2000) article is invaluable in unveiling the catastrophic effects of the medical treatments provided to the American people.  In order to improve the medical system, American policymakers and the medical establishment need to adopt a comprehensive approach and critically examine the failure of the richest country in the world to provide decent health care for its people.  The reason that they have difficulty doing that is explained on the following page. Starfield, B. (2000, July 26). Is US health really the best in the world? Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(4), 483-485.  Obtain full reprint.

A Few Things I Know

Dr. Green Says: "This is an edited version or the article.  Please click and go to the full article.  It's worth your time to read."

Suzanne Humphries, MD     

February 5, 2011

I am a Medical Doctor with credentials in internal medicine and nephrology (kidneys). I received a bachelor’s degree in theoretical physics in 1987 from Rutgers University. I mention the college degree in case any doubtful readers question my mental prowess. One can doubt my intellectual ability less if they first realize that I know how to figure out difficult things.

Like most doctors, I held a blind belief for many years, that vaccines were necessary, safe and effective.There are certain things that I can now say with no uncertainty.

Vaccines did not save humanity and never will.

Vaccines have never been proven truly safe except for perhaps the parameters of immediate death or some specific adverse events within up to 4 weeks.

Smallpox was not eradicated by vaccines as many doctors readily say it was. They say this out of conditioning rather than out of understanding the history or science.

Polio virus was not responsible for the paralysis in the first part of the 20th century. Polio vaccine research, development, testing and distribution has committed atrocities upon primates and humanity. Bill Gates is not a humanitarian.

Vaccines are dangerous and should never be injected into anyone for any reason. They are not the answer to infectious diseases. There are many more sustainable and benevolent solutions than vaccines.

Medical authorities should not have the final word on how doctors treat individual patients in the privacy of their own offices and should not be able to dictate injections into our private hospital patients.

The list goes on, 

Look at this MRI.  Those screws are supposed to go into the bone.  The one on the left is going into the muscle, tendons, ligaments and surrounding fascia.

Surgical fusion and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome due to horribly wrong pedicle screw insertion. The patient is permanently and profoundly disabled.

This is why surgery should always be the last option.  In the vast majority of cases, chiropractic care is superior to the results from surgery.

Chiropractic first.