What alternative health

practitioners might not tell you



Note that some links will break as pages are moved, websites are abandoned, etc.

If this happens, please try searching for the page in the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org.

Read the original article

Filed on 12th June 2008:

[1.] This lawsuit arises from the fact that, once again, a perfectly healthy young woman's life has been irreparably and devastatingly damaged as a result of her exposure to a chiropractor's manipulation of the vertebrae in her upper neck to correct alleged subluxations. The procedure is an ineffective and dangerous one which chiropractors employ routinely. Ideological practitioners of chiropractic masquerading in the white smock of science perpetuate its unregulated indiscriminate use with the condonation and protection of their supposed regulator against all reason. It has got to be stopped.

[2.] This action concerns the promotion and supply, by members of Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors to the Class Members, for economic gain, of chiropractic interventions directed at the identification and correction of "vertebral subluxations" or involving manipulation of the upper cervical spine during the Class Period and seeks damages for the losses which the plaintiffs and the other Class Members were exposed to and suffered thereby.

[3.] For the purpose of this pleading, the following definitions apply:…

3 (c ) "Inappropriate and Non-beneficial Adjustment" means

(i) diagnostic procedures or chiropractic adjustment of the spinal column rendered to asymptomatic persons, persons without an identifiable medical condition or persons with vertebral subluxations: (ii) any chiropractic adjustment of the spinal column other than chiropractic adjustment of the lumbar spine based on objective patient assessment finding(s) of mechanical disability in a joint of the lumbar spine, to treat a diagnosis made a the time the adjustment is administered of acute or sub-acute uncomplicated low back pain in an adult…

[11.] The Class Defendants owed the Class Members a duty to

(a) not advise unsubstantiated procedures that lacked scientific justification or plausible rationale, or disproven procedures, to the Class Members who sought health care services from them nor subject them to such procedures;

(b) fairly disclose the demonstrated benefits and the material risks associated with the interventions they advised to the class Members who sought health care services from them, the comparative risks and benefits of other forms of service(s), or of non-treatment, and to obtain their informed consent to the services(s) provided to them;

(c) not to charge them a fee for services that cannot restore, maintain or enhance human health.

[Click on the link to read the complete 81-page Statement of Claim — pdf]