Why is chiro considered alternative medicine?

[iant]

Question is in the title. I struggle to understand why chiro is labled at alternative medicine?

1. Is it becuase there is no eveidence for the sublaxtion theory and the efficacy of spinal manipulation?

2. Is it because the sublaxtion theory and spinal manipulation only been research by chiropractors

3. Is the alternative medicine lable medicine outdated and stuck while the sublaxtion theroy and spinal manipulation has been researched by the mainstream world of medicine and therefore no longer alternative?

4. a combination of all/some of the above?

Hope this does not come across the wrong way, im jusy trying to understand why?

Thanks

ian

[Energylz]

For something to be considered anything but alternative, it must be scientifically proven to show consistent results based on known parameters using something like double blind testing to rule out placebo effect and should also be backed up with a peer reviewed scientific basis. This sort of research involves a lot of cost and organisation that many "alternative" therapies just don't have.

[BIA]

see my answer on your thread on research on SMT.

basically, the answer is historical; Chiropractic and Osteopathy were both develpoed in the 19th century, by people who didn't already hold medical degrees, and before evidence based medicine was even heard of.
There was a lot of antagonism (particularly in the states) between chiropractic, osteopathy and "orthodox" medicine, which was only very recently overcome (I think it was the late 1980s / very early 90s when the AMA was court-ordered to stop their campaign against chiropractic; osteopathy having already been "brought into the fold" and lost it's identity in the States).
Chiropractic specifically saw what happened to osteopathy in the states when they were amalgamated into orthodox medicine; and now an osteopath in the USA is virtually indistinguishable from any other Dr, including treatment regimes etc, it just means they were educated at an osteopathic institution (I think that's the case anyway, not 100% up on USA, or osteopathy). Chiropractic decided to keep out of the fold in the USA at that time.

Yes, there's a large research barrier to it, but it's primarily historical. relatively recently, GPs in this country had the option of becoming fund-holding; and some drew up contracts with chiropractors and forged a new working relationship then; though the fund-holding status was later withdrawn, existing contracts were honoured, but not renewed - this is as close as we've ever been to being available on the NHS. Speaking to some of those chiropractors, it was very much an ethical choice, rather than practical; you got paid less for doing more work, and much more paper-work through those contracts.
Bear in mind that currently, the NHS is on the verge of losing dentistry too, on a similar principal.

On a matter of semantics, I'd also pick up on your use of the word "alternative" - I don't know any chiropractors who would use that word themselves, we'd very much use "complementary" as we 100% work alongside orthodox medicine, and don't provide an alternative service. It's largely semantics, but some can be quite precious about it.