Not to say I don't disregard homeopathy... but it still has to have a good pile of science behind it.
And as for supplements and a lot of this homeopathy bull****? It's stupid. People are gullible, and as soon as you say 'dem kids' they lose their minds... and even when dead kids happen.
I have to ask what homeopathy means to you? Is it what Karajorma describes above, or do you mean it as with the parts of manual therapy included?
For most of the Europeans, homeopathy likely means what Karajorma said, but I have seen that the US homeopaths are actually including manual therapy to their repertoire, and that is definitely with a solid empirical and scientific background. Now if only someone figured out the scientific explanation for the trigger points we would be all set.
I should elaborate - I think most homeopathy is built on lies perpetuated on lies - why do you think the supplement industry here is so big... and morally bankrupt? People are stupid and believe whatever science is dropped on their morning broadcast from television to Youtube endorsements. Thing like licorice and peppermint have been scientifically shown to be healthy, but tell that to supplement manufacturers and witch-doctors selling people on stupidity that it'll cure your joints and straighten your teeth.
Ah, I see. That's reasonable.
Vertebral subluxation, the core concept of chiropractic, is not based on solid science. A 2008 review found that with the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition. Commenting on a famous ‘systematic’ review by Bronfort et al., Edzard Ernst stated that it was a notorious example of a pseudo-systematic review that omitted evidence, for instance, of negative primary studies.
Nice wording there, researchers!
I mean, they investigated pretty much everything else but the one that seemed to have some merit they left alone! Makes me wonder how well did they actually investigate the test subjects themselves?
From Wikipedia article spinal manipulation:
A 2010 systematic review found that most studies suggest SM achieves equal or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.
, the article in question is: Dagenais S, Gay RE, Tricco AC, Freeman MD, Mayer JM (2010). "NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: Spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain". Spine J. 10 (10): 918–940. The myo-fascial pain article at Wikipedia lists 13 published peer-reviewed articles related to the manual therapy (but not necessarily to spinal manipulation), 12 of them being from 2000s.
And yes, if you go look at Wikipedia, you'll find differing opinions in the sentences before and after. So the published results are inconclusive, but what is not clear is why. I tend to think this is related to the test group not being analyzed properly either by the Physicians or by the Therapists, but your opinion is as good as mine. Some of the pain can be eliminated with spinal manipulation, while some of it cannot, and the reason likely lies in what is actually causing the pain. The same treatment doesn't and shouldn't cure everything. And that's how you start to find the good ones, they are the ones with realistic views on what they can do and actual skills to analyze the situation.
For the others, the reason I'm defending some of the chiropractors is first that what is actually done differs vastly between the countries, and secondly, because some of the techniques they employ are useful. Interestingly, I don't even recognize the chiropracty listed in the Wikipedia article compared to what it is here. Also, does anybody actually believe that chiropracty is rooted on some kind of "modern" discoveries? These manipulation techniques are far older, and go along with the bone fracture treatment skills that modern medicine mostly adopted and integrated - what our generation has expanded is the bone fracture treatment with surgeries that were not feasible before.
As far as I'm aware, the possible issues arising with the manual therapy and spine are mostly related to force being applied sharply and suddenly to the affected area, or the patient having a pre-existing condition in the spine like ruptured vertebra discs. The greatest risk lies in the manipulation of the back of the neck area, where applying sudden pressure can rupture an artery or damage the spinal cord. But it is also that the practitioner would need to be an idiot to do that. The force needed is usually no greater than the force that is applied on the back while doing a somersault.