Are chiropractors quacks?

It’s a question people still ask — and it’s understandable.

Chiropractic has its share of critics, and if you’ve spent time online, you’ve likely come across headlines or blogs calling it pseudoscience or even branding chiropractors as “quacks.”

One of the most well-known critics is Professor Edzard Ernst, a retired academic who has written extensively against chiropractic. He argues that the profession is based on outdated ideas, lacks evidence, and may carry safety risks.

It’s easy to be put off by that — especially if you’ve never experienced chiropractic care for yourself.

But here’s the full picture.

The History vs. The Present

Chiropractic began in the late 1800s with the belief that spinal misalignments (then called “subluxations”) could disrupt health. That original idea wasn’t grounded in science, and it’s a key reason why scepticism still lingers.

But that’s not what chiropractic is today — at least not in clinics like ours.

Modern chiropractic care is focused on:

• Posture
• Musculoskeletal function
• Spine and nervous system health
• Supporting the body’s ability to move, adapt, and recover

Chiropractors in the UK are regulated, university-trained, and bound by clinical and ethical standards. They work within their scope, communicate transparently, and collaborate with other healthcare professionals when needed.

So yes — the profession has grown up. But some critics, like Ernst, still judge it based on its past.

So, What Does Edzard Ernst Actually Say?

Professor Ernst has raised four main concerns:

1. That chiropractic is based on unscientific principles
2. That there’s limited evidence for its effectiveness
3. That some chiropractors make exaggerated claims
4. That spinal manipulation, especially in the neck, carries risks

These aren’t baseless — but they’re also not the full story.

🔍 Let’s Take a Closer Look

1. “Chiropractic is based on pseudoscience.”

Parts of it were — a century ago. But today’s UK chiropractors don’t claim to treat disease or cure unrelated conditions. They work with structure, movement, and function — and do so using clear diagnostic methods, clinical reasoning, and evidence-informed care.

2. “There’s no evidence it works.”

That depends on what you’re treating.
For musculoskeletal issues like back pain, neck pain, sciatica, and postural problems, there’s a strong and growing body of evidence — so much so that chiropractic is recommended in NICE guidelines for back pain.
Claims outside this area? We agree — those should be avoided.

3. “It’s dangerous.”

All healthcare carries risk. But the risks of chiropractic, when practised by a trained, regulated professional, are very low — especially when compared to common alternatives like medication or surgery.
Chiropractors are trained to assess risk, spot red flags, and adapt techniques to suit each patient safely.

4. “Some chiropractors claim to treat things they shouldn’t.”

We agree. It happens — and it shouldn’t.
But those practitioners don’t represent the standard. Regulated chiropractors are held to strict advertising and conduct rules. If someone’s making wild health claims, they’re not practising responsibly — and they’re not practising like we do.

The Role of Criticism — and Where It Falls Short

Let’s be clear: not everything Edzard Ernst says is wrong.

He’s right to highlight some important issues — especially in a profession that hasn’t always been consistent in how it presents itself. Many of his concerns have helped push chiropractic to tighten its focus, improve standards, and reflect on its claims. And that’s been a good thing.

Specifically, we agree with Ernst on:

• The need to avoid unproven claims (like treating asthma, colic, or general disease)
• The importance of recognising the limits of evidence — and not overstating what chiropractic can do
• Being transparent about informed consent and safety — especially with techniques like neck manipulation

Modern chiropractors should be accountable — and many of us are.

But here’s where Ernst’s argument falls short:

❌ He treats chiropractic as if it hasn’t changed in 100 years.

He continues to frame the entire profession through the lens of its early philosophy — ignoring the major evolution in education, regulation, and practice.

❌ He dismisses thousands of regulated, evidence-informed chiropractors who work safely, ethically, and collaboratively.

In the UK, chiropractors are:

• University-educated
• Statutorily regulated by law
• Required to follow strict codes of conduct and advertising
• Trained to screen for red flags and refer when appropriate
• Focused on helping people with musculoskeletal and postural issues — not curing disease

To ignore this modern reality is to misrepresent what chiropractic care actually is today.

❌ He ignores the lived experience of patients.

Millions of people seek chiropractic care each year — not because they’re misled, but because they feel better, move better, and function better.
And their satisfaction rates remain consistently high.

When a healthcare profession is helping real people improve their daily lives — in a safe, regulated, and professional way, that’s not quackery, that’s good, responsible, patient-centred healthcare, and it deserves more than blanket dismissal.