| Abstract/Notes |
This paper compares the chiropractic profession's response to two major global health crises, the 1918 influenza pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on key public health measures: masking, vaccination, and regulatory/legal consequences. During the 1918 pandemic, chiropractic leaders such as B.J. Palmer harshly criticized the prevailing medical consensus, mocking the efficacy of masks and experimental vaccines which were rushed to market without full understanding of the underlying pathogen (later found to be viral, not bacterial). Chiropractors of the era boldly promoted chiropractic care as a more effective alternative, often without facing legal repercussions.
In contrast, during the COVID-19 pandemic, chiropractors were more constrained by modern regulatory frameworks. Most chiropractic associations aligned with public health mandates, but a vocal minority challenged the scientific basis of masking policies and the novel mRNA vaccines. Pre- and post-COVID studies presented mixed evidence on mask efficacy and emerging real world data showed waning vaccine protection against newer variants. Safety concerns raised by chiropractors were grounded in both the rapid rollout of the vaccines and the unprecedented adverse event report in WHO's VigiAccess database, when compared to long-established vaccines like the polio vaccine.
While chiropractors faces little regulatory pushback for bold claims of success during the 1918 influenza pandemic, the COVID-19 era saw government agencies, especially the FTC and DOJ, take action against chiropractors promoting unsubstantiated or misleading treatments. Public claims of chiropractic's ability to "boost immunity" or serve as a substitute for vaccines resulted in temporary restraining orders, lawsuits and academic critiques.
This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; full text is available by subscription.
|
