If Chiropractic Is Supported by Research, Why Are Chiropractors Still Called Quacks?

By Dr. Boris Nektalov, DNM, DC, Chiropractor & Enzyme Nutrition Specialist · Nektalov Chiropractic & Wellness, Forest Hills, Queens NY

Published: October 31, 2026 · Last reviewed: October 31, 2026

The truth behind the controversy, the history and the evidence

Quick answer: Chiropractors are still called quacks for four main reasons. The profession’s early theories claimed far more than the evidence supports. Organized medicine and chiropractic fought for decades. Some practitioners still make unsupported claims. And social media rewards ridicule. At the same time, randomized trials and major medical guidelines support spinal manipulation as one reasonable option for certain musculoskeletal conditions, especially low back pain. Chiropractic should be neither dismissed because of its history nor defended with exaggerated promises.

“Chiropractors aren’t real doctors.” “Chiropractic is pseudoscience.” “You’re paying someone to crack your back.” “Chiropractors are quacks.”

If you’ve spent any time reading social media comments about chiropractic adjustments, you’ve probably seen statements like these. Some are jokes, some are sarcastic, and some come from people who genuinely believe chiropractic has no scientific foundation.

That raises a fair question. Chiropractic care has been studied in randomized clinical trials, published in respected medical journals and included in medical treatment guidelines. So why does so much hostility toward the profession still exist? Why do some people still dismiss it as voodoo when research has shown that spinal manipulation can help certain patients with low back pain? And why is the title Doctor of Chiropractic still questioned, when chiropractors complete doctoral-level professional education and must meet state licensing requirements?

The answer is more complicated than many people realize. As a chiropractor in Forest Hills, NY, I believe patients deserve to understand both the science that supports chiropractic treatment and the legitimate concerns behind the profession’s controversial reputation. My position is simple: chiropractic should be evaluated by the same scientific standards used throughout healthcare. Whether you’re dealing with back pain, neck pain or sciatica, understanding this controversy can help you make better-informed decisions about your care.

Where did chiropractic’s negative reputation begin?

To understand why chiropractic still faces criticism, we need to look at its history. Chiropractic was founded in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer. In its early years, it was shaped by theories about spinal misalignments, interference with the nervous system and their relationship to disease. Some early practitioners believed that correcting spinal abnormalities could influence many health conditions throughout the body.

These ideas took shape before the modern era of randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and evidence-based guidelines. Many of the profession’s original claims are not supported by the scientific evidence available today.

That created tension between chiropractic and organized medicine. Physicians questioned the scientific basis of chiropractic theories. Chiropractors argued that their profession offered patients a different approach to healthcare. Over time the disagreement grew into a much larger professional conflict, and that conflict shaped public attitudes toward chiropractic for generations.

What was Wilk v. American Medical Association?

Wilk v. American Medical Association was a landmark federal antitrust case brought by chiropractors against the AMA. During the twentieth century, organized medicine took steps to discourage physicians from associating professionally with chiropractors. In 1987, a federal district court in Illinois found that the AMA had taken part in an unlawful conspiracy to restrain competition by organizing a boycott of chiropractors. The case continued through appeals, and the Seventh Circuit upheld the ruling against the AMA in 1990 (case summary; court opinion text).

The case matters because it showed that some of the institutional opposition to chiropractic involved anticompetitive conduct, not just scientific disagreement. But the court did not find that every chiropractic theory or treatment was medically effective. The trial judge stated plainly that she declined “to pronounce chiropractic valid or invalid on anecdotal evidence.”

That distinction is important. The historical boycott was a real professional and legal controversy. At the same time, scientific criticism of unsupported chiropractic claims can still be legitimate. Holding both of those facts together helps explain why distrust between some members of the medical and chiropractic professions lasted so long.

Are chiropractors real doctors?

Short answer: A licensed chiropractor is a Doctor of Chiropractic (DC), a professional doctoral degree. A chiropractor is not a medical doctor (MD).

So what does “chiropractors are not real doctors” actually mean? A licensed chiropractor in the United States typically earns a DC degree, which requires substantial education in anatomy, physiology, biomechanics, clinical examination, diagnosis, radiology and chiropractic treatment. Chiropractors must also meet licensing requirements, including examinations and continuing education. In New York, chiropractic is a licensed healthcare profession regulated by the New York State Education Department, Office of the Professions.

A properly licensed Doctor of Chiropractic is therefore a legitimate healthcare professional with a doctoral-level professional degree. But being a chiropractor does not make someone an MD. The professions have different educational pathways, scopes of practice and legal authority:

Being a Doctor of Chiropractic does not mean being a medical doctor. But not being a medical doctor does not make a chiropractor’s degree or license illegitimate. The same principle applies throughout healthcare: different doctoral-level professions have different qualifications and scopes of practice. What matters is whether a provider is properly qualified and practices within their scope.

What does the scientific research actually say about chiropractic?

The discussion around chiropractic often gets confusing because people make sweeping statements. Some critics say there is no evidence for chiropractic at all. Some chiropractors respond by claiming adjustments can treat almost any disease. Neither position reflects the research.

The strongest evidence for spinal manipulation concerns selected musculoskeletal conditions, especially low back pain.

• Acute low back pain (JAMA, 2017): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 26 randomized clinical trials found that spinal manipulation was associated with modest improvements in pain and function over about six weeks. Results varied between studies and the average benefits were not dramatic, but the effects were measurable (Paige et al., JAMA 2017).
• Chronic low back pain (The BMJ, 2019): A systematic review of 47 randomized trials with 9,211 participants found that spinal manipulation produced effects similar to other recommended conservative therapies (Rubinstein et al., BMJ 2019).
• Compared with placebo: Some reviews of acute or subacute nonspecific low back pain suggest that spinal manipulation may make little or no difference to short-term function compared with a sham procedure. This shows that results depend on the comparison and the outcome being studied.

This is what scientific progress looks like. Research doesn’t simply declare a treatment universally effective or ineffective. It investigates which patients may benefit, how large the benefits are, and how the outcomes compare with other options. The evidence does not justify calling spinal manipulation a miracle cure. It also does not justify claiming that it has never shown clinical benefit.

Do mainstream medical guidelines recommend spinal manipulation?

Yes, as one option among several. In 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published clinical guidelines for acute, subacute and chronic low back pain that included spinal manipulation among the non-drug treatment options (Qaseem et al., Annals of Internal Medicine 2017). For acute and subacute low back pain, it was listed alongside other conservative treatments. For chronic low back pain, it was included among possible first-line non-drug approaches. The guideline rated the supporting evidence for spinal manipulation as low quality.

That qualification matters, and so does the inclusion. It shows that a major medical organization recognizes spinal manipulation as a possible treatment for selected patients.

The World Health Organization’s 2023 guideline for chronic primary low back pain also lists spinal manipulative therapy among the interventions that may be offered as part of care (WHO, 2023). That recommendation is conditional and rests on very-low-certainty evidence.

These organizations are not endorsing every chiropractic theory. They are acknowledging that spinal manipulation may have a role in conservative musculoskeletal treatment. If you’re looking for lower back pain relief in Queens, NY, that means chiropractic-related manual therapy may be one reasonable option among several.

Why does the negative perception continue despite the research?

There isn’t one explanation. Several factors contribute:

• History. Long-standing professional disagreements can shape attitudes even after healthcare practices and scientific evidence change.
• Confusion about what chiropractic involves. Some people associate chiropractic only with loud cracking sounds, dramatic neck adjustments or viral videos. They may not realize that evidence-informed chiropractic care can include examination, musculoskeletal diagnosis, exercise recommendations, rehabilitation and patient education.
• The profession’s internal disagreements. Chiropractors don’t all practice the same way. Some focus on evidence-based musculoskeletal care. Others still promote broad claims about spinal adjustments and internal diseases that lack convincing scientific support. When the public meets those claims, skepticism spreads from the individual practitioner to the whole profession.
• Social media. A sarcastic comment often gets more attention than a careful discussion of clinical evidence.

Is it fair to call every chiropractor a quack?

A quack is generally someone who promotes fraudulent or scientifically unsupported medical treatments. If a healthcare provider knowingly makes deceptive claims, that behavior deserves criticism. But applying the label to an entire licensed profession, without separating evidence-based practice from unsupported practice, is overly simplistic.

Consider two chiropractors. The first evaluates a patient with mechanical low back pain, screens for neurological problems, explains conservative treatment options, provides appropriate manual therapy and recommends rehabilitation exercises. The second claims that a spinal adjustment can cure diabetes, eliminate cardiovascular disease or replace necessary medical treatment.

These are not equivalent approaches. The first may be practicing within a legitimate, evidence-informed musculoskeletal framework. The second is making claims that need scientific support that does not currently exist. Judging both the same way ignores important differences in clinical practice. The standard should be the quality of care and the validity of the claims, not the professional title.

Why do chiropractic videos attract so much criticism?

Social media has made chiropractic treatment more visible than ever. Millions of people watch spinal adjustments on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook. Some videos show dramatic full-body adjustments. Others show cervical manipulation, Y-Strap traction or Ring Dinger-style spinal decompression, with patients reacting in surprise, laughing or describing immediate relief.

These videos can help people see what certain techniques look like, but they can also create misconceptions:

• A loud cracking sound does not prove that a vertebra was out of place.
• A dramatic reaction does not demonstrate long-term clinical improvement.
• A successful-looking video does not show that the same technique is appropriate for every patient.

Some critics watch these videos and conclude that chiropractic is entertainment rather than healthcare. But a short clip rarely shows the whole clinical encounter: the medical history, orthopedic examination, neurological assessment, informed-consent discussion or rehabilitation plan. At the same time, chiropractors have a responsibility not to present selected patient reactions as scientific proof. Social media can educate patients. It should not replace evidence.

Is chiropractic safe?

Safety is another reason some people stay skeptical. Spinal manipulation can cause temporary soreness, discomfort, stiffness or headache. Serious complications are uncommon but have been reported. Cervical (neck) manipulation in particular has been associated with concerns about cervical artery dissection and stroke. The exact causal relationship is still debated, and reliable estimates of the procedure-specific risk are hard to establish.

These potential complications deserve serious attention. A responsible chiropractor should:

• screen for contraindications
• consider alternative techniques
• explain potential risks
• obtain informed consent

Patients with significant neurological abnormalities, suspected instability, certain vascular conditions or other serious findings may need medical evaluation instead of manipulation. Recognizing potential risks does not invalidate all chiropractic care. It shows why proper training, clinical judgment and patient selection matter. No healthcare profession should be exempt from safety scrutiny.

Why should medical doctors and chiropractors work together?

One of the most productive developments in healthcare is the growing recognition that musculoskeletal conditions often benefit from coordinated treatment. A patient with low back pain may need medical evaluation, chiropractic care, physical therapy, exercise rehabilitation or a combination. A patient with a herniated disc may benefit from conservative treatment while being monitored for neurological changes. Another patient may need medication, injections or surgery. These decisions should depend on the patient’s diagnosis and clinical needs.

There’s no reason medical doctors and chiropractors have to see each other as enemies. The professions have different expertise and scopes of practice, and those differences can support collaboration when practitioners communicate well. At Nektalov Chiropractic & Wellness, we believe patients benefit when healthcare professionals recognize their limits and refer to one another when appropriate. The goal should never be to prove that one profession is superior. It should be to help the patient get appropriate care.

How can you tell an evidence-informed chiropractor?

Defending chiropractic does not mean defending every chiropractor. Like any healthcare profession, chiropractic includes practitioners with different levels of experience, clinical judgment, communication skills and commitment to scientific evidence. You should expect your chiropractor to:

• perform an appropriate examination
• explain your diagnosis clearly
• explain the purpose of each recommended treatment
• set realistic expectations rather than guarantee outcomes
• welcome questions and support a second opinion

A chiropractor who promises to cure every condition through spinal adjustments is not strengthening the profession. Neither is one who discourages patients from getting necessary medical treatment. Professional credibility comes from responsible clinical practice, and it has to be shown again and again.

Can a chiropractor help with sciatica, herniated discs and neck pain?

Spinal pain can have many causes, which is one reason patients seek chiropractic care. One patient with sciatica may have lumbar nerve-root irritation, while another may have symptoms linked to deep gluteal syndrome. Neck pain may come from muscular dysfunction, joint-related problems or a more serious underlying condition.

Whether you’re looking for sciatica care in Forest Hills or herniated disc treatment in Queens, NY, the most important step is finding the cause of your symptoms. Evidence supporting spinal manipulation for nonspecific low back pain does not automatically show that it works for every herniated disc or nerve-compression disorder. Treating neck pain likewise requires careful assessment and attention to risk.

At our Forest Hills chiropractic clinic, we evaluate first and then choose treatment. Depending on the condition, conservative care may include spinal adjustments, mobilization, rehabilitation exercises, soft tissue therapy or other appropriate interventions. For selected musculoskeletal conditions we also offer spinal decompression therapy, shockwave therapy and red light therapy. These modalities have different evidence bases and shouldn’t be presented as universally effective. The goal is to recommend treatment that fits the patient’s condition.

Do patient reviews prove chiropractic works?

Scientific research is essential, but patients also care about their own experience. They want to know whether the doctor listens and whether they understand their diagnosis. They want to know whether treatment may help them get back to work, exercise, sleep more comfortably or handle daily activities.

Google reviews and patient testimonials can tell you about communication, professionalism and satisfaction. But testimonials do not prove that a treatment works. A patient may feel better after an adjustment for several reasons. That’s why the best approach combines clinical evidence, professional judgment and patient preferences. If you’re choosing a chiropractor in Forest Hills or anywhere in Queens, look at credentials, treatment philosophy, communication, reviews and the provider’s willingness to discuss both benefits and limitations.

Is skepticism about chiropractic the real problem?

No. The real problem is dismissing evidence without examining it. Skepticism is an important part of science, and healthcare providers should welcome reasonable questions:

• Does the treatment work?
• How much does it help?
• Which patients benefit?
• What are the risks?
• Is it better than the available alternatives?

These are exactly the questions researchers should investigate. But skepticism becomes less useful when it turns into automatic dismissal. Calling every chiropractor a fraud without examining the research is not scientific analysis. Neither is claiming that every chiropractic technique works because some studies support spinal manipulation.

The strongest position follows the evidence wherever it leads. When studies show benefits, acknowledge them. When research shows limitations, acknowledge those too. When a claim lacks adequate support, don’t pretend otherwise. Chiropractic earns credibility by being willing to meet those standards.

What should the future of chiropractic be based on?

Healthcare has changed dramatically over the past century. Patients have more treatment options, research methods have improved, and clinical guidelines increasingly emphasize conservative, non-drug approaches for selected musculoskeletal conditions. More patients also want to understand their diagnosis before choosing treatment.

Chiropractic has a chance to contribute meaningfully to this changing environment. But its future shouldn’t depend on winning arguments on social media. It should depend on clinical outcomes, patient safety, professional education, research and collaboration. Chiropractors shouldn’t need to exaggerate their abilities to show their value. Nor should critics ignore the evidence for appropriate spinal manipulation just because they disagree with historical chiropractic philosophy. There is room for legitimate scientific debate without personal insults.

Frequently asked questions

Why are chiropractors called quacks?

Mostly because of history, misconceptions, unsupported claims that some practitioners still make, and social media that rewards ridicule. Early chiropractic theories claimed spinal adjustments could influence many diseases, and those claims are not supported by today's evidence. Research does, however, support spinal manipulation as one reasonable option for certain musculoskeletal conditions, especially low back pain.

Are chiropractors real doctors?

A licensed chiropractor holds a Doctor of Chiropractic (DC), a professional doctoral degree, and must meet state licensing requirements. In New York the profession is regulated by the State Education Department. A chiropractor is not a medical doctor (MD). The two professions have different training, scopes of practice and legal authority.

Does research show that chiropractic adjustments work?

The strongest evidence concerns low back pain. A 2017 JAMA meta-analysis of 26 randomized trials found modest improvements in pain and function for acute low back pain over about six weeks. A 2019 BMJ review of 47 trials found that spinal manipulation produced effects similar to other recommended therapies for chronic low back pain. The evidence does not support claims that adjustments treat internal diseases.

Do medical guidelines recommend spinal manipulation?

Yes, as one option among several. The American College of Physicians' 2017 guideline lists spinal manipulation among non-drug treatments for acute, subacute and chronic low back pain, while rating the evidence as low quality. The World Health Organization's 2023 guideline on chronic primary low back pain also includes spinal manipulative therapy.

Is chiropractic safe?

Temporary soreness, stiffness or headache are common after spinal manipulation. Serious complications are uncommon but have been reported. Neck manipulation has been associated with concerns about cervical artery dissection and stroke, although the causal relationship is debated. A responsible chiropractor screens for contraindications, explains risks and obtains informed consent.

How do I choose an evidence-informed chiropractor?

Look for a provider who performs an appropriate examination, explains your diagnosis and the purpose of each treatment, sets realistic expectations rather than guaranteeing outcomes, discusses both benefits and limitations, refers to medical doctors when appropriate, and is comfortable with questions and second opinions.

Looking for evidence-informed chiropractic care in Forest Hills, Queens?

If you’re dealing with low back pain, neck pain, sciatica or another musculoskeletal condition, choosing the right provider matters. You deserve someone who takes the time to understand your symptoms, evaluates your condition properly and explains your treatment options.

At Nektalov Chiropractic & Wellness in Forest Hills, Queens, we focus on individualized conservative care, patient education and improving musculoskeletal function. From back pain and chiropractic adjustments to herniated disc care and holistic wellness, we welcome patients who want to make informed decisions about their care. We believe chiropractic treatment should be judged by the same standards used throughout healthcare: appropriate diagnosis, reasonable evidence, patient safety and meaningful clinical outcomes. Book an appointment or learn more about Dr. Nektalov.

The bottom line

So why do some people still call chiropractors quacks? Partly because of history, partly because of misconceptions, partly because unsupported claims still exist within the profession, and partly because social media often encourages ridicule over thoughtful discussion.

None of those factors changes the scientific evidence supporting spinal manipulation as a reasonable option for certain musculoskeletal conditions. Chiropractic does not need to be defended as a miracle cure. It deserves to be evaluated as healthcare: through evidence, accountability and results.

Perhaps the most important question isn’t whether chiropractors deserve to be called doctors. It’s whether the healthcare professional treating you is qualified, practices responsibly, understands your condition and recommends treatment supported by the best available evidence. In the end, patients benefit more from good healthcare than from arguments over professional titles.

About the author: Dr. Boris Nektalov is a chiropractor and enzyme nutrition specialist at Nektalov Chiropractic & Wellness in Forest Hills, Queens, NY.

References

1. Paige NM, et al. Association of spinal manipulative therapy with clinical benefit and harm for acute low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2017;317(14):1451-1460. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5470352
2. Rubinstein SM, et al. Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2019;364:l689. bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l689
3. Qaseem A, et al. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(7):514-530. PEDro record
4. World Health Organization. WHO releases guidelines on chronic low back pain (7 December 2023). who.int
5. Wilk v. American Medical Association (N.D. Ill. 1987; affirmed, 7th Cir. 1990). Court opinion; summary
6. New York State Education Department, Office of the Professions. Chiropractic: license requirements. op.nysed.gov

This article is for general education and is not a substitute for individual medical advice. If you have severe, worsening or neurological symptoms (such as numbness, weakness, or loss of bladder or bowel control), seek prompt medical evaluation.

This article is intended for informational purposes and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a licensed healthcare provider regarding your specific condition.