The board initially stood firm against the media storm last month , saying there was nothing to fear .

But within days , it cracked under the blunt demands of the nation ’ s health ministers to reinstate its ban because of the absence of robust evidence to support either its safety or efficacy .

It is worth pointing out the conditional clauses in the board ’ s public statements , however .

The “ interim ban ”, it said , will remain “ pending further consultation with Australia ’ s health ministers ”.

This suggests the board feels the only thing needed is time to give Mr Butler and his colleagues enlightenment about the wonders of spinal manipulation .

After all , the intervention has been central to chiropractic since its invention by former grocery store owner and magnetic healing proponent Daniel Palmer back in the 1890s .

The board ’ s chair , Wayne Minter , also added : ‘‘ We look forward to working with ministers to develop an evidence-based

The italics have been added in case anyone on the chiropractic board has missed the point .

final policy on paediatric care that balances

the paramount need to protect patients with the right for parents and other patients to have a say in the care they choose .” A “ right ”? Another important clause . The political showdown is fascinating in the way it exposes the fault lines . First , unless ministers want to start introducing legislation explicitly banning the spinal manipulation of babies under the

National Law , the chiropractic board can ignore their meddling .

The politicians have limited powers to dictate scope of practice , which in the case of chiropractors , is ultimately defined by chiropractors themselves and their training organisations .

The board and AHPRA have repeatedly said their role is restricted to no more than protection of the public from harm , insisting there is “ no evidence of serious harm to infants from chiropractic care in Australia ”.

These declarations are partly based on an examination of the 335 notifications against chiropractors since 2021 : five related to the treatment of a child , of which four resulted in no further action .

There is a debate to be had , of course , but you could imagine the outrage should a baby or child be harmed given the cases involving adults undergoing neck manipulation and stroke .

But if AHPRA and the board want to defend their eagerness to lift the ban , they should also be asking themselves whether the spinal manipulation of babies and children works , whether it has any therapeutic purpose , whether it is no more than a pantomime .

To argue it is acceptable practice , because the patient has rights in the context of the care they choose , is sophistry — a form of sophistry that reflects badly on both regulators given the way it can lead to the exploitation of patient ignorance .

Again , the evidence of its efficacy is minimal .

Here is the quote from the Safer Care Victoria review that triggered the ban in the first place : “ The major finding of this review is that the evidence base for spinal manipulation in children is very poor .

“ Specifically , the comprehensive review of the literature failed to identify any strong evidence for the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for a variety of conditions for which children are widely offered chiropractic manipulations .

“ These conditions included colic , enuresis , back / neck pain , headache , asthma , otitis media , cerebral palsy , hyperactivity and torticollis .”

I have added the italics in case anyone on the chiropractic board has missed the point .

That review was commissioned in 2019 after a video emerged on Facebook showing a Melbourne chiropractor using a device

called the ‘ activator ’ — also known as the stick that goes click — on a two-week-old baby to move its CSF .

In truth , the manipulation of babies ’ spines seems to be largely confined to the bonkers element of the chiropractic profession : the vitalists and magnetic healers ; the ones who believe subluxated vertebrae cause disease ; those who believe they can fix asthma , cerebral palsy and ADHD ; the ones denying germ theory and embracing anti-vax voodoo .

And if you want to pile on the criticisms , it is this bonkers element — deliberately or not — that is largely responsible for the financial exploitation of patients and their families through those high-cost 16-week holistic treatment sessions you see advertised for general wellbeing .

So it is perhaps wise for both the chiropractic board and AHPRA to be careful about what they defend when referring to the rights of patients in the care they choose .

In the context of ethical practice , there is also a duty on those who provide care to say no when there is no evidence to support what they have been chosen to do .

The rendering of bogus treatments for money also causes harm .