Misinformation, chiropractic, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization elevated the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic to a pandemic and called for urgent and aggressive action worldwide. Public health experts have communicated clear and emphatic strategies to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Hygiene rules and social distancing practices have been implemented by entire populations, including 'stay-at-home' orders in many countries. The long-term health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are not yet known. MAIN TEXT: During this time of crisis, some chiropractors made claims on social media that chiropractic treatment can prevent or impact COVID-19. The rationale for these claims is that spinal manipulation can impact the nervous system and thus improve immunity. These beliefs often stem from nineteenth-century chiropractic concepts. We are aware of no clinically relevant scientific evidence to support such statements. We explored the internet and social media to collect examples of misinformation from Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand regarding the impact of chiropractic treatment on immune function. We discuss the potential harm resulting from these claims and explore the role of chiropractors, teaching institutions, accrediting agencies, and legislative bodies. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the chiropractic profession share a collective responsibility to act in the best interests of patients and public health. We hope that all chiropractic stakeholders will view the COVID-19 pandemic as a call to action to eliminate the unethical and potentially dangerous claims made by chiropractors who practise outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.

Association of State Policies Allowing Medical Cannabis for Opioid Use Disorder With Dispensary Marketing for This Indication.

Importance: Misinformation about cannabis and opioid use disorder (OUD) may increase morbidity and mortality if it leads individuals with OUD to forego evidence-based treatment. It has not been systematically evaluated whether officially designating OUD as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis is associated with cannabis dispensaries suggesting cannabis as a treatment for OUD. Objective: To examine whether state-level policies designating OUD a qualifying condition for medical cannabis are associated with more dispensaries claiming cannabis can treat OUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study of 208 medical dispensary brands was conducted in 2019 using the brands' online content. The study included dispensaries operating in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, where OUD is a qualifying condition for medical cannabis, and in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, and West Virginia, where this policy does not exist. Exposures: Presence of OUD on the list of qualifying conditions for a state's medical cannabis program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Binary indicators of whether online content from the brand said cannabis can treat OUD, can replace US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for OUD, can be an adjunctive therapy to Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for OUD, or can be used as a substitute for opioids to treat other conditions (eg, chronic pain). Results: After excluding duplicates, listings for nonexistent dispensaries, and those without online content, 167 brands across 7 states were included in the analysis (44 [26.3%] in states where OUD was a qualifying condition and 123 [73.7%] in adjacent states). A dispensary listed in a directory for West Virginia was not operational; therefore, comparison states were Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Ohio. In policy-exposed states, 39% (95% CI, 23%-55%) more dispensaries claimed cannabis could treat OUD compared with unexposed states (P < .001). For replacing medications for OUD and being an adjunctive therapy, the differences were 14% (95% CI, 2%-26%; P = .002) and 28% (95% CI, 14%-42%; P < .001), respectively. The suggestion that cannabis could substitute for opioids (eg, to treat chronic pain) was made by 25% (95% CI, 9%-41%) more brands in policy-exposed states than adjacent states (P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, state-level policies designating OUD as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis were associated with more dispensaries claiming cannabis can treat OUD. In the current policy environment, in which medical claims by cannabis dispensaries are largely unregulated, these advertisements could harm patients. Future research linking these policies to patient outcomes is warranted.

Non-invasive brain stimulation enhances fine motor control of the hemiparetic ankle: implications for rehabilitation.

We set out to answer two questions with this study: 1. Can stroke patients improve voluntary control of their paretic ankle by practising a visuo-motor ankle-tracking task? 2. Are practice effects enhanced with non-invasive brain stimulation? A carefully selected sample of chronic stroke patients able to perform the experimental task attended three data collection sessions. Facilitatory transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was applied in a random order over the lower limb primary motor cortex of the lesioned hemisphere or the non-lesioned hemisphere or sham stimulation was delivered over the lesioned hemisphere. In each session, tDCS was applied as patients practiced tracking a sinusoidal waveform for 15 min using dorsiflexion-plantarflexion movements of their paretic ankle. The difference in tracking error prior to, and after, the 15 min of practice was calculated. A practice effect was revealed following sham stimulation, and this effect was enhanced with tDCS applied over the lesioned hemisphere. The practice effect observed following sham stimulation was eliminated by tDCS applied over the non-lesioned hemisphere. The study provides the first evidence that non-invasive brain stimulation applied to the lesioned motor cortex of moderate- to well-recovered stroke patients enhances voluntary control of the paretic ankle. The results provide a basis for examining whether this enhanced ankle control can be induced in patients with greater impairments and whether enhanced control of a single or multiple lower limb joints improves hemiparetic gait patterns.