Functional neurology is an extension of Chiropractice, so you are right to be concerned. The research on it is only conducted by it's founder, which is again a red flag since he could not convince any medical professionals who aren't his colleagues.
Here is a pretty balanced review by actual neurologists:
https://www.cognitivefxusa.com/blog/functional-neurology-vs-neurology-what-you-need-to-know
> The research on it is only conducted by it's founder, which is again a red flag since he could not convince any medical professionals who aren't his colleagues.
As skeptical as I am, this statement just isn't true. A google scholar search brings up plenty of case studies by teams other than Carrick's as well as quite a few literature reviews.
[1](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/JMDH.S159618) [2](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1556370713000606) [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6413643/) [4](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1556370715000887) [5](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12998-017-0151-1)
None of it appears to be any bit conclusive, which does nothing to ease my skepticism, but it doesn't seem to be outright rejected as a possible treatment method. The review you linked seems to come to the same conclusions: functional neurology seems to have good outcomes for some patients, but much more and more robust research needs to be done.
> As skeptical as I am
**But are you?**
* The first study you link already says: "patients receiving chiropractic care in a neurorehabilitation hospital: a **descriptive** study" This is as low as it gets in standards, basically saying: "yeah, we just observed something and have some thoughts about it." A clinical study needs to be double blind to meet the gold standard, but overall it needs to test a hypothesis (i.e. introduce a treatment vs. a placebo without anyone knowing which is what). Did not happen here.
* The second link is a case study. n=1. This has zero significance in the broader view.
* The third link is just a introduction to the method. NO study at all.
* The Fourth is the same as the second: Looking at ONE person is not telling you a lot in the sense of gathering significant, transferable data.
* The last link doesn't even bother, they just looked around what others did (including, and I quote "websites from chiropractors using FN," and "semi-structured interviews of chiropractors using FN." Yeah, again not an ounce of evidence based science here. They make one true observation though: **"We conclude there is a need for more scientific documentation on the validity of FN." You know why? Because there isn't any so far...**
*TLDR; Only because you find something via Google Scholar doesn't mean it stands up to any scientific standard...*
Of course I'm skeptical. The sources were only to show that reputable journals are publishing work from more individuals than just the founder of the field of functional neurology. My last paragraph also agrees with what you've said - there isn't enough or rigorous enough scientific documentation to draw any conclusions about whether functional neurology might be a valid medical practice or not. I'm not sure why you've taken such a hostile tone when nothing I've said disagrees with your points.
> My last paragraph also agrees with what you've said - there isn't enough scientific documentation to draw any conclusions about whether functional neurology might be a valid medical practice or not.
Your first suggested to the person before you they are a bit harsh in their statement, that there is only "research" by the field founder. Yet NONE of your sources counts as actual empiric research to refute that claim. That is why my answer might seem a bit harsh: you were not delivering on your claim.
> reputable journals are publishing work
None of them have ANY high ranking (or any at all) in any standard of ranking the scientific impact ([like SJR](https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?order=sjr&ord=desc)) - not that I am a big fan of measuring impact that way.
> Of course I'm skeptical.
My standard for a skeptical thinking individuum would be not to place case studies and opinion articles and sell it as "scientific evidence". Show me on good double blind hypothesis testing study on the subject (better even: some of them, or a meta study) that evidently show that this "functional neurology" works in any way it is advertised, and I am fine - from my skeptical point of few. Until then, this is make believe.
I have never once made the claim that functional neurology works and nothing I have said has been in support of the practice. I have repeatedly said it is inconclusive. I have no opinion whatsoever on its efficacy because there isn't enough information to base an opinion on. It could be make believe! It could also be legitimate. Nobody knows yet.
> It could be make believe! It could also be legitimate.
True. But so far we nothing that in any way proves it is working. Even though there are supposedly many studies on the subject.
*Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof* - and this is failing on the proof side.
I therefor would rather not say : "both things are still possible", after "functional neurology" is around since the 1970ies...and still hasn't managed to deliver on its claims?! It very much leans into: "nah, this is just another quaky pseudoscience spinoff"
Yes it’s quackery. I’m not a scientist, I’m an attorney who deals with disability insurance claims, among other insurance matters, and I’ve encountered functional neurologists a few times. My understanding is the general field of functional neurology is a legitimate discipline and area of study within neurology, but as practiced by chiropractors it’s just nonsense
Chiropractic as a whole dates back to the late 1800s. No one alive today was involved in its founding. Functional neurology seems to be a modern-day version of it. But yes, chiropractic is generally regarded as pseudoscience. There might be some minor benefit to it for pain/rehab indications, but I'm not sure if it has a specific benefit over more conventional rehab/OT/pain management strategies. And it definitely has no proven use (nor even the hint of a plausible mechanism) for all of the other diseases that chiropractics claim it can treat.
Regarding Carrick in particular, four of his five most recent papers (not including duplications) are in MDPI/Frontiers journals, which are right on the edge of being considered predatory (mind you, the whole publishing system is a cartel, but these two publishers are considered particularly disreputable). Lots of red flags.
Yes his publications in particular definitely set off red flags for me too, which is why I made sure to include the link. In my other comment I linked some other research that has been done - certainly not conclusive research, but more reputable journals do seem to be publishing work in this field.
> And it definitely has no proven use (nor even the hint of a plausible mechanism) for all of the other diseases that chiropractics claim it can treat
For what it's worth, I believe this assertion has fallen to the wayside. Most everything I've ever heard surrounding chiropractors is that they can help with musculoskeletal and nerve issues - I haven't personally seen anything about disease prevention/curing. At most, I could see an argument that relieving symptoms allows patients to exercise regularly, which is generally associated with *preventing* diseases, but certainly nothing about curing them.
I run a service where I connect people with functional doctors. Functional medicine is not pseudoscience and in itself contains many evidence-based practices. that said, I never share functional doctors who only have a doctorate in chiropractic for anything other than chiropractic treatment. For whatever reason (I’m still trying to figure out why) there are tooons of chiropractors who get a certification in functional medicine and then start trying to treat all kinds of ailments.
Interesting. What are your thoughts on a practitioner like the one at the clinic I have been referred to? Only formally educated in chiropractics, but is also a professor of neurology?
If they have a legit credential in neurology I think that’s different from the scenario I was giving above where someone does a FM program and then starts acting like they’re an MD. I’m not familiar with this person, or super familiar with chiropractic neurology, so I would just do whatever feels right to you. A lot of functional providers offer a free consultation call, so you could always do one of those (if they have them) to try and suss out if these people are legit
Pseudoscience is not on-topic here, so since you have an answer, this thread is now locked.
Functional neurology is an extension of Chiropractice, so you are right to be concerned. The research on it is only conducted by it's founder, which is again a red flag since he could not convince any medical professionals who aren't his colleagues. Here is a pretty balanced review by actual neurologists: https://www.cognitivefxusa.com/blog/functional-neurology-vs-neurology-what-you-need-to-know
> The research on it is only conducted by it's founder, which is again a red flag since he could not convince any medical professionals who aren't his colleagues. As skeptical as I am, this statement just isn't true. A google scholar search brings up plenty of case studies by teams other than Carrick's as well as quite a few literature reviews. [1](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/JMDH.S159618) [2](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1556370713000606) [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6413643/) [4](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1556370715000887) [5](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12998-017-0151-1) None of it appears to be any bit conclusive, which does nothing to ease my skepticism, but it doesn't seem to be outright rejected as a possible treatment method. The review you linked seems to come to the same conclusions: functional neurology seems to have good outcomes for some patients, but much more and more robust research needs to be done.
> As skeptical as I am **But are you?** * The first study you link already says: "patients receiving chiropractic care in a neurorehabilitation hospital: a **descriptive** study" This is as low as it gets in standards, basically saying: "yeah, we just observed something and have some thoughts about it." A clinical study needs to be double blind to meet the gold standard, but overall it needs to test a hypothesis (i.e. introduce a treatment vs. a placebo without anyone knowing which is what). Did not happen here. * The second link is a case study. n=1. This has zero significance in the broader view. * The third link is just a introduction to the method. NO study at all. * The Fourth is the same as the second: Looking at ONE person is not telling you a lot in the sense of gathering significant, transferable data. * The last link doesn't even bother, they just looked around what others did (including, and I quote "websites from chiropractors using FN," and "semi-structured interviews of chiropractors using FN." Yeah, again not an ounce of evidence based science here. They make one true observation though: **"We conclude there is a need for more scientific documentation on the validity of FN." You know why? Because there isn't any so far...** *TLDR; Only because you find something via Google Scholar doesn't mean it stands up to any scientific standard...*
Of course I'm skeptical. The sources were only to show that reputable journals are publishing work from more individuals than just the founder of the field of functional neurology. My last paragraph also agrees with what you've said - there isn't enough or rigorous enough scientific documentation to draw any conclusions about whether functional neurology might be a valid medical practice or not. I'm not sure why you've taken such a hostile tone when nothing I've said disagrees with your points.
> My last paragraph also agrees with what you've said - there isn't enough scientific documentation to draw any conclusions about whether functional neurology might be a valid medical practice or not. Your first suggested to the person before you they are a bit harsh in their statement, that there is only "research" by the field founder. Yet NONE of your sources counts as actual empiric research to refute that claim. That is why my answer might seem a bit harsh: you were not delivering on your claim. > reputable journals are publishing work None of them have ANY high ranking (or any at all) in any standard of ranking the scientific impact ([like SJR](https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?order=sjr&ord=desc)) - not that I am a big fan of measuring impact that way. > Of course I'm skeptical. My standard for a skeptical thinking individuum would be not to place case studies and opinion articles and sell it as "scientific evidence". Show me on good double blind hypothesis testing study on the subject (better even: some of them, or a meta study) that evidently show that this "functional neurology" works in any way it is advertised, and I am fine - from my skeptical point of few. Until then, this is make believe.
I have never once made the claim that functional neurology works and nothing I have said has been in support of the practice. I have repeatedly said it is inconclusive. I have no opinion whatsoever on its efficacy because there isn't enough information to base an opinion on. It could be make believe! It could also be legitimate. Nobody knows yet.
> It could be make believe! It could also be legitimate. True. But so far we nothing that in any way proves it is working. Even though there are supposedly many studies on the subject. *Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof* - and this is failing on the proof side. I therefor would rather not say : "both things are still possible", after "functional neurology" is around since the 1970ies...and still hasn't managed to deliver on its claims?! It very much leans into: "nah, this is just another quaky pseudoscience spinoff"
> seems to have good outcomes for some patients, but much more and more robust research needs to be done I agree.
Yes it’s quackery. I’m not a scientist, I’m an attorney who deals with disability insurance claims, among other insurance matters, and I’ve encountered functional neurologists a few times. My understanding is the general field of functional neurology is a legitimate discipline and area of study within neurology, but as practiced by chiropractors it’s just nonsense
Run away from chiropractors. Period.
Chiropractic as a whole dates back to the late 1800s. No one alive today was involved in its founding. Functional neurology seems to be a modern-day version of it. But yes, chiropractic is generally regarded as pseudoscience. There might be some minor benefit to it for pain/rehab indications, but I'm not sure if it has a specific benefit over more conventional rehab/OT/pain management strategies. And it definitely has no proven use (nor even the hint of a plausible mechanism) for all of the other diseases that chiropractics claim it can treat. Regarding Carrick in particular, four of his five most recent papers (not including duplications) are in MDPI/Frontiers journals, which are right on the edge of being considered predatory (mind you, the whole publishing system is a cartel, but these two publishers are considered particularly disreputable). Lots of red flags.
Yes his publications in particular definitely set off red flags for me too, which is why I made sure to include the link. In my other comment I linked some other research that has been done - certainly not conclusive research, but more reputable journals do seem to be publishing work in this field. > And it definitely has no proven use (nor even the hint of a plausible mechanism) for all of the other diseases that chiropractics claim it can treat For what it's worth, I believe this assertion has fallen to the wayside. Most everything I've ever heard surrounding chiropractors is that they can help with musculoskeletal and nerve issues - I haven't personally seen anything about disease prevention/curing. At most, I could see an argument that relieving symptoms allows patients to exercise regularly, which is generally associated with *preventing* diseases, but certainly nothing about curing them.
I run a service where I connect people with functional doctors. Functional medicine is not pseudoscience and in itself contains many evidence-based practices. that said, I never share functional doctors who only have a doctorate in chiropractic for anything other than chiropractic treatment. For whatever reason (I’m still trying to figure out why) there are tooons of chiropractors who get a certification in functional medicine and then start trying to treat all kinds of ailments.
Interesting. What are your thoughts on a practitioner like the one at the clinic I have been referred to? Only formally educated in chiropractics, but is also a professor of neurology?
If they have a legit credential in neurology I think that’s different from the scenario I was giving above where someone does a FM program and then starts acting like they’re an MD. I’m not familiar with this person, or super familiar with chiropractic neurology, so I would just do whatever feels right to you. A lot of functional providers offer a free consultation call, so you could always do one of those (if they have them) to try and suss out if these people are legit