Cosmo ignores chiropractic evidence

When information on Dr. Madeline Behrendt's research on chiropractic and fertility was released to the press this summer, she received several inquiries from reporters interested in learning more about the possible link between subluxation correction and fertility.

One writer was preparing an article for Cosmopolitan magazine on recent advances in health care approaches to the problem of infertility. The two women talked at length and Dr. Behrendt supplied her with documented evidence that subluxation correct may be able to restore fertility to many women previously considered incapable of conceiving.

Behrendt's article, published in the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research, titled "Insult, Interference and Infertility: An Overview of Chiropractic Research," was a literature review of 14 retrospective articles exploring the possible effect of spinal problems on fertility. All of the women in these studies were found to have vertebral subluxations. The stress histories of these infertile women included ‑‑ but were not limited to ‑‑ previous motor vehicle accidents, childhood falls, blocked fallopian tubes, scoliosis, and work stress that affected both mind and body. All of the women became pregnant after their subluxations were detected and corrected.

The evidence is clearly compelling, yet when the article, "How to protect your future fertility" was published, it completely ignored chiropractic and focused solely on medical approaches.

Behrendt, a member of the World Chiropractic Alliance International Board of Governors and chair of the WCA Council on Women's Health, was both distressed and angered by the snub. The WCA immediately contacted the editors of Cosmopolitan and criticized the magazine's failure to provide readers with valuable information.

"Your recent article on fertility was a tremendous disappointment -- and a disservice to all your readers who have the right to expect complete and accurate information on health issues," the letter noted. "No one would have expected Cosmopolitan to advise readers to rush out to see a doctor of chiropractic for fertility issues on the basis of this research, but it is unconscionable that the reporter withheld the information from them in order to promote medical approaches. ... When medical treatment fails women, they seek out alternatives. When a magazine fails them, by giving them incomplete or inaccurate information, they will seek out alternatives there as well."

When other doctors learned of the Cosmopolitan writer's exclusion of chiropractic research, they were equally livid and flooded the magazine's editorial offices with letters, faxes and e‑mails.

Heather Whittle, D.C., who served with Behrendt on the WCA Council on Women's Health, told them, "I am sorry to see that the day has come when Cosmo may be loosing its 'gutsyness.' In your article you presented only the traditional medical options for women suffering with infertility when there is new research available suggesting that chiropractic may help women with infertility. I am a chiropractor who cares for women and find that they are eager to learn about natural solutions for dealing with infertility."

Another WCA member, Leona Fischer, D.C., wrote: "My question to Cosmo is why did you leave out a safe NON-INVASIVE approach to infertility? Is it because the reporter did not seek the truth out? Is it because Cosmo only reports on mainstream, non-controversial issues? Your article NEVER addresses the fact that if the nerves that control those reproductive organs are not functioning properly, neither will the reproductive organs."

The letters weren't only from female readers.

Charles L. Blum, D.C., admitted that his wife was normally the one who read Cosmopolitan in his house, but said, "My understanding of some of the philosophy of Cosmo is to be avant-garde and cutting edge in its information for women. For that reason I was naively surprised that after interviewing Madeline Behrendt, D.C. regarding fertility issues, all that Cosmo could offer its readers was five opinions from medical doctors without any chiropractic slant at all."

Daniel D. Lyons, D.C., also sent his criticism to the magazine's editors. "I am curious as to how you feel that this piece served your readers? All it did was offer up a healthy dose of common sense. Instead of seizing a wonderful opportunity to help your readers, you fell short with a fluff piece that will be forgotten as quickly as it is read," he wrote. "As one of the authors of a case study published in The Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research...I found your omission of chiropractic upsetting. What I found unconscionable was the fact that you actually interviewed Dr. Madeline Behrendt, the chiropractor who spearheaded JVSR's entire infertility series and then did not mention her or chiropractic in your article."

Another chiropractic researcher added her own protest. "As one of the authors in the published study on chiropractic and infertility, I was disheartened to learn of your omission of alternative health choices in your above-named article," wrote Tammy M. Kaminski, D.C., secretary/treasurer of the WCA Council on Women's Health. "Many of my colleagues contributed to the study documenting various fertility challenges," she continued. "My particular case study demonstrated naturally induced fertility in a woman diagnosed with a 'lazy reproductive system' while receiving wellness chiropractic care. It is a dishonor to your readers not to give them an opportunity to learn of the relationship between successful fertility and natural holistic care. Although chiropractic is not a treatment for any disease, condition or ailment, it efficiently promotes proper function and natural healing, which is why it is the choice of millions of consumers."

Veronica Gutierrez, D.C., a member of the WCA Board of Directors, summed up the outrage of many doctors when she wrote: "I'm appalled that a magazine that prints '101 Fabulous Sex Tips,' 'Are You Good in Bed?,' and 'Studs in Suds' does not have the courage to venture out of the medical model of health care to discuss real choices for women contemplating future fertility. ... If the intent of the article was to be 'fluffy,' you succeeded. If the intent was to truly help women, it is something else. As a former member of the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, I can assure you that American women are using their feet and their health care dollars to pursue non‑allopathic strategies to health. This article has failed them."

At press time, none of the writers received a response from the editors on this issue, and it is not known whether the magazine will print any of the letters in a future edition.