Dr. Christopher Kent and Dr. Matthew McCoy examine emerging research on upper cervical chiropractic adjustments, pediatric manual care, somatic dysfunction in newborns, and the scientific distinctions between specific chiropractic adjustments and spinal manipulation.
Scientific progress in chiropractic depends on more than demonstrating changes following an intervention. It requires reliable assessments, clearly defined procedures, and research capable of distinguishing meaningful physiological outcomes from assumptions that have become embedded in professional practice.
In the September 2026 edition of On Purpose Science, Dr. Christopher Kent and Dr. Matthew McCoy examine studies addressing cervical proprioception, pediatric osteopathic practices, and newborn spinal findings. Their discussion also considers how terminology, research limitations, and professional regulation influence the interpretation of chiropractic care.
Upper Cervical Adjustments and Measurable Neurological Function
A randomized clinical trial examining head repositioning accuracy following a single orthospinology atlas adjustment provides a compelling starting point. The study enrolled 72 patients seeking chiropractic care for neck pain, assigning 51 to an intervention group and 21 to a comparison group.
Following the adjustment, researchers reported significant improvements in cervical joint position accuracy across flexion, extension, and bilateral rotation, with improvements ranging from approximately 42% to 52%. The comparison group demonstrated no statistically significant improvements.
Dr. Matthew McCoy: “And that’s from one adjustment. Yeah. One segment.”
For Kent and McCoy, the importance lies in evaluating function through objective measurements rather than relying exclusively on symptomatic outcomes. Cervical proprioception contributes to awareness of head position and movement, making it a relevant measure of sensorimotor function.
Although the findings are encouraging, the immediate assessment period does not establish whether improvements persist or translate into broader clinical benefits. Nevertheless, the trial illustrates the value of investigating specific chiropractic interventions using controlled research designs.
Pediatric Manual Care and the Importance of Technique
The discussion shifts to multinational surveys examining high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) techniques in pediatric osteopathic practice and education.
Among 2,607 responding practitioners, 6.5% reported using HVLA techniques in newborns, compared with 45.3% in children and 78.3% in adolescents. Educational institutions reported similarly limited instruction in HVLA procedures for infants.
The relatively low practitioner response rate of 10.7% limits how confidently these findings can be generalized.
Kent emphasizes that pediatric manual care encompasses approaches beyond HVLA thrust procedures, including sustained pressure and other gentle techniques. The distinction becomes particularly important when research findings are translated into professional recommendations.
Dr. Christopher Kent: “Well here’s here we go again and and this is why words and definitions matter. What’s spinal manipulation?”
Their concern is that broadly defined restrictions on spinal manipulation could be interpreted as applying to substantially different forms of pediatric chiropractic care.
Somatic Dysfunction in Newborns and Birth-Related Factors
A 2015 osteopathic study involving 100 healthy newborns offers another perspective on early spinal and cranial assessment.
Researchers identified cranial strain patterns in 99% of examined infants, cervical motion restrictions in 91%, lumbar restrictions in 94%, and sacral findings in 80%. Greater somatic dysfunction severity was associated with longer labor duration, but not with delivery mode or maternal parity.
These findings attracted particular attention because they differed from expectations surrounding birth interventions and spinal dysfunction.
The study documents the frequency of findings under osteopathic assessment criteria, but does not establish that these findings represent chiropractic vertebral subluxations, predict future health problems, or necessarily require intervention.
For the hosts, its significance lies in encouraging further investigation into newborn assessment, examination reliability, and the possible relationship between birth-related mechanical forces and spinal function.
Reconsidering the Biomechanics of Spinal Manipulation
Kent and McCoy also examine a philosophical and biomechanical critique of the traditional concept of paraphysiological space, a proposed range of joint movement beyond ordinary physiological motion.
The paper challenges whether this additional movement zone has been experimentally demonstrated and questions the continued reliance on simplified biomechanical models.
Dr. Matthew McCoy: “The paraphysiological space is a conceptual invention, not a demonstrated biomechanical phenomenon.”
The discussion becomes particularly relevant to Australia’s September 2026 pediatric chiropractic guidance, which the hosts describe as strongly advising against spinal manipulation in children younger than two.
Their broader argument concerns precision in professional language. Terms such as manipulation, adjustment, and HVLA should not automatically be treated as interchangeable when evaluating research, clinical procedures, or regulatory policies.
Cervical Self-Manipulation and the Need for Comparative Research
A systematic review of adverse events associated with cervical self-manipulation adds another dimension to the discussion. The review included 24 published studies describing adverse events, including severe and fatal outcomes.
These reports establish that serious complications have been documented, but cannot determine how frequently such events occur among everyone who self-manipulates their neck.
McCoy proposes comparative research examining specific chiropractic adjustments, nonspecific spinal manipulation, and self-manipulation using objective neurological and physiological measurements.
Dr. Matthew McCoy: “I believe that a specific chiropractic adjustment will provide better health outcomes than the other two groups, but that’s my belief.”
His acknowledgment captures an important distinction between clinical conviction and demonstrated evidence.
Across these studies, a consistent challenge emerges: chiropractic research must distinguish what can be measured from what is presumed. Better operational definitions, stronger comparative studies, and careful interpretation are essential to advancing scientific understanding while informing responsible clinical practice.
Continue the Conversation with On Purpose
Explore the full September 2026 On Purpose Science discussion with Dr. Christopher Kent and Dr. Matthew McCoy as they examine upper cervical research, pediatric chiropractic considerations, newborn assessment, spinal biomechanics, and the implications of cervical self-manipulation.
Follow and subscribe to On Purpose for more discussions on chiropractic science, politics, philosophy, education, and professional leadership.
👉 https://chiroonpurpose.substack.com/
Always remember with On Purpose you are not alone
About On Purpose
The On Purpose Podcast is hosted by Christopher Kent DC, JD, MBA, ACP and Matthew McCoy DC, MPH. Since the early 1990s, On Purpose has been the spearhead of the Chiropractic Freedom Movement. It began as mailed cassette tapes, evolved into CDs, then online audio, and now lives on Substack with full-length video segments in Science, Philosophy, and Politics.
Tagline: When You Are On Purpose, You Are Not Alone.
Subscribe and listen at chiroonpurpose.substack.com or visit chiroonpurpose.com.
Join the movement. Stay informed. Stay inspired. Stay free.
