How the WFC Weaponized COVID, Silenced Vitalists, and Betrayed Its Own
Originally published: 2025-08-05
The Immunity Report That Shook a Profession
In early 2020, at the height of global COVID-19 panic, chiropractors around the world began facing government scrutiny for making claims about the immune-enhancing effects of chiropractic care. Into this volatile climate stepped the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC), armed with a “rapid review” on chiropractic and immunity that would soon be weaponized by regulators worldwide.
Titled “Chiropractic Care and the Immune System: A Scoping Review of the Literature”, the report concluded that there was “no credible evidence” supporting any connection between chiropractic care and immune function. That statement was then used by boards and regulators to issue gag orders, suspend licenses, and issue cease-and-desist letters to chiropractors, not just those making extravagant claims, but even those referencing foundational neuroimmunological research or emphasizing chiropractic’s role in optimizing nervous system function.
"This wasn’t a review, it was ammunition. And the WFC handed it to the enemies of chiropractic."
CLICK Here for an analysis of the WFC’s scoping review
Who Wrote It and Why That Matters
Six of the authors behind the WFC's immunity review were known subluxation deniers, including prominent academic critics of traditional chiropractic like Greg Kawchuk, Jan Hartvigsen, and Simon French. Their contempt for vitalism, subluxation theory, and the broader identity of chiropractic as a distinct healing art has been well-documented in past publications.
Following profession wide outrage, these same authors abruptly resigned from the WFC Research Committee. Their resignation letter, posted publicly, declared that they “no longer felt it possible to function as independent academics” within the WFC.
The irony was stunning: the very people who helped shape the document that suppressed vitalistic chiropractors suddenly cried foul when the political fallout didn’t go their way.
Despite this and despite the state board actions against ICA members that followed the ICA remained a supporter of the WFC.
“The WFC Research Committee imploded under the weight of its own contradictions.”
Resignations or Rearrangements? The WFC’s Shell Game
When the six members of the WFC Research Committee abruptly resigned in 2020 after backlash over their flawed “rapid review” on chiropractic and immunity, it was framed by some as a moment of reckoning. Sponsors pulled out. Public trust crumbled. The optics were damning.
But what looked like a collapse was, in hindsight, little more than a strategic pause for damage control—a “nothing to see here” maneuver that cleared the deck for a quiet reinstallation of ideological allies. Rather than shifting course or acknowledging their errors, the WFC reconstituted the Research Committee with individuals who had already publicly supported its controversial immunity position.
Among those appointed were Katherine Pohlman, Director of Research at Parker University, and Imran Khan Niazi, a Senior Research Fellow at the New Zealand College of Chiropractic (NZCC). Both had played key roles in defending or reinforcing the WFC’s narrative. Pohlman echoed the WFC’s talking points in a now-infamous interview with Parker University President William Morgan, sarcastically dismissing the idea that chiropractic might impact immune function: “There is no credible research.” Morgan, for his part, went further, threatening chiropractors with legal consequences for suggesting otherwise.
“These weren’t fresh voices. These were the same architects of suppression, shuffled back into power with new titles.”
At NZCC, Khan and his team, including Haavik and Holt, produced their own “immunity review,” conveniently mirroring the WFC’s position while ignoring volumes of emerging literature and international best practice documents. The timing? Perfectly aligned with the NZCA’s re-entry into the WFC, suggesting that political reconciliation, not academic rigor, was the real motivator.
Despite the existence of high-quality, peer-reviewed best practices and scoping reviews on chiropractic and immunity, these were entirely omitted from Khan’s paper. Instead, the NZCC review repeated the same WFC-commissioned conclusion: that it is “not yet known” whether adjustments have any clinically relevant effect on immunity.
“This was not science. It was a job application.”
The Real Outcome: Power Consolidated, Dissent Erased
Christine Goertz, one of the original authors of the WFC's immunity review and its most vocal defender, was later appointed as Chair of the very same Research Committee that had imploded under her leadership. She was also awarded by malpractice giant NCMIC, a corporate signal that loyalty to the Cartel is rewarded, not punished.
The lesson is clear: Resignation was not accountability. It was theater.
“They resigned to distract you. Then they came back through the side door.”
The immunity narrative that triggered this firestorm, one born out of flawed methodology, blatant ideological bias, and institutional disdain for subluxation-based care remains intact. The committee was simply re-staffed with those more willing to toe the line publicly while continuing the suppression of chiropractic’s core philosophy behind closed doors.
This is why the ICA’s continued support for the WFC is not just naïve. It’s suicidal.
A Pattern of Antipathy
The COVID episode was not an anomaly. It was a predictable outcome of the WFC's long history of hostility toward subluxation-centered, vitalistic practitioners:
Dismissive Language: WFC-affiliated researchers have repeatedly referred to subluxation as a "relic," vitalism as "unscientific dogma," and traditional chiropractors as “obstacles to integration.”
EPIC Agenda: The WFC's "EPIC" model (Evidence-based, People-centered, Interprofessional, Collaborative) has become a euphemism for removing any trace of chiropractic’s founding principles.
Leadership Bias: The composition of WFC leadership and its research bodies over the past decade has skewed sharply against anyone who speaks the language of innate intelligence, subluxation, or chiropractic autonomy.
Suppression Tactics: Chiropractors making public statements about immunity, statements supported by legitimate neuroscience, were smeared, reported, and silenced using the WFC's own literature as the excuse.
“The WFC does not merely disagree with subluxation-based chiropractic. It actively works to destroy it.”
Why the ICA’s Support is Inexcusable
Despite this mountain of evidence, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA), whose mission is explicitly rooted in subluxation-centered care, remains a member organization of the WFC. It continues to send membership dues and lend legitimacy to an organization that has declared philosophical war on its base.
This contradiction is indefensible. Every dollar sent by ICA members helps fund research and advocacy designed to erase their voice from the profession.
"The ICA isn’t just being ignored—it’s paying to be erased."
What Must Be Done
The ICA must sever ties with the WFC immediately and without apology. This is not a matter of politics. It is a matter of survival.
The WFC has shown that it cannot tolerate philosophical diversity.
It has helped global regulators suppress chiropractic expression.
It has promoted discredited science to silence dissent.
A principled chiropractic organization should not support this behavior. It should condemn it.
“You don’t reform an organization that’s designed to erase you. You leave it.”
Time to Choose Sides
The WFC has made its position clear. It wants chiropractic to be a globally integrated, evidence-only, musculoskeletal adjunct to medicine. It wants the profession purged of its history, its philosophy, and its founding principles.
The ICA must now decide whether it will be complicit—or courageous.
Remaining in the WFC is not a neutral act. It’s an endorsement. And it's one the ICA can no longer afford to give.
