Decoding The Unspoken Evidence
Chiropractic Care and Colic: A Personal Reflection on a Very Human Experience
Colic is one of those early‑parenthood storms that sweeps into a home without warning. For decades, people talked about it using the old “rule of threes”: more than three hours of crying a day, three days a week, for three weeks. It sounded neat and tidy — as if colic could be measured with a stopwatch.
But modern thinking has shifted. Today, colic is understood much more simply, and much more honestly, as any crying that a parent perceives as excessive, persistent or difficult to soothe in an otherwise healthy baby. And that makes sense…
…Colic isn’t something you find on a scan or a blood test. It is something you feel — in your chest, in your nerves, in the atmosphere of your home.
Most people still think of colic as a digestive issue — trapped wind, immature guts, “tummy trouble.” But the reality is more complex. Sometimes crying is digestive. Sometimes it’s fatigue or overstimulation. And sometimes it’s discomfort or musculoskeletal tension that a baby simply cannot express in any other way. Crying is a baby’s only language, and colic is what we call it when that language becomes overwhelming.
Where My Interest Started
My own curiosity about this began long before I had children of my own. Years ago, a close friend of mine from my native South Africa — chiropractor Tony Karpelowsky — completed a master’s thesis in 2004 exploring chiropractic care for infantile colic. I remember him describing the parents in his study: exhausted, hopeful and then, gradually, relieved as their babies settled more easily, fed more comfortably, and slept more peacefully.
At the time, I didn’t have children. But something about that conversation stayed with me. It made me wonder how we should understand a condition that is defined not by pathology, but by experience. I don’t personally treat babies at Creative Chiro (although my colleague Denise does). But as a parent, and as someone who values evidence, I’ve spent years exploring what the research actually says.
The South African Story: Three Independent Studies, One Familiar Pattern
Around the time Tony was doing his work, several other South African chiropractors were quietly conducting their own master’s‑level research on colic. These weren’t coordinated projects. They were separate theses, completed at different times, by different clinicians, with different groups of infants. Yet the parental reports across these studies were remarkably similar.
The earliest of these was Catherine Mercer’s 1999 thesis, where parents described reduced crying, easier settling, and better sleep. Her work unfolded within a medical‑academic environment, and the paediatric oversight reflected a shared understanding that colic is multifactorial and that comfort — however achieved — matters deeply to families.
A few years later, in 2002, Sheree Koonin completed her controlled clinical study. She worked closely with medical practitioners during her research, and her findings were discussed with paediatric supervisors who noted that while crying diaries didn’t always capture the full picture, parents consistently described calmer evenings and easier feeding. Her study reported no adverse events, and the medical oversight often reflected a cautious but open curiosity about why some babies seemed to settle more easily.
Then in 2004, Tony completed his own thesis — the one that first sparked my interest. His work reinforced the same pattern: calmer babies, improved feeding, and a more settled household atmosphere. The paediatric input he received during his research often centred on the idea that colic is not a disease but a distress pattern, and that anything which helps families feel more at ease deserves thoughtful consideration.
Three different chiropractors. Three different groups of infants. Three different academic supervisors, many of them medical. And yet, the same parental‑reported improvements appeared again and again.
The UK Perspective: Joyce Miller and a Second Wave of Research
While the South African work was unfolding, in the UK Joyce Miller was becoming one of the most respected researchers in chiropractic paediatrics. Her work adds an important dimension to the story, partly because it involved close collaboration with medical practitioners and paediatric services.
Her 2012 pragmatic single‑blind randomised controlled trial is often highlighted because it tackled a key criticism head‑on: the idea that parental expectation might influence outcomes. By blinding some parents to whether their baby received care, the study showed that improvements in crying time occurred regardless of parental awareness. The medical practitioners involved in the study noted that the babies in the treatment group often appeared more settled during follow‑up assessments, even when the parents didn’t know whether care had been provided.
Her earlier observational work showed similar patterns and, again, no serious adverse events. Many of the medical collaborators in her projects reflected that colic is one of the most challenging conditions for parents, precisely because conventional medicine has limited tools to offer beyond reassurance.
Miller later expanded her work even further by analysing a large “real‑world” dataset drawn from more than two thousand infants attending chiropractic clinics across the UK. Using structured maternal questionnaires, this project captured changes in crying, feeding, sleep, comfort, and general wellbeing over the course of care. The pattern was remarkably consistent: mothers reported meaningful improvements across all domains, alongside reductions in their own stress and anxiety, and no serious adverse events were identified. While observational by design and not intended to prove causation, the scale of the dataset offered something that smaller trials cannot — an insight into what families actually experience in everyday practice.
And once again, the themes echoed the earlier research: calmer babies, easier feeding, better sleep, and a sense that life at home had become more manageable.
Alongside this, Mike Marinus completed a master’s‑level thesis in the UK in 2019, drawing on clinical data originally gathered from South African paediatric cases but analysed and submitted within a UK academic framework. His project explored chiropractic care for unsettled infants, and the findings echoed the broader pattern seen internationally: parents described calmer babies, easier feeding, and a general sense that their infants were more comfortable. The UK academic supervisors involved in the project often reflected on how difficult it is to measure a condition defined by parental distress rather than pathology, and how meaningful it can be when families feel supported.
Together, these UK studies — Miller’s and Marinus’s— form a thoughtful second wave of research that aligns closely with the South African pattern.
The International Picture: Denmark and Iceland
Beyond South Africa and the UK, several international trials have explored chiropractic care for colic, often with medical practitioners directly involved in the research.
Wiberg’s 1999 Danish study, conducted in collaboration with medical doctors, found a significant reduction in crying time. The medical practitioners involved noted that while the mechanism wasn’t fully understood, the parental reports were consistent and meaningful.
Olafsdottir’s 2001 Icelandic study, conducted entirely within a paediatric medical department, did not find statistically significant differences in crying minutes between groups. Yet even in this setting, parents still reported that their babies seemed more comfortable. The paediatric team reflected on the difficulty of measuring a condition defined by perception rather than pathology.
Holm’s 2021 Danish multicentre trial—the largest to date—also took place within medical environments. The authors concluded that chiropractic care did not produce a ‘clinically relevant’ reduction in crying time. But again, parents described improvements in comfort, feeding, and general wellbeing. Several of the medical practitioners involved commented on the mismatch between statistical thresholds and lived experience.
What is particularly interesting about the Scandinavian research is that several of these studies were not authored by chiropractors at all. They were medical research projects conducted within paediatric departments, where chiropractors were invited in specifically to provide the manual therapy being tested. Denmark and Iceland do not have postgraduate chiropractic programmes, so the academic ownership of these trials sat entirely within medicine. Yet the medical teams were curious enough to design controlled trials around chiropractic care, and trusted chiropractors to deliver the intervention under hospital supervision.
It is a reminder that even within conventional medical settings, there has long been a genuine interest in whether gentle manual therapy might help unsettled infants — and this question has been taken seriously enough to be explored in paediatric hospitals, not just chiropractic clinics.
All of this highlights a central paradox of colic research: colic is defined by parental experience, yet parental experience is often discounted in trials.
Safety, Public Experience and Regulatory Scrutiny
What happened in Australia adds another important layer to this story. In 2019, Safer Care Victoria conducted what became the largest public consultation in Australian healthcare history, gathering more than twenty‑one thousand submissions from parents whose children - up to the age of 12 - had received chiropractic care. The primary focus ended up being on babies and the scale of the response was striking. But the content was even more so: 99.7% of parents reported a positive experience, 98% felt their child improved, and no serious harms were identified in either the public submissions or the insurance data reviewed.
Despite these reassuring findings, the review also noted that the formal research evidence for effectiveness was limited in quality, particularly for high‑velocity spinal manipulation in very young infants. On that basis, regulators adopted a precautionary approach, introducing a temporary restriction on high‑velocity adjustments for children under two while allowing low‑force manual therapy to continue. It created an interesting contrast: very high parental satisfaction and an excellent reported safety record, alongside a regulatory decision to pause certain techniques until further research becomes available.
So What Do We Make of All This?
Across three South African theses, multiple UK studies and theses, one positive Danish trial, two neutral Scandinavian trials, a large practice‑based infant cohort, and a major Australian safety review, a consistent theme emerges. Parents frequently describe calmer babies, easier feeding, better sleep, and a more peaceful home. No serious adverse events have been reported in these studies. Even the neutral trials and regulatory reviews noted subjective improvements and high parental satisfaction.
None of this proves that chiropractic care ‘treats’ colic — and that is not a claim anyone should make. But it does suggest that many families feel supported, heard, and helped during a very challenging season.
An Honest Reflection
Colic is not one thing. It is not just digestion. It is not just wind. It is not just overstimulation. And it is not just musculoskeletal tension. It is a mixture of all the things babies feel but cannot explain. So, when a condition is defined by parental experience, then parental experience should matter in evaluating what helps. If it consistently delivers what families actually care about: comfort, calm, and a sense of relief during a difficult period of early parenthood, those outcomes deserve to be taken seriously.
Every baby is different, and every family’s experience is unique and results vary from child to child. If you are navigating a difficult baby phase, it may be worthwhile to speak with a chiropractor who works with infants to explore whether chiropractic care could be appropriate for your situation.
If you are interested in booking a 30-minute FREE assessment with one of our chiropractors, you can speak to one of our friendly team on 01328854325 or visit our website for more details HERE
References
South African Theses
Mercer, C. (1999). The effect of chiropractic care on infantile colic. Master’s thesis, Technikon Natal, South Africa.
Koonin, S. (2002). The effect of chiropractic care on infantile colic. Clinical Study, Technikon Witwatersrand / University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
Karpelowsky, A.S. (2004). The efficacy of chiropractic care in the management of infantile colic. Master’s thesis, University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
UK Theses & Studies
Marinus, M. (2019). Chiropractic care for unsettled infants in a UK clinical setting. Master’s thesis, AECC University College, UK.
Miller, J.E., et al. (2012). Efficacy of chiropractic manual therapy on infantile colic: A pragmatic single‑blind RCT. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics.
Miller, J.E. (2011). Observational study of chiropractic care for infantile colic. Clinical Chiropractic.
International Studies
Wiberg, J.M., Nordsteen, J., & Nilsson, N. (1999). The short‑term effect of chiropractic care in the treatment of infantile colic. JMPT.
Olafsdottir, E., Forshei, S., Fluge, G., & Markestad, T. (2001). Randomised controlled trial of infantile colic treated with chiropractic care. Archives of Disease in Childhood.
Holm, L.V., et al. (2021). Effect of chiropractic care on infantile colic: A multicentre, single‑blind RCT. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies.
Australia - Safer Care Victoria
Safer Care Victoria. (2019). Chiropractic spinal manipulation of children under 12: Independent review. Victorian Government. safercare.vic.gov.au