Hank, here are some comments. You won't like some of them. The situation as I see it is that Hank is making the case for a hypothesis. I wouldn't go so far as to say Menieres can be cured but I would state the hypothesis as follows: Cervical trauma causes Meniere's attacks. (These in turn cause damage to the inner ear that may or may not heal once the cervical trauma has been corrected. That is a different matter.) In order to turn that into a sound theory we would have to have good double-blind studies. For example, we could have the appropriate X-rays taken of 50 "normals" and 50 "meniereans" by one individual, and then let a NUCCA chiroproactor look at the X rays and pick out the ones who he believes are MM sufferers. (It may turn out that a specific type of misalignment--out of all the different types of alignment--causes MM.) But correlation Does Not equal causation. Stipulating that what they have been "cured" of is the vertigo attacks and any further progressive damage to the inner ear, and that the inner ear has not necessarily regenerated this is an impressive claim. Absence of evidence is never conclusive. This is an important point you have tried to make but I do not think has come across to some people. Once surgery has been done (e.g., a VNS, Gent injections, or obviously a labyrynthectomy), by hypothesis there is not only the cervical trauma but direct damage to the inner ear that are working together to cause problems. Since these surgeries basically consist of removing or destroying a "bad" part chiropractic (or anything else one could imagine) can only do so much to fix things. (I have had dex injections; I don't think they fit into this category since as far as I know Dex is not damaging). You must be careful to make sure people know what you mean by "cured." ...many if not most people on this board have reached this point. I suspect I am one of them. This is why I suggest you ALWAYS qualify any reference to a "cure" by explaining precisely what it is you mean by it. covered above. Damn good point (I think I've made it myself!) We'd really need rigorous studies for this. You are essentially saying "you haven't proved me wrong so I must be right" and that is fallacious. You cannot prove that the tooth fairy does not exist, but that fact does not prove that the tooth fairy does exist. Mind you I think you are more likely to be correct than the believers in the tooth fairy; I used that example to illustrate the fallacy. What you have over them is some evidence (but not enough!) in favor of your proposition (hypothesis). Enough evidence that I think additional study is justified. Lacking the resources for such a study, I've gone ahead and made myself a guinea pig. Even if it works for me though, it is NOT proof. I think the chances of a second random trauma neatly reversing the effects of the first trauma are slim to none in actual fact. (Like having a fender bender, then driving over a rock and having your tire kick the rock up into your undercarriage in such a way that it just happens to pound the dent out. Sorry about the weak analogy; I am actually making a point here that is related to (of all things) statistical thermodynamics.) However, it doesn't need to be a perfect reversal; just one that knocks the atlas out of one of the configurations that leads (according to hypothesis) to the MM attacks.