What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

A skeptical look at medical practices
Silly Green Monkey
Poster
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:04 am
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Postby Silly Green Monkey » Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:45 am

It was a mall attraction, set up by some chiropractors. They were suggesting that the tilts could be fixed if I paid them money.
Normal is just a stereotype.

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Postby corymaylett » Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:53 am

Silly Green Monkey wrote:They were suggesting that the tilts could be fixed if I paid them money.

I'm assuming that you didn't fall for it. :|

User avatar
jj
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:13 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Curmudgeon
Location: Under the Evergreens
Contact:

Postby jj » Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:24 pm

Thylacine wrote:The leg that supports the most weight is completely dependent upon how you're standing at the moment, and it shifts each time you move. Nobody holds their ears perfectly parallel to the ground, and shoulders and hips move around at all kinds of angles, even when you're standing still. All this is perfectly normal and isn't a symptom of any kind of problem at all, unless something's really out of whack.


A standing human is quite dynamic. Even the people with the best balance move about while standing "still". We probably don't want to dive into the relevant control systems issues, but the neural delays alone require some "hunting". What's more, the system doesn't attempt to "balance weight equally" at least in most any situation, so the measurement is pointless. What's more, if the victim of this test was intending to step in a given direction afterwards, his or her weight would already have shifted appropriately.

In short, the number of reasons why this kind of test is baloney are numerous, and arise from many causes.

Try watching a standing crowd. See if you find a single stationary head. Among other things, people who are listening WILL move their heads in small movements. This has nothing to do with nystigmus, the movement of the eye, rather it is a sampling of the soundfield around their head. (I won't get into the question of instictive vs. learned, I don't think that can be answered) People who are trying to look at something will move back and forth to get clear lines of sight. Even those standing there not doing anything will wobble. Just look at any crowd for a minute, and see what you observe.
Why does an infallable book have to be constantly revised?

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:31 pm

Real-time fluroscopy that shows otherwise do not diminish one's enthusiasm? X-rays before and after that show failure of reduction?

--J.D.

well this shows a difinate lack of understanding of joint motion and radiography

x-rays pre and post may show a change in position - very unlikely though - they will not show a change in mobility

real-time flouroscopy is good for seeing more gross instability in flexion-extension but it is not very good with lateral flexion and especially rotational changes, also showing movement with real time flouroscopy is dependent on how well the patient moves as instructed

joint range of motion is divided into active and passive ranges of motion - realtime flouroscopy cannot show improvements in passive ranges of motion (joint play or end play)

these two tests (x ray and flouroscopy) are not very good at looking at what you are trying to see

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:43 pm

"how do you know you reduce it - let's see, improved segmental range of motion, elastic end play at the joint's range of motion end, reduction of pain and pain on palpation, improved global range of motion at times"
>Unrelated to the CORE of chiro- "manipulating the spine to reduce the spinal malfunction, thereby allowing the body to use it's natural healing response to work on the disease process." YOU quoted/wrote this. You still have no evidence. Shot yourself in the foot, again.

"nice to see a 1973 reference - nothing more recent??"
>So, cite something, anything, more recent that refutes it; but, wait, we know you can't. You have failed to do so in the past, and anatomy has not changed since 1973. Another shot in the foot.

Joe

ok, 1st response shows me that you assume that all disease is "visceral disease" - i think that looking at the whole picture you should see that the chiro's are talking about abnormal body function

if you read the aticle on response two - the article states that it is impossible in a dead person to create compression of the bony tissues on the spinal nerves - of course this makes the assumption that that is the only way nerves can be affected - unfortunately this theory does not hold up and does not explain then how a person can have a radiculitis of spinal origin with no disc herniation

see it all the time in my office - so if it is impossible to squeeze the nerves with the bones - what is causing the nerve to get irritated to the point of inflammation??

also to point out the article assumes that muscles have no affect on how the spine moves globally and segmentally, no tests were done on spines that already experienced damage or were arthritic, had scoliosis, altered lateral curves, healed disc injuries etc.

so normal healthly people can't get bony nerve compression - wow - that is really useful in real life

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:01 pm

Or is that question even a real question at all?

The leg that supports the most weight is completely dependent upon how you're standing at the moment, and it shifts each time you move. Nobody holds their ears perfectly parallel to the ground, and shoulders and hips move around at all kinds of angles, even when you're standing still. All this is perfectly normal and isn't a symptom of any kind of problem at all, unless something's really out of whack.

Did a chiropractor actually perform this quack diagnostic procedure on you, then tell you that the invented-on-the-spot non-problem could be fixed by having your spine adjusted (plus a fat fee, I suppose)?

this i agree with - function should be examined as opposed to just structure

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:14 pm

The reason why I asked [He enjoys attention.--Ed.] is to define what I mean by "alignment."

The spine is a dynamic organ--it goes through quite a range of defined movements allowed by the articular shape of the bones--the joints--but limited by the supporting structures--ligaments and muscles. The spine requires stabilization of ligaments and muscles. Without their competence, the spine colapses and fails in its primary function of protecting the spinal cord and nerve roots.

Incompetence of the ligaments is an "all or none" situation in that once they fail, they have failed, and the spine is unstable. To "realign" the spine as implied by chiropracty, particularly with claims of the reduction of subluxations, requires incompetence of the ligaments. The degree of incompetence they or the bone--for you could have a fracture of the joints that allow shift--determines how unstable the spine is.

So you deal with a continuum of alignment from "normal" to the allowable range of motion between the segments to the movement allowed by incompetent support elements to actual neurologic damage.

Fine. What does that mean?

It requires a significant amount of direct force to overcome competent ligaments. Once you do that, you have unstabilized the spine. The chiropracter cannot "realign" your spine beyond what you can do yourself unless he damages your spine.

Chiropractors have done that with disasterous results, of course!

--J.D.

not bad except for your comclusions - re-aligning the spine is a not exactly what happens with a manipulation, what is occuring is that you change the joints abilitity to move which changes at times it's stable position in relation to weight bearing and the structures above and below, also muscles that brace the irritated joint will normalize reducing their effect on the spine -(if the muscles were creating curvature changes by imbalances)

when you manipulate the spine you push the joint you are working on into the end play of the joint and not beyond or through it - therefore you are not damaging the joint ligaments at all, you are simply creating movement into a range of motion of the joint that the joint should be able to move into normally but currently is not

ligament damage can only occur with high force long lever manipulation more commonly used by DO - but in my opinion i think that you would be hard pressed to create the force needed to create significant damage on any one treatment - multiple times done the same way - maybe a different story

try an experiment at home - take your partner's ankle and pull on it as hard as you can and see if you can create a signifcant sprain injury - bet you can't

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:20 pm

Thylacine wrote:

The leg that supports the most weight is completely dependent upon how you're standing at the moment, and it shifts each time you move. Nobody holds their ears perfectly parallel to the ground, and shoulders and hips move around at all kinds of angles, even when you're standing still. All this is perfectly normal and isn't a symptom of any kind of problem at all, unless something's really out of whack.


A standing human is quite dynamic. Even the people with the best balance move about while standing "still". We probably don't want to dive into the relevant control systems issues, but the neural delays alone require some "hunting". What's more, the system doesn't attempt to "balance weight equally" at least in most any situation, so the measurement is pointless. What's more, if the victim of this test was intending to step in a given direction afterwards, his or her weight would already have shifted appropriately.

In short, the number of reasons why this kind of test is baloney are numerous, and arise from many causes.

Try watching a standing crowd. See if you find a single stationary head. Among other things, people who are listening WILL move their heads in small movements. This has nothing to do with nystigmus, the movement of the eye, rather it is a sampling of the soundfield around their head. (I won't get into the question of instictive vs. learned, I don't think that can be answered) People who are trying to look at something will move back and forth to get clear lines of sight. Even those standing there not doing anything will wobble. Just look at any crowd for a minute, and see what you observe.


finally someone with some knowledge and common sense!!

balance and alignment is dynamic and needs to be to be adaptive to the environment

mechanical functionsl lesions of the spine and joints creates a reduced ability in the joint to change and adapt dynamically to it's current environment

i read an article once where the doc proposed that we examine our patients with a one legged stance in mind - makes sense - i never stand totally evenly balanced except for the times where i switch the weight from one leg to another

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:32 pm

Team USA has official chiropractor in Italy

Jeffrey S. Solomon, DC, DACBSP, has been selected as the official chiropractor of the U.S. Olympic Team at the XX Olympic Winter Games in Torino, Italy.

now why would the US olympic team want a chiro on staff??

is it politics, or are they looking for a competitive edge??

why does every NFL team have a chiro on staff or as a consultant?

if it is all just a sham why are they wasting their money?

someone venture a real thought out answer, please

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:39 pm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

something interesting about JMPt since it is held in disregard on this forum

by the by - i still don't understand how anyone can read quackwatch and chirobase and not come to the conclusion that it biased and has an agenda

am i one of the few stand alone thinkers on the board? i do not feel the need to run with the crowd (obviously) why don't we look skeptically at all things? and just because quackwatch is "endorsed" by the board does not mean that we should take what it says on faith - do a web seach - there are a bunch of sites that have what appear to be valid issues with quackwatch and chirobase

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Postby JJM » Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:55 pm

r d has posted a note that I don't understand; but, I will try.

It seems (s)he is saying (my paraphrase, not a quote:) 'Ignore all the false and irrational claims chiropractors make, and acknowledge that they sometimes ... '

That reminds me of the joke- "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" (For foreigners, her husband (Abraham, our President at the time) was assassinated during the play's performance.)

r d accuses me of thinking that all diseases are visceral. That is an invalid, Straw-Man argument; but, (s)he has nothing better to grasp. I assert that chiro claims to identify and treat "spinal subluxations" causing visceral diseases are unfounded.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/137/8/701.pdf

Joe

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Postby corymaylett » Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:29 pm

rational doc wrote:Team USA has official chiropractor in Italy

Jeffrey S. Solomon, DC, DACBSP, has been selected as the official chiropractor of the U.S. Olympic Team at the XX Olympic Winter Games in Torino, Italy.

now why would the US olympic team want a chiro on staff??

is it politics, or are they looking for a competitive edge??

why does every NFL team have a chiro on staff or as a consultant?

if it is all just a sham why are they wasting their money?

Ignorance isn't confined to the general public. Athletes are notorious for indulging in all kinds of superstitious rituals.

Really though, chiropractors might be useful in some limited situations at the periphery of sports medicine, and I wouldn't have a problem with chiropractors if they acknowledged their limitations and only engaged in those procedures backed up by some kind of clinical evidence.

But when an entire profession is founded upon the goofy notion that most (many) diseases stem from misaligned bones and impinged nerves that can be treated through various manipulations, my natural impulse is to run in the opposite direction.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:08 pm

what i was talking about and i don't think i made myself clear when i read what i wrote again, my apologies

when i was talking gross - i was referring to active and passive rom - sublte as to end or joint play rom - my apologies to my lack of clarity

is that i do not think that diagnostic radiography clearly shows changes in the joints ability to move in it's end play or paraphysiological space - end play (joint play) range of motion is one of the things i look at as a rehab specialist

i also think that diagnostic radiography does not clearly6 show all ranges of motion available to the joint

radiography is a useful tool when taken into the whole clinical picture that the patient presents, when dealing with functional joint problems it is not the end all of end alls

(my opinion from 23 years of clinical experience in rehab medicine on this one)

User avatar
jj
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:13 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Curmudgeon
Location: Under the Evergreens
Contact:

Postby jj » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:10 pm

rational doc wrote:paraphysiological space

What is "paraphysiciological space"? How do I verify its existance. How do I test i?
Why does an infallable book have to be constantly revised?

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:20 pm

let me correct my spelling para-physiological space , sorry bout that

look it up and report back - weekend homework :)

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:46 pm

i'm sorry but i still diagree, rotational problems especially are not clearly shown on a segmental level and thoracic and SI motion problems are not clearly shown

User avatar
jj
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:13 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Curmudgeon
Location: Under the Evergreens
Contact:

Postby jj » Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:29 am

rational doc wrote:let me correct my spelling para-physiological space , sorry bout that

look it up and report back - weekend homework :)


Try again.

Until you at least offer a suggestion of where I can find the term inside modern, standard medical practice, I'm going to assume it means nothing.
Why does an infallable book have to be constantly revised?

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:32 pm

in case you did not look it up, paraphysiological space is the range of motion available to the joint that is beyond active and passive range of motion

this range is available for examination when the joint is challenged at the end point of passive range of motion - this is the reason that i said it is not seen with video radiography because you would need to xray the patient having each endplay and joint play range of motion challenged by another person - thereby exposing 2 people to the xrays

my point is that diagnostic radiography has it's limits in examining the body and does not exam ALL the movement available to the joint

http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/11/03/28.html has a decent graphical depiction available of paraphysiological space ( sorry it's on a chiro web page, but is was the first one if found with google)

do you need to luxate a vertebrae to "re-align" it - doing it the way it was taked about - probably - but "re-alignment" is really a by product of inducing motion into a fixated joint and changing muscle imbalances around that area of the spine - it is not done in a one shot deal - but gradually over time -

this is such a stupid argument - it's like saying if i have a short muscle, the muscle will tear and rupture if i try to return it to normal length - which is true if you do it all at once , but if you stress that muscle properly and repeatedly - you get a muscle that gradually and safely elongates

i really don't worry about alignment - i'm more concerned about function - the people who are worried about structural alignment of the spine are not keeping current with current thought in rehabilitation

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:37 pm

THORACIC SPINE AND SACROILIAC ARTICULATIONS

Spinal Videofluoroscopy examination of the thoracic spine or sacroiliac articulations is presently considered to be of little diagnostic value and is discouraged.

policy statement i found on videofluoroscopy

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:46 pm

For example, straighten your wrist with the palm up. Draw your hand forward to flex the hand toward the wrist. At about 90-degrees, you reach a normal stopping point. Now make the wrist move just a little more toward you. You will reach an absolute stopping point where the wrist cannot move any farther. That little extra distance you have made your wrist move is called the joint's end play.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:04 pm

another way to look at end play is to look at the joint above the knuckle of your hand ( proximal inter- phalangeal) - the joint is designed to move in flexion and extension - however motions available in this joint are rotation around a central axis, lateral flexion, anterior-posterior glide and long axis extension - these motions do not show up on diagnostic radiography unless the joint is stressed in those motions

so my "feelings" aside, i'm afraid you do not understand joint biomechanics very well at all, if you did you would not even argue with me about diagnostic x-ray,

it is a valuable tool but i treat patients and not xrays - so it is a limited tool

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:32 pm

The New England Journal of Medicine's Nov. 4, 1999 issue concluded that patients with chronic low back pain can be treated effectively with manipulation.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:36 pm

i think significant scoliosis is a whole different issue that i was not addressing when i was talking about function being more important than alignment, you still do not get my point that the spine changes resting position with changes in soft tissues and joint motion - so the spine "re-aligns" when you improve the spine's ability to function - without luxating or damaging the joint

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:40 pm

you said
Save that the ligaments that fail in a true subluxation do not "heal" the manner you require.

this is my point there is a diffenence meaning between a medical subluxation which can be considered a ligament disruption but less than a full dislocation and a chiropractic subluxation which is more closely related to a mechanical lesion in physical medicine

we are not talking apples to apples and therefore you are confused about what is being discussed

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Postby corymaylett » Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:49 pm

rational doc wrote:The New England Journal of Medicine's Nov. 4, 1999 issue concluded that patients with chronic low back pain can be treated effectively with manipulation.

I think your bias is affecting your perception of what the article actually said. The bottom line of the study was that there was no statistical difference in improvement rates between patients receiving standard treatments and those receiving osteopathic (not chiropractic) treatments for subacute low back pain. I'm going from only the abstract of the article, so I'm uncertain if the study had a control group receiving a placebo treatment, but my suspicions are that the improvement rates might have been similar for that group as well.

However, part of the problem in countering chiropractic nonsense is that there are some peripheral areas where certain chiropractic treatments might have some value. Chiropractors commonly cherry-pick, cite, distort and illogically extend the results of studies that lend support to these treatments in an attempt to validate the entire field, while, at the same time, routinely dismissing the results of other scientific studies as having a medical establishment, anti-chiropractic bias.

Regardless of whether or not manipulations can have limited therapeutic value treating some types of back pain, the basic goof-ball, 18th-century crackpot theories that still form the foundation of chiropractic are just plain dead wrong and have no place in modern medicine.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:14 pm

you said:
However, part of the problem in countering chiropractic nonsense is that there are some peripheral areas where certain chiropractic treatments might have some value. Chiropractors commonly cherry-pick, cite, distort and illogically extend the results of studies that lend support to these treatments in an attempt to validate the entire field, while, at the same time, routinely dismissing the results of other scientific studies as having a medical establishment, anti-chiropractic bias.

the same can be said for the side that states all of chiropractic is bunk

we all agree that there are parts of the field that is junk, but manipulation is a useful tool when applied to the right conditions and the right patient base - like every medicine that i prescibe

the chiropractors cheery pick their citations, the skeptics do the same - human nature - you build up what fits your side of the issue and dismiss the rest as being or medical or chiropractic bias or from the wrong journal or the wrong people wrote it and on and on

and by the way what is the difference between a chiropractic manipulation, osteopathic manipulation and PT manipulation - since you needed to pont that out - is one bad and one good??

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Postby corymaylett » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:05 pm

rational doc wrote:the same can be said for the side that states all of chiropractic is bunk

True. When viewed in its entirety, it's not a completely black and white issue.

rational doc wrote:we all agree that there are parts of the field that is junk, but manipulation is a useful tool when applied to the right conditions and the right patient base - like every medicine that i prescibe

I'm glad that you agree that parts of it are "junk." Unfortunately these parts aren't just bits and pieces here and there; instead, the junk theories pretty much form the foundation of chiropractic. Like I've said in previous posts, I'd be much more accepting of chiropractors if they abandoned the nonsense theories and bogus treatments (practiced by many), focused on legitimate procedures and fully embraced modern medicine (as osteopaths have largely done).

rational doc wrote:the chiropractors cheery pick their citations, the skeptics do the same - human nature - you build up what fits your side of the issue and dismiss the rest as being or medical or chiropractic bias or from the wrong journal or the wrong people wrote it and on and on

Yes, human nature, and commonly used by those foolish enough to defend, for whatever reason, an untenable position on any issue.

rational doc wrote:and by the way what is the difference between a chiropractic manipulation, osteopathic manipulation and PT manipulation - since you needed to pont that out - is one bad and one good??

If they're the same, they're, well, the same -- even if performed by a Haitian witch doctor. My comment about the study being about osteopaths vs. chiropractors was parenthetical and made only to clarify, in a thread about chiropractors, that chiropractic wasn't part of the study.

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Postby JJM » Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:59 pm

The latest in chiropractic- "touchless" therapy:
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2006_01_0 ... chive.html

The article is near the top, scroll down or search for 'touchless'.

To make a long story short- the "practitioner" places her hands over the mark's neck, without touching it, and cracks her own knuckles. (For those who don't speak native English, a 'mark' is the victim of a fraud.)

Some other outrageous claims are highlighted at the bottom, including "cures" of autism.

Joe

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:57 pm

http://www.chiropracticierano.com.au/ca ... ncolo.html

and here is the other end of the spectrum - how chiropractic can be beneficial in cancer pain management

User avatar
Flea
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:17 pm

Postby Flea » Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:17 pm

rational doc wrote:http://www.chiropracticierano.com.au/cancer_chiropractic_oncolo.html

and here is the other end of the spectrum - how chiropractic can be beneficial in cancer pain management


How is the above link at all conclusive? The results given are the results of a survey filled out by patients, not of clinical trials.
There are many things that could account for patients answering that they found alternative therapies helpful, not the least of which is the placebo effect.

Also note the cost of the alternative therapies -- more than $500 annually. Who would want to put down in writing that they might have been cheated out of such a sum? -- better to tell oneself that the therapies worked.

I'm not saying that's definitely the case, but it's by no means unlikely.

You said earlier

the chiropractors cheery pick their citations, the skeptics do the same - human nature


The one thing that can remove human nature from the equation is the double-blind standard. Tests in which the patients must judge the results without knowing what treatment they are receiving are worthy of attention. Surveys and anecdotes are not.
Gravity is a harsh mistress.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:48 pm

try "seminars in oncology nursing, vol 21, No3 (august), 2005: pp184-189"

i think that improving the quality of life of a cancer victim is a good thing, if it can be done without the overuse of pain meds and their associated complications - good!

what we are looking at here is supplemental care, we are already using acupuncture, and massage therapy, why not chiropractic or other manipulative care?

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:50 pm

Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, vol 24, number 1, jan 2001 "the chiropractor's role in pain management for oncology patients" should be somethine to chew on for you guys

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Postby JJM » Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:18 am

Rational Chiro wrote:
“http://www.chiropracticierano.com.au/cancer_chiropractic_oncolo.html
and here is the other end of the spectrum - how chiropractic can be beneficial in cancer pain management”

>This is what passes for research among chiropractors: Some people getting medical care also used quacks, and many of them liked it and did not mind the cost. Some of the quacks were chiropractors. The page concludes with a press release extolling “alternative medicine” written by the moron that chaired the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. http://www.quackwatch.org/07PoliticalAc ... HC/00.html

But wait, there’s more! Click on the “case studies” button at the top-left of the cited page. Aside from the sad fact that these people were duped by this quack, look at what he considers evidence.

"Cancer patients-Ben" (a little boy) is incurable and has come for treatment. Look at the head-neck x-ray that shows his head and neck as misaligned. Can you tilt your head to the side or hold it straight? I can. Anyway, there is no mention of the outcome of his disease.

Or look at “allergy-Rachel” he cured her while surgery complemented his therapy. Medical care can be used as an adjunct to chiropractic!? One would not want to be confused by the notion that medicine cured her, and the chiropractor quacked her.

Note to chiropractors- the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

Joe

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Postby JJM » Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:51 am

Rational Chiro directs us to:
"Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, vol 24, number 1, jan 2001 "the chiropractor's role in pain management for oncology patients"

Quote from the abstract of the article:
"CONCLUSION: This article describes the potential benefits of chiropractic for cancer patients in the area of pain management and quality of life. Two specific case studies are presented in which cancer patients' quality of life benefited from chiropractic treatment."

>In other words "This article describes a chiropractor's fantasies and a couple of anecdotes."

We are still waiting for very basic data:
1- the chiropractic subluxation exists and can be definitively diagnosed
2- the chiro can correct it
3- this results in a measurable, therapeutic response (beyond that obtained by massage)

If chiropractors are researching cancer treatments, surely the basic research we seek is available.

Joe

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:20 pm

It's the same "Catch 22" chiropractic finds itself in. If we mention a research project conducted at a chiropractic college or field clinic, it's ignored because it isn't a "scientific (read: medically approved), double‑blind, objective" study. But ask one of those famed medical research programs to fund or conduct a study on chiropractic and they refuse. Apparently, there isn't enough scientific proof that chiropractic works to warrant further investigation!

We can't get the funding and recognition to prove chiropractic works until we can prove chiropractic works. (It's like the old dilemma about getting a loan: the banks won't give you a loan until you can prove you have enough money not to need it!)

found this in a chiro journal - sounds like a bad dilema

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:27 pm


rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:29 pm

"Dr. Breig's Research: What We Need to Do to Effectively Use His Data. The Research Data of the Neurosurgeon Who Demonstrated Multiple Sclerosis and Other 'Diseases' of That Type Are Caused by Biomechanical Pathologies Rather than Immune System Disorders or Heredity."

sounds interesting - a disease having a biomechanical origin

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:33 pm

actually if you read the articles it is one chiropractor correcting the inaccuracies of another - it looks to me like there is a healthy debate in the field over what can be accomplished and what cannot - we will see how the dust settles eventually

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:41 pm


rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Postby rational doc » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:54 pm

Among the definitions for which better than 80% agreement was reached were:

*

Subluxation—A motion segment in which alignment, movement integrity, and/or physiologic function are altered, although contact between joint surfaces remains intact.

*

Manipulable subluxation—A subluxation in which altered alignment, movement, and/or function can be improved by manual thrust procedures.

*

Subluxation complex—A theoretical model of motion segment dysfunction (subluxation) that incorporates the complex interaction of pathologic changes in nerve, muscle, ligamentous, vascular, and connective tissue.

*

Subluxation syndrome—An aggregate of signs and symptoms that relate to pathophysiology or dysfunction of spinal and pelvic motion segments or to peripheral joints.


Return to “Healthcare”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests