What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

A skeptical look at medical practices
rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:55 pm


rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:58 pm

http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/FULL/A_Revie ... lution.htm

a historical perspective on the developement of the subluxation theory


rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:27 pm

Manipulative Therapy in Rehabilitation of the Locomotor System by Dr. Karel Lewit.6 In this section in Lewit's text about vertebrovisceral correlations, he states that the following possibilities exist:

1. The vertebral column is causing symptoms that are mistaken for visceral disease. (Here we are told that subluxations can mimic or simulate visceral disease, just like Nansel and Szlazak have described.)

2. Visceral disturbance is causing symptoms simulating affection of some part of the locomotor system.

3. Visceral disease is causing a reflex (pseudoradicular) reaction in the segment, including blockage (i.e., fixation/restriction) in the corresponding mobile segment of the vertebral column.

4. Visceral disease that has caused a segmental movement restriction has subsided, but blockage remains, causing symptoms simulating visceral disease [as in (1)].

5. (Conjectural.) Disturbance of the locomotor segment is causing visceral disease.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:27 pm


JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Post by JJM » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:46 am

I skimmed through the citations provided by our chiropractor. Nothing new is in them. We already knew chiropractors believe in subluxations.

One post says there is "80% agreement" on the description of subluxation by some anonymous group. I bet I could get 98% agreement on the description of a unicorn. Unicorns don't exist, either.

The only thing that really caught my eye was a history of the evolution of subluxations
http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/FULL/A_Revie ... lution.htm
It is at odds with most published histories. (See Barrett and Jarvis, eds. "The Health Robbers" (Prometheus, 1993)). The chiro site runs to 18 pages, it could be three paragraphs:

In 1895 DD Palmer claimed to have cured a deaf man by adjusting his spine and allowing the nerves to work better. (Of course, the auditory nerve does not run through the spine.) DD decided (without proof) that the spinal joints had been partly out of alignment (subluxated). As soon as x-ray machines were available, chiros started taking their trademark, poor-quality, full-spine x-rays and telling their customers they could see the subluxations.

This situation lasted till the 1960s when a simple study showed that they actually could not see anything in the x-rays. Then, in 1972, Crelin demonstrated that subluxations don't exist and that if they did exist, chiropractors could not adjust them. (These facts are missing from the chiropractic review.)

Like any cult, chiropractors refused to acknowledge that subluxations don't exist and that they couldn't find or fix them if they did. Instead, they adopted a new, vague, description and carried on as if nothing had happened.

Joe

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Post by JJM » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:04 pm

Dr. X wrote
"Just to add to what JJM wrote, subluxations do exist, but they are not what chiropracters claim them to be."

>Thank you for that clarification. In previous posts I have been careful to distinguish "chiropractic subluxations" from the real thing. I was careless this time.

Joe

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:12 pm

for being such smart people there are some things that you seem to mental block on a few things

first i am a MD who does rehabilitative medicine

second - a chiropractic subluxation is the same thing that is descibed as an osteopathic lesion, a facet syndrome and as a mechanical lesion - the discussion is on what range of affects this condition has locally and systemically

all these professions use a mobilization / manipulation technique to treat this condition with normally positive results

from being on this board for awhile i have come to the conclusion that many of the board members could use some study on manners and people skills - rarely have a come across such a rude and arrogent group - i enjoy a lively discussion but name calling and a disrespectful attitude is unneccesary

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Post by JJM » Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:54 pm

Somebody (chiropractor, I think) wrote
“first i am a MD who does rehabilitative medicine”

>Maybe you have an MD, we will never know. As long as you cite chiropractic literature, I doubt it. If you ally yourself with quacks, you don’t distinguish yourself from them. Moreover, you are uninformed about the effects of loss of visceral innervation, and the anatomy of the ear (concerning its relationship to the spine). I expect better from a doctor.

“second - a chiropractic subluxation is the same thing that is descibed as an osteopathic lesion …”

>Why, then, can’t you tell us how you diagnose a spinal subluxation and how you correct it and what visceral system it affects? Citations (from medical, not quack, literature)?

“all these professions use a mobilization / manipulation technique to treat this condition with normally positive results”

>Are you finally talking about spinal manipulation to "maintain" routine health, and to treat things such as diabetes, hepatitis, and earache? Citations (same conditions)?

“… members could use some study on manners and people skills … a disrespectful attitude is unnecessary”

>You are right, I do not respect advocates of quackery. They promote, at best, the fleecing of ordinary people and, at worst, physical harm. And they always prey on, and promote, ignorance and misinformation.

Moreover, pardon me; but, you began by writing that everything I wrote was wrong. Disrespectful? When I asked what was wrong, you said I wasn’t wrong, I was inaccurate. When I asked what was inaccurate, you made a claim that I refuted with a citation to a published survey. Then you rambled on about something else.

If you want our respect, you need to learn to discriminate between evidence-based literature and its quack counterparts. You also need to learn how to make a basic argument. For example, saying that quackwatch is “considered a joke” (or, however you worded it) is meaningless. You have to describe what is wrong with it. Also, saying that doctors make mistakes does not validate chiros. And, rambling on about something else (i.e., changing the subject) is no argument at all.

Joe

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:03 pm

so i ramble - thanks - what i have been trying to do is explain a everyday practice in the field of physical medicine - and how it relates to conditions commonly treated in the offices of the types of doctors that treat mechanical problems of the spine - i'm sorry that 23 years of clinical experience means nothing to you -

i use chiropractic citations at times because who else is ptting much effort studying "subluxations" and their effect on the human body - i think to consider all case studies and research done by chiropractic researchers as suspect is as bad as saying that all medical reseach is suspect becuase it is done by medical reseachers - it smacks of bias and influences every word you read - you cannot fairly read the information presented when you have already decided it is useless before you read it

i said that quackwatch was considered a joke in the physical medicine field - this is becuase it comes accross as biased and as a witchhunt againt chiropractic - our opinion - like i stated before

you diagnose a subluxation the same way you diagnose the other conditions i have listed from what i have read - i call them mechanical lesions in my field

again i treat mechanical lesions with PT techniques, mobilization, manipulation and medication for the pain and inflammatory effects, and then exercise and streching to address the flexibility, strength and muscle imbalance issues - i personally do not know how much effect these have on visceral conditions - is there a potential to have an effect, in my opinion, based on the anatomy and neurophysiology - yes, how much of an effect if any could use study to clarify this issue

"Are you finally talking about spinal manipulation to "maintain" routine health, and to treat things such as diabetes, hepatitis, and earache? Citations (same conditions)? " - as i have said on this point i think the chiropractors have not shown this and the chiropractors do not do this in my area - in NYS it is not in their scope of practice

i still believe that you do not have a good understanding of how medicine and healthcare actually works when you are a practitioner in the field - medicine is not just the application of evidence based research - it is treating people using your education, experience, problem solving skills and a good dose of common sense

you expect me to ignore 23 years of my patients showing positive effects in their pain levels and improvements in their activites of daily living when they have had chiropractic care - i think that would be unwise and unscientific to ignore what i have observed

chiropractic has not helped all my patients and some patients get worse under care - that is what happens in all doctor's offices - you re examine and change treatment protocols

oh and i didn't realize that i couldn't interject other information for discussion

i still think that you can have manners even if you disagree with someone - it's a sign of how much class you have and how well you were raised

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Post by JJM » Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:25 pm

The National Council Against Health Fraud has an excellent 'fact sheet' on chiro
http://www.ncahf.org/articles/c-d/chiro.html

Rational doc says quackwatch is a "witch hunt." Actually, you don't have to hunt for quack chiros. Instead, you have to tread carefully in order to avoid tripping over them.

A newspaper reporter visited a lot of chiros over a five month period (Brown M., Chiro: How much healing? How much flim-flam? Davenport, IA: Quad-City Times, December 13, 1981). Although he was healthy, each one said he was a "chiropractic case." All but one insisted on x-rays before treatment. (You should not let a chiropractor take an x-ray, go to a competent radiologist and begin by asking if you even need one http://www.chirobase.org/17QA/xray1.html )

In 1989 W.M. London went to 23 chiropractors. All of them espoused the chiropractic subluxation. Although he was healthy, three chiros found subluxations (in different places) and three said his left leg was short, two said his right leg was short. Twenty-one recommended routine "preventive maintenance" treatments.

In 1993 a producer from WJW-TV in Cleveland visited three chiros. One pronounced him healthy, which he was. The second diagnosed underactive: pituitary, adrenal, gallbladder, kidney ... The third followed a practice-building script that promised dire consequences if he did not sign up for a long series of treatments.

These examples come from "The Health Robbers" Barrett and Jarvis, eds. (Prometheus, 1993). There are more examples of investigations at http://www.chirobase.org/

A while ago I cited a 2001 survey of chiros showing how many still adhere to irrational and discredited beliefs. No, there is no hunting for chiroquacktors; they are abundant.

Joe

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

Post by corymaylett » Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:25 am

rational doc wrote:you expect me to ignore 23 years of my patients showing positive effects in their pain levels and improvements in their activites of daily living when they have had chiropractic care - i think that would be unwise and unscientific to ignore what i have observed

Most patients complaining of pain show improvement over time -- with or without treatment. Sure, chiropractic treatments are often accompanied by improvements, but most patients would likely have recovered (or not recovered, I suppose) just as fast if they'd simply stayed home.

What I think is "unwise and unscientific" is citing anecdotes (even 23 years of them) as reliable evidence. More credible are scientific studies involving statistical analyses of patients (using proper controls) with comparible illnesses and their comparible rates of improvement (or worsening) when receiving standard medical versus chiropractic treatments. These kinds of methodical studies are anathema to most chiropractors, though, since the scientific method tends to cast doubt on the veracity of chiropractic treatments and assumptions.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:14 pm

Myths about treatment for back pain and back problems
Myth: There is a standard "cure" for most causes of back and neck pain
Fact:

Compared to other medical conditions, there are relatively few standardized approaches to diagnosis and treatment of back problems. Spine specialists from various areas of expertise (such as physical medicine and rehabilitation, chiropractic, osteopathic medicine, physical therapy and surgery) will often disagree on the diagnosis and most appropriate treatment plan for back pain and back problems, and specialists within a discipline will also frequently have different opinions.
A few diagnoses for back pain as a result of back a back problem are relatively straightforward (such as a spinal tumor, infection, or fracture) and there is generally more consensus for diagnosis and treatment of these back problems.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:40 pm

"Experts agree that only in 10% to 15% of the cases can a definite cause for back pain be found. In the rest of the cases NO ONE KNOWS for sure. Chiropractors say misalignment is the problem; physical therapists speak of muscle spasm; surgeons talk herniated and degenerated discs. All may be occasionally correct but most of the time we simply don't know." [1]

"No one knows what causes most back pain, and in only 10% to 15% of the patients can a precise, symptom-related diagnosis be made. The rest of the time we simply do not know. But, reluctant to tell our patients "I don't know," many of us say some thing, and our reports are often contradictory." [2]

"In the 1960s I warned patients that x-rays were neither a good nor a positive means of diagnosing a low back problem. From the 1970s until today, I have continually warned folks that myelograms are notoriously inaccurate and extremely dangerous. And even today, I continue to state flatly that all the high-tech tests in the world—including the much-touted MRIs—are usually inaccurate, useless, a waste of money and much of the time they are counterproductive to diagnosing the correct source of low back pain." [3]

"If these tests were only a waste of money, I would probably squawk less. But unfortunately, these tests—which are indeed often wrong—frequently lead patients directly into radical medical and surgical therapies." [3]

http://www.rebuildyourback.com/back_pain/back_pain1.php

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:01 pm

in response to the information on the "healthy" person that went to the chiropractor and found that a problem was found - oh, my!!!! -
i agree that xrays and extended care plans are uncalled for in most cases, but you can find something wrong with anybody that walks in the door, nobody's body is in perfect shape, everybodys has muscle knots, tightness, postural problems to some degree and many people have non-painful mechanical joint fixations - the disagreeement is how much of this stuff needs to be treated - the "board " thinks that you should only treat pain, rehabilatative doctors and sports doctors think that you should treat to improve or optimize function of the muscles and joints for better performance

tight muscles don't always hurt, but should they be stretched - of course - but will that stretching significantly improve the persons health ??

so my point is it's like taking your car to the mechanic - there is always something that can be done to it - so these reports are irrelevant except for speaking to how agressive the treatment plans are

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:07 pm

Myth: The doctor didn't find anything wrong, so the pain must be all in my head
Reality: Pain is always real. The physician may not be able to find the anatomical cause of the pain, but the pain still exists. And for chronic pain (e.g. pain that lasts more than 2 or 3 months), it's important to proactively treat the pain. While psychological factors (such as depression and sleeplessness) will often need to be included as part of a comprehensive treatment program, it is also important to search out conservative care treatment options that can help alleviate the pain. See also Chronic pain as a disease: why does it still hurt?

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:08 pm

Myth: An MRI scan is necessary to know what is causing my pain
Reality: An accurate diagnosis of the source of your back pain requires a combination of the doctor's findings from your medical history and physical exam, and may or may not require diagnostic tests such as an MRI scan. MRI scans alone do not show anything conclusive. In fact, an MRI scan will often show a problem (such as a degenerated disc) in a young, healthy adult with no back pain, and will often show no problems in someone with a great deal of pain.

Most health professionals can develop a successful treatment approach based on a thorough medical history and physical examination. Only specific symptom patterns in a minority of cases indicate the need for MRI scans or other sophisticated tests. Typically, MRI scans are used when patients are not responding to appropriate treatment and for surgical planning. See Do I need an MRI scan?

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:10 pm

Chiropractic treatment plan

Most chiropractors begin treatment during the patient's first chiropractic visit, although some may wait until the next appointment. Chiropractic treatment recommendations may include some or all of the following:

1.

Adjustments to key joint dysfunctions
2.

Modalities to improve soft tissue healing and pain control (ultrasound, electrical stimulation and traction)
3.

Exercises to improve muscles balance, strength, and coordination
4.

Patient education to improve posture and motor control
5.

Other treatments may be included, such as massage, heat/cold application, and nutrition education.

Importantly, at this point the chiropractor will establish specific goals for your chiropractic treatment plan.

*

Short term goals for chiropractic treatment – to reduce pain and restore normal joint function and muscle balance
*

Long term goals for chiropractic treatment – to restore functional independence and tolerance to normal activities of daily living

To reach these goals, the chiropractor will prescribe a specific number of chiropractic visits. An example would be 1 to 3 chiropractic visits per week for 2 to 4 weeks followed by a re-examination by the chiropractor.

At the re-examination, the chiropractor will measure the response to treatment and determine whether to:

1.

Continue chiropractic treatment if appropriate;
2.

Release you from chiropractic care if your goals have been met; or
3.

Refer you to another health care specialist if your goals have not been fulfilled.

By: Peter J. Schubbe, DC

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:12 pm

http://www.spine-health.com/topics/cons ... vis01.html

this is how most of the docs im my area work - not what has been presented by other board contibuters

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Post by JJM » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:15 pm

Rational doc, I don't understand the relevance of your first two posts in this stream. However, it is amusing what the author (Dean Moyer) has to say about chiropractors at "rebuildyourback.com" (which you cited in post 2):

"Well, it may surprise you but a chiropractor is the last person you should see if you have back pain (or anything else for that matter) and what's more... a chiropractor can do absolutely nothing to repair your back." [emphasis added]
http://www.rebuildyourback.com/chiropra ... ractor.php

I concede that a gentle, rational chiropractor can do as much as a masseur for low back pain of short duration (PH Long "The Naked Chiropractor") in one or two visits (no more). Perhaps Mr. Moyer's extreme position is due to the fact that he is selling a book.

Joe

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Post by JJM » Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:33 pm

r doc, it would be polite to edit Mr. Schubbe's treatment plan down to a citation. It is not your work.

Joe
Last edited by JJM on Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Post by JJM » Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:46 pm

R doc wrote "i agree that xrays and extended care plans are uncalled for in most cases"

>So, why doesn't it bother you that surveys show these are the backbone of chiropractice?

Joe

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:11 pm

So, why doesn't it bother you that surveys show these are the backbone of chiropractice?

Joe

I have said repeatedly that overtreatment of any condition "bothers me". What i contest is how accurately your surveys reflects current thought in chiropractic becuase the chiropractors that i work with in my area are not of the same mindset. Athough i do know a few that overtreat in my opinion, but I also know pt's and md's who do the same .

I hope my capitilization is better for those of you who just skim what I write as opposed to actually read it.

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Post by JJM » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:27 pm

rational doc wrote:So, why doesn't it bother you that surveys show these are the backbone of chiropractice?
Joe


I have said repeatedly that overtreatment of any condition "bothers me". What i contest is how accurately your surveys reflects current thought in chiropractic becuase the chiropractors that i work with in my area are not of the same mindset. Athough i do know a few that overtreat in my opinion, but I also know pt's and md's who do the same. ...
[italics added]

The 2001 survey (which I consider current) that I cited, above, was a large, national survey. You need to bear in mind that your experience is based on a select group. It is biased by your professional affiliations. Your observations are anecdotes.

Proper research can refute anecdotes, and yours have been refuted. The 2001 survey (not handy to cite right now) showed that more than 50% of chiros hold the most irrational views, and around 90% still believe in the chiro-spinal-sublux. One could say 50-90% of chiros make the rest look foolish. And harm the public financially (at best) and medically (at worst).

Joe

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:56 pm

OK lets say that your 2001 survey is correct, then answer me this: Why does chiropractic continue to gain acceptance in the medical community, gain access to insurance benefit plans and maintain liscensure?

Are all these people in govenment, the insurance industry, and the general population stooges and idiots?

I do not think that the Chiropractic lobby has enough money to pay off all these people :)

So you have a problem with chiropractic theory, and subluxations, nothing seems to be changing against chiropractic despite all the efforts of the skeptics and quackwatch. From what I can see, you guys are just spinning your wheels and not accomplishing much.

Like I posted before from an article- nobody is exactly sure of what is going on with back pain. From what i can see, many professions have theories that are partially right and with new information these theories grow and evolve, and hopefully become closer to the truth.

Ron L
Regular Poster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:56 am

Post by Ron L » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:38 pm

rational doc wrote: OK lets say that your 2001 survey is correct, then answer me this: Why does chiropractic continue to gain acceptance in the medical community

How about a definition of "medical community" and some evidence of greater acceptance?

rational doc wrote: , gain access to insurance benefit plans

Because there's a sufficient number of bozos who 'demand' it and the rest of us get to pay for the quackery. Same reason copper bracelets sell.


rational doc wrote: and maintain liscensure?

So? I can issue any liscense I please; means nothing.
Thanks,
Ron L.

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

Post by corymaylett » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:35 am

rational doc wrote:Are all these people in govenment, the insurance industry, and the general population stooges and idiots?

That's a little harsh, but...

Legislators aren't brighter than most; they're just good at getting votes. Insurance companies will insure most anything for a price., and a significant percentage of the general public is gullible and undiscerning.

Sounds like chiropractor heaven.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:18 pm

so basically you are saying that if the state will license any profession regardless of how much harm they will cause the populace and take no steps to remove someone that is negligent - if a licence means nothing why do people protect theirs with lawyers and malpractice insurance?

Ron L
Regular Poster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:56 am

Post by Ron L » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:12 pm

rational doc wrote:so basically you are saying that if the state will license any profession regardless of how much harm they will cause the populace and take no steps to remove someone that is negligent - if a licence means nothing why do people protect theirs with lawyers and malpractice insurance?

Licenses are issued for all sorts of things; landscaping, hair-braiding, taxi-driving. Economically, they are primarily a barrier to prevent others from competing with the license holders.
I'll assume, like chiropractors, that none of these things, in and of themselves is, harmful. If they were to substitute for medical care, they bcome so.
As regards pulling an existing license, they are notoriously sticky.
Thanks,
Ron L.

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Post by JJM » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:20 pm

Ron L wrote:
rational doc wrote:so basically you are saying that if the state will license any profession regardless of how much harm they will cause the populace and take no steps to remove someone that is negligent - if a licence means nothing why do people protect theirs with lawyers and malpractice insurance?

Licenses are issued for all sorts of things; landscaping, hair-braiding, taxi-driving. Economically, they are primarily a barrier to prevent others from competing with the license holders.
I'll assume, like chiropractors, that none of these things, in and of themselves is, harmful. If they were to substitute for medical care, they bcome so.
As regards pulling an existing license, they are notoriously sticky.
Thanks,

[Bold added]

With respect to chiro, "not harmful" is a matter of perspective. If you think that taking money for sham treatments is not harmful, I disagree.
http://www.chirobase.org/01General/sellspine.html
Or browse http://www.chirobase.org/
Moreover, when a person is permanently damaged (or, seriously killed) by a chiro, I think you will agree that is harmful.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... troke.html
Or consider that chiros claim to be primary care physicians, yet they endanger clients by not recognizing symptoms of an emergency
http://www.chirobase.org/02Research/jwk.html
Sure, Kinsinger's sample is small; but, when it is unanimous, it is powerul evidence.

As for licensing, Ron L is right.

I am surprised that "rational doc" does not know what licensure minimally entails since (s)he claims to be a medical professional. It begins with an application to a state legislature to establish a self-regulating group. The legislature is not competent to evaluate the claims of chiros; but, if enough chiros ask to form a profession, they get their way. The license appears to the general public to confer legitimacy.

Joe

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:19 pm

it's not as easy as you make it out to be,
this is why naturopaths and homeopaths are not liscenses in NY and why the chiro's didn't get liscensed until 1960's

also you forget that in the licensure law there are stipulations as to what you can do and not do as part of that license - this is debated in committee and needs approval from the legislature, the committee writing the regulatory law obviously gets more input than just from that profession, that is why the chiropractors did not get to xray below L1, have confidentiallity or records or have the ability to order blood work when they first got licensed, they also had MD's on the NY chiropractic board

you cannot just form a group and ask for one, it is a highly regulated situation and takes alot of time and input

the state does have a vested input in protecting it's populace - that's why there are licensing examinations and scope of practice laws

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:20 pm

With respect to chiro, "not harmful" is a matter of perspective. If you think that taking money for sham treatments is not harmful, I disagree.
http://www.chirobase.org/01General/sellspine.html
Or browse http://www.chirobase.org/
Moreover, when a person is permanently damaged (or, seriously killed) by a chiro, I think you will agree that is harmful.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... troke.html
Or consider that chiros claim to be primary care physicians, yet they endanger clients by not recognizing symptoms of an emergency
http://www.chirobase.org/02Research/jwk.html
Sure, Kinsinger's sample is small; but, when it is unanimous, it is powerul evidence.

if you want to go by numbers harmed - i think medicine wins hands down

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:32 pm

so if we don't do anything that has potential harm to it that means:

1. we don't use medication - potential harmful side effects

2. we don't use surgery - infection, etc

manipulation has a lower rate of harmful effects than alot of standard medical procedures - check it out using something else than chirobase

Ron L
Regular Poster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:56 am

Post by Ron L » Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:17 am

rational doc wrote: manipulation has a lower rate of harmful effects than alot of standard medical procedures - check it out using something else than chirobase

Doc, there was a radio commercial locally a year or so back. They were offering some homeopathic erectile medicine, and the strongest claim was "No Side Effects!". Well, that's not as hard to come by as you might imagine; something with absolutely no effect has no side effects.
But this and the license issues are tangental at best, and straw men at worst. The fact is that chiropractic is based on a theory of disease which has absolutely *no* basis in fact and has not been found in any controlled studies.
You can toss around all the smoke and mirrors in the world, but until you address that, there's really not a lot to say.
Thanks,
Ron L.

User avatar
MajorityofOne
Regular Poster
Posts: 715
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: A place called Hope

Post by MajorityofOne » Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:15 pm

Ron L wrote:
rational doc wrote:

Well, that's not as hard
unintentional I hope :shock:

A perfect example of appealing to the masses of idiots. I tell people all the time not to buy weight loss pills/machines/books, etc. that appeal to the "easy" way out. It is not easy to lose weight for most people...but most people want to badly, therefore they're easy prey from people out to make a buck. I'm sorry to say I have the same opinion of chiropractors. A good friend of mine's husband is one and she is so new age it would make you puke but she's a great person otherwise. She tells me that she isn't pregnant (while not using birth control) because a person has to WANT to get pregnant in order to become so. I guess all the 14, 15 and 16 year olds who parade through the hospital here all WANT to be pregnant! Give me a break. Her husband has totally convinced her that manipulating her back can keep her completely well. I honestly hope she doesn't get cancer.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
- Galileo Galilei

Faith: believing in s**t you know ain't true.
George Carlin

User avatar
Articulett
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3240
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:55 am

Post by Articulett » Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:49 pm

Doctor X wrote:
rational doc wrote:manipulation has a lower rate of harmful effects than alot of standard medical procedures - check it out using something else than chirobase


Yet it cannot treat what evidenced based treatments--with "harmful effects"--do.

Yet it risks disasterous side effects without benefits.

I am not sure what your point is.

--J.D.


I second this. My husband went to a chiropracter for back pain--turned out it was cancer metastisis in his back. (Which chiropracters can't diagnose or treat--just delay the treatment of) I'm not sure that the chiropracter treatment changed the outcome (death) as once a cancer metastizes, eradication becomes near impossible, but earlier forays into natural medicine kept the original cancer from being diagnosed for some time. And at some point, one cell broke off and entered the blood stream--leading to the later metastises. An earlier diagnosis could have found the tumor before this event occured, and surgery would have been a cure. Natural medicine is a sort of "luxury" for those who aren't really that sick.

If your back hurt because you fractured a bone in it--a chiropractor might not see the fracture and cause more harm. I'm not against them. But the science that their medicine is base on is not really valid. And some of the claims they make are far from substantiated.

That being said, sometimes I really feel like I need to have my back cracked--so I enlist the aid of friends who don't charge me for the "adjustment" or I twist myself around so that I can crack my back/neck myself.

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Post by JJM » Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:56 pm

Articulett,

I am sure I speak for everyone expressing sadness for your loss.

It is no consolation; but, I think your analysis is correct.

Joe

User avatar
Articulett
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3240
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:55 am

Post by Articulett » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:30 am

JJM wrote:Articulett,

I am sure I speak for everyone expressing sadness for your loss.

It is no consolation; but, I think your analysis is correct.

Joe


Thank you. It was years ago, and I am thankful for the time we had. I feel lucky to have known him. Plus, I learned something important from the experience, and it may prolong my own life or the life of someone I love one day. He was 25 years old when he was diagnosed with colon cancer--28 when he died. It was a freak occurrence--but our own naivete and sense of immortality were certainly factors in the outcome.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

Post by rational doc » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:59 pm

i lost my mom to colon cancer also at the age of 53, she was under medical care at the time and was diagnosed by her doctor with 40 yrs experience (and who was my mom's doctor for over 15 yrs) as having the "flu" - she went back multiple times over the next 4 weeks, until i found her at her house passed out, once at the hospital she was found to have lost so much blood that she was near cardiac arrest, she was then diagnosed as having colon cancer that traveled into the liver and destroyed her liver, her medical doctor misdiagnosed her case and prevented her from having the opportunity to possibly remove her colon cancer before her liver was destroyed - i lost my mom at 53 because of a medical screw up - cancer is routinely missed because it is many times asymptomatic until it is severe -

i'm sorry for your loss but this happens alot in all fields of healthcare

Silly Green Monkey
Poster
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:04 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Silly Green Monkey » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:07 pm

Can you offer anything even remotely as good?
Normal is just a stereotype.