Chiropractic Questions

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Beev

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Beev

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Beev
eits, you claim in the OP this is for chiro questions, but all you're doing is arguing why it's a "real" profession. I asked a legitimate curiosity question and you ignored it =/

i never ignored your question... if i did, it was unintentional. can you restate your question?

As a chiropractor, you no doubt make less than a regular doctor. Why didn't you go to school an extra few years and make ten times as much?

?? i don't get it.

What made you want to be a chiropractor rather than a more common, higher paid doctor?

i was confused because you said something like "why didn't go to school a few more years"... chiropractic school takes longer than med school, that's why i was confused.

after being all about med school for a semester, i realized that they weren't really treating anything other than symptoms and the only way to actually FIX things in the medical world was to be a surgeon. i didn't like the idea of being a surgeon because i was more family oriented and a didn't want to always be on call.

so, i found out about chiropractic and realized that you could actually treat people's problems rather than just symptoms without having to drug people. so, i enrolled in chiropractic school and realized i was learning the same stuff as med school students were learning, just with more of an emphasis on anatomy and physiology and less on pharmacology.

wanting to treat people was never really about the money for me... it was about the happiness i feel whenever i make someone else's life better.

You probalby should have done a little bit more research before settling on that ridiculous statement. It's a shame because your chiro training probably just perpetuated the misconception that MDs just hand out a lot of drugs to mask symptoms rather than cure patients

unless you're a surgeon, medical doctors hardly cure anything other than various infections and parasites and you know it.

most medical doctors you see will write you a script for some medication designed to treat the symptoms of conditions... that's partly due to the public being brainwashed into believing that they actually do need the medications they see ads about on tv and the md wants to make their patients happy, the other part has to do with the little kickbacks md's get from giving out samples and prescribing certain drugs.

Lol what are you talking about. Every medical field other than diagnostics cures disease.

Oncology: I'm sure you've heard of it...
Cardio: Statins lower cholesterol---> prevents heart disease. Interventional cards can open a embolic coronary--> cures your "heart attack".
GI: Colonoscopy-->Find polyp, kill polyp, prevent cancer.

There are plenty of diseases that are incurable but are well managed by modern medicine. You guys have the luxury of cherry picking the cases you want and giving us the incurable cases, then turn around and say we dont cure anyone. Quite hypocritical.

name a few diseases and cures for me.

Onc: Prolactinoma --> give bromocriptine
Cardio: PDA --> give indomethacin
GI: Rectal polyp --> endoscopic removal (which gastroenterologists can do, not surgeons)

So, what chiro treatments would you prescribe for those?

those drugs didn't cure the problem... if you stop giving the drug, the symptoms still occur... therefore, not cured (except for the endoscopic removal of rectal polyps, which is an invasive procedure)

none of those are chiropractic issues, so i'd refer them to the appropriate practitioner (oncologist, cardiologist, gi).

again, since apparently i haven't said it enough for it to sink in yet, chiropractors don't cure anything! they try and address the problem that causes the symptoms. that doesn't mean they're "cured"... after a while, the problem could reoccur, thereby causing the symptoms again (kinda like a patient of mine who had 8/10 pain from neurogenic claudication from scs. i treated him about 4 weeks and he felt like new again and didn't come back to keep things in check... he called me finally a few months ago complaining that the pain came back again (about 2 months after the last time i saw him)... i treated him again and the pain went away after like 3 visits. he started coming in once a month for an adjustment to make sure it doesn't come back. so far, it hasn't.).

did my adjustments cure him? no... it simply removed the problem, thereby stopping the symptoms, without using medications. it lasted for two months or so and then it came back.

Um... actually prolactinomas are treated w/ bromo w/ curative intent. A PDA wont reopen after the proper course of indomethacin...

There are plenty of cancers being treated by chemo with the intent to cure

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ja1484
Because it has very little research base behind its claims. Lack of evidence. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I see you're going to address points made by others but you've given up on me. Please show credible studies or meta analyses that show efficacy in treating anything other than back and neck pain.

This.

http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/crr/

I am aware there are many medium to low quality studies regarding the efficacy of chiropratic, and very few meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

That was kind of the point.

Edit: Upon further investigation, it's also kind of annoying that that site tries to take techniques used by many disciplines (manual therapy, for example) and pass them off "chiropractic techniques".

kinda agree with this whole post.

yes, it's sad that there aren't better articles done.

yes, it's annoying that there are so many different kinds of treatments that are chiropractic adjustments, but are ultimately different. there's no REAL standard basis... with medicine, everyone uses the same drug and dosages and whatnot for their research, which is extremely reliable and has a strong inter-examiner reliability. with chiropractic, not so much... we all have differing techniques and adjusting styles that it really doesn't help chiropractic research. what's chiropractic for one author may be something else to another... one technique may be different in one study than another, which would result in different conclusions.

trust me, i know... it sucks. but that doesn't mean chiropractic doesn't work... it just means that the profession still has a LONG way to go to become more unified.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: TecHNooB
Poor eits, defending chiropractic against the legions of ATOT. Go cure some spinal related pains and illnesses and prove us all wrong!

i can't. chiropractic doesn't cure anything... like i've said millions of times.

 

[eits]

i wrote this a couple weeks ago...

i have a patient right now. she's 75 years old next week. she has diabetes and had a laminectomy, bone graft put into L4/5, and a stimulator put into her back because there was some low back pain she'd been experiencing. ever since the surguries, she kept getting worse and worse (she got the surgeries 6 years ago). she ended up becoming wheelchair bound with an 82% on her oswestry questionaire (bed-ridden). her pain got so bad that she was contemplating suicide... daily, she had a 9/10 on a pain scale of 1-10. she'd seen 3 neurologists, 2 orthopedists, 2 pain management specialists, an acupucturist, a massage therapist, and 4 physical therapists...

she came to me to get rid of the pain, not to be able to walk again. i diagnosed her problem and treated her 3x week for a month. she can walk now... after only a month of treatment. her oswestry score is down to 42%. she can actually stand upright now... before, when i tried to have her stand if she was bent completely over at the waist looking straight at the ground with excruciating pain.

now, i need to retrain her how to walk and help build some muscle strength in her legs and butt. although she can walk, she gets very sore because she hadn't walked in so long.

she is so pissed that no one told her to see a chiropractor before all the nonsense surgeries and pills and shots she'd and pain she'd gone through that led her from being an active person to someone who needed a walker to, finally, someone who needed a wheelchair.

i'm quoting it just in case some of you hadn't read it.

 

[mattpegher]

What many of you don't realize is that chiropractic medicine is gaining in popularity within the field of physiatry as a new field deemed Manipulative medicine.

When I reduce a shoulder dislocation or a nursemaids elbow, I am basically doing manipulation, sure in this case the dislocation or subluxation is well understood and the treatments although initially without scientific studies to support them, have been later tested and supported. Noone would suggest that I leave a child in pain with a nursemaid elbow just because it had yet to be studied.

The problem is that your in a realm of understanding in which those who cannot truely meet diagnostic standards can fake it. I am unsure how to fix this in the field, because I truely believe that a good chiropractor can be very usefull.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ja1484
Because it has very little research base behind its claims. Lack of evidence. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I see you're going to address points made by others but you've given up on me. Please show credible studies or meta analyses that show efficacy in treating anything other than back and neck pain.

This.

http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/crr/

I am aware there are many medium to low quality studies regarding the efficacy of chiropratic, and very few meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

That was kind of the point.

Edit: Upon further investigation, it's also kind of annoying that that site tries to take techniques used by many disciplines (manual therapy, for example) and pass them off "chiropractic techniques".

kinda agree with this whole post.

yes, it's sad that there aren't better articles done.

yes, it's annoying that there are so many different kinds of treatments that are chiropractic adjustments, but are ultimately different. there's no REAL standard basis... with medicine, everyone uses the same drug and dosages and whatnot for their research, which is extremely reliable and has a strong inter-examiner reliability. with chiropractic, not so much... we all have differing techniques and adjusting styles that it really doesn't help chiropractic research. what's chiropractic for one author may be something else to another... one technique may be different in one study than another, which would result in different conclusions.

trust me, i know... it sucks. but that doesn't mean chiropractic doesn't work... it just means that the profession still has a LONG way to go to become more unified.

Hence why I still have a very healthy skepticism, among other reasons.

Inter-rater reliability with manual therapy techniques is generally strong if the clinicians are trained in the same system...the fact that there are different adjusting styles is part of the problem. You need to standardize the methods.

Anyway, your topic title asked a question, and you have my answer. When there's better evidence, we can get back to this. I would've been very skeptical of PT in the 1970s. Not so much in the early 2000s...give Chiro a few decades...maybe my viewpoint will change.

Not right now though.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: eits
yes, it's sad that there aren't better articles done.

There are a number of excellent studies and articles, just none of them agree with your agenda.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ja1484
Because it has very little research base behind its claims. Lack of evidence. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I see you're going to address points made by others but you've given up on me. Please show credible studies or meta analyses that show efficacy in treating anything other than back and neck pain.

This.

http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/crr/

I am aware there are many medium to low quality studies regarding the efficacy of chiropratic, and very few meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

That was kind of the point.

Edit: Upon further investigation, it's also kind of annoying that that site tries to take techniques used by many disciplines (manual therapy, for example) and pass them off "chiropractic techniques".

kinda agree with this whole post.

yes, it's sad that there aren't better articles done.

yes, it's annoying that there are so many different kinds of treatments that are chiropractic adjustments, but are ultimately different. there's no REAL standard basis... with medicine, everyone uses the same drug and dosages and whatnot for their research, which is extremely reliable and has a strong inter-examiner reliability. with chiropractic, not so much... we all have differing techniques and adjusting styles that it really doesn't help chiropractic research. what's chiropractic for one author may be something else to another... one technique may be different in one study than another, which would result in different conclusions.

trust me, i know... it sucks. but that doesn't mean chiropractic doesn't work... it just means that the profession still has a LONG way to go to become more unified.

Hence why I still have a very healthy skepticism, among other reasons.

Inter-rater reliability with manual therapy techniques is generally strong if the clinicians are trained in the same system...the fact that there are different adjusting styles is part of the problem. You need to standardize the methods.

Anyway, your topic title asked a question, and you have my answer. When there's better evidence, we can get back to this. I would've been very skeptical of PT in the 1970s. Not so much in the early 2000s...give Chiro a few decades...maybe my viewpoint will change.

Not right now though.

agreed.

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Beev

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Beev

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Beev
eits, you claim in the OP this is for chiro questions, but all you're doing is arguing why it's a "real" profession. I asked a legitimate curiosity question and you ignored it =/

i never ignored your question... if i did, it was unintentional. can you restate your question?

As a chiropractor, you no doubt make less than a regular doctor. Why didn't you go to school an extra few years and make ten times as much?

?? i don't get it.

What made you want to be a chiropractor rather than a more common, higher paid doctor?

i was confused because you said something like "why didn't go to school a few more years"... chiropractic school takes longer than med school, that's why i was confused.

after being all about med school for a semester, i realized that they weren't really treating anything other than symptoms and the only way to actually FIX things in the medical world was to be a surgeon. i didn't like the idea of being a surgeon because i was more family oriented and a didn't want to always be on call.

so, i found out about chiropractic and realized that you could actually treat people's problems rather than just symptoms without having to drug people. so, i enrolled in chiropractic school and realized i was learning the same stuff as med school students were learning, just with more of an emphasis on anatomy and physiology and less on pharmacology.

wanting to treat people was never really about the money for me... it was about the happiness i feel whenever i make someone else's life better.

You probalby should have done a little bit more research before settling on that ridiculous statement. It's a shame because your chiro training probably just perpetuated the misconception that MDs just hand out a lot of drugs to mask symptoms rather than cure patients

unless you're a surgeon, medical doctors hardly cure anything other than various infections and parasites and you know it.

most medical doctors you see will write you a script for some medication designed to treat the symptoms of conditions... that's partly due to the public being brainwashed into believing that they actually do need the medications they see ads about on tv and the md wants to make their patients happy, the other part has to do with the little kickbacks md's get from giving out samples and prescribing certain drugs.

Lol what are you talking about. Every medical field other than diagnostics cures disease.

Oncology: I'm sure you've heard of it...
Cardio: Statins lower cholesterol---> prevents heart disease. Interventional cards can open a embolic coronary--> cures your "heart attack".
GI: Colonoscopy-->Find polyp, kill polyp, prevent cancer.

There are plenty of diseases that are incurable but are well managed by modern medicine. You guys have the luxury of cherry picking the cases you want and giving us the incurable cases, then turn around and say we dont cure anyone. Quite hypocritical.

name a few diseases and cures for me.

Onc: Prolactinoma --> give bromocriptine
Cardio: PDA --> give indomethacin
GI: Rectal polyp --> endoscopic removal (which gastroenterologists can do, not surgeons)

So, what chiro treatments would you prescribe for those?

those drugs didn't cure the problem... if you stop giving the drug, the symptoms still occur... therefore, not cured (except for the endoscopic removal of rectal polyps, which is an invasive procedure)

none of those are chiropractic issues, so i'd refer them to the appropriate practitioner (oncologist, cardiologist, gi).

again, since apparently i haven't said it enough for it to sink in yet, chiropractors don't cure anything! they try and address the problem that causes the symptoms. that doesn't mean they're "cured"... after a while, the problem could reoccur, thereby causing the symptoms again (kinda like a patient of mine who had 8/10 pain from neurogenic claudication from scs. i treated him about 4 weeks and he felt like new again and didn't come back to keep things in check... he called me finally a few months ago complaining that the pain came back again (about 2 months after the last time i saw him)... i treated him again and the pain went away after like 3 visits. he started coming in once a month for an adjustment to make sure it doesn't come back. so far, it hasn't.).

did my adjustments cure him? no... it simply removed the problem, thereby stopping the symptoms, without using medications. it lasted for two months or so and then it came back.

How about this list:
Stroke - thrombolysis
Pneumonia/sepsis - antibiotics

Sure many medicine just manage the disease, but to call this symptomatic treatment is irresponsible.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: eits
:roll: you're full of crap. you're making shit up and then want to put the burden of proof on me? eat one.

you can't just sit there on your fat ass making up crap like that and try to misinform everyone.

If you claim something works, the burden of proof is on you. That's how science works. You should know and even embrace this since you've been saying what you do is based on science.

right, i get that, but i can only explain something so many times and link so many things before it gets really old. pubmed is there for a reason. if you people are in such doubt about how effective chiropractic is as it pertains to a certain condition, look it up for yourselves.

I have looked it up, and I'm unconvinced. Got a link?

also, use common sense. if chiropractic were snake oil, how in the hell is it getting more credibility by the year?

It is? I've heard astrologists make similar arguments.

why are more of the population seeing chiropractors with each passing year?

Why are more people buying Michael Jackson albums? Why do so many people buy this pile of BS book?

You're really not helping your case here.

why do insurance companies start covering chiropractic care?

Lawsuits force them to? Not necessarily anything to do with science, this doesn't constitute evidence.

i can completely understand how something you thought your dad used to do to you as a kid for free could become a lucrative profession,

What?

but you need to understand that there's science behind it and there is more research on the way... that, and there's a specificity to chiropractic adjustments that takes time and training to be good at.

Don't tell me "I need to understand there's science behind it." That's an absolute crock and a deflection. You asking me to have faith in you and you've already lied at least once.

SHOW me the science behind it.

-link for what? what condition?

anything besides some back ailment.

- yeah, it is.
http://www.chiroweb.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=18246
http://money.cnn.com/magazines...2006/snapshots/14.html
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos071.htm
[/quote]
first link: on the same chart, showing an upward trend along with herbal medicine, massage therapy and megavitamins. I wouldn't post that if I were trying to gain credibility.

second link: job prospects.

third link: job prospects.

So, no science at all...

Where's the PubMed links? peer reviewed stuff.

- stephen davis?

wups, wrong link! Great running back in his day... but irrelevant.

better link
People are buying this book. The author is making a lot of money off of it. Does that mean he's right about anything?

- insurances are covering chiropractic care because the literature, currently, supports that it's helpful for treating back injuries and one of the main causes for people to take time off work is for back injuries.

Back injuries sure. I understand that back pain and spine related issues can be effectively treated by chiropractic. That's only contested by a few, not me for the most part.

Hell, I have my own first hand anecdote: Threw out a thoracic vertebra playing golf. Walked around in pain for a good week. I could see the damn thing in the mirror, my spine had a kink in it. Went to a chiropracter, got some some useless ultrasound massage, then got on the table and one crack later I was fine.

Otoh, one of my best friends has a back ailment and went to a chiropracter and was very unhappy with the amount of pain he experienced during and subsequent to his treatment. He eventually underwent surgery and had bone spurs removed. He's much better now. But that's just an anecdote too.

- i haven't lied about anything

"acupuncture has been accepted by the ama."

- open an anatomy/physiology/neurology textbook. that's the only way i can actually "show" you the science behind why what we do works.

Which book which page or chapter? I can get ahold of many/most of them in short order.
More importantly, which peer reviewed study linking textbook description to chiropractic therapy? Again, outside of something directly related to a back ailment.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ord1=%22love+my+job%22
i bet you think i was lying when i wrote this, or that somehow the patient placebo'ed herself out of her wheelchair and standing upright and walking? she couldn't placebo effect herself better after medications or surgeries, she had to do it after chiropractic care... something about which she was completely skeptical that her daughter talked her into trying.

You'd lose your bet. You might be lying, you might be telling the truth. I suspect very strongly that you are telling the truth, but I don't know. Doesn't matter: Testimonials and anecdotes are not data. They don't count in science and that isn't subject to debate.

there are lots of stories i could tell you about patients i've treated, but they probably won't do you any good because i could either be lying or it could be placebo to you.

You're right it won't do any good. Stories don't count. If you understand science, you understand this.

the fact of the matter is that there's not really much i can do to help convince you because you're not going to accept anything that isn't "medically proven" (even though we're talking apples and oranges when we talk medical and chiropractic, really). all i can ask is that you keep an open mind and whenever there is finally more funding for chiropractic care, you look into it. it might take a decade or so, but it'll happen.

Your approach is religious, not scientific.

My mind is open. I hope that the appropriate studies are done. Scientific proof (peer reviewed, placebo controls, blinded studies etc.) will convince me. Anecdotes won't.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: mattpegher

How about this list:
Stroke - thrombolysis
Pneumonia/sepsis - antibiotics

Sure many medicine just manage the disease, but to call this symptomatic treatment is irresponsible.

with all due respect, i already mentioned infections as something medical doctors cure.

strokes can happen for many reasons. also, a stroke is typically a secondary condition... it could be from diabetes, air bubble from a shot/iv, high cholesterol, smoking, birth control, etc. but, lets just say, for argument sake, that it was an idiopathic stroke due to genetics... you'd be correct. that can cure the stroke... until it happens again. most stroke victims experience another one later on.

 

[cheezy321]

Jesus guys calm down with the nested quotes

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Trim your fucking quotes people. Christ.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
blah blah blah

Your approach is religious, not scientific.

My mind is open. I hope that the appropriate studies are done. Scientific proof (peer reviewed, placebo controls, blinded studies etc.) will convince me. Anecdotes won't.

i'm done with you. i respect your point of view, but without you reading things i've written in the past and my lack of motivation to dig them up for you, i'll just have to say that i completely disagree with just about everything you've said.

and, no, there's no religion involved in chiropractic. it's just that chiropractic research is limited by a few things, the main thing being funding, the other major thing being a low inter-examiner reliability because there's no standard.

all i can tell you is that it works. i really wish that there weren't shitty chiropractors out there to ruin peoples' experiences, but there are... but they'll die out and the better educated chiropractors will take their place.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: mattpegher

Originally posted by: eits


those drugs didn't cure the problem... if you stop giving the drug, the symptoms still occur... therefore, not cured (except for the endoscopic removal of rectal polyps, which is an invasive procedure)

none of those are chiropractic issues, so i'd refer them to the appropriate practitioner (oncologist, cardiologist, gi).

again, since apparently i haven't said it enough for it to sink in yet, chiropractors don't cure anything! they try and address the problem that causes the symptoms. that doesn't mean they're "cured"... after a while, the problem could reoccur, thereby causing the symptoms again (kinda like a patient of mine who had 8/10 pain from neurogenic claudication from scs. i treated him about 4 weeks and he felt like new again and didn't come back to keep things in check... he called me finally a few months ago complaining that the pain came back again (about 2 months after the last time i saw him)... i treated him again and the pain went away after like 3 visits. he started coming in once a month for an adjustment to make sure it doesn't come back. so far, it hasn't.).

did my adjustments cure him? no... it simply removed the problem, thereby stopping the symptoms, without using medications. it lasted for two months or so and then it came back.

How about this list:
Stroke - thrombolysis
Pneumonia/sepsis - antibiotics

Sure many medicine just manage the disease, but to call this symptomatic treatment is irresponsible.

with all due respect, i already mentioned infections as something medical doctors cure.

strokes can happen for many reasons. also, a stroke is typically a secondary condition... it could be from diabetes, air bubble from a shot/iv, high cholesterol, smoking, birth control, etc. but, lets just say, for argument sake, that it was an idiopathic stroke due to genetics... you'd be correct. that can cure the stroke... until it happens again. most stroke victims experience another one later on.

You haven't really addressed my responses. A PDA can be fully cured with indomethacin. Prolactinomas can be cured with bromocriptine. Lots of cancers can be cured with chemotherapy.

ANd you dont have to be a surgeon to do invasive procedures, lots of medical fields allow you to do procedures and CURE (omg i used that word again) patients.

Your view that MDs just hand out medication for symptomatic treatment is totally wrong and just reeks of indoctrination by CAM professors

 

[Jeffg010]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Jeffg010
Well from reading your post not once did you mention the adjustments that they do. I call them cracks because it sounds like when your knuckles crack. They twist you in some wired ways that pops your bones, spine or hips in place. I would not trust what your describing and would end up leaving if that was happening to me. All I look for is adjust my back to make it feel better that is all.

Honestly, I don't know what adjustments are being done. Their customers are happy, and I guess that is sufficient. It just that there seems to be a disconnect between what the customers want (fix to their problems) and what they are happy getting (very short-term relief from the problems). But, they keep going back, I'm not going to stop them. But the lack of true solutions prevents me from ever wanting to go.

It is not a short-term solution! When I have back pain I go to a Chiropractor and they adjust my back and fix the pain. I might go 6, 8, 12, 16, 24 months with out a back problem but normal wear and tear of life wears down the body and back pain is a part of it so I'll go back.

If a medical DR. treats bronchitis and I get it 6 to 12 months later does that mean the DR only has a short-term solution? It sounds to me you think Chiropractors are trying to cure every known problem to man. All they do is adjust your back to the proper location and that is it. If you have one that is trying to do more then that then he is a quack. Like I said every profession have their quacks.

 

[Jeffg010]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Honestly? I just can't see myself relaxing enough to let them do their work [I'd be too afraid something would pop out of place would could cause more serious problems]. I'm the type of person who only sees a doctor if it's absolutely only necessary [I think the last doctor I saw was for a broken wrist injury that happened about 20 years ago].

Granted - they are [probably] experts in their field - but I'd rather not take the chance of them breaking something that doesn't need to be fixed.

I know what you mean when they are about to crack my neck or back I cringe up. My chiropractor asked me early on what I was doing doing I said getting ready for the crack. It is kind of nerve wrecking when she grabs my head and twist it like she does.

 

[Jeffg010]

Originally posted by: MrMatt
Well long before I knew there was debate about chiropractic I worked for a company that handled disability insurance claims. I just handled one of the steps in the process. Of all the claims that came across my desk (100s per week), about 35-40% of them seemed to be from chiropractors. I don't mean patients who said that their chiropracter said they should be on disability or were permanently disabled. I mean claims from chiropracters saying they needed to go on disability, and out of that 35-40% about 90% of them said they needed to be on permanent disability. I brought this up with a manager asking if we just had a lot of clients who were chiropracters. She said that no, but that chiropracters were largely quacks.


Since then I've seen both sides of the argument. Part of me thinks its psychosomatic, but it's hard to argue with someone who says they haven't been able to do thing XYZ for months/years until a series of chiro visits.

So I really don't know. Maybe because the science is relatively new it allows a disproportionate number of quacks in. Doesn't mean everyone who does it is fake.

35-40% form chiropractors what was the other 60-65% claims coming from?

 

[iliopsoas]

Originally posted by: Mo0o


Onc: Prolactinoma --> give bromocriptine
Cardio: PDA --> give indomethacin
GI: Rectal polyp --> endoscopic removal (which gastroenterologists can do, not surgeons)

So, what chiro treatments would you prescribe for those?

Dude, that's weak. Use some real examples.

Early stage lymphoma 90% cure rate
Testicular carcinoma 90% cure rate, approaches 100% if not metastasized at time of detection. Treated with combo of surgery and radiation.
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia 90% cure rate
Internal bleeding treated with coil embolization by an interventional radiologist

Renal cell carcinoma. Patient too sick for surgery? Fry it with radiofrequency ablation, performed by a radiologist.

HIV. NO cure but they ain't dropping like flies either with the HAART combo drugs. Guys like Magic Johnson are surviving several decades after diagnosis.

...and on and on...

Sure, a lot of the current treatment is aimed at controlling the disease and there are no cures in sight. But all you have to do is look at the quality of life and life expectancy that have improved with modern medicine.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: iliopsoas

Originally posted by: Mo0o


Onc: Prolactinoma --> give bromocriptine
Cardio: PDA --> give indomethacin
GI: Rectal polyp --> endoscopic removal (which gastroenterologists can do, not surgeons)

So, what chiro treatments would you prescribe for those?

Dude, that's weak. Use some real examples.

Early stage lymphoma 90% cure rate
Testicular carcinoma 90% cure rate, approaches 100% if not metastasized at time of detection. Treated with combo of surgery and radiation.
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia 90% cure rate
Internal bleeding treated with coil embolization by an interventional radiologist

Renal cell carcinoma. Patient too sick for surgery? Fry it with radiofrequency ablation, performed by a radiologist.

HIV. NO cure but they ain't dropping like flies either with the HAART combo drugs. Guys like Magic Johnson are surviving several decades after diagnosis.

...and on and on...

Sure, a lot of the current treatment is aimed at controlling the disease and there are no cures in sight. But all you have to do is look at the quality of life and life expectancy that have improved with modern medicine.

No use mentioning this stuff to the OP. He thinks PDA isnt a "curable" condition

 

[iliopsoas]

Originally posted by: eits

it was what turned me off of med school and made me more interested in chiropractic.

In other words, you didn't make the cut.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: eits

and, no, there's no religion involved in chiropractic.

You said "it'll happen." That's faith, not science.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Gibsons
blah blah blah

Your approach is religious, not scientific.

My mind is open. I hope that the appropriate studies are done. Scientific proof (peer reviewed, placebo controls, blinded studies etc.) will convince me. Anecdotes won't.

i'm done with you. i respect your point of view, but without you reading things i've written in the past and my lack of motivation to dig them up for you, i'll just have to say that i completely disagree with just about everything you've said.

and, no, there's no religion involved in chiropractic. it's just that chiropractic research is limited by a few things, the main thing being funding, the other major thing being a low inter-examiner reliability because there's no standard.

all i can tell you is that it works. i really wish that there weren't shitty chiropractors out there to ruin peoples' experiences, but there are... but they'll die out and the better educated chiropractors will take their place.

Let me get this straight. You start a thread saying you want to address chiropractic care You get completely punked about your bogus "religion" and your response is that? You back out of the thread once you realize you have ZERO basis for your field of choice.

Once again, you are a joke.

Lack of funding? We have already shown that isn't the case. Why continue funding studies when every fails to show any efficacy in chiropractic treatment? But guess what? People still fund studies for it. Just like acupuncture. And they all have the same results.

Next on to your statement of "all i can tell you is that it works". Once again, SCIENTISTS require PROOF. Your anecdotal evidence is worthless. You ad hominem arguments are worthless.

So either step up with some evidence or just admit that the following.

Popping joints feels good. Hell I pop my knuckles and I pop my back. People like it. I understand why people would want their back popped. It feels good. Just like massage feels good. If you stop claiming help benefits or cures then you wouldn't see an argument from most people.

 

[lokiju]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: lokiju
Why should I let a chiropractor give me an x-ray when he/she is not certified to do so?

My parents are friends with a chiropractor (retired now) who was legit. He didn't try and pass himself off as a doctor, he didn't do bullshit x-rays, he didn't do bullshit "you're soul is out of whack" or any nonsense like that.

He just adjusted you and sent you on your way.

I've been to two others since he retired for back pain, the first guy did the x-ray, which I wasn't thrilled about, just because he was wearing a white coat doesn't make him qualified to take x-rays, x-ray techs have to go to 2 years of school, pass a test and be certified to do them, why shouldn't he? But beyond that first visit x-ray he seemed decent, didn't recommend bullshit treatments to fix my "energy" or something.

Then a few years later I was in an accident and living in a different state. I did physical therapy for years with questionable results so my Dr.'s decided to have me try a Chiropractor. They sent me to a place they sent most of their other patients to and this guy was a fucking hack. He puts me on some table that gives under it in different areas and moves all over the place. He jumps into my back with all his weight and knee behind it to crack my lower back, and then proceeds to nearly rip my head off cracking my neck. I hurt for weeks after going to him that 1 time more than I ever did beforehand.

He was certified, he was what insurance covered, he was what doctors recommended and he was a hack.

Since that experience I'll never again go to one, it's not worth the risk of injury to find a good one IMO.

Dr's are supposed to make you better or at least feel better and so should chiropractors.

discomfort after your first adjustment is not uncommon, because you're breaking up capsular adhesions and they're trying to reattach themselves. it's kinda like a dusty counter top... you dust the counter top one time and it looks clean right after you do it, but a little bit later, it's dusty again because some of the dust you removed settled right back onto it.

your parents friend should have explained that to you. sometimes, depending on the individual, you feel a little sore before you get better. you just chickened out.

Ha, what a bullshit joke of an answer.

I was hurt by going to some shitty chiropractor and you say that I "just chickened out"

You're not helping anyone have a different opinion of chiropractors with bullshit like that.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: mattpegher

Originally posted by: eits


those drugs didn't cure the problem... if you stop giving the drug, the symptoms still occur... therefore, not cured (except for the endoscopic removal of rectal polyps, which is an invasive procedure)

none of those are chiropractic issues, so i'd refer them to the appropriate practitioner (oncologist, cardiologist, gi).

again, since apparently i haven't said it enough for it to sink in yet, chiropractors don't cure anything! they try and address the problem that causes the symptoms. that doesn't mean they're "cured"... after a while, the problem could reoccur, thereby causing the symptoms again (kinda like a patient of mine who had 8/10 pain from neurogenic claudication from scs. i treated him about 4 weeks and he felt like new again and didn't come back to keep things in check... he called me finally a few months ago complaining that the pain came back again (about 2 months after the last time i saw him)... i treated him again and the pain went away after like 3 visits. he started coming in once a month for an adjustment to make sure it doesn't come back. so far, it hasn't.).

did my adjustments cure him? no... it simply removed the problem, thereby stopping the symptoms, without using medications. it lasted for two months or so and then it came back.

How about this list:
Stroke - thrombolysis
Pneumonia/sepsis - antibiotics

Sure many medicine just manage the disease, but to call this symptomatic treatment is irresponsible.

with all due respect, i already mentioned infections as something medical doctors cure.

strokes can happen for many reasons. also, a stroke is typically a secondary condition... it could be from diabetes, air bubble from a shot/iv, high cholesterol, smoking, birth control, etc. but, lets just say, for argument sake, that it was an idiopathic stroke due to genetics... you'd be correct. that can cure the stroke... until it happens again. most stroke victims experience another one later on.

You haven't really addressed my responses. A PDA can be fully cured with indomethacin. Prolactinomas can be cured with bromocriptine. Lots of cancers can be cured with chemotherapy.

ANd you dont have to be a surgeon to do invasive procedures, lots of medical fields allow you to do procedures and CURE (omg i used that word again) patients.

Your view that MDs just hand out medication for symptomatic treatment is totally wrong and just reeks of indoctrination by CAM professors

i didn't say that invasive procedures were done by surgeons. i'm well aware.

people can relapse after getting chemo, so you haven't really cured cancer.

md's DO hand out medications for symptomatic treatment. is it all they do? no. is it mostly what they do? yes. that's just the way it is.

like i said before, it's not like i'm saying there's no need to medical doctors or anything. they save lives. they keep people alive and treat thousands of conditions and make sick people feel well. but don't sit there and pretend like symptomatic treatment isn't what medical docs do.