Chiropractic Questions

[eits]

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.

i completely agree.

i'm not going to claim that a chiropractor can affect any of those diseases, because they can't whatsoever. that's something medical doctors do... they treat diseases that can be treated and they keep the ones that can't at bey as best they can. but i honestly wouldn't go as far as to say that you CURE the diseases, because most of the time, they come right back later on.

chiropractic care is mainly based on the premise that disease happens whenever you don't keep the body healthy. medicine, from what i gather, believes that health is achieved by removing the disease... i have a little bit of a problem with that and i think that's why health care is in the bind that it finds itself in right now.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: 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.

no, i made the cut... i just left it.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: eits

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

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

"do you believe there will be a cure for cancer?"
"yes, it'll happen some day"

omg, that's faith... that = religion!

:roll:

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: 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.

it was the chiropractor's fault for not warning you that you might feel some soreness or stiffness the next day and that it's not uncommon and that it's a combination of adhesions breaking up and/or causing a stretch reflex in the muscles of the neck if you're not used to it and tense up.

not your fault.

 

[MrMatt]

Originally posted by: 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?

Hundreds of other professions.

Originally posted by: eits

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 chiropracters. 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.

excellent post

thanks!

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: eits

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

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

"do you believe there will be a cure for cancer?"
"yes, it'll happen some day"

omg, that's faith... that = religion!

:roll:

non-sequitur.

anyway. You're supposed to reach conclusions after the experiments, not before. You've pre-supposed the outcome of studies which haven't been performed.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: eits

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.

i completely agree.

i'm not going to claim that a chiropractor can affect any of those diseases, because they can't whatsoever. that's something medical doctors do... they treat diseases that can be treated and they keep the ones that can't at bey as best they can. but i honestly wouldn't go as far as to say that you CURE the diseases, because most of the time, they come right back later on.

chiropractic care is mainly based on the premise that disease happens whenever you don't keep the body healthy. medicine, from what i gather, believes that health is achieved by removing the disease... i have a little bit of a problem with that and i think that's why health care is in the bind that it finds itself in right now.

Simply because I think you're defending a losing battle, and because it is quite annoying, I'm going to point out your usage mistake in the word "bey." I'm quite certain that medical doctors do not keep diseases at a provincial governor in the Ottoman Empire.

I think you mean "bay," but can't be sure, as your showing of intelligence in this thread has dwindled immensely.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: eits

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.

i completely agree.

i'm not going to claim that a chiropractor can affect any of those diseases, because they can't whatsoever. that's something medical doctors do... they treat diseases that can be treated and they keep the ones that can't at bey as best they can. but i honestly wouldn't go as far as to say that you CURE the diseases, because most of the time, they come right back later on.

chiropractic care is mainly based on the premise that disease happens whenever you don't keep the body healthy. medicine, from what i gather, believes that health is achieved by removing the disease... i have a little bit of a problem with that and i think that's why health care is in the bind that it finds itself in right now.

All that is total bs. Cure really means CURE. You even admitted treating someone w/ antibiotics to rid them of an infection is considered curing them of that infection, but they often still can get infected again. Doesnt meant htey werent cured the first time. It just means they got infected again.

Honestly, if you wanted to be in the disease treating business, MD is the way to go. The reasons you gave are just gross mischaracterization of what allopathic medicine is really about

 

[iliopsoas]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: iliopsoas

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.

i completely agree.

i'm not going to claim that a chiropractor can affect any of those diseases, because they can't whatsoever. that's something medical doctors do... they treat diseases that can be treated and they keep the ones that can't at bey as best they can. but i honestly wouldn't go as far as to say that you CURE the diseases, because most of the time, they come right back later on.

chiropractic care is mainly based on the premise that disease happens whenever you don't keep the body healthy. medicine, from what i gather, believes that health is achieved by removing the disease... i have a little bit of a problem with that and i think that's why health care is in the bind that it finds itself in right now.

No, those are CURE rates I listed. Not response rate. CURE rate. No relapses.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: eits
um... you know i'm NOT in the pharmaceutical business, right?

reread what you just wrote... you just stated everything wrong with what pharmaceutical companies do on a daily basis.

I never said you were. And the makers of Airborne aren't in the pharmaceutical business either. Actually, they are in the exact same business as you. The business of making shit up and ripping people off.

And no, I didn't state everything wrong with pharmaceutical companies. Sure, they aren't perfect and they sometimes take questionable actions. But unlike you, they actually have scientific evidence that shows that their products are effective. They do double blind studies and have to be approved by the FDA.

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

Well, I guess that's ok by you since....

Originally posted by: eits
well, they can't really "cure" anything... your body is supposed to do that. chiropractors make it so that the body can fix itself, just the way it was designed to. what's the diagnosis of your low back pain? what's causing it? were you ever told? did the doctor ever tell you to start doing things to help, like exercise or correct your posture or something?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: eits

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

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

"do you believe there will be a cure for cancer?"
"yes, it'll happen some day"

omg, that's faith... that = religion!

:roll:

non-sequitur.

anyway. You're supposed to reach conclusions after the experiments, not before. You've pre-supposed the outcome of studies which haven't been performed.

Don't forget he disregards existing studies which fly in the face of his profession's credibility because they're performed by EVIL MEDICAL DOCTORS <lightning crash>. There are dozens of high quality studies that all point in the same direction, and eits argues that we just need some more high quality studies and "honestly, they'll support my argument guys. Honestly. I'm super cereal you guys."

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: eits

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

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

"do you believe there will be a cure for cancer?"
"yes, it'll happen some day"

omg, that's faith... that = religion!

:roll:

non-sequitur.

anyway. You're supposed to reach conclusions after the experiments, not before. You've pre-supposed the outcome of studies which haven't been performed.

Don't forget he disregards existing studies which fly in the face of his profession's credibility because they're performed by EVIL MEDICAL DOCTORS <lightning crash>. There are dozens of high quality studies that all point in the same direction, and eits argues that we just need some more high quality studies and "honestly, they'll support my argument guys. Honestly. I'm super cereal you guys."

I just want to point out that this is the exact same argument that homeopathic supports put forth. They ignore all existing studies even though they can't provide any argument against the methods of the studies. Then they say there needs to be more studies to prove homeopathy works.

The underlying problem is this: They pick the hypothesis as fact. Then they want studies to confirm their hypothesis as fact. If studies don't confirm it then the studies are wrong. They never consider that the hypothesis could be flawed or completely wrong.

It is anti-science and a complete joke.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: eits

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

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

"do you believe there will be a cure for cancer?"
"yes, it'll happen some day"

omg, that's faith... that = religion!

:roll:

non-sequitur.

anyway. You're supposed to reach conclusions after the experiments, not before. You've pre-supposed the outcome of studies which haven't been performed.

Don't forget he disregards existing studies which fly in the face of his profession's credibility because they're performed by EVIL MEDICAL DOCTORS <lightning crash>. There are dozens of high quality studies that all point in the same direction, and eits argues that we just need some more high quality studies and "honestly, they'll support my argument guys. Honestly. I'm super cereal you guys."

I just want to point out that this is the exact same argument that homeopathic supports put forth. They ignore all existing studies even though they can't provide any argument against the methods of the studies. Then they say there needs to be more studies to prove homeopathy works.

The underlying problem is this: They pick the hypothesis as fact. Then they want studies to confirm their hypothesis as fact. If studies don't confirm it then the studies are wrong. They never consider that the hypothesis could be flawed or completely wrong.

It is anti-science and a complete joke.

At least chiro has some logical scientifici basis for a lot of the things they do. Homeopathy is just ridiculous