Chiropractic - the good, the bad and the ugly

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: ja1484
I could say a lot of things from a weighty standpoint. Being in physical therapy, I've got plenty of educated, informed perspective on chiropractic.

That being said, you folks aren't worth the trouble. So there.

and really unbiased too. you don't have any financial stake at all in saying that chiros are quacks do you.

Not really, no. MDs recognize physical therapy as legitimate medical treatment because it's based on medical science. Chiropractic, not so much. Hence why most insurers will cover physical therapy treatment, but coverage for chiropractic is more limited.

In other words, since PTs are typically salaried and third party payers already cover our services, my bread is already in the basket, so to speak. So no, I really don't have anything to gain by rendering my opinion on chiropractic.

What I DO have to gain by holding my thoughts is not having to correct ill-informed statements like the one you just made, which I could very well spend all day doing.

I'll bottom line it: Anyone who isn't in a medical field or chiropractic really doesn't get an opinion in this race. All those years in school by medical professionals are used for something - there's a LOT they know that the general public doesn't, and trying to apply "common sense" to the situation is usually very stupid, because there's nothing common about medical treatment.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
I went to a chiro for neck pain. They told me to come off all my arthritis meds or I would die of liver failure, and that I had forward head posture syndrome, curable by daily applications of weights to my head and neck to strengthen the muscles and improve my posture.

The meds part alone was all I needed to hear. There's this whole thing about not being able to walk or use my hands that I kinda dislike. I told them to get lost and went to a real doctor.

I had a severely damaged C1/C2 (upper neck). If I'd used the weights prescribed to me, they could have damaged my spinal cord and caused very serious issues. I wound up getting a spinal fusion to fix the problem.

Holistic medicine isn't any good if it conflicts with regular medicine.

ugh... i didn't wanna get dragged in, so this is the only one i'm gonna reply to...

there are so many things wrong with this post...

1. do you actually have arthritis? if so, what kind? are they just pain pills or anti-inflammatories or what? the kind of arthritis matters. regardless, he had no business telling you that your meds would cause liver failure and you'd die... either that or you just misunderstood what he said. a lot of times, patients kinda take things the complete wrong way... for example: "we're just going to run some tests on the biopsy to make sure it's not cancerous" = "OMG YOU HAVE CANCER!"

Rheumatoid arthritis. I'm on Enbrel currently, was on methotrexate and plaquenil at the time. Yes, MTX is hell on the liver. He did straight up tell me I'd die of liver failure. He had a daughter with cancer (might have been leukemia, not sure) who was on mtx, and "the meds were worse than the disease". I definitely didn't misunderstand what he said; he spent ten or fifteen minutes emphasizing that I should go off the meds right away despite my responses describing the impact of RA without meds.

2. forward head posture syndrome? that's just ridiculous. he made that up.

No idea about that. For all I know it's common chiro, but it could be just as well made up by him individually.

3. adding weights to your head for an anterior head carriage = headaches, sprain/strain of the neck, and just overall wrongness

Sounds pretty right.

4. if you have rheumatoid arthritis, you have weak ligaments between c1 and c2, so any high-velocity low amplitude adjusting at that area is contraindicated. in fact, adding weights to your head IF you had rheumatoid arthritis and he never checked for atlanto-axial instability with a routine 3-view cervical series on x-ray would be HIGHLY negligent. it could have potentially ended up killing you.

EXACTLY. My big problem with chiros now is that the regulations and training are significantly unequal between practitioners. If it's a medical science it should be held to the same standards. Anyone practicing without the same basic medical training of any other doctor should be prosecuted. [edit] He did do an x-ray, just for the record.

5. the guy you saw was definitely a quack and it pisses me off that you had to suffer through that. this is just another example of why people need to research chiropractors before they go to them. some, like this one, are quacks. however, most are good.

Regulation of the medical practice came about for good reason. I think chiros should be subject to the same regulations, be a trained doctor the same as any other. Especially when some people are now choosing them as the primary resource for treating certain pains and illnesses.

we are (now), for the most part. back then, it wasn't the case. back then, they were just trying to keep the profession alive, so they sent anyone though the doors. the american medical association spread all kinds of propaganda (which you can easily find on chirobase.com and hear from godlessastronomer) to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession. you can read more about it in wilk v ama if you want. it went to the supreme court.

chiropractic school takes 5 academic years to complete. we are taught the same things and use the same books as are used in med school. the difference is that we are also taught chiropractic techniques and put more of an emphasis on anatomy and physiology of the human body. in med school, the emphasis is more on pharmacology. chiropractic school isn't nearly as selective as med school yet, but it's getting there.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..I recall reading there is a high incidence of stroke and heartattack associated with "back cracker" procedures.

nope. it's 1 in a million and typically if you've had a stroke or have a family history of strokes and there's waaay less of a chance of stroke or death than any medication you can find.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Hatred is not the right word. I use strong language to try to warn people against pseudoscience and towards evidence-based medicine. I don't hate chiropractors, but I am dismayed by the public's lack of knowledge and almost total acceptance of something for which there is no evidence.

You claim that there is no evidence, but in your OP you admitted that there was some evidence. I'll also point out that there exists a significant literature on the efficacy of accupuncture. I've never been to a chiropractor or accupuncturist, but I do know a world-renowned heart surgeon who visits both as he deems necessary. He told me that chiropractors are great at fixing back problems - you just have to ignore all of the other crap that they might try to push on you. He also tries "herbal" medicines when traditional pharmacy fails and one of his daughters is a pharmacist.

I've noticed that you think you know everything, have read all of the literature, and have all of the answers on every subject. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a zealot, quack, idiot, or some other arbitrary label. Bottom line: there are at least a few people that know a lot more about certain subjects than yourself. You try to preemptively downplay their knowledge or input by throwing out your labels and trying to paint them as ignorant before they've even said anything. Ironically, I've most commonly found this same behavior among evangelical Christians who can't defend anything they believe, so they disparage anyone who tries to make a counter-claim, throw out false information, or some other similar tactic. For example, the current book I'm reading ("Human Accomplishment" by Charles Murray) indicates that Andrew Still is the father of osteopathy, which is the real foundation of chiropracty. He was an MD like his father and "founded" osteopathy in 1874. Its founding is considered one of the ~100 most important events in the history of medicine according to the pretty rigorous methods applied by Murray.

Like I said, I've never been to a chiropractor and probably won't ever go to one, but pretending to "inform" people by giving them information that is biased and based in ignorance is hardly helping anyone.

You're right. Facts have a profound bias toward reality. What, specifically, do you take issue with in the OP? Or is this just a general whinge?

As for osteopathy, let's start with this: "[I can] shake a child and stop scarlet fever, croup, diphtheria, and cure whooping cough in three days by a wring of its neck". Guess who said that? Andrew Taylor St- waaaait a minute... that's the guy you're reading about!

I should also note that Osteopaths (D.O.) generally have the same training as medical doctors, in addition to OMT.

To be a DO you need all the training of an MD PLUS tons of extra hours of hands on training and you need to be board certified in the skeletal system (I think, at least, for that last part)

osteopathy and chiropractic were both created around the same time... chiropractic said that dysfunction came from improper nerve flow and osteopathy said it came from improper blood flow. the american medical association beat up on both of them with propaganda. the ama said, pretty much, "we'll stop beating you guys up if you join us and do things the way we want you to do them". chiropractic didn't want any of that, but osteopathy "drank the koolaid," so to speak.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: ja1484
I could say a lot of things from a weighty standpoint. Being in physical therapy, I've got plenty of educated, informed perspective on chiropractic.

That being said, you folks aren't worth the trouble. So there.

and really unbiased too. you don't have any financial stake at all in saying that chiros are quacks do you.

Not really, no. MDs recognize physical therapy as legitimate medical treatment because it's based on medical science. Chiropractic, not so much. Hence why most insurers will cover physical therapy treatment, but coverage for chiropractic is more limited.

In other words, since PTs are typically salaried and third party payers already cover our services, my bread is already in the basket, so to speak. So no, I really don't have anything to gain by rendering my opinion on chiropractic.

What I DO have to gain by holding my thoughts is not having to correct ill-informed statements like the one you just made, which I could very well spend all day doing.

I'll bottom line it: Anyone who isn't in a medical field or chiropractic really doesn't get an opinion in this race. All those years in school by medical professionals are used for something - there's a LOT they know that the general public doesn't, and trying to apply "common sense" to the situation is usually very stupid, because there's nothing common about medical treatment.

Agreed. One of my options coming out as an exercise biology major is going into the chiropractic field. I won't be doing this, but my major alone relies heavily on physiology and anatomy, which gives a very scientific backbone to the material. I don't understand how people can say ALL chiropractics are quacks. They are often trained in upper level release techniques, have x-ray machines to note what's wrong and how to fix it, and diagnose things just as a doctor would if you went in to see one. Many are NOT into alternative healing and I wouldn't go see one if that was the case. I'm really not quite sure how this judgment has been passed when no experience has come out from the inside or even from credible chiropractic sources.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: ja1484
I could say a lot of things from a weighty standpoint. Being in physical therapy, I've got plenty of educated, informed perspective on chiropractic.

That being said, you folks aren't worth the trouble. So there.

and really unbiased too. you don't have any financial stake at all in saying that chiros are quacks do you.

Not really, no. MDs recognize physical therapy as legitimate medical treatment because it's based on medical science. Chiropractic, not so much. Hence why most insurers will cover physical therapy treatment, but coverage for chiropractic is more limited.

In other words, since PTs are typically salaried and third party payers already cover our services, my bread is already in the basket, so to speak. So no, I really don't have anything to gain by rendering my opinion on chiropractic.

What I DO have to gain by holding my thoughts is not having to correct ill-informed statements like the one you just made, which I could very well spend all day doing.

I'll bottom line it: Anyone who isn't in a medical field or chiropractic really doesn't get an opinion in this race. All those years in school by medical professionals are used for something - there's a LOT they know that the general public doesn't, and trying to apply "common sense" to the situation is usually very stupid, because there's nothing common about medical treatment.

Agreed. One of my options coming out as an exercise biology major is going into the chiropractic field. I won't be doing this, but my major alone relies heavily on physiology and anatomy, which gives a very scientific backbone to the material. I don't understand how people can say ALL chiropractics are quacks. They are often trained in upper level release techniques, have x-ray machines to note what's wrong and how to fix it, and diagnose things just as a doctor would if you went in to see one. Many are NOT into alternative healing and I wouldn't go see one if that was the case. I'm really not quite sure how this judgment has been passed when no experience has come out from the inside or even from credible chiropractic sources.

I agree. There are good chiros and terrible chiros. I've worked with both. I've also worked with good PTs and terrible PTs.

I will say this: Chiropractic suffers from a lack of research evidence to back *some* of its methods, particularly the more esoteric ones. This is true to some extent in every medical field (if most people in the world knew how mediocre research on many medical techniques actually is, they'd pee their pants). However, chiropractic is particularly low on the evidence scale.

That said, good ones do a lot of things well and can be a helpful supplement to standard medical care.

Regarding the AMA's supposed "propagandizing" against chiropractic, that's what you'll hear from chiropractors and chiropractic educators. In reality, the AMA had a valid point, which I've pretty much summarized above: show us the data. Skepticism is not propaganda.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: JEDI
i've been going to diff chiros for 10yrs for upper back pain. (yeah insurance)

none has helped.

cracking the upper back feels great. i cant do that myself.

but the pain is still there, even immediately after it's cracked

what i hate is the electro-stims. just a waste of my time, and a way for chiros to pad the insurance bill.

i've taken xrays and mri's with diff back specials, and orthos. they said everything looks normal.
i've had no trauma. i just woke up w/slight pain and it's been there ever since.

anyone know why my upper back hurts (t4/t5 area)?
and how to relieve/cure?

post a picture of how you stand normally. also, how you sit in a chair or at a desk.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JEDI
i've been going to diff chiros for 10yrs for upper back pain. (yeah insurance)

none has helped.

cracking the upper back feels great. i cant do that myself.

but the pain is still there, even immediately after it's cracked

what i hate is the electro-stims. just a waste of my time, and a way for chiros to pad the insurance bill.

i've taken xrays and mri's with diff back specials, and orthos. they said everything looks normal.
i've had no trauma. i just woke up w/slight pain and it's been there ever since.

anyone know why my upper back hurts (t4/t5 area)?
and how to relieve/cure?

post a picture of how you stand normally. also, how you sit in a chair or at a desk.

Please don't try to treat over the internet. This is asking for trouble.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: ja1484
I could say a lot of things from a weighty standpoint. Being in physical therapy, I've got plenty of educated, informed perspective on chiropractic.

That being said, you folks aren't worth the trouble. So there.

and really unbiased too. you don't have any financial stake at all in saying that chiros are quacks do you.

Not really, no. MDs recognize physical therapy as legitimate medical treatment because it's based on medical science. Chiropractic, not so much. Hence why most insurers will cover physical therapy treatment, but coverage for chiropractic is more limited.

In other words, since PTs are typically salaried and third party payers already cover our services, my bread is already in the basket, so to speak. So no, I really don't have anything to gain by rendering my opinion on chiropractic.

What I DO have to gain by holding my thoughts is not having to correct ill-informed statements like the one you just made, which I could very well spend all day doing.

I'll bottom line it: Anyone who isn't in a medical field or chiropractic really doesn't get an opinion in this race. All those years in school by medical professionals are used for something - there's a LOT they know that the general public doesn't, and trying to apply "common sense" to the situation is usually very stupid, because there's nothing common about medical treatment.

you pt's have adopted some of our adjustments into your scope of care. if chiropractic didn't work, why take some aspects of it and pawn them off as your own?

look, there is a need for pt's in healthcare, just like there is a need for md's, dc's, do's, etc.

pt is accepted because you guys are perfectly happy with being someone an md's prescribes people to go to for things and you're really good at rehabing the body globally... you're not that great at rehabing the body segmentally, though.

with every year, insurance companies are covering chiropractic more and more. the newer generation of medical doctors accepts chiropractic as a viable form of alternative health care and refers patients to them regularly. older medical doctors are a little too hesitant to do so, just like how many old chiropractors are quacks. it's the old way of thinking vs the new way of thinking.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: ja1484
I could say a lot of things from a weighty standpoint. Being in physical therapy, I've got plenty of educated, informed perspective on chiropractic.

That being said, you folks aren't worth the trouble. So there.

and really unbiased too. you don't have any financial stake at all in saying that chiros are quacks do you.

Not really, no. MDs recognize physical therapy as legitimate medical treatment because it's based on medical science. Chiropractic, not so much. Hence why most insurers will cover physical therapy treatment, but coverage for chiropractic is more limited.

In other words, since PTs are typically salaried and third party payers already cover our services, my bread is already in the basket, so to speak. So no, I really don't have anything to gain by rendering my opinion on chiropractic.

What I DO have to gain by holding my thoughts is not having to correct ill-informed statements like the one you just made, which I could very well spend all day doing.

I'll bottom line it: Anyone who isn't in a medical field or chiropractic really doesn't get an opinion in this race. All those years in school by medical professionals are used for something - there's a LOT they know that the general public doesn't, and trying to apply "common sense" to the situation is usually very stupid, because there's nothing common about medical treatment.

Agreed. One of my options coming out as an exercise biology major is going into the chiropractic field. I won't be doing this, but my major alone relies heavily on physiology and anatomy, which gives a very scientific backbone to the material. I don't understand how people can say ALL chiropractics are quacks. They are often trained in upper level release techniques, have x-ray machines to note what's wrong and how to fix it, and diagnose things just as a doctor would if you went in to see one. Many are NOT into alternative healing and I wouldn't go see one if that was the case. I'm really not quite sure how this judgment has been passed when no experience has come out from the inside or even from credible chiropractic sources.

I agree. There are good chiros and terrible chiros. I've worked with both. I've also worked with good PTs and terrible PTs.

I will say this: Chiropractic suffers from a lack of research evidence to back *some* of its methods, particularly the more esoteric ones. This is true to some extent in every medical field (if most people in the world knew how mediocre research on many medical techniques actually is, they'd pee their pants). However, chiropractic is particularly low on the evidence scale.

That said, good ones do a lot of things well and can be a helpful supplement to standard medical care.

Regarding the AMA's supposed "propagandizing" against chiropractic, that's what you'll hear from chiropractors and chiropractic educators. In reality, the AMA had a valid point, which I've pretty much summarized above: show us the data. Skepticism is not propaganda.

read about the wilk case before you back the ama against chiropractic... there's a wiki about it.

i've already addressed why there's a lack of scientific research.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: ja1484
I could say a lot of things from a weighty standpoint. Being in physical therapy, I've got plenty of educated, informed perspective on chiropractic.

That being said, you folks aren't worth the trouble. So there.

and really unbiased too. you don't have any financial stake at all in saying that chiros are quacks do you.

Not really, no. MDs recognize physical therapy as legitimate medical treatment because it's based on medical science. Chiropractic, not so much. Hence why most insurers will cover physical therapy treatment, but coverage for chiropractic is more limited.

In other words, since PTs are typically salaried and third party payers already cover our services, my bread is already in the basket, so to speak. So no, I really don't have anything to gain by rendering my opinion on chiropractic.

What I DO have to gain by holding my thoughts is not having to correct ill-informed statements like the one you just made, which I could very well spend all day doing.

I'll bottom line it: Anyone who isn't in a medical field or chiropractic really doesn't get an opinion in this race. All those years in school by medical professionals are used for something - there's a LOT they know that the general public doesn't, and trying to apply "common sense" to the situation is usually very stupid, because there's nothing common about medical treatment.

you pt's have adopted some of our adjustments into your scope of care. if chiropractic didn't work, why take some aspects of it and pawn them off as your own?

Here we go. Figured I'd get dragged in eventually.

Manipulation is being incorporated more into PT practice because the research is starting to crop up showing it's effective...under certain circumstances, with certain prognostic indicators.

We're incorporating it because it was never chiropractic's technique anyway. DOs, Chiros, Orthopaedic MDs, PTs have all been doing joint manipulations pretty much since each profession has existed. The public tends to make the association between joint manipulation and chiropractic, but that's mainly because they're ill-informed.

look, there is a need for pt's in healthcare, just like there is a need for md's, dc's, do's, etc.

pt is accepted because you guys are perfectly happy with being someone an md's prescribes people to go to for things and you're really good at rehabing the body globally... you're not that great at rehabing the body segmentally, though.

Wrong on both counts. The big drive in PT education and PT practice right now is autonomous practitioners and direct access. The entry level PT degree is now the Doctor of Physical Therapy degree. Google "APTA Vision 2020" to see where the profession is going. It makes a point of leaving referral from MDs behind.

Saying we're not great at rehabbing the body segmentally...I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. Look into Maitland Approach manual therapy and McKenzie Method exercise programming. Both are heavily studied, research backed, and *very* specific.

I know what the research does and doesn't say about chiropractic, but I don't presume to tell chiropractors what their profession does and doesn't do well. I just know what the evidence can and can't make an argument for.

The majority of physical therapy patients are seen for single-joint dysfunction in the outpatient orthopaedic setting. When you get into other settings like neurological, cardiopulmonary, wound care, and sports med PT, the scope changes because the goals are different. But that's another thread.

with every year, insurance companies are covering chiropractic more and more. the newer generation of medical doctors accepts chiropractic as a viable form of alternative health care and refers patients to them regularly. older medical doctors are a little too hesitant to do so, just like how many old chiropractors are quacks. it's the old way of thinking vs the new way of thinking.

Just like newer graduate MDs also see physical therapists as movement rehabilitation specialists and are starting to look at them more and more in a peer role than a referral role. Modern medical thinking and cost-efficiency dictates multi-disciplinary cooperation for the best results at the lowest cost. That's modern medicine. But again, we're heading for another thread.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JEDI
i've been going to diff chiros for 10yrs for upper back pain. (yeah insurance)

none has helped.

cracking the upper back feels great. i cant do that myself.

but the pain is still there, even immediately after it's cracked

what i hate is the electro-stims. just a waste of my time, and a way for chiros to pad the insurance bill.

i've taken xrays and mri's with diff back specials, and orthos. they said everything looks normal.
i've had no trauma. i just woke up w/slight pain and it's been there ever since.

anyone know why my upper back hurts (t4/t5 area)?
and how to relieve/cure?

post a picture of how you stand normally. also, how you sit in a chair or at a desk.

Please don't try to treat over the internet. This is asking for trouble.

kiss my dick and quit being ridiculous. he asked a question and i'm going to try and give him an answer.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: ja1484
I could say a lot of things from a weighty standpoint. Being in physical therapy, I've got plenty of educated, informed perspective on chiropractic.

That being said, you folks aren't worth the trouble. So there.

and really unbiased too. you don't have any financial stake at all in saying that chiros are quacks do you.

Not really, no. MDs recognize physical therapy as legitimate medical treatment because it's based on medical science. Chiropractic, not so much. Hence why most insurers will cover physical therapy treatment, but coverage for chiropractic is more limited.

In other words, since PTs are typically salaried and third party payers already cover our services, my bread is already in the basket, so to speak. So no, I really don't have anything to gain by rendering my opinion on chiropractic.

What I DO have to gain by holding my thoughts is not having to correct ill-informed statements like the one you just made, which I could very well spend all day doing.

I'll bottom line it: Anyone who isn't in a medical field or chiropractic really doesn't get an opinion in this race. All those years in school by medical professionals are used for something - there's a LOT they know that the general public doesn't, and trying to apply "common sense" to the situation is usually very stupid, because there's nothing common about medical treatment.

you pt's have adopted some of our adjustments into your scope of care. if chiropractic didn't work, why take some aspects of it and pawn them off as your own?

Here we go. Figured I'd get dragged in eventually.

Manipulation is being incorporated more into PT practice because the research is starting to crop up showing it's effective...under certain circumstances, with certain prognostic indicators.

We're incorporating it because it was never chiropractic's technique anyway. DOs, Chiros, Orthopaedic MDs, PTs have all been doing joint manipulations pretty much since each profession has existed. The public tends to make the association between joint manipulation and chiropractic, but that's mainly because they're ill-informed.

look, there is a need for pt's in healthcare, just like there is a need for md's, dc's, do's, etc.

pt is accepted because you guys are perfectly happy with being someone an md's prescribes people to go to for things and you're really good at rehabing the body globally... you're not that great at rehabing the body segmentally, though.

Wrong on both counts. The big drive in PT education and PT practice right now is autonomous practitioners and direct access. The entry level PT degree is now the Doctor of Physical Therapy degree. Google "APTA Vision 2020" to see where the profession is going. It makes a point of leaving referral from MDs behind.

Saying we're not great at rehabbing the body segmentally...I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. Look into Maitland Approach manual therapy and McKenzie Method exercise programming. Both are heavily studied, research backed, and *very* specific.

I know what the research does and doesn't say about chiropractic, but I don't presume to tell chiropractors what their profession does and doesn't do well. I just know what the evidence can and can't make an argument for.

The majority of physical therapy patients are seen for single-joint dysfunction in the outpatient orthopaedic setting. When you get into other settings like neurological, cardiopulmonary, wound care, and sports med PT, the scope changes because the goals are different. But that's another thread.

with every year, insurance companies are covering chiropractic more and more. the newer generation of medical doctors accepts chiropractic as a viable form of alternative health care and refers patients to them regularly. older medical doctors are a little too hesitant to do so, just like how many old chiropractors are quacks. it's the old way of thinking vs the new way of thinking.

Just like newer graduate MDs also see physical therapists as movement rehabilitation specialists and are starting to look at them more and more in a peer role than a referral role. Modern medical thinking and cost-efficiency dictates multi-disciplinary cooperation for the best results at the lowest cost. That's modern medicine. But again, we're heading for another thread.

i'm getting my master's degree in sports injuries and rehabilitation.

 

[eits]

whatever, i have a powerpoint presentation to work on. i knew i shouldn't have gotten dragged into this...

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: ja1484
I could say a lot of things from a weighty standpoint. Being in physical therapy, I've got plenty of educated, informed perspective on chiropractic.

That being said, you folks aren't worth the trouble. So there.

and really unbiased too. you don't have any financial stake at all in saying that chiros are quacks do you.

Not really, no. MDs recognize physical therapy as legitimate medical treatment because it's based on medical science. Chiropractic, not so much. Hence why most insurers will cover physical therapy treatment, but coverage for chiropractic is more limited.

In other words, since PTs are typically salaried and third party payers already cover our services, my bread is already in the basket, so to speak. So no, I really don't have anything to gain by rendering my opinion on chiropractic.

What I DO have to gain by holding my thoughts is not having to correct ill-informed statements like the one you just made, which I could very well spend all day doing.

I'll bottom line it: Anyone who isn't in a medical field or chiropractic really doesn't get an opinion in this race. All those years in school by medical professionals are used for something - there's a LOT they know that the general public doesn't, and trying to apply "common sense" to the situation is usually very stupid, because there's nothing common about medical treatment.

Agreed. One of my options coming out as an exercise biology major is going into the chiropractic field. I won't be doing this, but my major alone relies heavily on physiology and anatomy, which gives a very scientific backbone to the material. I don't understand how people can say ALL chiropractics are quacks. They are often trained in upper level release techniques, have x-ray machines to note what's wrong and how to fix it, and diagnose things just as a doctor would if you went in to see one. Many are NOT into alternative healing and I wouldn't go see one if that was the case. I'm really not quite sure how this judgment has been passed when no experience has come out from the inside or even from credible chiropractic sources.

I agree. There are good chiros and terrible chiros. I've worked with both. I've also worked with good PTs and terrible PTs.

I will say this: Chiropractic suffers from a lack of research evidence to back *some* of its methods, particularly the more esoteric ones. This is true to some extent in every medical field (if most people in the world knew how mediocre research on many medical techniques actually is, they'd pee their pants). However, chiropractic is particularly low on the evidence scale.

That said, good ones do a lot of things well and can be a helpful supplement to standard medical care.

Regarding the AMA's supposed "propagandizing" against chiropractic, that's what you'll hear from chiropractors and chiropractic educators. In reality, the AMA had a valid point, which I've pretty much summarized above: show us the data. Skepticism is not propaganda.

read about the wilk case before you back the ama against chiropractic... there's a wiki about it.

i've already addressed why there's a lack of scientific research.

I don't care about one case. Anyone with a clear understanding of statistics knows that 1 is never a large enough test population or sample size.

I'm also not concerned with why there's a lack of scientific research on chiropractic. Chiropractic has less data to back many of its treatment methods than most other forms of medicine. Why doesn't matter, that's the bottom line. If the profession wants to be taken more seriously, it needs to prove it should be. PT was in the same position in the early 1980s, when the whole drive for evidence-based practice germinated. We were a largely anecdotal knowledge base. Not any more. PT research has made leaps and bounds in the past thirty years. It's helped us immensely as a profession.

If chiropractic wants the same validity amongst medical professionals and amongst the public, it'll have to pay it's dues and get its data the same way. Simple as that.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JEDI
i've been going to diff chiros for 10yrs for upper back pain. (yeah insurance)

none has helped.

cracking the upper back feels great. i cant do that myself.

but the pain is still there, even immediately after it's cracked

what i hate is the electro-stims. just a waste of my time, and a way for chiros to pad the insurance bill.

i've taken xrays and mri's with diff back specials, and orthos. they said everything looks normal.
i've had no trauma. i just woke up w/slight pain and it's been there ever since.

anyone know why my upper back hurts (t4/t5 area)?
and how to relieve/cure?

post a picture of how you stand normally. also, how you sit in a chair or at a desk.

Please don't try to treat over the internet. This is asking for trouble.

kiss my dick and quit being ridiculous. he asked a question and i'm going to try and give him an answer.

And you *should* know as well as I do that you can't diagnose without getting hands-on with a patient and doing a thorough evaluation.

Sure, he may have some postural abnormalities. Can you diagnose why without palpation, muscle testing, and mechanical analysis? No. Can you do those things over the internet? Not practically.

There is WAY too much room for misunderstanding and noise in the signal if you try to evaluate and prescribe treatment for someone without examining them in person. Try and deny that, and you're doing yourself AND your patients a huge disservice.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I was in a work accident and spent weeks with terrible back pain, went to see Star Wars: A New Hope in a special screening at The Alamo and came out with no pain what so ever, completely cured! Star Wars is obviously the cure for back pain. I?m going to experiment with The Empire Strikes Back for weight loss next.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JEDI
i've been going to diff chiros for 10yrs for upper back pain. (yeah insurance)

none has helped.

cracking the upper back feels great. i cant do that myself.

but the pain is still there, even immediately after it's cracked

what i hate is the electro-stims. just a waste of my time, and a way for chiros to pad the insurance bill.

i've taken xrays and mri's with diff back specials, and orthos. they said everything looks normal.
i've had no trauma. i just woke up w/slight pain and it's been there ever since.

anyone know why my upper back hurts (t4/t5 area)?
and how to relieve/cure?

post a picture of how you stand normally. also, how you sit in a chair or at a desk.

Please don't try to treat over the internet. This is asking for trouble.

kiss my dick and quit being ridiculous. he asked a question and i'm going to try and give him an answer.

And you *should* know as well as I do that you can't diagnose without getting hands-on with a patient and doing a thorough evaluation.

Sure, he may have some postural abnormalities. Can you diagnose why without palpation, muscle testing, and mechanical analysis? No. Can you do those things over the internet? Not practically.

There is WAY too much room for misunderstanding and noise in the signal if you try to evaluate and prescribe treatment for someone without examining them in person. Try and deny that, and you're doing yourself AND your patients a huge disservice.

i'm not trying to diagnose anything. i'm trying to answer his question. there's a huge difference.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JEDI
i've been going to diff chiros for 10yrs for upper back pain. (yeah insurance)

none has helped.

cracking the upper back feels great. i cant do that myself.

but the pain is still there, even immediately after it's cracked

what i hate is the electro-stims. just a waste of my time, and a way for chiros to pad the insurance bill.

i've taken xrays and mri's with diff back specials, and orthos. they said everything looks normal.
i've had no trauma. i just woke up w/slight pain and it's been there ever since.

anyone know why my upper back hurts (t4/t5 area)?
and how to relieve/cure?

post a picture of how you stand normally. also, how you sit in a chair or at a desk.

Please don't try to treat over the internet. This is asking for trouble.

kiss my dick and quit being ridiculous. he asked a question and i'm going to try and give him an answer.

And you *should* know as well as I do that you can't diagnose without getting hands-on with a patient and doing a thorough evaluation.

Sure, he may have some postural abnormalities. Can you diagnose why without palpation, muscle testing, and mechanical analysis? No. Can you do those things over the internet? Not practically.

There is WAY too much room for misunderstanding and noise in the signal if you try to evaluate and prescribe treatment for someone without examining them in person. Try and deny that, and you're doing yourself AND your patients a huge disservice.

i'm not trying to diagnose anything. i'm trying to answer his question. there's a huge difference.

Is there really? His question is why his back hurts, and what he can do for relief/management. For the general population, those are the equivalent terms of what we in health care would call "diagnose and treat". Now, we can come up with any number of possibilities by looking at a photo. You tell me how to narrow those possibilities without further evaluation. Tests and measures are how we rule in/rule out prospective pathologies and dysfunctions, and you can't perform those on a photo.

The best you can do with photos is a guess of probabilities based on your interpretation of the visual evidence only. An example would be that you note forward head posture, or perhaps a pelvic malalignment, and suspect it has something to do with that. Maybe he sits with a very kyphotic thoracic spine. So what? treatment options are still highly various without knowing other aspects of his medical history and without garnering additional exam information. So in other words, the best anyone could do would be guesses based on incomplete information. There's a LOT of room for error in there, and clinicians should be damn uncomfortable about rendering any opinion under those circumstances. Better judgment is to just keep your peace and tell him he needs to see a medical professional in the clinic.

 

[eits]

"the way you stand/sit is putting lots of stress on your muscles" is way different than "thoracic spine erector myalgia associated with hypertonicity complicated by working". you can make a correlation (not a diagnosis) based on postural analysis and subjective findings.

the only problem is that i can't say that the way he stands or sits or whatever is causing stress because i don't have a picture... and i can't give a diagnosis because i haven't done any orthopedic tests or palpated or checked his motion segments or anything.

like i said, there's a big difference.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
I was in a work accident and spent weeks with terrible back pain, went to see Star Wars: A New Hope in a special screening at The Alamo and came out with no pain what so ever, completely cured! Star Wars is obviously the cure for back pain. I?m going to experiment with The Empire Strikes Back for weight loss next.

Return of the Jedi works wonders for erectile dysfunction.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: eits
"the way you stand/sit is putting lots of stress on your muscles" is way different than "thoracic spine erector myalgia associated with hypertonicity complicated by working". you can make a correlation (not a diagnosis) based on postural analysis and subjective findings.

The way you stand or sit puts a lot of stress on spinal erectors regardless of posture. They are, after all, some of the postural muscles supporting the spine. How have you ruled anything in or out? How do you know he doesn't have additional symptoms which may indicate a fracture? Supposedly his x-rays are normal, per his report? How do you know he doesn't have additional symptoms which may indicate radiculopathy or claudication? What if he posts a picture of textbook perfect posture in all positions?

You're still not getting it. You can guess at a correlation, at best.

And suppose you do give him an "educated correlation", and he decides to act upon it and hurts himself? Suppose he has some contraindication to your suggested modality or whatever you recommend he try for relief? Now he's worse off than before and tells the doc (or whomever he eventually seeks in-person care from) about he brief adventure with over-the-web photo-based chiropractic care.

the only problem is that i can't say that the way he stands or sits or whatever is causing stress because i don't have a picture... and i can't give a diagnosis because i haven't done any orthopedic tests or palpated or checked his motion segments or anything.

like i said, there's a big difference.

Maybe his sitting and standing don't affect his symptoms at all and are unrelated to his complaints. Suppose the "suggestion" you make doesn't help at all. Exactly where would you take this adventure at that point? Tell him to see someone in person who could do a proper examination and implement a plan of care? Exactly, which is what I'm saying he should do from square one, rather than wasting his time with a forum circus.

You honestly think this is a beneficial process?

How's that powerpoint presentation going?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
History cliffs
-- Chiropractic was invented in a single day based on a single incident by a single person
-- The inventor was a magnetic healer and spiritualist
-- Chiropractic gained huge political power and a crackpot leader

Does this mean Doctors are all frauds, because early history included leeches and blood letting?

Probably not the best example, as leeches are still being used, with FDA approval no less. Text

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
History cliffs
-- Chiropractic was invented in a single day based on a single incident by a single person
-- The inventor was a magnetic healer and spiritualist
-- Chiropractic gained huge political power and a crackpot leader

Does this mean Doctors are all frauds, because early history included leeches and blood letting?

Probably not the best example, as leeches are still being used, with FDA approval no less. Text

Maggots are some of the best wound care available, and leeches are very useful.

See, this is why I said no one outside medical fields can really take meaningful part in this discussion.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I really did put a lot of effort into this post. None of it was copy and paste except that one-sentence quote. So I'm happy to discuss this with you but I ask humbly if you could at the very least read the cliffs at the end of each section, and my not-really-a-conclusion.

I'm not really concerned with what's in this post. For starters, because you relentlessly trolled another thread and called a member a fraud with no real basis. My experiences as well as others tell me that you're wrong.

If the other member is indeed a chiropractor, getting "trolled" is about a billionth of what he deserves.

Chiropractors PREY on people just like priests, televangelists, and Nigerian email scammers. Gut shooting is too good for people like this.