 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Chiropractic
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 16 Apr 03 - 01:55 PM As I say, the beat goes on. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: DADGBE Date: 16 Apr 03 - 01:53 PM It would be instructive to find out who funds the organizations which produce anti-Chiropractic web sites. The charge of 'It's not scientificly valid' is less damning than the scientific establishment would have you believe. Honest scientists are the first to point out that all the sciences suffer from a political bias. Take a look at the study of the effects and possible medical uses of Cannabis. That study has been hampered and controled by the political climate which maintains a belief (based on no scientific basis) that Cannabis has no valid uses. Numerous clinical trials have suggested that there are valid reasons for further testing to try to 'scientifically' understand what the clinical results suggest. At every turn, there has been pressure brought to bear on the medical research community through denial of funding for further study. Chiropractic has suffered from the same well organized political animosity which has prevented its scientific study while its detractors loudly repeat the charge of its 'unscientific' nature. At the same time, the officially accepted medical establishment daily uses treatments which are not 'scientifically' established. Just leaf through the Physician's Desk Reference. You will find "mode of action unknown" applied to thousands of medicines which are prescribed with impunity. That doesn't mean that they don't work, it means that no one knows how they work. That's the same charge leveled against Chiropractic. The difference is that the medical establishment enjoys political support so its practioners are free to go on using 'unscientifically proven' treatments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: mack/misophist Date: 15 Apr 03 - 11:00 PM I guess I blew that one. http://www.chirowatch.com http://www.ndir.com/chiro/ I find it interesting that scientists from all disciplines oppose chiropractic, not only physicians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: mack/misophist Date: 15 Apr 03 - 10:57 PM Since this thread is not being allowed to die a natural death, here are a couple of reference sites: One and Two |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: katlaughing Date: 15 Apr 03 - 05:24 PM Kind of like a few homophobes I've met, Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 15 Apr 03 - 05:19 PM Most interesting web site, GUEST. Thank you. I think it gives a fair, if not totally accurate description of chiropractic (too superficial), but considering that there are several schools of thought and a number of different techniques, it would be difficult to give an adequate description of them all. For example, my current chiropractor uses adjusting techniques quite similar to those my father used, but not exactly. Before making the adjusting thrust, he relaxes the muscles surrounding a subluxated vertebra with something akin to acupressure, whereas my father used more standard massage. Apart from what might be thought of as a difference in "style" rather than in actual technique, the adjusting thrust itself is essentially the same. Both approaches work. Within recent years, a few chiropractors have adopted some osteopathic techniques. One is the "lumbar roll" (the first photograph on the web site). My father didn't use it, because he said that, as a method of adjusting a vertebra, there was not enough control over which vertebra was being adjusted and what direction it would move. He felt that, in certain circumstances, it could be dangerous. Chiropractors concentrate primarily on the spinal subluxations, whereas many osteopaths don't even attempt to adjust the spine (contrary to popular belief). Since I'm not that familiar with osteopathy, I won't comment one way or another. Osteopaths may not apply that move the same way and/or for the same purpose. In any case, as far as I could tell, the web site at least attempts to be unbiased. I notice that they brought up the matter of the incidence of stroke or blood-clot following a cervical adjustment, but there didn't seem to be any agreement on the statistics. I have never heard of that actually happening, certainly not to any of my father's patients. If it ever had happened, we would have known about it. In the absence of any verifiable statistics or citation of actual occurrences, I tend to believe this is just another of the canards that have been circulated about chiropractic—like all those ribs that chiropractors are supposed to have broken. Even if one assumed it's true, considering the long list of potentially dangerous side-effects of many standard pharmaceuticals that millions of people take every day—and the statistics regarding their incidence—it's obvious that having a cervical adjustment is certainly no more dangerous than taking an aspirin. Reading some of the letters was pretty interesting, if old stuff to me—and, by now, to those who have thoroughly read this thread. I am always amazed at the intensity of the vitriol that some people opposed to chiropractic seem to pour forth. Why so adamant? I find it curious how often those who condemn chiropractic most strongly turn out not to have had any experience with it, and often don't even know anyone who did. Strange. And the beat goes on. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: GUEST,Bagpuss Date: 15 Apr 03 - 11:28 AM I think one of the letters linked to at the bottom of the article mentions that same thing kat. I presume its because its a UK journal as you said, but it does have an international readership, so should perhaps be a little more precise about these things. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: katlaughing Date: 15 Apr 03 - 11:17 AM Perhaps because it is UK based, but it is unfortuate, imo, that the article cited in the link fails to mention that osteopaths, in the US, at least, are the equivalent of an MD, with all of that training and ability to prescribe medicines and treatments of all kinds, plus osteopathic manipulation therapy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: GUEST Date: 15 Apr 03 - 09:45 AM BMJ - The manipulative therapies: osteopathy and chiropractic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: GUEST,Bagpuss Date: 15 Apr 03 - 07:17 AM Forgot to say this in my last post. I also wanted to point out the increasing drive within conventional (allopathic) medicine towards evidence based medicine. Whilst it is true that in the past medical practice has been governed on similar lines to complementary medicine - hit and miss, going by personal experience of what works, building up into a body of evidence - there is now a stronger drive to find out which treatments are most effective, and doing so in a scientific manner. Hence we have the systematic reviews of research in the Cochrane Library , journals of evidence based practice and the National Institute of Clinical Effectiveness (NICE). Now that many complementary therapies are becoming more used within the NHS, I hope the same rigour will be be applied to examining their effectiveness from a neutral standpoint. Then we can look at the different therapies from a level playing field. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: GUEST,Bagpuss Date: 15 Apr 03 - 06:29 AM Misophist - could you elaborate on what you mean when you talk about "most of clinical psychology"? From what I have seen of the doctorate courses in clinical psychology, they seem to have a fairly strong scientific bent. Trainees are expected to be scientifically literate, be able to evaluate evidence with regards to theories and treatments and be able to conduct their own research. The practice of clinical psychology includes standarised assessment of mental state, the use of therapeutic techniques which have been evaluated and shown to be effective - eg CBT for depression, systematic desensitisation for phobias etc. Whilst other therapies are used which have less evidence for their theories, it has been shown that most talking therapies are equally effective. regardless of their theoretical history. This is because there are commonalities to the therapeutic process which is the bit that actually does the good - not the differences in the mode of the therapy. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Amos Date: 14 Apr 03 - 08:59 PM Misoph, Given the number of variables involved -- and they are many -- I would say that chiropractic works just about as well as allopathic medicine for the situations to which it is best suited. Both disciplines are a balance between science, engineering, art and hairy wild-ass guesses, and any MD who asserts he is strictly scientific in all his procedures is either kidding both of you or is not seeing many patients. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 14 Apr 03 - 03:08 AM You're welcome, kat. This is just the tip of the iceberg and I could go on and on (including things learned during ten months that I spent at the Spears Chiropractic Hospital in Denver in the mid-Fities), but I grow weary of the fruitlessness of arguing with someone who's mind is locked in concrete. I've been through this same discussion many times before, and one would think that by now I would have learned. But I can't help trying. Yes, misophist, you may go. Since you are determined not to learn anything, there is no point in you wasting your time and mine. Blessings on you, and may we meet again in friendly discussion of topics that are more felicitous to us both. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: katlaughing Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:07 AM FWIW, the NIH seems to be more open that it used to be. I found this listing of new members of the advisory board of the NIH's National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine. This fellow sounds esp. interesting: Dr. Goldstein is Medical Director of the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Educational Foundation in Washington, D.C., and is a leader among doctors of osteopathic medicine. He wrote A Challenge to the Profession: Initiate Evidence-Based Osteopathic Medicine Now and was selected to serve on a committee developing a National Center of Excellence for Osteopathic Manipulation Research. He served on the Commission on Alternative Health Care, U.S. Olympic Committee on Sports Medicine, and produced The Scientific Status of the Fundamentals of Chiropractic: A Report to Congress, and The Research Status of Spinal Manipulative Therapy. He is a former director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, and a former Assistant Surgeon General, United States Public Health Service. Don, thanks for all that you've posted about your dad and chiropracty. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: mack/misophist Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:51 AM Modern science started with Aristotle (his essay on the placental shark). It didn't really get to full gallop till about 1880 or so. Now, if Mr Firth will let me go, I will leave this. Arguments with true believers are time wasted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: NicoleC Date: 13 Apr 03 - 10:08 PM Your comments are really sad and uninformed. I suspect that you haven't a clue of what chiropractic medicine is, what is does, and are merely prattling what you've read elsewhere. Yes, chiropractic outcomes can be predicted by cause and effect. Science only started in the 1800's? Your description of science gets narrower and narrower, and less relevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: mack/misophist Date: 13 Apr 03 - 09:41 PM That last remark was excessive. I apologize for losing my patience. But for that, only. The sad blunders I mentioned were: the Sister Kenny Method (Canadian really), the entire eugenics movement of the 1920s (based primarily on two transparent frauds), absolute salt free diets for all hypertension, and much of clinical psychology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 13 Apr 03 - 09:40 PM misophist, I know what science is. And I know that chiropractic has proven itself scientifically over and over again. Among other things, principles that can be verified by anyone who cares to examine them and an established procedure producing a predictable result. But the Powers That Be refuse to recognize that fact and continue spouting anti-chiropractic propaganda in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise. The Big Lie is not always used for what one normally thinks of as political purposes, but obviously there is a "politics" of health care when one school regards another school as competitive rather than complementary. That's what this whole stupid argument is all about. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: mack/misophist Date: 13 Apr 03 - 09:24 PM Dear NicoleC, The majority of the things you mention are from the 1800s or even earlier, before what we know as science was off to a good start yet. BTW, willow bark tea is asperine (sp?), good for fever but you need chincona for malaria. As mentioned above, ethnopharmacology is a going concern. I should mention that American medical science is too political. As a result, it has made a number of sad blunders, none of them have been mentioned here. As I have said over and over, the scientific method is a process. It's ultimate worth can be assessed by the fact that your computer works and airplanes can fly; among other things. All of the whining I hear comes from pseudo-science enthusiasts complaining their pet quacks aren't accepted at face value. Correct and incorrect are the wrong terms. Science is a process, for making more and more accurate predictions. Get it? If this is offensive, try this. Try to imagine that I am entirely correct. Then imagine how frustrating you have been. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 13 Apr 03 - 09:10 PM ". . . the resources wasted on it ;talent, training, and cash; are lost to society." misophist, I know a lot of people who have undergone medical treatment for years without improvement and who eventually went to a chiropractor out of desperation and finally got well who would give you a pretty sharp word in your ear about wasted talent, training, and cash, not to mention a whole lot of needless suffering. Just as a general observation on the human condition, it's a tremendous strain on one's spine to have one's head up one's ass, but that condition does not fall under the purview of chiropractic. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: NicoleC Date: 13 Apr 03 - 05:44 PM Science, schmiance. Science told us smoking was good for you. Science told us black people were inferior to white people. Science told us the the earth was flat. Science told us that people got better when you bled them, or caused huge blisters with hot needles. Science told us those Indians were awfully stupid to treat malaria with willow bark tea. Science told us that nutrition pioneers like Weston Price were ignorant to believe that what we ate might have anything to do with our health. Science told us the atom was the smallest possible thing in the universe. Science told us birth defects were caused by mixing the races. At one point, science also told us that music and art were a primitive waste of time, and had no place in a modern society. "Science" is a fancy way of saying guesswork based on observation. It is not irrefutable, it is not truth and it is not unchangable -- it is a faulty process littered with the inaccurate "truths" of yesterday by which we attempt to understand the world. Weakly whining over and over again that chiropratic doesn't fit a narrow definition of "real science" does not in the least dimish it's ability to heal. As one of so many whom "science" would have condemned to dangerous and hugely expensive surgery, addictive pain killing drugs, and a lifetime of immobility, I say phooey on science if that's the best it can do. Personally, I'm thankfully my childhood chiropractor "wasted" his resources becoming a healer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: mack/misophist Date: 13 Apr 03 - 03:25 PM Since you insist, Mr Firth, Dr Joe Bell, according to his biography (as mentioned in the PM) did his trick several times a week over a period of many years and was seldom wrong. You may have a point about the reversed image. My point, all along, has been that chiropractic is not a science; not that chiropractors are bad people or stupid. Since it isn't a science, the resources wasted on it ;talent, training, and cash; are lost to society. In the world of 'real' reasearch and 'real' science the are some iron clad rules of procedure; one of which is "you made the claim, you demonstrate the proof'. In a century, chiropractic has failed to do so. How many chiropractors are members of the NIH? How many chiropractic institutes are associated with regular medical schools? (I can answer than one for you - ONE). As for chiropractic being cheaper than allopathic medicine, I pointed out that in the western US it isn't. Visits are cheaper but there are many more of them. A number of health plans have dropped chiropractic because of this. I repeat, the AMA and allopathic medicine are NOT obligated to prove chiropractic either right or wrong. That's the chiropractor's responsibility. That's the case with every new claim and has been for a long, long time. It's that way in physics, in chemistry. It's that way in biology, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Deckman Date: 13 Apr 03 - 03:10 PM This tendancy to label all Chiropractors as "quacks" kinda reminds me of that great story about Lincoln and Grant, during the American civil war. After Grant had won some major battle, Lincoln received complaints about Grant's drinking. As the story goes, Lincoln was supposed to have said somethging like: "find out what he drinks and have some sent to my other generals." My point is: if my Chiropractor is such a "quack", why do I always feel so better after treatments? CHEERS, Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 13 Apr 03 - 02:19 PM Misophist chooses not to answer me in open forum, but I chose to respond to the PM here, so that those following the debate won't be left in the dark. Misophist, Dr. Bell's (and the fictional Sherlock Holmes's) observations can give clues in various situations, but I wonder how often Dr. Bell drew wrong conclusions from his acute observations. History doesn't seem to record that. My father was quite capable of such observations and did indeed make use of them, but in the case of the MD, there was little to indicate what his condition was. He was not sitting there with his hand on his stomach and grimacing, nor was he popping antacids while talking to my father or anything as obvious as that. If he'd had a longer time with the MD or had, say, had lunch with him, he definitely would have picked up clues as any observant person can. But the indication was the badly subluxated twelfth thoracic vertebra. Between my father's knowledge of where nerves go (analogous to a wiring diagram) and his long experience as a health professional, he could feel pretty certain that the MD had some kind of stomach trouble. Regarding the reading of the X-ray in court, yes, indeed, misophist, think about it: The two sides of an X-ray are virtually identical, that is true. And the same information can be derived from either side. But as I said, an MD is accustomed to viewing his or her patients from the front, in which case, the right side of the patient is to the MD's left and vice versa. A chiropractor is accustomed to viewing his or her patients from the back, in which case, the left side of the patient is to the chiropractor's left, etc. It should be obvious that were you looking at, say, a blueprint, you would orient it in a way to which it makes the most sense to you. Again, think about it. Going back over the thread, it appears that Joe Offer, NicoleC, and I have responded to your points. The problem, it would appear, is that we have not agreed with you. If you chose to regard chiropractic as quackery, then be my guest. A lot of people do. But a lot of people don't, and again I say, there has not yet been an unbiased evaluation of chiropractic, and I sincerely wish one would be done, once and for all. But as long as funding for such evaluations comes from the traditional health services and the drug companies, I won't hold my breath. In the meantime, there are multitudes of satisfied chiropractic patients running around out there—many of whom were not able to get relief from medical doctors for whatever conditions they may have had, but did from chiropractors. They are the people who get the most upset when others with no first-hand knowledge blithely bad-mouth chiropractic. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: mack/misophist Date: 12 Apr 03 - 09:14 PM See my PM for your answers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:15 PM No, rethinking the matter, misophist, I'm curious. It's real easy for someone to hit-and-run; to pop on and say that something is a "stunt" or that "this story is nonsense" and then vanish. So here's a challenge for you—if you are up to it: Case 1: Describe how Dr. Bell did it. How is what my father did a "stunt?" And exactly how did he do it? Explain. Case 2: What is there about looking at a thoracic X-ray that indicates to you that the story (which is a matter of court record, by the way) is nonsense? Explain. If I don't hear back from you with a good, solid, detailed, point-by-point explanation of why you have said what you have said, I will assume that a) you were blowing smoke;Waiting to hear back from you, Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 12 Apr 03 - 01:45 PM misophist, you're right. There's no point in arguing with someone who's mind is made up. Take two aspirin and don't call me in the morning. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: GUEST Date: 11 Apr 03 - 08:39 PM i tried a chiropractor once...but it was a pain in the neck.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: GUEST,misophist Date: 11 Apr 03 - 08:31 PM Re case 1: Sherlocke Holmes was based on the real life Dr Joe Bell. Dr Bell pulled stunts like that all the time, without touching the patients, just like Sherlocke. Re case2: Look at any thoracic x-ray. This story is nonsense. Now I really will shut up. There's no point in agruing with those who won't listen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 11 Apr 03 - 06:03 PM Two of my father's adventures as a chiropractor:— Adventure #1. A medical doctor of my dad's acquaintance used to argue and discuss chiropractic with dad. He regarded chiropractic as pure snake-oil, and although he considered dad to be honest and sincere, he maintained that dad had been brain-washed at the Palmer School of Chiropractic, and was simply befuddled when it came to matters of health care—although dad knew at least as much about physiology and the functioning of the human body as he did, actually more than he did about the nervous system, and a great deal more about nutrition. Dad commented that by examining a patient's spine before interviewing the patient, he could tell roughly what health problem or problems they might have, although frequently he couldn't tell specifically what their problem was. How? He knew which nerves went to which organs. Specific diagnosis could usually be achieved by simply interviewing the patient. The MD scoffed at the idea that one could get even an approximate diagnosis by examining the spine. He challenged my dad. "I have a health problem," he said, "but I won't tell you what it is. You examine my spine and we'll see if you can tell me." "Okay," said dad, "Fair enough. Take off your shirt and lay down on the adjusting table." The MD did so, and dad palpated his spine (ran his fingers slowly down the MD's spine, felling for taut muscles and vertebral misalignments). He found a knot of muscles around the MD's twelfth thoracic vertebra, and the vertebra itself was badly subluxated (out of alignment). "Stomach" dad said. "What!?" said the MD. "I don't know exactly what, but you have some sort of stomach problem. It could be anything from, say, chronic indigestion to ulcers. But you have some sort of stomach problem." Bingo! It turned out that the MD had had severe indigestion for years, and recently he had been diagnosed with an incipient ulcer. If it continued to develop, the MD he went to recommended surgery. Dad said, "Unless there is some urgency, let me take a crack at it. You come in for a series of regular adjustments. The vertebra has been subluxated for a long time, and it might take a few weeks of regular adjustments to get it to stay in position." The MD chewed his fingernails for a few moments, then said, "Okay." But he insisted on seeing dad outside of regular office hours so that none of his colleagues or patients would see him entering or leaving a chiropractor's office. Very cloak-and-dagger. Dad shook his head in amusement and agreed. About six weeks later, no trace of the MD's incipient ulcer could be found, and he no longer suffered from indigestion. Some months later, this very same MD addressed a national medical convention, where he railed against chiropractic. The thrust of his speech was, "If we don't stamp out chiropractic once and for all, we'll all be looking for work!" That's real gratitude for you. Not to mention personal integrity, devotion to truth, and genuine concern for the welfare of the sick. Adventure #2. Dad was called into court as an expert witness for another chiropractor's patient whose insurance company refused to pay his bill. The patient's condition had been diagnosed by a medical doctor, but the patient didn't like the sound of the course of treatment outlined by the MD. He'd previously had a beneficial result from chiropractic treatment for another condition, and decided to go to a chiropractor instead, much against his MD's advice. I don't' recall (didn't know, actually) what the patient's condition was, but he was soon able to return to work, and the MD couldn't find any traces of the diagnosed condition. The chiropractor's bill was about one-twentieth of what the insurance company would have had to pay had the patient stayed with the MD, but they didn't recognize chiropractic as "scientific," and refused to pay. When dad was called up for his testimony, he picked up the patient's first X-ray and turned it over. The expert witness for the insurance company, an MD, leapt to his feet, and said, "How can the court accept this charlatan as an expert witness when he doesn't even know how to read an X-ray properly?" The judge said, "Let the witness continue with his testimony. I'm sure he will be able to provide an explanation for why he turned the X-ray over. Please continue, Doctor Firth." Dad pointed out the subluxations in the patient's spine and explained the possible implications. Then, he took the second X-ray, turned it over, and pointed out where the previously subluxated vertebrae had been realigned, explaining how this accounted for the alleviation of the patient's condition. "Now, Doctor Firth," the judge said, "will you please explain to the court why you turned the X-rays over before you read them?" "Gladly," said my father. "Normally, a medical doctor examines his patient from the front. A chiropractor examines his patients from the back. Therefore, I turned the X-rays over so I could look at them the same way I would look at the back of a living patient." The court ruled that the insurance company had to pay the patient's bill. Case closed. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 11 Apr 03 - 02:33 PM Chiropractic theory and practice has long since been justified in the larger world of patient satisfaction. And it has been justified to many insurance companies because 1) it does the job, and 2) it costs far less than comparable medical treatment for the same condition. Many State Industrial Insurance agencies have found that it returns people to the job far faster and with less cost than comparable medical treatment (i.e., half a dozen chiropractic adjustments and a few days rest as opposed to putting someone's spine in traction for a couple of weeks, or putting them in a back-brace and feeding them pain-killers for the rest of their lives). If you insist, I can provide a deluge of statistics on this, provided by insurance companies and state government agencies. I know of no independent, unbiased scientific investigation that has ever been done on chiropractic. There have been a number of "scientific investigations" by members of the medical profession, all of which conclude that chiropractic is ineffective at best and quackery at worst. One such "investigation" established that it is impossible to adjust a spine. The method? The researchers placed a 500 lb. weight on a vertebra of a cadaver's spine and it wouldn't move. Ergo, chiropractic is pure hokum. A properly give chiropractic adjustment relies on the reflex action of living muscles. Of course it wouldn't work on a cadaver. Any more than poking pills down the throat of a cadaver will cure it of much of anything. Besides, there are millions of people walking around (usually a little straighter than they did when they first walked into a chiropractor's office) who are living proof that chiropractic works. No. I would like very much to see a good, unbiased scientific investigation of chiropractic. But so far, there has never been one performed by any agency that didn't have it's own ax to grind. That's rather like expecting MacDonald's to endorse Burger King. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: GUEST Date: 11 Apr 03 - 11:03 AM This seems to be one of those situations where I'm in the living room, trying to explain my point of view, while everybody else is sitting around the kitchen table, talking about something else. One last effort, before I quit. I'm not saying that chiropractic doesn't work at all. Of course theraputic massage works, if that happens to be what you need. If it's not what you need, you may be in trouble. Every time chiropractic has tried to justify it's theories to the larger world of scientific investigation, it has failed. 'Nuff said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Deckman Date: 10 Apr 03 - 11:39 PM Gypsy ... Yes, I did know that Chiros have more training and education in nutrition than your average MD. That's WHY they are called "your average MD." CHEERS, Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Gypsy Date: 10 Apr 03 - 11:11 PM Well, to echo Joe Offer.......not married to a chiropractor, but have worked for one for the past 7 years. And yes, they DO have to go for continuing education yearly, or lose their liscense. And pass the quiz, yadadada. Like any other healing profession, there are those who are top notch, and those who graduated in the lower 50% of their class. Most importantly, you need to take YOUR OWN responsibility for your body, and make intelligent decisions. My boss is the best, but i still cringe seeing an overweight, smoke laden patient come in who can't figure out why the lower back hurts. As an aside......did anyone else know that chiropractors have more training in nutrition than your average md? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 10 Apr 03 - 02:32 PM Slight thread diversion. It occurred to me after submitting my last post that seeing a dentist with a great set of teeth might be a bit misleading. There's the story of the rather bright young fellow who was on his way to a meeting with some dignitaries in a small town he'd never been to before. He hadn't had a chance to get a haircut in several weeks, and he was looking pretty shaggy, so he figured he'd better get a haircut before he went to his meeting. There were two barbers in town. He peered through the front window of one barber shop and noticed that the barber himself had a pretty lousy haircut. So he went across the street and peered through the other barber shop window. This barber had a great haircut. So he went back across the street to get a haircut from the barber who had the lousy haircut. Why? Figure it out. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 10 Apr 03 - 01:58 PM Dunno. My dad didn't. He had a little ad about the size of a business card. He was a one-man operation. Some of the bigger clinics have display adds though. But dentists do it a lot too. Maybe they want to show off their pearly smiles. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: catspaw49 Date: 10 Apr 03 - 01:51 PM Just out of curiosity, why do damn near all Chiropractors put their pictures in their yellow pages ads? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 10 Apr 03 - 01:37 PM I've argued this matter for years, misophist, and I'm tired of it. My point is that if someone is in it for the money, chiropractic is not a great way to go. I don't know any rich chiropractors. I do know a number of rich MDs. Just because a person doesn't have a string of letters behind his name doesn't necessarily mean he or she is not thoroughly knowledgeable Within my experience, I have found that just having a sheepskin to hang on the wall is not a particularly reliable indication of one's "qualifications." Nor, often, is the lack of one. D. D. Palmer was interested in physiology and had studied the subject extensively. He was into "magnetic healing," which is something critics of chiropractic love to point out with a sneer, but so were many people at that time, including a lot of medical doctors. It was something of a fad, and it was being investigated by a lot people. Okay, here's how Palmer discovered the principle that led to chiropractic:— The first spinal adjustment was performed by D.D. Palmer on Sept. 18, 1895, and resulted in an immediate improvement in a man's hearing. This well-documented event involved Harvey Lillard, an African American entrepreneur. Dr. Palmer reasoned that a misaligned vertebra was causing pressure on Lillard's spinal cord. He convinced Lillard to let him try to move the vertebra with a specific, gentle thrust. This he did, and Lillard's hearing improved immediately. Within a few months he fully regained his hearing.Have you ever had the experience of leaning on your elbow and having your little finger and half of your ring finger go numb? This is the effect of nerve pressure. If you apply pressure anyplace along the length of a nerve, the muscles and organs that the nerve go to can malfunction. It's similar to interrupting or short-circuiting the flow of electricity. If you "throw your back out," you usually feel pain or discomfort at that point, but there is also the possibility (likelihood) that the misaligned vertebra is pinching the nerve or nerves that branch off from the spinal cord at that point and go through the foramena between the misaligned (subluxated) vertebra and the one directly above or below. Whatever organ, muscle, or other bodily part that nerve goes to can malfunction in the same way that your fingers malfunction when you inadvertently pinch your ulnar nerve. The principle is ridiculously simple. The chiropractor adjusts the vertebra, restoring it to its proper alignment, and the back pain and whatever malfunction, or potential malfunction, caused by pressure on the nerve are alleviated. If you care to further educate yourself on the subject, I excerpted the above quote from THIS web site. Is it slanted in favor of chiropractic? Of course. But how better to learn about chiropractic than from a chiropractor? You're not going to learn much about it from a medical doctor (would you go to a plumber to learn about electrical systems?). Read the material and then make up your own mind. Scientific? At least as scientific as medicine. Granted, chiropractic got it's start by trial-and-error. But remember: so did medicine. But then the "scientific" can often something of a buzzword in this kind of discussion. What is your criterion for whether or not something is scientific? If it's "clinically proven," then chiropractic has been clinically proven again and again. It's just that there are those whose minds are so made up that they don't even want to look at the data, much less see if they can duplicate it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: mack/misophist Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:55 PM What is your exact point, Mr Firth? Hospital stays and surgery are expensive, granted. You had one doctor who was an ass. I do too (He's said to be the best around, so I put up with him). You could probably have demanded a replacement. My point is that while individual chiropractors may be saints and massage therapy may be exactly what you need, chiropractic is not a science. It's that simple. Chiropractic is based on the Palmer Method (I think that's the right name) which was invented, whole cloth, by a man with no qualifications at all. It's progressed somewhat since then, but not a lot. At one time federal programs like Worker's Comp were the major source of medical insurance money in the US. Only allopathic medicine was supported but the chiropractic industry want a place at the trough, too. Every year or so they got some congressman to introduce a bill and every time it came up for debate the AMA would send a crew of experts to explain that chiropractic is not science. The chiropractors lost the debate. Every time. Then one year, before the requisite debate was held the chiropractic industry filed suit for "Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade" in every possible juricdiction. Against the AMA and several hundred doctors. They could have won; if they had had enough money. Filing suit is cheap, winning in court isn't. That's why you can go to a chiropractor if you hurt your back in a work related accident. Not because chiropractic is a science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:23 PM As Joe points out, being a chiropractor is just a bit physically demanding. My father came home from the office pretty exhausted most of the time. One of the chiropractors I went to after my father passed away had to have an operation on both hands for carpal tunnel problems resulting from his work, massaging and adjusting spines all day long. He spent at least half an hour with each patient, frequently more (much longer with a new patient), so you figure out how many patients he could take in a business day. He was charging $40.00 per adjustment (not per vertebra—per whole spine) and he had an office to pay for, plus a receptionist. Chiropractors don't get rich. On the other hand, on February 13th, 2000 I fell and broke my left leg pretty severely (this was the second time; the first was almost exactly ten years before that). I wound up in Swedish Hospital in Seattle for about four weeks, first recovering from having a titanium rod and four screws put into my left femur, then for intensive rehabilitation. The surgery cost my insurance company $24,000. The rehab, I don't know for sure, but four weeks in a hospital ain't cheap! With few exceptions, the doctors, nurses, physical therapists, orderlies, and such were a crew of real of saints and angels. But the rehabilitation physician (not the surgeon) who was in charge of my case was rude and insulting. She came to the hospital only a couple days a week, and then for only part of a day, and she spent most of her time filling out forms to send to the insurance companies of her patients. Her rehabilitation program for me was something out of the textbook and something I could have figured out for myself, and, indeed, any good physical therapist (who were salaried employees of the hospital, by the way) could have handled my case as well as she did. During the four weeks I was in the hospital, she dropped into my room a total of five times. She stayed for no more that two or three minutes, didn't listen to anything I had to say, and was always brusque, as if I were a petty annoyance she had to deal with. Your average buzzard has a better bed-side manner that she did. And a couple of times she was downright insulting. At one point I was on the verge of a pressure sore, spotted by one of the nurses, and the doctor tried to convince me that I had it before I came to the hospital, which I hadn't. The nurse, thank God, called in a dermatologist who manage to get it stopped before it went too far. And the doctor chewed the nurse out for not going through her, which she had tried to do, but got ignored. Now, I don't remember the fee she charged for telling the physical therapist what she already knew (I know it was several thousand dollars), but I did find the item on the insurance papers for the five two-to-three minute visits: $110.00 each. Just what the hell did she do to earn that kind of money? No. If you're looking for the Royal Road to Riches, Chiropractic ain't it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:04 AM Yeah, we get that sort of mail all the time, how to turn a chiropractic practice into a money mill. It's embarrassing to see that sort of stuff - one brochure we got last week talked about how a chiropractor could see 900 patients a week (yes, nine hundred), at fifty to seventy-five bucks a crack (ooops, bad pun...). My wife sees six or seven patients a day, and she's exhausted after that. When they leave, they invariably feel better. My wife took four years of chiropractic school, after completing a university degree. She is licensed by the state of California, and has to take twelve hours of refresher training/continuing education every year. The courses she selects are ones that make her a better healer. She's has a practice in this semi-rural area of the Sierra foothills for almost twenty years, and she is known and respected wherever she goes in this area. And she is appalled by chiropractors who get rich quick with rough, invasive procedures, and by medical doctors who do the same thing by selling the most expensive pills the pharmaceutical firms can manufacture. There are good chiropractors and bad ones - but the same goes for medical doctors. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: mack/misophist Date: 08 Apr 03 - 03:17 PM Dear NicoleC, "Scientific proof" is primarily statistical. Nothing is absolutely safe. Find a copy of the PDR and check our the warnings and contra-indications. Your comment on patents in inappropriate. You can't patent a surgical procedure, either. Chiropractic is not a menicine. It's a procedure. Whenever possible, pharmaceutical companies still search out native herbalists, looking for new medicines. As for the training a chiropractor receives, compare it to that of an MD. And I was not aware that chiropractors attended medical school. I believe they attend chiropractic institutes. For three years. On the subject of danger: A great surgeon is often referred to the cases others are afraid to touch. Hence, a number of his patients can be expected to die. But the odds are still better with a great surgeon than an ordinary one. I'm not aware that chiropractors can treat life or death ailments. Furthermore, MDs are only human. Out of any group of professionals, some are bound to be incompetent. That's life. On the matter of chiropractic for the very young, all I care to say is that we read different magazines. In closing, as an ex-postal employee, I saw a tremendous number of publications offering to show chiropractors how to make more money. There are damn few about how to be better healers. One last word about science: Science is a process, a procedure, a way of investigating things. It's not a destination. It's only a way to reach the destination. If you can't predict with it, it's not science. JBS Haldane |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: NicoleC Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:39 PM Misophist, You seem to be under the assumption that allopathic medicine is based on scientific proof. Most of it is not; there is not such thing as "scientific proof" -- the nature of science itself insists that all items can be unproven. Many "scientifically proven safe" drugs are later determined to be dangerous. So much for the "proof" of the safety of modern medicine. All forms of medicine are based primarily on the trial and error of previous generations of healers. Chiropractic care, like all other forms of medicine, is scientifically studied. However, since you can't take out a patent on it, you won't find pharmeceutical companies lining up to test it. You also seem to be under the assumption that chiropractors simply hang up a shingle and go into business. On the contrary, they attend medical school and are also licensed medical professionals who yes, frequently practice under peer review. Dangerous? Compared to 180,000 deaths per year caused by medical malpractice among allopaths? As for chiropractic care being unsafe for kids, in 31 years of pediatric chiropractic care, there has only been ONE questionable report of injury. One. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: mack/misophist Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:11 PM Mr Offer, There is no doubt that massage and it's related therapies can be of benefit, often great benefit. And any chiropractor is required by law, I believe, to refer patients to MDs at need. The flaw in chiropractic is that it operates according to theories that are unproved or disproved. Also, some trends in chiropractic, such as manipulations for the very young, have proved to be dangerous. Allopathic physicians normally practice under some form of peer overview, especially if they want to keep their hospital privileges. Others seldom do. That is their greatest weakness and greatest danger. You seem to mistake the scientific method for ideology. That is a misunderstanding. The "scientific method" a la Poppers, etc., is a description of the techniques that have given us the things that help make life worth living. When something claims to be "scientific" but is unable to meet the minimal standards of the scientific method, then it ain't science. Let me invite an onslaught by adding clinical psychology to the list. It ain't science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 08 Apr 03 - 01:29 PM Wolfgang, I must confess that I didn't read these articles exhaustively. I read a few paragraphs of a couple of the articles and scanned the titles of the rest. There may be positive articles listed, but they were buried in a plethora of negative articles, and the whole tenor of the web site appears to be negative. Being the son of a chiropractor, I have seen much of this sort of thing before, often given to me by people who were trying to convince me that my father is a quack and a crook. When I read titles such as "Chiropractic's Dirty Secret: Neck Manipulation and Strokes," "Malpractice is an Inevitable Result of Chiropractic Philosophy and Training," "How Subluxation Theory Threatens Public Health," "Don't Let Chiropractors Fool You," and on and on, I don't see that there is much positive information offered in this web site. It appears to me that the whole purpose of the site is to try to convince people that Chiropractic is not just quackery, but that it is dangerous. In short, a hatchet job. For example, I have had neck adjustments all my life. From some of the statistics I've seen in articles about the alleged relationship between neck adjustments and stroke, I should have been dead of a stroke or blood clot decades ago. I know many people who go to chiropractors regularly—and have neck adjustments regularly—and I don't know of a single case of this ever happening, no matter what some of these "learned journals" claim. Preconception itself manipulates data. I have seen much of this anti-chiropractic propaganda, promulgated mainly by the American Medical Association and other, similar organizations that, rather than regarding chiropractic as a supplemental form of health care, regard it as some form of "competition." On several occasions in the past, the AMA tried to get chiropractic outlawed, and in some localities, they succeeded—it was illegal to give a chiropractic adjustment. These laws have since been rescinded, largely because of public demand. One would think that if the members of one particular school of health-care were sincerely interested in the welfare of their patients rather than in who gets the dollars, they would be far more open to other approaches to health care, and less eager to condemn out of hand. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Apr 03 - 01:25 PM Misophist, I think a wise chiropractor would take the best of all three theories, and would always be open to new perspectives. There is usually more than one way to treat almost anything, and only the very foolish close themselves off to the alternatives. A wise chiropractor also knows when to refer a patient to a medical doctor. In fact, a good chiropractor or other alternative therapist can often be the best place to go for a referral to a good medical doctor. In the late 1970's, I had surgery for a herniated spinal disc (and it worked quite well). My surgeon wanted me to understand what he was doing, so he lent me a textbook on orthopedics and encouraged me to read the chapters that dealt with my condition. I was surprised to see this medical textbook state that spinal manipulation is often an effective and non-invasive treatment for this condition - but that unfortunately, most medical doctors no longer perform spinal manipulation. As in all of life, I think it's important that we choose the solution that works best and causes the least harm, and keep ideology at arm's length. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: GUEST,misophist Date: 08 Apr 03 - 11:33 AM A. One of the tenets of the 'scientific method' is that anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all. Only well designed statistical studies need apply. B. Worker's Comp may still pay for chiropractic but many health plans are dropping it since it was determined that, although DC visits are cheaper than MD visits, about 1/3 more visits are required. C. In the US there are 3 competing theories of chiropractic. How can all three be true? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Apr 03 - 09:38 AM Bagpuss: Half serious, I know, but let me give a serious answer nevertheless. If the placebo action argument is taken serious as I think it should then knowledge can have adverse effects. There are other examples in which knowledge can have adverse side effects, for instance in the enjoyment of a conjurer if you know how he does it. I only can say that I think that the benefits of knowledge outweigh the adverse effects. Now for the less than half serious response: I even have the effect that when my doctor gives me a medication and tells me that it works I surrepetitiously think perhaps I'm only in the placebo control (and of course he wouldn't tell that to me). Now I know that under some conditions real medication can have a weaker effect when you tell the people (wrongly) that they are in a placebo control group (that's a very interesting control group for many reasons). Could it be that the mere thinking that I might be in a placebo control prevents the benefit from the usually good medication in me. But then, since I know that, perhaps the this effect doesn't happen.... Sometimes I enjoy twisted thinking Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: GUEST,Bagpuss Date: 08 Apr 03 - 09:07 AM Precisely Wolfgang - and now you want to go and educate everyone else, so that the placebos won't work on them either! I'm half making a serious point. I have always read a lot about alternative medicine, and would regard myself as a sceptic. I always thought of this as a good thing. However it backfired on me recently, because I was suffering a bout of depression, but am pregnant, and didnt want to risk any of the prescription drugs which have unknown effects on the unborn child. The doc offered to refer me to a homoeopathist, but I din't see the point as I believed it to be a placebo, and therefore wouldnt work on me, as the placebo effect is usually lost once you know its a placebo. I might have had a less tough time over the last few months if I had stayed in ignorance. But those damn scientists will keep coming up with their studies and arguments - which I cant resist reading.... Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Apr 03 - 07:58 AM I know too much about placebos for them to work on me. Not enough of that state of mind called 'belief' in me. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: GUEST,Bagpuss Date: 08 Apr 03 - 06:45 AM But Wolfgang - surely you are denying yourself a whole host of possible benefits from placebos.... Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Apr 03 - 05:24 AM (continued from above...) I'm quite skeptical, BTW, regarding all medical treatments. I often decline evidence-based medicine treatments because I consider the potential benefits small in comparison with adverse effects. However, my method of evaluation does not change from one type of medicine to the next. Would please one of the posters with sympathy for chiropractic post here what she considers the best recent research based article with a positive evaluation of chiropractic. I'd prefer a review article but would also be glad about an original study. I promise I'll read it. Most pro-posts here so far have been single case anecdotes (or kat's link to an internet discussion). I know I'm in a minority in this respect but I prefer controlled studies to uncontrolled anecdotes. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Apr 03 - 04:45 AM I'm afraid I have to say that this is old stuff to me. The usual hatchet job (Don Firth) Don, since I haven't read all link on the linkpage I have posted above I cannot say for sure that there is no article on that page for which I would consider the expression 'hatchet job' appropriate. But for the whole of the page meant as skeptical information I cannot but disagree with your description. Several links go to history of chiropractic as written by proponents of chiropratic. Is that your idea of a hatchet job? Several links go to pro-chiropractic pages. Is that your idea of a hatchet job? A link goes just to a page listing all scientific articles on chiropractic, positive and negative. Is that your idea of a hatchet job? All the scientific articles (these are the ones I prefer to read) on that page though mainly skeptical give ample references to original articles with positive and with negative findings and explain in as much matter of fact language why they consider which findings compelling or not (the evaluation has more to do with the methodic qualitx than with the outcome). Is that your idea of a hatchet job? Old stuff? Some for sure, for the articles printed there for information go as far back as a 1906 pro-chiropratic article. In general, frankly, I don't believe that this is true for you. The articles cited and often linked to (here's a link to a database of articles, another 'hatchet job' on that page of links) are as recent as from 2002 and many of them (pro or con) claim that either the method used for the research or the type of problems treated is completely new. You are not seriously trying to tell us that all this is old stuff to you? I'm q |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: katlaughing Date: 07 Apr 03 - 04:19 PM Thank you, Don, most interesting and validating, as I find all of your writing. Great dad you had!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Don Firth Date: 07 Apr 03 - 03:18 PM I took a look at the web site that Wolfgang posted. I'm afraid I have to say that this is old stuff to me. The usual hatchet job. My father was a chiropractor and I could go on and on about this subject. Among other things, my father's knowledge of physiology was prodigious. And he knew more about the nervous system than many neurologists. I had polio at the age of two, and where the orthopedic physicians and surgeons wanted to 1) put me in a wheelchair instead of fitting me with braces and teaching me to walk with crutches. Dad was absolutely adamant and eventually got his way. Thanks to him, I was able to lead a normal life, including doing such things as singing professionally for a couple of decades (walked on stage with crutches, like Itzak Perlman does, with someone carrying my guitar out for me). I had to use crutches all my life, but I didn't wind up needing to use a wheelchair until I took a bad fall and broke my "good" leg when I was 59.The reason that a chiropractor often wants you to come in for a series of adjustments is that a subluxated vertebra doesn't always stay adjusted, especially if it's been out for awhile. Your back muscles adjust to the vertebra being out of position (often cramping and giving you considerable pain), and when repositioned correctly by a chiropractor, your muscles also have to readjust. The vertebra in question can slip out again. It sometimes takes a few sessions to adjust it, and the surrounding muscles, to where it will stay in place. The longer it's been out, the more adjustments it's liable to need. "Fresh pineapple, fresh greens and salmon. . . ." Sounds good to me, Peg. Sounds real good! I love it when what I like anyway turns out to be good for me. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: katlaughing Date: 07 Apr 03 - 01:17 PM Here's an interesting chart of allopathy vs homeopathy. According to an article in JAMA, 1998 Adverse Drug Reactions kill 106,000 people annually and injure 2.2 million every year. This means that Adverse Drug Reactions may rank as the 4th single largest cause of death in America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Peg Date: 07 Apr 03 - 12:11 PM I bet with very little effort one could come up with a list of "skeptical" things to say about western/allopathic medicine too; their typical approach to back pain? Pain killers! Mask the pain (so that it's possible to do worse injury) and get addicted to drugs that make you dopey, listless and fat...thanks, "Doctor." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Amos Date: 07 Apr 03 - 11:30 AM I've had several acute and extremely painful bouts of hip and back pain and in every case a good chiro took the matter in hand and set it right in short order. THere is some rationale for their request for multiple visits, BTW -- it isn't just a matter of sliding slot A back in to tab B, or whatever. The whole system -- nerves, muscles, bones and tissues -- needs to be weaned from a bad pattern of action to a better one. Sometimes it takes repeated adjustments to make that happen. There's plenty of skepticism, but the truth is that the functional interdependencies between nerves, muscles, bones and tissues is not fully known, and I have known too many people who got positive and long-lasting results in practice to dismiss the theories and use of chiropractic. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Wolfgang Date: 07 Apr 03 - 10:21 AM A linklist with a skeptical slant Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: DonMeixner Date: 06 Apr 03 - 10:04 PM Hey Mooh, Is that insuranceable? If not what is your mintly bill? And I wonder how many people have bi weekly manipulations? Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Peg Date: 06 Apr 03 - 04:10 PM Nicole: Last summer, I looked up what sort of foods I should be eating to help my back heal. Fish was recommended, especially salmon! But to help eliminate muscular congestion, which can make some kinds of back pain worse (because it causes lactic acid buildup in the muscles and thus increases inflammation), one should avoid dairy, red meat and other acid-causing foods. Fresh pineapple, fresh greens and salmon are highly recommended... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: khandu Date: 06 Apr 03 - 03:13 PM I love 'em, but there are many quacks in the field. A good one is a rare find, but worth the hunt. Some deny the validity of medical doctors, saying the med. docs are the real quacks. However, my old chiro told me during one visit that I must see a medical doctor because I had something seriously wrong with my kidneys. He was right! Incidentally, in one small Mississippi town in the 60's, there were two chiropractors; one was Dr. Hurt; the other was Dr Paine. Looked like you were screwed either way. Ken |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: NicoleC Date: 05 Apr 03 - 09:22 PM Nope, Bobert, not either one of my guys. Lots of chiropractors are vegetarians, I've noticed. (Or so they claim; my current "strict-vegetarian no-animals no-dairy" chiro eats fish. What's a fish, if it isn't an animal?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Bobert Date: 05 Apr 03 - 06:04 PM Nicole: Yer memorizer is a lot better than mine. I know I should remember the guys name. I can see his face and could drive you to his office but, dnaged, I can't bemember the guys name. But it weren't neith of thekm. He was out on Forest Hill Ave. on Southside about a mile before Rt. 360. If it comes to my feeble mind I'll get back with ya. Spaw: I don't know 'bout no meat, being a semi-veggie, but the guy is Grade A... And from yir parts of the woods, kinda... Youngstown, where my late wife was from. Good guy though for an Ohioian Quacterpractioner, that is. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Peg Date: 05 Apr 03 - 02:41 PM I had severe back pain last summer: very sudden middle back muscle spasms. I looked up chiros in the phone book and chose Dr. Mercurio because I liked his name. He answered the phone himself and agreed to see me that day since it was an emergency (he has a very busy practice I found out later). I was a bit dubious at first because the office decor seemed stuck in 1975 and the doctor was fairly overweight. But he was great! He did not insist on constant adjustments although he did suggest I come more often than I ended up doing. My acute pain was gone in a couple of days. he was very supportive of my decisions to NOT use painkillers and the varipus holistic thinsg I wanted to do to make sure my healing went well: special diet (to avoid muscular congestion) and yoga etc. Soon after my treatments I had to fly to the UK and it was rough on the airplane (the cabin crew let me lie down in the back and do my stretches and nicely gave me extra pillows), but I gradually got better (sleeping was the most difficult thing about this back pain; it was impossible). When I got back I went for another adjustment. Within two weeks, I was off for a MONTH of sleeping on the ground in a tent! Turned out to be the best thing possible for my back, oddly... Anyway, the pain eventually went away completely. I am having a touch of it againa nd think I might pay the doc another visit just to make sure all is well... Can't beat chiropractic, for the money...I do not have insurance and this is a form of "professional" medical care even I can afford... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Mooh Date: 05 Apr 03 - 02:19 PM I'm a believer. I go every 2 weeks and have ever since I figured out that I hurt less with regular tune-ups. Altogether I've been getting chiropractic care for 17 years, most of it with my current chiro who knows me and my back very well. If you believe as I do that the whole health is the objective, it's a good idea. He's also a damn good piper. (I had to fit music in here somewhere!) Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Allan C. Date: 05 Apr 03 - 01:48 PM I have to agree with Joe's wife about the jerky moves. There is little on earth that I have found that scares me as much as a chiro doing that quick neck snap that they so love to do. I just can't find any way to relax and enjoy it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Deckman Date: 05 Apr 03 - 12:30 PM Joe ... Hmmm, let's see if I've got this right! You didn't believe, then you married one, now you are a believer. Does that imply that marriage can one of the the side effects of good Chiropratic? Just kidding, says Bob, who blesses his own Chriopractor for keeping hisself going! CHEERS, Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: NicoleC Date: 05 Apr 03 - 12:14 PM Bobert, which Chiro did you go to in Richmond? Was it Dr. King or Dr. Eisenberg? Both were excellent chiros who got me through childhood without back surgery, particularly Dr. King. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Apr 03 - 11:33 AM Bobertz, did you say Chuck Clegg? Sounds like a cut of meat! and JOE........You said, "When my wife Christina gives me a treatment, she goes over every muscle and joint...."
I was wondering, which joint does she spend the most time on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 03 - 11:28 AM The only vital thing with chiropractic is find a good chiropractor. Most of them are good. Use your own judgement, according to results. I've had great results from it. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Bobert Date: 05 Apr 03 - 11:24 AM I'm with Joe on this one, Mark. I had chronic pain in my lower neck which started about 20 years ago and after seeing a couple mof MD's decided to try a Chiropracot in Richmond. Well, I get real lucky and got a real good one and he hade me tuned up in about three weeks and then I would go once every two weeks for follow up and... no pain. Then I moved and figured I better stay on "the program" and thought that these folks all did the sme things. Wrong! I went to two chiropractors who gave me the bum's rush I just knew what they were doing, while it might not have hure me, wasn't doing a lot of good either. Then I found Chuck Clegg and knew after one treatment that he must have learned the stuff from the same guy I had been using in Richmond. Just another word here. There are some conditions that are better treated with a good massage therapists who does deep tissue massage, like knotted up muscles and spazims. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:11 AM I didn't believe in chiropractors. Then I got engaged to one. She took away all my orthopedic aches and pains - so now I'm a believer. There are chiropractors, and then there are chiropractors. Some go for high-volume practices and promise all sorts of wonderful things - but they spend five or ten minutes with you and charge you what my wife charges for an hour. When my wife Christina gives me a treatment, she goes over every muscle and joint, easing things back into place and releasing the tension in any muscles that are under stress. She was a massage therapist before she went to chiropractic school, so she has blended the best of both fields. Also, she does not believe in the quick, jerky moves that some chiropractors use for adjustments - she prefers to do things gently. If you can find a chiropractor who cares about you and is willing to take time to work on you, you'll feel wonderful. Mark, if your significant other recommends the chiropractor, I'd think that's a pretty good recommendation. -Joe Offer (whose wife is looking over his shoulder and is very pleased with what her husband wrote)- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: katlaughing Date: 05 Apr 03 - 02:23 AM I quit going when the one I was seeing wanted me in there several times a week, as Nicole has noted. At the same time, that chiro's husband, who was also a chiro, had just paralysed, for life, from the neck down, a nurse who was also a very well known amateur ballerina. Also, as Nicole notes, that is a very rare side effect. I prefer going to an osteopath. They do wonderful manipulations plus are regular MDs who can prescribe if need be. I also prefer their methods of manipulation compared to a chiro. I also don't rule out the efficacy of a good massage therapist...sometimes that can do a lot more than either a chiro or osteo! kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: Troll Date: 05 Apr 03 - 01:46 AM As long as the Chiropractor isn't one of those who claims that chiropractic can cure everything from warts to cancer (yes, Virginia, they DO exist) you should be fine. I go to one whenever my back goes out as it does at times. My wife has a double curvature of the spine and her chiropractor is the only one who can do anything to help. She goes on a fairly regular basis. I go only when I have pain. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic From: NicoleC Date: 05 Apr 03 - 01:30 AM An occasional trip won't hurt, and the full back and neck xrays they do are a good way to get an idea what kind of shape your back is in. Treatments from a good chiro also feel lovely, except that if you're in bad shape sometimes you'll feel a bit sore (like muscular sore) for a while afterwards - but it's a "good" soreness. (If it hurts when you are treated, don't go back!) As a kid, I has scoliosis, and the regular doc wanted to operate and put a metal rod up my spine. Yikes! And year and a half of chiropractic care later, I had a straight and healthy spine. Periodically I continued to have checkups and adjustments. When I came out to the west coast, I discovered a whole different school of chiroppractic thinking, which seems to believe that you need adjustments 3 times a week to be healthy. I don't buy it, but some people swear by it, especially those which chronic pain problems. If I go too often, my back just goes out of alignment more easily. As medical treatments go, it's one of the safest things you can do -- probably THE safeest, right after doing nothing at all. Every now and then you'll hear a scare story from a treatment gone wrong, but the statistics are about 1 chiropractic death per year vs. 1.2 million deaths per year from correctly prescribed and dosed drugs. Hmmm. |
|
Subject: BS: Chiropractic From: MarkS Date: 05 Apr 03 - 12:15 AM Since you can learn just about anything on Mudcat, I thought I would give this a try. My significant other is trying to convince me to visit her chiropractor with her, in the interests of good health. I have no specific complaints, other than male pattern baldess, but, A Want to please her, and, B Of course want to be healthy. How about it, 'catters, any opinions on chiropractic? Pro?? Con?? Indifferent?? Mark |
