Chiropractor? No. MOD Note. This thread has been split from another as the discussion was more about Chiropractors. Please stick to the topic and leave out the rudeness. This is aimed at all who post in this thread. Some posts have been removed to at least make something of this thread. Simon.
Why no chchiropractic help? Do you have an issue with chiropractors or do you have a good reason? I admit that I used to think it was all voodoo and witchcraft untill I spent a year with a good crack Dr. Knees hips and spine all rely on each other. one out of wak does affect the other. I am not saying that is the op issue but if he does have good form it's defiantly possible. You your self said flexibility isues affect r he knee more than the hips on a round house.
I had a minor car accident many years ago. My neck was badly sprained. A chiropractor was the one who helped quite a bit. It was my chiropractor that got me on the road to healing. The doctor's just wanted to pump me up with prescription pain killers. I had to ask for a referral for rehab exercises. The doctor was like "oh yeah, good idea." That helped too. But the regular doctor didn't do squat except diagnose the issue. Many people find healing in chiropractic care. Just because you don't doesn't make in invalid for those whom it helps.
O.k. I see your point. You have not seen a good one. Do not underestimate it like I did. Medicaly speaking I went from 2 Dr's saying I need surgery and kicking was Bad. To one of them saying nothing is wrong long term. kick away! The other said it's inconclusive. Go find a good one. modern medicine is hampered by take this pill
If you're going to pay for treatment or preventative manipulation and/or exercises, pay someone who's profession is based on evidence based medicine. Pay a musculoskeletal physiotherapist who specialises in sport (physical therapist for our American friends). Any good a chiropractor does will be the same stuff, except they will have less knowledge and training and believe in a whole load of hogwash in addition to anything useful.
Me? No, not me. It's the overwhelming lack of evidence to support its efficacy, and the overwhelming presence of evidence to support its ineffectiveness, that makes it a steaming pile of horse manure.
No, you didn't see my point. Just like I didn't see a chiropractor. Ever, because there is scant evidence to accept the risk of letting them lay their hands on my cervical spine. Chiropractic is not modern medicine. Chiropractors are not doctors.
So chiropractic medicine is based on folk medicine? Faith healing? Religion? Not sure what you are getting at David. Asan atheist and a non believer of anything but fact and results I haver to strongly object to your statement. I don't believe that they can cure cancer or the flu by cracking your neck, but they can defiantly align your spine and eliminate hip pain. Past Modearn medicine if full of BS cures.and practices. That today we know are hazardous cigarettes and alcohol were once perscribed to cure morning sickness in pregnant women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Controversy "The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966 and boycotted it until losing an antitrust case in 1987" They are quacks with good lawyers. Well-meaning quacks, I'm sure, but quacks nonetheless. "Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain. A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective for any condition. A Cochrane review found very low to moderate evidence that spinal manipulation therapy was any more effective than inert interventions, sham SMT or as an adjunct therapy for acute low back pain." The evidence doesn't look good. And its dodgy beginnings: "Chiropractic's origins lie in the folk medicine of bonesetting, and as it evolved it incorporated vitalism, spiritual inspiration and rationalism. Its early philosophy was based on deduction from irrefutable doctrine helped distinguish chiropractic from medicine, provided it with legal and political defenses against claims of practicing medicine without a license, and allowed chiropractors to establish themselves as an autonomous profession. This "straight" philosophy, taught to generations of chiropractors, rejects the inferential reasoning of the scientific method, and relies on deductions from vitalistic first principles rather than on the materialism of science."
That is the evidence of my life experience. It is good enough for me. Chiropractic in my country is firmly established as a medical practice. It is covered by most insurances. It is considered a legitimate treatment. We aren't talking about some backwards back alleyway unregistered un -established practice here.
Subjective experience is not sufficient validation of a method. I have had good experience with chiropractic too but that is one person and one chiropractor. Until you can provide objective and statistically relevant scientific data your opinion means nothing.
No, it's not firmly established as a medical practice. Its basis is completely false. Here's the history behind the antitrust case: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilk_v._American_Medical_Association Quacks with good lawyers. A criminal waste of money on pseudoscience: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevens...tartling-496-million-wasted-on-chiropractors/
Well, that is scary and helps the cause of those who consider it quackery. Where I live, one has to be licensed and have training to run a chiropractic clinic.
Well, this is information on real chiropractic training. http://www.acatoday.org/content_css.cfm?CID=746 Note the part that says licenced in all fifty states and many countries around the world. People here may not like it, but it IS an established medical practice.
Just some info for the non-British here to give some perspective.. ''In 19 April 2008, The Guardian published Singh's column "Beware the Spinal Trap",[28][29] an article that was critical of the practice of chiropractic and which resulted in Singh being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).[30] The article developed the theme of the book that Singh and Edzard Ernst had published, Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial, and made various statements about the lack of usefulness of chiropractic "for such problems as ear infections and infant colic": You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.[28] When the case was first brought against him, The Guardian supported him and funded his legal advice, as well as offering to pay the BCA's legal costs in an out-of-court settlement if Singh chose to settle.[31] A "furious backlash"[32] to the lawsuit resulted in the filing of formal complaints of false advertising against more than 500 individual chiropractors within one 24-hour period, with one national chiropractic organisation ordering its members to take down their websites,[33][34] and Nature Medicine noting that the case had gathered wide support for Singh, as well as prompting calls for the reform of English libel laws.[35] On 1 April 2010, Simon Singh won his court appeal for the right to rely on the defence of fair comment.[36] On 15 April 2010, the BCA officially withdrew its lawsuit, ending the case.[37]'' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh LFD
