Chiropratic = crap

Discussion in 'Injuries and Prevention' started by yannick35, Mar 31, 2008.

  1. PCG82

    PCG82 Valued Member


    We have to be careful with this, in the UK E numbers (the things people get really worked up and worried about) can be 'natural' ingrediants too such as puprika extract and Vit B2. Folate is also added which is a preventative measure for spina bifida so i dont believe that just cause i dont know what the item is it is bad.

    I take the point though, you can't need to add that much to a loaf of bread!
     
  2. CatWise

    CatWise Valued Member

    PCG82, I agree with you. Personally, I don't like to use the 'my friend' bit, and normally I don't. I just wanted to point out that you can be helped and I know of a person that did get helped. I also don't like it when people say "well Everyone says that" etc. You know what I mean? Sorry, I didn't mean hit a sore button.

    Yannick35 to your comment - well, touch ****. As to your comment about hernia, I wasn't talking about hernia, but herniated disk - so maybe you should have read the comment, because these are 2 totaly different things. And I didn't say that the chirpo "fixed it"- no he didn't "cure" the guy of it, but was able to help him live a symptom free live and avoid surgery. The point is, it wasn't just the chiropractic adjustment that did it, but a combination or therapy, excersise and diet. ALL of these is what helped him avoid the surgery, and it was THAT chiropractors understanding of all the dynamics that play into our symptoms.
     
  3. CatWise

    CatWise Valued Member

    PCG82 - honey this ain't UK.

    The quality of food here in US is much more degraded that in any other country. I have traveled to a lot of countries as my dad was military. I got to live in just about every country in Europe, some places in Middle East and some places in South America. The over-indulgence on the junk food and the lack of nutrients in the food is crazy!

    You can clean a car battery or engine with a can of Pepsi. It will literally take the paint of the car, but it’s completely safe to drink? I always found it interesting how in other countries vegetables and bread goes bad rather quickly, but the kiwi I have in my fridge after 4 weeks didn't go bad? The tomatoes last for ever! The wonder bread doesn't even grow mold?

    I am not saying that you need to freak out about every ingredients you don't recognize, but why doesn't everything have to be so god damn altered? Why does some guy in a white lab coat think that he needs to “improve” or “fix” God’s mistake in the food He created? Eggs are not good for you, but our lab-created egg bitters are so much healthier! See my point?

    Sorry, but this is a sore subject with me, I get really fired up.
     
  4. yannick35

    yannick35 Banned Banned

    Ho please, so if there are good chiros and bad ones then why dont they relief people of there pains, why are there adjustments only temporary.

    Has i said personal experience is king, i saw 5 chiros and the scheme is all the same, money hungry, filled with bogus promeses, always have a positive attitude, x rays are best suited to see progress.

    I beg you to read rebuildyourback go to the website read. The part on chiropratic is real, i knew this way before reading what Dean the guy that wrote the RYB program.

    There is a forum check it out, 95% of people who went to a chiro got rip off.

    Chiropractic are the ones that bash all other therapies, because they are scared and know there chiro is crap.

    After all how can they compete with sport medecin where there is a team of professional against one crappy chiro.

    Chrio is like the medical doctor who learns is patient has cancer, he jumps for joy to know someone has chronic pain, $$$$$$$$$$ money, life long membership and more.

    Hernia disk and surgery, 2 case studies, 2 different people i work with.

    Both did everything, one got the surgery removing 2 hernia, after that did prolotherapy to strenghten tendons and ligaments, did PT for core training and is back playing hockey 2 a week.

    The other went the chiro way, that got him worst much worst he couldnt even walk after is adjustments. Now he has pain relief getting cortisol shots because he doesnt want to get the surgery done.

    I am true arguing with you chirolovers, i hate them with passion, i was very close of suing my last chiro, he was full of **** once more, and i scared him to death because i did get a lawer that called him and told him about is practice and that it was illegal what he did.

    This is the end i started this post and now i am giving it up, my mind is made up about chiros, you want to go waste your time and money, you need your chiro fix each week and think he is the key.

    Well go ahead, for me its RYB, and prolotherapy.

    The rest is crap crap crap snap crack pop
     
  5. Schmeag

    Schmeag Valued Member

    Just read it.
    It makes a lot of sense from a conventional, anatomical point of view and it does clarify my confusion on how a spine adjustment actually works since I was basing my logic on anatomical grounds. However, remember it is just that--a point of view. There are many surgeons and even younger interns that have taught me that have had an entrenched view against complementary medicine; from their knowledge and logic, they cannot see how something like a spinal adjustment could in any way be beneficial to the patient. But like TENS/PENS, acupuncture, some osteopathic practices, and some herbal remedies (correct me if I am wrong), some things may seem to logically go against taught medical curriculum but will still have the appearance of working. It may go against logic, but it's empirically sound.

    The only way to deduce whether a treatment works is not to use logic, nor use what you've heard off the streets, but to conduct a chain of epidemiological studies. In this way, by considering all factors involved (ie the placebo effect, bias, socioeconomic...etc.) researchers can come to a conclusion regarding the efficiency of treatment and any other risks involved.

    Personal experience counts for jack-all in medical literature.

    95% is surprisingly low. On a forum for chiro-haters, I'd expect the statistic to be 100% members with chiro-stuff ups. Of course you'd expect bias! :p

    Are you an MD-hater too? ;)

    Still, I don't think we/they are posting to change your mind; CatWise has implied that she is only posting so that others will not be deterred by your--if I may say--somewhat extreme stance against chiros. I empathise that eight years with no results would make most people bitter. Personally, I would probably stick to a biopsychosocial model for my own treatment and I'd leave the complementary medicine to other people, but I wouldn't completely discount complementary medicine as being viable. Of course, regarding non evidence-based treatment, I would advise a cautious approach.
     
  6. PCG82

    PCG82 Valued Member

    Makes me proud to live in the UK, the Dr gets paid the same whether the patient has cancer or a stubbed toe in the NHS......:rolleyes:
     
  7. Schmeag

    Schmeag Valued Member

    Heh, in Australia, stubbed toes earn you more than cancer. :rolleyes: We've had a couple toe-nail removing frauds over the last decade.
     
  8. PCG82

    PCG82 Valued Member

    :eek:
     
  9. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    yannick was initially quite pro-chiropractors so I think you have to take his present extremity with a pinch of salt. That aside all the points he raises are perfectly valid and have a mighty array of evidence to support them:

    - Chiropractors are infamous for providing neverending expensive treatments.
    - Chriopractors do operate from a model of illness that is unscientific.

    There is, of course, variation amongst chiropractors and even a small subset of practitioners who actually do promote chiropractic treatments only for illnesses which they have been proven succesfull at alleviating in good clinical trials. However, the vast majority I think can without too much prejudice be rightly classified as offering nothing more than a rather large dose of placebo along with a rather strenuous massage.

    I'd also second advocate Schmeag's advice of caution for receiving treatments for which the evidence is sorely lacking due to safety AND the fact that you are probably paying for something that in actual fact has no real effect on your problem. I strongly disagree though Schmeag that logic needs to go out the window when dealing with medicine... good logic is at the heart of things like randomised double blind clinical trials.
     
  10. rubberband

    rubberband Valued Member

    This post may seem out of place... it is in response to private emails and being called a propagandist...

    for information of chiropractic scope of practice check out:

    www.chiroweb.com/archives/ahcpr/chapter5.htm

    there was some disbelief that chiropractors are allowed to perform surgery so here is a quote from the page:

    "An example of a state with an expansive scope is Oregon (FCLB, 1996). In Oregon Chiropractors are allowed to perform minor surgery, proctology, and obstetrical procedures."


    I think it is silly that so many people will argue from their illusions against someone who knows the truth and will dispense with all reason to attack a person and profession they truely don't know anything about...

    an arguement based in falsehood, half truthes, and out dated conjecture is not a valid arguement...

    the truth is simple... Chiropractic is about getting people functional and healthy and back into their lifes with responsibility for their health... a good chiropractor will constantly monitor improvement and release a patient once the patient's issue is corrected... Chiropractors constantly work with other doctors and co-manage patient care... Chiropractors are included in Texas Spine Institute and Nebraska Spine Institiute... Chiropractors even work in hospitols and emergency rooms... Chiropractors are on government boards of public health and medical services at the state and federal levels...

    the truth also means that there are some chiros who hold onto outdated ideas and use practice management groups which encourage stringing patients along for money... unfortunately it seems some of you have only encountered these kinds of Docs... that is truely unfortunate... but that does not condemn an entire profession or define what it is about...

    I find it professionally offensive that MAP moderators have done nothing to do away with this thread... I think a thread titled... (insert name of martial art here) = CRAP... would not have been tolerated... but for some reason it is okay to attack a legitimate healing profession...

    this is my last post because Anthony DeMello taught me that..." it is foolish to try and teach a pig to sing because it wastes your time and annoys the pig. "

    take care all of you, steve
     
  11. yannick35

    yannick35 Banned Banned

    <personal attack removed> stop trying to justify your point, has i said many times chiros are in for the money.

    Talking with various people that went and still go to the chiro you realize how much scammers they really are.

    real studies say it placebo effect.

    You received private message that means there are a lot more frustrated people then you think about your stinking chiro crap, and a lot of peeps think exactly like i do.

    Good so maybe one day the law will irradicate all chiroprators and burn them all to hell.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2008
  12. yannick35

    yannick35 Banned Banned

     
  13. Schmeag

    Schmeag Valued Member

    I think, perhaps, that CKava may have misinterpreted my intended message--never did I intend to ever imply that logic should go out the window, rather that the supposed logic born of the conventional biomedical model should not be ultimately restricting of what should be a holistic approach to medical treatment. Evidence-based medicine is more telling than doing what has always been done.
     
  14. adouglasmhor

    adouglasmhor Not an Objectivist

     
  15. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Yannick when you arrived on the site you were advised by several posters to visit a good physio after you detailed you're long history with unsuccesful chiropractic treatment. You responded by calling physiotherapy a scam and arguing that your chiropractor was the real deal because he was helping you and taking X rays. Obviously your opinion changed but I don't get the impression that you've actually learnt anything from your ordeal. You seem to just jump between extremeties. I hope you're back problem is getting better and I do sympathise that people have taken advantage of your problem however at the same time like adouglasmhor says you have to take some responsibilty for your own choices.

    Maybe but personally I think it's more that your 'message' is in certain ways contradictory. When you say...

    It seems to me that you are making an error. You should use logic to deduce whether a treatment works. Using good logic would involve consulting the best evidence. There is no good reason you should have to make a choice between 'using logic' OR referring to (I presume you weren't suggesting average people need to "conduct") a chain of epidemiological studies. Using bad logic such as 'I took a homeopathic remedy and my cold went away therefore the homeopathic remedy cured my cold' is bad. However, arriving at such conclusions is due to using bad logic. Bad logic should be abandoned not using logic.

    As for holistic approaches... personally I tend to find alternative treatments to be more deterministic than the scientific medical model i.e. got an illness it's due to a subluxation. Holistic is just one of those buzz words used by altrnative practitioners to suggest they are somehow treating 'the whole person' rather than the illness. What this basically tends to amount to is asking questions about the persons personal life while you come up with your treatment. In the end however chiropractors will more often than not manipulate your spine to cure your problem, homeopaths will prescribe you expensive water, acupuncturists will stick needles in you.

    As for evidence based medicine being about talking 'what has always been done' is it? Really? If so why is it only since the advent of modern medicine with it's emphasis on clinical trials and rigourously examining evidence in the past 100 years that we have seen such dramatic improvements to life expectancy and disease treatment? Evidence based medicine is not just about using medicine with evidence it's about assesing the evidence that does exist. I just can't see how it's more holistic to ignore the lack of evidence for alternative treatments.

    It's funny I don't remember Anthony De Mello ever suggesting that you would develop your awareness by posting smug messages patting yourself on the back for being so smart and suggesting everyone else who disagrees with you must be 'a pig' incapable of ever understanding your insight. Weird that.

    And I think it's silly to use so many unnecessary elipses, I guess we all have our pet peeves. That aside I agree with your description of a bad argument. The ironic thing is that I would say that most chiropractors are in fact guilty of all the issues you identify.

    falsehood
    They promote chiropractic treatments, almost universally, for illnesses for which there is no good evidence chiropractic treatments help.

    half-truths
    They quote discredited or poorly conducted studies and ignore addressing the pattern that is clearly evident in the literature of trials of chiropractic treatments i.e. better trial = negative results.

    Out dated conjecture
    Chiropractic theory is developed from a Victorian medical model that has been discredited by modern research.

    Chiropractors working with doctors and being on boards also says absolutely nothing about the validity of the treatment they offer. All it is proof of is social acceptablity. Blood letting was socially acceptable for almost two millenium that didn't make it anymore a valid treatment for the illnesses it was routinely used to treat. There is a homeopathic hspital near where I live in London, this doesn't mean homeopathic treatments are well supported by medical trials all it shows is that there is a tradition of homeopathy in the UK and that there are enough people who believe in it to enable things like homeopathic hospitals to exist.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2008
  16. CosmicFish

    CosmicFish Aleprechaunist

    yannick, I realise you're upset and resentful, but please tone down the language and drop the taunting. Neither will help make your point.

    Rubberband - we cannot monitor all threads 24/7, as we have life and work commitments. We rely on members themselves to help us moderate by reporting threads that they are unhappy with. In this instance, other than some strongly-worded opinions, I see no reason why this thread shouldn't stand, as there is a lot of good discussion on it. Should you disagree you are welcome to report the posts you dislike and/or PM me with your reasons for wanting the thread closed.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2008
  17. CatWise

    CatWise Valued Member

    Rubberband, a GREAT post! Finally someone with a brain posted something intelligent.

    Who is "They" and for what illnesses to they promote treatment with no good evidence that it works? Talk about Falsehood-def.2 absence of truth or accuracy. Is your statement more of a falsehood per that definition?

    What studies are you referring too? As far as I know, there have been so many studies that VALIDATED chiropractic treatment that insurance companies started to cover it under their plans as a valid treatment back about 20+ years ago. Please take a look at some of the 1980's studies done by the Columbia University and then think about what you said, because that quote is a perfect example of "half-truth" and "falsehood"

    Really? Please show we the modern research that has discredited it? I would like to see it, really I would. Also, what Victorian Medical Model are you referrring to? Because the Western Medice model started out and was based on a lot of Victorian Medical Research, Wiliam Harvey, Anatomical Exercises Concerning the motion of the Heart and Blood in Living Creatures - 1628, Theodoric Borgognoni 1205-1296 - introducing antiseptic practices and use of anaesthetics. Some other "Victorian" fathers that thanks to them started the Western Medical model" Guyde Chauliae, Realdo Colombo, Michael Servetus, Ambroise Pare, John Hunter, Amato Lusitano, Garcia De Orta.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2008
  18. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Are you actually suggesting that subluxation theory and 'innate intelligence' (i.e. the basis of chiropractic) have been scientifically demonstrated? Can you cite these studies? (I'm gonna guess that what is sufficient for an insurance company and what is sufficient for the evidence-based medical community are not the same.)

    The fact that a few chiropractic treatments are beneficial (although usually no better than physiotherapy) does not validate all of chiropractic. You have to look at the entirety of the medical literature, not just select studies (and btw, lets not cite 20 year old studies in a discussion about contemporary chiropractic!) The fact remains that the better designed a study is, the more likely it is negative. When you look at all the literature the only conclusion you can arrive at is that the claims of chiropractic, and most of the treatments, just don't hold up.

    Here's a short podcast on chiropractic: http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4042.mp3
     
  19. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    If 'having a brain' equates to buying into chiropractic treatments I'm much happier being sans brain in your books.

    Sorry I thought in context who 'they' was would be clear. To clarify, for your benefit, I meant 'the vast majority of chiropractors'. As for what illness they promote treatment for with no good evidence, how about ANY illness that isn't back or neck pain. If you want a list of illnesses chiropractors claim to be able to treat then we will be here a very long time. In a 2003 study titled "How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors," which was published by the Institute for Social Research at Ohio Northern University it was found that 90% of chiropractors felt that chiropractic treatment should not be limited to treating back and neck problems. Back and neck problems are the only treatments for which chiropractic treatments have some evidence of effectiveness. D.D. Palmer the founder of chiropractic medicine advocated that chiropractic treatments could cure ALL illness including deafness, heart disease, measles and sexual dysfunction. He also specifically stated that 95% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae. I wonder if you're aware of the whole mixer/straight controversy in chiropractic medicine?

    What I am referring to is the overall literature not individual studies. In fact what you are suggesting I do is the very thing I am criticising i.e. focusing on positive studies that are known to have serious flaws and ignoring the better studies with negative results. Feel free to point me to the actual study and I'll take a look though.

    As for what studies I'm referring to how about for a start a very recent systematic review of all the previously published systematic reviews by Ernst & Canter in 2006 called 'A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation' which found the evidence for chiropractic treatments being effective to be insubstancial. Or ho about the fact that the Cochrane collaboration which is dedicated to providing a summary of the evidence for the efficacy of treatments doesn't endorse chiropractic treatment as having strong evidence of being effective for treating anything. I've got a whole heap of studies which I'm happy to provide if you actually will take the time to look at them and actually have an interest if you're just using it as a rhetorical argument though I won't bother so please let me know.

    Oh and as for chiropractic treatment being covered by insurance companies. If this is true, and I suspect it is only true for some insurance companies and probably only for back complaints, it simply highlights the social acceptance of chiropractic treatments which is already obvious. There are several homeopathic hospitals operating in London on the NHS this does not make homeopathy a proven treatment.

    I'm talking about a medical model that was controversial even by Victorian medical standards and which claimed that 95% of disease could be traced to 'subluxations' in the spine which disturbed the 'innate intelligence' of the human body. Here's a quote from a mixer chiropractor Lon Morgan from 1998 to show that even chiropractors recognise the problem with traditional chiropractic theory:

    "Innate Intelligence clearly has its origins in borrowed mystical and occult practices of a bygone era. It remains untestable and unverifiable and has an unacceptably high penalty/benefit ratio for the chiropractic professsion"

    Or how about the chiropractic historian Joseph C. Keating who said:

    "So long as we propound the 'One cause, one cure' rhetoric of Innate, we should expect to be met by ridicule from the wider health science community'.

    Oh as for those studies...

    Crelin, E.S. 1973. A scientific test of chiropractic?s subluxation theory. American Scientist, September/October, pp. 574-80.

    Keating, J.C., K.H. Charlton, J.P. Grod, S.M. Perle, D. Sikorski, and J.F. Winterstein. 2005. Subluxation: Dogma or science? Chiropractic & Osteopathy 13(17): 1-10.

    How about those two to get you started.

    Incidentally the Victorian era was from 1837 to the start of the twentieth century. So quoting figures from the 17th and 13th century seems a bit odd. That aside it is perfectly true that a lot of useful knowledge was gathered during the Victorian era however it is also true that the true causes of disease were not widely understood or widely accepted hence bleeding was still widespread and blinded clinical trials were hardly the norm. Hence many 'alternative' medical models flourished- chiropractic being one though even back then it was harshly criticised because of it's religious undertones.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2008
  20. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Regarding insurance companies covering chiropractic. I'm guessing in the US chiropractic is cheaper than standard evidence-based medicine. If that is the case then it's no surprise that insurance companies cover it. Either that or as CKava said it may be only for the chiropractic treatments that actually have some evidence.
     

Share This Page