Chiropratic = crap

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

  1. Schmeag

    Schmeag Valued Member

    I concur with Mr. C. Fish. This discussion seems to be generating a fair amount of controversy, but MAP loves controversy. :D

    Ah, I see what you mean. I think I misappropriated the word 'logic' and perhaps in my haste to rebut the issue at hand, flung some words around carelessly. Late as it may seem, I do apologise for what may have been a fiery denunciation of your subsequent response.

    Holistic is actually a buzz word used by the up-and-coming medical practioners of the next generation. Chiropractic, or indeed, osteopathy, acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine...etc. cannot by themselves be considered holistic. A holistic view of medicine includes immunology, neuroscience, behavioural science, anatomy, physiology, biology, histology, pharmacology, sociology, epidemiology, law, ethics, complementary medicine and clinical aspects. In the end, the psychiatrist will focus mainly on the mental state, the dermatologist will focus on the skin, the epidemiologist will focus on population statistics; yes, the acupuncturists will 'stick needles in you', the homeopaths will prescribe 'expensive' water and the chiropractor will do these spine adjustments.

    Together, all these medicine-related practitioners and academics form this so-called 'buzz-word' of holistic treatment. No one practitioner is ever going to be awesome at all of the above fields, so that's why we have a referral system. This is so we can treat the whole person whilst being fairly open-minded (if cautious) about our methods. On top of that, we have academics conducting research into health and society, and it may be annoying, but medical law can be essential in preventing one from getting sued in a clinical situation. Keeping up to date with current research also ensures holistic treatment.

    Well, put it like this: evidence from 2008 or evidence from 1950? Which one would you pick? Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with you, but recent evidence is certainly more convincing than a custom originating in the early 20th century, and at least likely to be more convincing than evidence from around the second world war.

    If there was solid evidence against a type of treatment, one would dismiss the treatment. If there was solid evidence in favour of a type of treatment, one might embrace the treatment. I would think, then, that if there was a lack of evidence for or against, one would be more holistic if they neither dismissed or embraced alternative treatment. One would have to simply provide information and caution if necessary and allow them the autonomy to decide what is best for themselves.
  2. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    No problem I actually quite enjoy fiery denunciations!

    I don't quite agree that holisitic is often employed in the way you discuss above. I haven't come across for instance any hospitals being referred to as holistic hospitals just because they have different specialists that people can be referred to. 'Holistic' I would say is unquestionably a buzz-word of CAM. Type 'holisitic' and medicine into google and have a look what pops up. I would agree that holisitic and integrative approaches have gained popularity in mainstream medicine however I would contend that more often than not these are approaches which are heavily related to the whole field of CAM and CAM advocates.

    I'm confused you initially seemed to be suggetsing that scientific and evidence based medicine was nothing new and was just 'doing what has always been done' in medicine and now you seem to be arguing the exact opposite.

    As for your present point, of course I agree that modern studies, when conducted properly, provide more compelling evidence because of our ever increasing knowledge of the body and improvements in diagnostics, technology and so on. However, the point is that in the past 100 years or so as clinical trials became increasingly important the evidence became increasingly more convincing. There are many trials conducted say in the 1950's whose results remain entirely convincing.

    I agree with your final sentence about how it is ultimately an individuals choice however I disagree with the insinuation that there is a lack of evidence one way or the other for the effectiveness for various alternative treatments. Many popular alternative treatments have been subjected to hundreds if not thousands of clinical trials. Chiropractic treatments are a good example... they have undisputably been shown in well conducted trials to have no effect for any illness other than back and neck pains and even then the evidence of their effectiveness is ultimately no better than that of mainstream (cheaper) treatments. Doesn't stop chiropractors from claiming to treat a whole variety of illnesses and claiming incrdible rates of success not supported by the clinical evidence.
  3. Schmeag

    Schmeag Valued Member

    As far as I know, the university that I study the MBBS uses 'holistic' a lot in its study overview, and incorporates some parts of complementary medicine into its curriculum. During our patient-centred learning tutes, apart from examining the definition, risk factors, pathogenesis, medical/surgical treatment, cultural issues of a case, we also tend to have a section on complementary medicine that we have to research. Ultimately, I agree with you on the whole that the CAM factor tends to cause medical treatment to become 'holistic', yet by that token of thought, it is still a word that is becoming part of mainstream medicine.

    Oh, basically, I said "Evidence-based medicine is more telling than doing what has always been done" as in, evidence-based medicine has more weight/is more revealing/is more impressive than doing what has always been done. I was also slightly confused when you replied with a point that seemed to generally agree with me, but I suppose the issue is now resolved.

    I agree. When there has not been any recent, solid, contrary evidence, then results from the 1950s would be the best we have.

    I haven't much familiarity with epidemiological studies regarding chiropractic, so I can't really say much about it. However, I do believe that theoretically, there is potential for compression of the ANS via a intervertebral disc prolapse to cause seemingly unrelated disorders such as obesity. Whether chiropractic treatments can relieve the pressure of the herniated disc on the spinal nerves, I cannot say.
  4. CatWise

    CatWise Valued Member

    CKava and Schmeag, I have to say that I really enjoyed both of your last posts.

    CKava I look forward to reading the studies. I have couple of weekend seminars to travel to and it will make a good read on the plane. As for the Victoria Era - well history was NEVER my strong subject! Give me Mathematical Science any day, but start talking about date and I go stupid. So, point well taken on that. I still disagree with you on most of all other points, but I will agree to disagree and again, I really enjoy your posts. (This one and other ones as well).

    I do have a question, as I think I might have had a wrong understanding of something. Someone raised the question that "innate" intelligence is something of a myth, or a mystical idea. Which to me brings about the idea that there is some disagreement of the Innate Intelligence being a real thing. I was under the understanding that innate mean inborn, inherit etc. Which I understood that as your body having an inborn ability to health and fix itself etc. and the ANS was a big part of it. You know, you are not there thinking about how fast should your heart beat or what cells need to be replaced etc. I thought that we are a complex beings, mind, body and spirit, and the body part is actually under the control of the innate intelligence, the ANS system.

    Now, I am not of the medical background what so ever. I am actually more on the Physics - Chemistry - Calculus and now business side of thing. So, I always think in very analytical terms. From all of my experience with Chiropractic, I have never run into one that thought that one adjustment would cure someone of cancer or anything like that. But, I do agree with the view point that I have gotten from them, that before you start cutting and putting people on very heavy medication, lets see if you can do something to fix the problem by diet changes, life style changes etc.

    I have taken on this view point because of my own personal experience. I have been VERY sick in my early 20'ies, and put on antidepressants because they could not find the cause of my incredibly painful headaches that would actually cause my vision to go away. Through the chiropractic adjustments my headaches did go away, however my chiro told me that is a temporary fix. We worked on my diet because that is what screwed me up, and as my body improved I didn't need the adjustments.
  5. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    The beauty of miscommunication I suppose! I thought you were saying evidence based medicine is about telling about what has always been done but it seems you were actually saying evidence based medicine is more 'telling' than just following tradition? Or am I still missing the mark?

    Well to be fair I may have been a bit too dismissive in my previous reply. There will inevitably be individuals and groups willing to dispute anything regardless of how strong the evidence behind it is (see hiv-aids link deniers for instance). However, for those who value clinical evidence and base their conclusions on what the evidence shows the pattern is clear. Chiropractic treatments have not been shown to be effective for anything other than back and neck problems and this pattern has been shown repeatedly across numerous well conducted trials.

    I also accept your point that 'holistic' is becoming a common word in mainstream medicine due to the influence of CAM. However just as CAM becoming more prevalent in mainstream medicine doesn't make it better supported by evidence neither does the prevalence of the term 'holistic' suggest much except the increasing influence of CAM rhetoric. Nevertheless, if it results in doctors providing better care for patients I think ultimately it could end up having some beneficial effects.

    Enjoying the discussion!

    EDIT: Catwise thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate it when people can view a discussion without taking points personally and I apologise if my responses come across a little sharp at times it's just my way! Anyway, I'll get back to your new points later tonight...
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2008
  6. Topher

    Topher allo!

    The general claim is that we have a life energy or chi (which in Chiropractic it is called Innate Intelligence) that flows from the top of our head (and some say is derived from god), and down our spine. When this life energy is flowing without any impediments, we are well, however when we have subluxations (i.e. misalignments of the spine) this life energy becomes disrupted, and this, according to straight Chiropractic, is responsible for all sorts of conditions and diseases. This is why they do what they do... by cracking the back they are trying to remove the blockages to the Innate Intelligence.

    Straight Chiropractic believes all of this nonsense, scientific Chiropractic rejects all of it, while the Mixers sit on a spectrum between the two.

Share This Page