Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan2
Agreed on your points. Although Fuzz, implied a kinesiologist is trained in spinal manipulation and chiros are not. Agreed on the HPA recognition, again that was more a rebuttal of kinesiology as a health care profession than a (what's it called, appeal to authority or something?). Also, your link to Quackwatch is not particularly compelling. One dude with a vendetta does not a scientific abstract make. Having said that, there are definitely different schools of thought in chiro. My wife, and CMCC in general, are 'mixers' which means they follow a 'scientific' approach to the practice, as opposed to 'straights'. Mixers, in short, believe that pressure on a nerve is a bad thing and if a muscle can be released, which will take pressure off the bone pressing on a nerve, then that will be a good thing. (Think garden hose with something crimping it, move the thing crimping it and water flows better) I am not doing the argument justice but it is certainly much different than releasing the hobgoblins that live in your spine. There is a spectrum of the profession that did and do believe in the more mystical solutions. Maybe it was ignorance of anatomy or not understanding the bio mechanics of it, but they are also largely the fringes of the profession. I may be wrong here but I am not sure if they are even allowed to use the term subluxation anymore.
I would suggest that a more nuanced review of the topic would be in order before calling an entire profession into question, or even quackery. I know there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific studies about the bio-mechanics, efficacy etc. of chiro. Much like there are for a lot of different interventions. Some say it helps, some say not so much.
The only reason I am going into detail with you is the respectful way you approached the conversation, and I am grateful for that. I asked my wife why this does not bother her. She says because she gets the daily interaction from her 10-25 patients a day that come to her because they are in pain and that leave with the pain either substantially reduced or a plan to get it reduced.
I sit at a desk all day reading rabble rousers.  |
I'm happy you acknowledge it, and DoubleF did a good job of bringing up the problem when he said "As someone who also has defended chiropractors, you have to have a bit thicker skin and
address the fact there's more than one school of thinking. My buddy took that head on and said that
there's schools of thinking in chiro that are stupid and dangerous and not scientifically backed, but he is not of that school of thinking." That's the big problem with chiropractic; you have people taking some of the more benign aspects and then mixing scientifically-backed practice into it (mixers) and then you have people who might as well be biological flat-earthers with some of the absurd sh-t they propose doing. Chiropractic's inability (or lack of desire) to remove these wacky practices from its umbrella are why it gets the reputation it does.
As for "[...] your link to Quackwatch is not particularly compelling. One dude with a vendetta does not a scientific abstract make", I never said I was linking to a study. I said I was linking to the 'general concerns people have with chiropractic practice', simply a summation of those concerns written by someone who had more experience and knowledge on the subject than either you or I do, because as I said before: we've had this conversation previously, so no need to go through it again.
I save my delving into scientific papers and trials these days for subjects of more interest to me, or when people start bringing up the work of that insufferable twat Michael Pollan and need to be smacked around a bit.