Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
I am happy to read some evidence.
One of my best mates is a Chiro.
I haven't seen it.
If a Chiro is effective it is usually because they had slid into the more of the physio approach and away from traditional Bone cracking
|
I would never go to any chiro that bases the vast majority of their approach with approaches that would not be indistinguishable from that of a physio. I basically want someone who is basically a physio that can give me short term relief but also analyze and tell me what to focus on long term without me pointing out exactly what I think is wrong for them to focus on.
My chiro buddy basically describes it as, the basic level chiropractic stuff is typically similar techniques not too dissimilar to what you'd find as scientifically supported for physiotherapy and other therapies that target the physical systems of the body (massage and other wise). There's usually few disagreements at this point.
Mid level chiropractic stuff also have scientific analysis. However, the mid level stuff is the adjustment and manipulations that often and usually have scientific analysis that is either inconclusive, or warns about evaluating whether the risk vs reward of these techniques, with a heavy emphasis of, "If in doubt, don't do it.". This is where things start to get grey.
Ignoring improper execution... Some people will try many things and the popping and relief they get from adjustments and manipulation in chiro is one of very few things that they claim will offer benefit. Others might objectively show that there is no conclusive evidence that the mid level chiropractic stuff is offering a benefit. Bringing improper execution of techniques back into the equation, due to the risk of type of injury vs the possibility of no conclusive evidence of benefit, it's perhaps more preferable to consider chiropractic medicine as a last resort and to recommend investigating other disciplines for similar types of relief before choosing chiropractic therapy.
Fringe level stuff... yeah it's basically scientifically proven to be wrong. Not inconclusive, just wrong. The majority of chiros will actually agree that it's bunk. Adjustment/manipulation give opportunities for physical relief. It doesn't do anything for healing illnesses. I think the biggest issue is that chiros do not do enough to completely disassociate themselves with people like this, as other medical professions may do when fringe ideas pop up in their medical disciplines (ie: Pharmacy vs Ivermectin).
I trust my buddy that I grew up with who is a chiro. But... he started his training in physiotherapy and sports medicine before continuing into chiropractic medicine at U of T. He also went to the same rigors (if not higher) as other physiotherapists out there before he was allowed to to do adjustments and manipulations on me as a chiro. The primary rigor he succeeded in, was objectively diagnosing my physical ailments and coming up with his own conclusion, relying on my input to increase the depth of his assessment and not revise it. Another is that I occasionally request alternatives to parallel or replace the original treatment to see how they react. I've only met one or two physios that can do that to the level I am happy with. Someone who is truly good is often intrigued with a request like that and open to immediately exploring the concept (within reason), even if it doesn't ultimately change the original diagnosis. This rather than the majority I've met that get uncomfortable/disregards the idea until their original treatment is applied first and evaluated things at the next appointment. I usually go to people like this 3 times total for the benefit of the doubt and then stop because my belief is confirmed.