Recommend a Chiropractor

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

While I come down firmly against chiropractry, in regards to other quack remedies... if the placebo effect is just as significant as the medical effect, what does that say about a lot of modern medicine?

This is a very interesting topic, but as I understand it, many mainstream medical treatments out-perform what we would expect to see from placebo effects.

[Phaneuf3]

My take on chiro:
It's not a long term solution for back pain. It will not magically cure all your diseases no matter what your chiropractor wants to tell you.

When I had pretty bad back pain and very little range of motion due to an injury, it did provide me with a decent amount of temporary relief and give me back some range of motion. While not curing the root cause, it was enough that I could actually perform stretches and exercises to deal with the underlying problem.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

This is a very interesting topic, but as I understand it, many mainstream medical treatments out-perform what we would expect to see from placebo effects.

I'm thinking especially in regards to chronic pain and psychiatric treatment. I've also read some interesting studies about auto-immune diseases and some cancers.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

My take on chiro:
It's not a long term solution for back pain. It will not magically cure all your diseases no matter what your chiropractor wants to tell you.

When I had pretty bad back pain and very little range of motion due to an injury, it did provide me with a decent amount of temporary relief and give me back some range of motion. While not curing the root cause, it was enough that I could actually perform stretches and exercises to deal with the underlying problem.

Agreed - it's good for some temporary relief, which isn't a bad thing!

... and people who do this sort of work should not be called doctors... I think there is already a good designation for these folks...

"Massage Therapists"

The guys who do all the active release and disease curing stuff using chiro also have a predetermined label - "Witch Doctor" or "Quack". They can be used interchangeably.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Clutch

Please list your evidence that chiropractors cause stroke.

Please then provide your name, profession and business address.

.

We see at least 2-3 a year in the VGH ER, I just saw one the other month. Vertebral artery dissections following chiro manipulation are a documented phenomenon, you guys just hide behind the "he must have had the dissection before he came to see me" defense.

And if any part of your "defense" were true, you are doing the acute stroke population a serious disservice by delaying appropriate treatment.

[NBC]

Active release is essentially massage therapy. I do not think that it can be placed in the same category as curing disease through spinal manipulation.

Way off.

And if we are getting into the semantic debate of who should or should not be referred to as doctors, then you have to extend the definition to cover everyone who does not hold a PhD or DPhil. That would include all MDs that aren't PhDs. A medical degree is far from a PhD. These individuals are GPs or just plain old physicians.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by peter12

While I come down firmly against chiropractry, in regards to other quack remedies... if the placebo effect is just as significant as the medical effect, what does that say about a lot of modern medicine?

This is an erroneous statement. True modern medicine is evidence based, meaning for it to be considered valid, it has been compared to a control (frequently a placebo). If it is no better than the placebo, it is not considered a significant medical effect.

[sworkhard]

I use chiropractors occasionally, mostly to quickly loosen some muscles in my back that get really tight (so that the average massage doesn't help, although I have finally found one person who's technique works for me). I follow it up with a good brisk walk (before I drive away) and regularly visit the gym. For me it really helps when I need quick little boost, but the only way to get permanent relief is with appropriate exercises and stretches. If it's a placebo effect, for the $15 it costs me, it's well worth it.

Just because there is no scientific evidence that certain traditional treatments works, doesn't mean they don't. It just means no-body has spent significant sums of money to find out.

Chiropractry is useful if you have lower back pain, and are willing to supplement it with the appropriate exercises and stretches. It can help occasionally with neck issues, but usually learning how to stretch and exercise your chest, shoulders, arms, neck and back will have a greater benefit.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by NBC

Active release is essentially massage therapy. I do not think that it can be placed in the same category as curing disease through spinal manipulation.

Way off.

And if we are getting into the semantic debate of who should or should not be referred to as doctors, then you have to extend the definition to cover everyone who does not hold a PhD or DPhil. That would include all MDs that aren't PhDs. A medical degree is far from a PhD. These individuals are GPs or just plain old physicians.

Well, let's get one thing clear about PhDs, before we start pretending that it's a standard we should require medical practitioners to aspire to.

I have a PhD. But you'd be shocked at how rarely I get asked to look at people's rashes or manipulate their spines. Also, how rarely I get called "Dr. Iowa_Flames_Fan." This is partly because I mostly keep it on the DL. It's also because my PhD is in English Literature.

Let's not pretend a PhD is some magic argument-winning bullet. It's not the same as an MD. In fact, it's completely different. Whatever the field is, a PhD is a person who is recognized for having done academic research. An MD is a person who went to school to learn how to treat illness and help people.

I mean, I'm proud of my research and everything, but when I need medical treatment, I go to someone who went to medical school.

I will say that there is something epic about this argument, now that Clutch is involved. I've never seen someone post so many times, with so much bold-face lettering, without advancing a single coherent argument beyond weak conspiracy-theory innuendo, quotes taken out of context and a kind of blind ad hominem blanket attack in which no-one who posts here could possibly have the expertise to contradict his obviously airtight argument. Which, if I could figure out what his argument was, I might actually try to do.

[amorak]

I think Clutch had to resort to his inane ramblings because of the lack of factual, medically accepted tests showing chiropractic maninpiulations are nothing but:

• At best, an expensive temporary pain releiver
• Usually quackery
• At worst, kill people. We have a doctor from an ER posting here about how often he sees people who have strokes due to chiropractic adjustments

For my body, I do the following analysis: Is the potential for some temporary relief worth the real possibility of a chiropractor-induced stroke/death.

Answer is no, therefore I don't recommend chiropractors.

[Kjesse]

I have been a chiro doubter for most of my life.

I have also had a recurring lower back issue since I was 14 after I was body-checked into the boards. I twisted in a certain way and had excruciating pain. Now, every so often, I get low level but persistent pain when standing. Walking is fine, even running is fine, but just standing sometimes kills my lower back.

I went to a chiro last year for the first time on the advice of a friend. I was super skeptical.

My chiro did these measurements and said my hips were out of alignment, because my heels weren't lining up properly. This diagnosis was made with very little actual examination, so again, I was skeptical.

Then she went into the manipulation. As it turns out the pain was more a hip/back issue than a back issue. The manipulation did wonders on the first treatment.

Then she said I should come in 3 times per week. Again I was very skeptical, but I gave it a try. I found the manipulations had diminishing returns after the first one. I think she is very good at what she does though.

Now I only plan to go a couple times a year. It helps, but it certainly is not curing anything. I also don't think they should be called "Doctors" as that is to me somewhat misleading. There are too many quacks in the chiro world who think chiro can cure everything. To me a "Dr" is either a medical doctor or a distinguished academic. (I have the option of converting my LL.B. into a J.D... I don't plan on doing it, but even if I did, I certainly would not adopt the title "Dr.")

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by troutman

This is a very interesting topic, but as I understand it, many mainstream medical treatments out-perform what we would expect to see from placebo effects.

Anti-depressants are a medicine that performs basically the same as the placebos but are still commonly used. (Note for severely depressed people they seem to work, for the normally depressed people they work the same as placebos)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by amorak

I think Clutch had to resort to his inane ramblings because of the lack of factual, medically accepted tests showing chiropractic maninpiulations are nothing but:

• At best, an expensive temporary pain releiver
• Usually quackery
• At worst, kill people. We have a doctor from an ER posting here about how often he sees people who have strokes due to chiropractic adjustments

For my body, I do the following analysis: Is the potential for some temporary relief worth the real possibility of a chiropractor-induced stroke/death.

Answer is no, therefore I don't recommend chiropractors.

For non-neck manipulations I don't believe there is a risk of stroke. I also would argue for those with employer health coverage a very cheap pain reliever.

I think there is a narrow band of usage for chiro similar in scope to phsyio and massage care.

[amorak]

I agree. I would be just as pissed is masseuses started calling themselves Doctors.

Of course, they'd have MDHA's - Medical Doctorate in Happy Endings

[GGG]

Originally Posted by amorak

I agree. I would be just as pissed is masseuses started calling themselves Doctors.

Of course, they'd have MDHA's - Medical Doctorate in Happy Endings

I don't care if a chiro calls himself a Doctor. It is just a term.

When the quacks start preaching there sublax / immune system theory and encroach on the Scope of practice of MD's. I could care less about the title.

I also don't think people are confused by chiro's calling them doctors. The ones that believe the whole schtick would believe it anyway whether or not they are called doctors.

I am in the engineering field and there is always a lot of concern over who is called an engineer as to be called one you need to be registered through Apegga. Again the focus is on the name instead of focusing on people practicing engineering without a license whether they call themselves engineers or not.

So I would much rather see chiro's fined for practicing medicine outside their area of expertise than a fight over the work doctor.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by 4X4

You've never thrown out your back doing something stupid like lifting something heavy or drunken wrestling on a concrete driveway? A chiro will get that kink out of your back.

Probably... But so will a good massage therapist, physio therapist, acupuncturist, or even tennis ball...


"Throwing you back out" is a muscle spasm. Don't you think if you're continually throwing your back out of whack that there is a bigger problem? I won't discredit the relief a chiro, or any therapist, can provide (placebo or not) but at the end of the day aren't you better off treating the cause to prevent it from happening again?

Chiro's thrive off of lazy vulnerable people. Their patients feel they're "suffering" and want instant results. It's far easier to have someone massage a knot out or crack your back then it is to actually put the time and effort in to building strength and flexibility to prevent it from happening again.

Good posture, lifting techniques, flexibility, core strength and overall fitness are far more effective at reducing back pain then any chiropractor.

This next statement might not go over well with some but as far as I'm concerned general back pain is kind of like obesity. There are a lot of snake oil salesmen that pray on the vulnerable. In my opinion "Back 2 Life" and most Chiropractors are no different then a vibrating ab belt and diet pills. They all promise quick easy results without actually addressing the root cause...


As for a chiropractor recommendation, of the many chiro's I've seen I really liked Dr. Bryan Miles who I now believe is located at the Riverside club by Edworthy park. He's a younger guy just out of school with a degree in kinesiology as well. I found him quite knowledgeable and very helpful. Long story short, he did what he felt he could do to help then referred me to a Sports Med MD. I've never seen him again while my back has never felt better.

[old-fart]

I'm pretty sure most back pain is caused by an excess of thetans, weighing down the spine.

The answer is obvious.... rid yourself of the excess thetans, become immortal and a superhero, and you wouldn't need a chiro. And you only need to pay several hundred thousand dollars to your local Scientology org.

Then you too can be just like Tom Cruise. Haven't you ever driven by an accident and known you were the only one who could help? Tom has, because he's a superhero.

[habernac]

A good chiropractor will also give you exercises and stretches to help your condition. I recommend Dr Korpela in Beddington Towne Centre. I see him maybe a couple of times a year.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

This is an erroneous statement. True modern medicine is evidence based, meaning for it to be considered valid, it has been compared to a control (frequently a placebo). If it is no better than the placebo, it is not considered a significant medical effect.

The ideal rarely works out in reality. It's often medical studies that are erroneous, not the above statement.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/

[troutman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consoli...porting_Trials

The main product of the CONSORT Group is the CONSORT Statement,[1] which is an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials. It offers a standard way for authors to prepare reports of trial findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, reducing the influence of bias on their results, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation.

Results from a recent systematic review suggest that use of the CONSORT checklist is associated with improved reporting of randomized trials