Ice or Heat - Page 3 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Titan · 12-09-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

And you are not biased?

Tell me - what would be the "personal agenda" of Chirobase?

Isn't the information on Chirobase unbalanced?

The key consideration should be whether the information is accurate, which it is. We provide many links to chiropractic Web sites to enable browsers to explore the full range of prochiropractic viewpoints. We also invite individual chiropractors to furnish comments that we can post. If you would like to suggest additional sites to which we should link, please notify us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractor

Opinions differ as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment; many other medical procedures also lack rigorous proof of effectiveness.[13] Many controlled clinical studies of spinal manipulation (SM) are available, but their results disagree,[85] and they are typically of low quality.[86] Health claims made by chiropractors about using manipulation for pediatric health conditions are supported by only low levels of scientific evidence.[87] A 2008 critical review found that with the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic SM has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition, and suggested that many guidelines recommend chiropractic care for low back pain because no therapy has been shown to make a real difference,[88] but a 2008 supportive review found serious flaws in the critical approach and found that SM and mobilization are at least as effective for chronic low back pain as other efficacious and commonly used treatments.[89] Most research has focused on spinal manipulation (SM) in general,[90] rather than solely on chiropractic SM.[12] A 2002 review of randomized clinical trials of SM[35] was criticized for not distinguishing between studies of SM in general, and studies on chiropractic SM in particular;[91] however the review's authors stated that they did not consider this difference to be a significant point as research on SM is equally useful regardless of which practitioner provides it.

First, I have clearly stated where I am coming from. I am married to a chiro and resent when her profession is subjected to what I believe are unwarranted and unfair attacks. If someone has a bad experience or has had a bad chiro that is certainly valid and supports their position of that person. However, it is unfair to malign an entire profession. As a lawyer I also feel that and I would hope you do to. Yes I can have a sense of humour about lawyer jokes etc. but I think you would agree that being called a shyster stings a bit. We both know people that hold that opinion.

Having said that I take no small amount of pride in being able to identify my own opinion on a matter and then being able to objectively identify the best and worst points of the opposing position. This has served me well as a lawyer of almost 10 years, 7 of those as a litigator. I hope you can respect that. I hope I did not imply that you are biased. I simply don't have enough information about you to come to that conclusion. I was only intending to highlight that there are in fact biased people and websites that exist and I suspect this is one of them.

The site you referenced is also called quackwatch. I do not know what their personal agenda is but I do know they are anti-chiro. That does not mean all of the information on that sight is wrong. I have not the time or interest to investigate that. What I do know is that they cherry pick from the available information to create a distorted perception. I am merely trying to present the alternative viewpoint from a layman's perspective. I have been tertially involved in the chiropractic profession for about 13 years and as such have been exposed to the allegations and accusations about the profession as well as the responses to same. I have found the responses to be far more compelling. (on a side note the lawyer for Steve Moore is also involved in defending chiro negligence claims. A bit of nerd lawyer trivia.)

The references I provided above include scientific based, peer reviewed, journals. They are not pro or anti chiro but publish valid scientific studies.

I have hijacked this thread enough so I will go eat dinner now.

Titan · 12-09-2008, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buff

When my wife got into physio it was an incredibly hard program to get into. They accepted 66 applicants each year. In her class only 3 or 4 were accepted right out of high school, and those seemed to be the average numbers each year. My wife actually is one year away from an undergrad degree because it took her three tries to get accepted, which is common. There were many in her class who weren't accepted before having completed undergrad degrees. It is (was) a hard program, I think just under 60 people in her class graduated.

They changed the program after my wife got in, I can't remember if it was the year after she got in or the year before she graduated. Kinda curious now. When do you know when your wife's friend graduated (or got into school)?

Interesting tidbit.... My wife's 1st roommate at U of A was also taking Physical Therapy (two years ahead of my wife), she was in the same class as Jarome Iginla's wife (girlfriend at the time).

I appreciate how hard it is. I have always said the hardest part about law school was getting in.

Our friend went about 1989-90.

troutman · 12-09-2008, 07:20 PM

The site you referenced is also called quackwatch. I do not know what their personal agenda is but I do know they are anti-chiro.

I would say it is pro-science, not anti-chiro. It is by no means the only site objectively skeptical about chiro. If they were presented with reliable evidence, they would amend their position.

I have not the time or interest to investigate that. What I do know is that they cherry pick from the available information to create a distorted perception.

How would you know they cherry pick, if you have never investigated the site? For what possible reason would they want to distort perceptions?

I should be clear - what I am skeptical about is spinal manipulation. Other things that chiros do may be beneficial. I am interested to look at the research you linked.

The Mission Statement of Chirobase (tell me how this is anti-chiro):

To provide comprehensive information about chiropractic history, theories, and current practices.
To encourage and support the use of science-based practices by chiropractors.
To identify and oppose the use of unscientific practices by chiropractors.
To warn the public about inappropriate chiropractic care.
To advise about how to deal with charges for unnecessary services.
To help people seeking appropriate chiropractic care to locate it.
To pinpoint the risks involved in pursuing a chiropractic career.

http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

http://www.ncahf.org/pp/chirop.html

Tower · 12-09-2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Fair enough, I apologize if it came across as too harsh.

No worries! We've been posting on here long enough to know each other... Well maybe... lol Anyhow thanks!

Tower · 12-09-2008, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

The site you referenced is also called quackwatch. I do not know what their personal agenda is but I do know they are anti-chiro.

I would say it is pro-science, not anti-chiro. It is by no means the only site objectively skeptical about chiro. If they were presented with reliable evidence, they would amend their position.

I have not the time or interest to investigate that. What I do know is that they cherry pick from the available information to create a distorted perception.

How would you know they cherry pick, if you have never investigated the site? For what possible reason would they want to distort perceptions?

I should be clear - what I am skeptical about is spinal manipulation. Other things that chiros do may be beneficial. I am interested to look at the research you linked.

The Mission Statement of Chirobase (tell me how this is anti-chiro):

To provide comprehensive information about chiropractic history, theories, and current practices.
To encourage and support the use of science-based practices by chiropractors.
To identify and oppose the use of unscientific practices by chiropractors.
To warn the public about inappropriate chiropractic care.
To advise about how to deal with charges for unnecessary services.
To help people seeking appropriate chiropractic care to locate it.
To pinpoint the risks involved in pursuing a chiropractic career.

http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

http://www.ncahf.org/pp/chirop.html

Instead would it not be best to talk to a chiropractor in person than a message board thread. You have little to lose and possibly (due to your current stance on the subject) so much to gain. I can point you in the direction to wonderful people and they also, believe it or not, are chiropractors!!!

Titan · 12-09-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

The site you referenced is also called quackwatch. I do not know what their personal agenda is but I do know they are anti-chiro.

I would say it is pro-science, not anti-chiro. It is by no means the only site objectively skeptical about chiro. If they were presented with reliable evidence, they would amend their position.

I have not the time or interest to investigate that. What I do know is that they cherry pick from the available information to create a distorted perception.

How would you know they cherry pick, if you have never investigated the site? For what possible reason would they want to distort perceptions?

I should be clear - what I am skeptical about is spinal manipulation. Other things that chiros do may be beneficial. I am interested to look at the research you linked.

The Mission Statement of Chirobase (tell me how this is anti-chiro):

To provide comprehensive information about chiropractic history, theories, and current practices.
To encourage and support the use of science-based practices by chiropractors.
To identify and oppose the use of unscientific practices by chiropractors.
To warn the public about inappropriate chiropractic care.
To advise about how to deal with charges for unnecessary services.
To help people seeking appropriate chiropractic care to locate it.
To pinpoint the risks involved in pursuing a chiropractic career.

http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

http://www.ncahf.org/pp/chirop.html

All three of these sites approach the question from the assumption that chiro is a fraud or quackery. I am not an expert. Repeat, I am not an expert, but from a perusal of the Chiro-org site's topics and article links it becomes clear to me there is a great bias. Also, of interest is the age of most of the articles other than those referencing a lawsuit. This to me is suspicious. As to their "Mission Statement" I would suggest you would not have read much further if they actually stated their intent to have chiro outlawed and all chiros hung from their thumbs.

The science has developed greatly over the years. The idea of 'nerve energy' etc. is not what my wife believes or practices. You may be confusing the term spinal manipulation, being used to be a single cure all for whatever ails you (what was the law school case that dealt with this? puff ball or something? Or it was mere puffery?) for the more general term as it relates to what she does.

As I understand a manipulation, a bone or part of the spine becomes misaligned through neglect or trauma. The muscles on either side of the affected bone are caused to remain either stretched or compressed depending on the direction. A manipulation takes the muscle beyond its normal range of motion and thus causes the muscle to 'release'. This inturn allows the bone to return to "alignment". That is the nutshell version of what she does. She determines the specific muskulosketal element that is out of whack and treats it and only it. Sometimes the neighboring ones also need treatment depending on many factors beyond my grasp.

The magical "spinal manipulation" that is used to treat "subluxations" are theories from the past and are not taught or encouraged in modern schools, to my understanding. There is actually a large degree of science that has been applied to the practice.

Back to the sites for one second. My comment is to truly consider the source. A journal such as Spine is on par with Science and Nature. They have published many articles demonstrating the effectiveness of chiro. They are not "biased" They are truly science based. A common assertion is that the gold standard of the double blind study has not been applied to chiro. This is a red herring as you are not able to introduce a placebo in a manual manipulation and it would likely be unethical to attempt to. However, it is often used as an assertion that Chiro is not science based.

As a final point I would make an analogy to journalism. D'oh boy breaks a story and makes a claim. Duhatschek breaks the opposite story with the opposite claim. Who would you believe?

As a final note I don't wish to be understood that none of the stuff in any of those sites don't happen. I simply think that they are at the fringes of the profession and should not be allowed to tarnish the rest of the "good" ones. But I am, if not biased, I am sleeping with one of them.

Titan · 12-09-2008, 08:36 PM

Carbolic Smoke Ball!!!

Damn I hate not remembering stuff!!

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/carlill.htm

Titan · 12-09-2008, 09:02 PM

Trout:

As a final note here is a link to the Canadian Chiropractic Association site explaining what chiro is from the actual experts by which I mean not me!

http://www.ccachiro.org/client/cca/c...c?OpenDocument

Buff · 12-09-2008, 09:06 PM

My wife will be the first to tell you that some of the things a chiro does can be beneficial, but there is some technique (could be the spinal manipulation that Troutman brings up) that is dangerous. I don't know the numbers but there are quite a few chiros that don't do much of the spoken technique if they don't have to.

Titan · 12-09-2008, 09:16 PM

I think you are referring to a high spinal manipulation (I don't think this is what my wife calls it actually. It is an adjustment of the high neck area.) This has been alleged to cause stroke but the incidences are extremely rare. I don't think it could properly be termed as "dangerous". My wife does it many times daily (assuming we are talking about the same thing.) There are and have been several lawsuits and inquiries related to chiro care and it has been found to be safe and effective when practiced responsibly. There is a risk and that is why chiros receive informed consent from their clients. They are to explain the risk and the anticipated benefit from the treatment and allow the patient to decide. I know from my wife's practice that the returning patients that she treats for headaches as an example are well aware of the risk but feel the benefit is well worth it.

troutman · 12-09-2008, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titan

The science has developed greatly over the years. The idea of 'nerve energy' etc. is not what my wife believes or practices. You may be confusing the term spinal manipulation, being used to be a single cure all for whatever ails you (what was the law school case that dealt with this? puff ball or something? Or it was mere puffery?) for the more general term as it relates to what she does.

Thank you - that is what I have been most concerned about. My hope is that chiro is science based and ethical.

I think this link summarizes my feelings quite well:

http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/chirolinks.html

My criticism is not directed at ethical, reformist chiropracTORs. It is primarily directed at the profession itself, IOW at
chiropracTIC, that keeps producing and protecting the "real" chiropractors who are traditional, "straight" and
"subluxation-based". They are like dinosaurs, who should have been extinct a long time ago, but are still being educated
in even the largest chiropractic schools. Many of the newer and younger chiropractors are even worse than their
forefathers.

I do not hold the extreme views of certain chiro skeptics, who seem to consider all DCs as crooks, and manipulation as
having no value at all, etc. While their criticism is often correct, I believe that they go too far and thus impede the efforts
of reformers. It's not that black and white an issue, and is often based on a lack of understanding of physical medicine.

If you have a problem in need of health care, seek a qualified professional, usually starting with your MD. Above all, keep
a skeptical attitude toward all claims that seem too good to be true. They usually are!

cyclone3483 · 12-10-2008, 09:11 AM

Not sure if Chiropractic is the real problem, but rather quacks. Quacks come in all forms, including Chiropractors, physicians, dentists, homeopaths, physical therapists, massage therapists, etc. Every profession has it's share of people who really shouldn't be in the profession. Troutie, you must know a lawyer or two that fit the bill...I certainly have come across an accountant or two like that.

Part of the problem is that some professional organizations have not had strict standards long enough to ensure that all those in the profession operate at a minimal level of competency. Also, ongoing training is not ensured in all professions, so your knowledge base and professional skill can erode over time without upgrading. But ultimately, it comes down to the person, not the professional organization.

Regardless of the skepticism, a GOOD chiropractor will help you to gain better health. I don't know what the standards are for chiropractors...but I CAN tell you there are a couple that have helped me immensely in the past...AND there are also plenty of quacks out there too.

TRUE STORY: a former co-worker's daughter had a medical issue that she had battled for months. Physicians and specialists were unable to provide any answers or relief. I mentioned that my chiropractor was the best I'd ever seen at diagnosis (always figured out the cause) and that it wouldn't hurt to see her. She was skeptical of chiropractors. After another month of no results with 'regular' medical professionals, she visited my chiropractor because she was desperate.

After one visit, she knew what was wrong. After 3 weeks of treatment, the issue was history, completely gone. I don't remember the medical issue nor the treatment (it wasn't skeletal, as I recall, but chemical or hormonal), but my chiropractor provided healing when other medical professionals were unable too.

Let's just make sure not to use a broad brush stroke to label an entire profession...not all are great, not all are terrible, But all are people, with varying degrees of ability.

Titan · 12-10-2008, 09:35 AM

Great post cyclone. I think you hit it on the head. I am a lawyer as well and can say that from what I have seen the regulatory body of chiro is far more strict with its practitioners than even the law society. I don't even think it is allowed to claim the "subluxations cure all" but could be wrong on this point.

However, I agree that individuals can meet the requirements and then in day to day practice not always follow the requirements. Also, Chiro has strict continuing education requirements which lawyers don't have at all, or at least until now. (recently introduced a continuing professional legal development requirement)

My understanding is that CMCC, the major chiro school in Canada, does not teach these "subluxation and spinal manipulation" theories other than in its history class. My wife also mentioned that a study was done comparing the curriculum of U of T med school and CMCC and it was approximately 80% the same. That is part of the reason chiros are considered primary care givers and are allowed, and required, to provide a diagnosis. Your anecdote points directly to this. (was it my wife perchance? She has many stories like that one)

Part of why I react so strongly is that my wife could have gone to med school, she was deans list in a Bachelor of Science in Physiology and she chose chiro and actually finished first in her class. She is extremely science based and takes her job very seriously. She has no patience with the subluxation crowd or the production line chiros as referred to above. I don't like to see her profession unfairly attacked. Valid criticisms are fine and can be counterd or used to improve.

cyclone3483 · 12-10-2008, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titan

Your anecdote points directly to this. (was it my wife perchance? She has many stories like that one)

Not your wife, this chiroprator is unwed

Titan · 12-10-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

Not your wife, this chiroprator is unwed

Could still be. She tells people she is unwed. I think she is shopping for the upgrade!

cyclone3483 · 12-10-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titan

Could still be. She tells people she is unwed. I think she is shopping for the upgrade!

funny