I really agree with you on this. To a point. Not all back quacks think that way. I used to be a huge naysayer to back quacks. Chiropractic medicine Is in my opinion just as viable as the flu shot. ( I still got the flu) after receiving the Medicaly proven flu shot.
No simple solution Manipulaitve medicine has been around since primitive times. Lots of groups have practiced it including osteopaths, chiropractors, physical therapists, doctors and others. The theories have often been questionable between groups but it is even more difficult when big differences exist within groups. I am sure that there are many within chiropractic that are striving to help patients and do what they beleive to be the best treatment. Sometimes they might be correct and sometimes patients get better or worse in spite of treatment. This might be said for all manipulative professions but the chiropractic profession has a unique problems. There are basically 2 types of chiropractors: straights and mixers. Straights feel anything can be treated with manipulation. Mixers are closer to physios/osteopathy/medical manipulators. Even now , when some chiropractic schools have become affiliated with universities you still get mixer chiropractors that are off promoting anti-vaccination, pro homeopathy etc. Furthermore there are sub groups that complicate things further. The son of the founder of DD Palmer, named BJ Palmer, has been quoted : Looking at the anatomy Palmer concludes, “we chiropractors were wrong in part when we said that every vertebrae can be subluxated, and yet we had overlooked this vulnerable point at the top” – a reference to the occipito-atlanto-axial complex and further “All pressures here are spinal cord pressures”. This suggests that there is a branch of chiropractic that beleives no subluxations can occur in most of the joints that almost every chiropractor manipulates.. the whole thing gets confusing. One man I was influenced by was first a physical therapist, then an osteopath and finally a chiropractor. He tried to seperate out the best in manipulative practice without the ''complementary'' or alternative ideas. Not perfect but moving in an acceptable direction for those interested in evidence based medicine. Manipulation is only potentially one tool in a treatment program and not the be all and end all of treatment techniques There are some similar thinking people in chiropractic but there is so much money/prestige/power related issues that I am not sure things will change for a long time. I think that all manipulative practitioners might find some role within regular medicine once research goes further but until there are more changes chiropractic will still be looked at with a jaunduced eye. If you are interested , Edzard Ernst has written a review of one of the latest papers discussing the safety/efficacy of chiropractic treatment. http://edzardernst.com/2013/08/evidence-based-chiropractic-is-an-oxymoron/ LFD
Before you even get to the purported systemic "benefits" (i.e. curing cancer or whatever), you face the huge issue that the central idea of chiropractic is flawed. Vetebral manipulation has no scientific basis (at least any science that wasn't made up). There are very flimsy links to the potential benefits of such techniques being able to alleviate back pain, but even then it isn't a course of treatment when you consider: a) other, better treatment options are available (which are based on sound science), and b) there is a real risk of paralysis or even death. The only evidence to support the benefits of chiropractic in this thread is anecdotal. Do we really need to have a lengthy discussion why THAT is flawed?
I don't need to read them because I have not interest in changing people's minds who are dead set against chiropractic care. I have life experience. That is what I need. I am not going to suddenly disbelieve my life experience because someone with an agenda on the Internet posted a study. I have never been interested in swaying anyone's opinion set in the matter either.I have merely said I have this experience. It works for me. So that people logging on here can see some people feel they benefit from it. (And note I am not the only one.) So that people can see there are alternative belief's from what you and Redcoat think. But if one isn't set against it, maybe they want to explore options before being hopped up on drugs or having to have surgery. I am not even telling them to do it, but to explore it as a possibility after they do their own research. So, no - my angle in this thread is not some great debate. I really do not care if you hate it. You are entitled to your opinion. I merely am expressing another opinion for those with more open minds to alternative treatments. How many times do I have to point this out? My intention was never to convince you to change your mind. But for others with more open minds to have differing views to consider.
The issue isn't whether some of the techniques performed by Chiropractors work for some conditions/injuries, because they do. Rather, the issue is whether you should have those techniques performed by a Chiropractor or by a musculoskeletal physiotherapist.
it's telling that countries which have widespread public healthcare have moved toward evidence based medicine, to ensure they keep taxes low with the best care possible and for efficiency of treatment, usually consider musculoskeletal physiotherapists more legit than chiropractors because of evidence. chiropractic industry operates in a very similar manner to homeopathy and therefore isnt trusted by many people (especially, if you've noticed in this thread - brits). but the view points here on chiropractors are the issue: Raeoh and aardia - if it works for me, i dont care about the mechanism or who is performing it. David and redcoat - the system/regime of treatment is largely rubbish but a few techniques do work. I prefer to take the stance of ben goldacre - if it works for certain people, why does it work for certain people. what can be learned from their treatment - is it the effect of counciling? massage therapy? certain techniques? why doesnt it work for other people? why are the standards so low in chiropractic care? is it because it isnt based on solid science or is it because the organisations involved have other agendas?
its actually a widespread issue in medicine especially with the media - lay people only care about the individual, personal or raw number outcome. the scientists care about the stats and evidence finding a middle ground is the job of the doctor and as fish said they often dont seem to be as caring as we'd like
If seeing a chiropractor is the only other option to drugs or surgery, then there is something seriously wrong with health care provision in your area. It shouldn't be a Western conventional medicine vs. alternative therapies debate. All treatments should be based on evidence. Anecdote doesn't cut it. It's for the good of humanity. Yup.
I would definitely go for that. I am all for researching potential benefits. However, for that to work, you have to take the hokum and charlatanism out of chiropractic - at which point, is it still chiropractic, or does it simply become physical therapy?
