Chiropractic diagnosis

[Dr. Popalot]

Unsubuxated,
Your arguments are weak and largely unsupported by evidence. The link you gave to the Pediatric Chiropractic site is very familiar to me, as I have been there numerous times and find many absurd unsubstianted claims. The studies cited are not valid. They are mostly not RCT's, they are mostly antidotal. If antidotal evidence was acceptable we'd believe everthing, astrology, UFO's, Santa Claus, etc. If you wish to make claims, it is up to you to support your claim with evidence. It's not up to us to disprove them. You apparently don't understand the scientific process. Making someone prove they are not a "b**ch" only diverts the attention away from the item being debated.

Again, tell us what a subluxation is, how it's detected and it's signifigance. Please give references and non-vague termology.

Edited by LuxFerum: 

to add *

 

[HopkinsMedStudent]

Guys, I have met a few chiro students and chiros like unsubluxated. I think this conversation is far beyond his comprehension. He doesnt understand what real science is, so we need to "dumb down" the conversation a little bit.

Unsubluxated, I presented that "research" done by one of the leading chiro journals, and asked you to defend it. Now, I know that its indefensible and 100% quackery, but yet you still make a stab at it, saying that if the women got better, then it must have been because of hte spinal manipulations.

Lets start right there. Lets assume for a moment that the women were in fact infertile and did become fertile after the chiro treatment.

Given those facts, you cant conclude anything. You cant conclude that the spinal manipulation had anything to do with helping infertility. The reasons why you cant conclude this are many:

1) Nobody agrees as to what a "subluxation" is, not even chiropractors. Therefore, when you say the woman has a subluxation, that means many things to many people, and is thus not a validated diagnosis.

2) You cant show any evidence that she had a subluxation. You cant give me an X-ray or a spinal MRI and point out to a radiologist's satisfaction that there is indeed a pathology evident on the film that is consistent with the "subluxation" diagnosis.

3) You cant describe for me how chiropractic therapy can help treat subluxations. You would need to describe for me a biomechanical model with specific forces and hand positions and explain how those can correct the problem. Its not good enough to say that spinal manipulation was done and it corrected the subluxation, you need to explain WHY it worked in detail.

4) The "research" in the jvsr.com website is based on a sample size of 1. You cant reach conclusions based on small sample sizes, much less one individual. Individuals are sufficiently different from each other such that you cant make an inference to the general population based on one person

5) The "research" in the jvsr.com is not double-blind. That is, the only way to remove bias from an experiment is to have the patient and doc "blinded" as to what treatment they are getting. For chiropractic, this is difficult, because it involves "hands on" therapy so obviously the doctor would have to know ahead of time which therapy the patient was getting. But in this situation, the patient should still be blinded. They should randomly be divided into a "sham" manipulation and a chiro manipulation groups, and the patient should not know which group they are assigned. If the patient knows ahead of time what they are going to receive, then innnate biases will come into play. For example, if a woman received chiropractic manipulation before and hated it, then if she knows that she's going to get it again, her internal bias will come out against chiro and make her therapy less effective.

6) The "research" has no controls. Its critical that in order to prove something effective, you have to compare it to a control or the data is meaningless. For example, if I tell you that 50 women took pill X for infertility, and 90% of them were "cured" in 5 months, would you conclude that its an effective treatment? What if I then told you that 50 women took a sugar pill placebo, and 95% of them were "cured" in 2 weeks? Would you still call pill X an effective treatment?

These are the basics. Let me know which of these you dont understand and I'll help elucidate it for you.

 

[Suezoled]

OK, and you are a b**ch. I showed proof I'm not a liar, now show me proof you are not a b**ch.

Predictable.

Calling me a b**ch doesn't make you less a liar.

YOU asserted that chiropractics has helped infertility cases. It might have been mentioned by someone else, but YOU said it helped. I'm saying that as YOU are the one who asserted such a thing, it is up to YOU to back that up. Not Hopskinsmed, you.

Oh, wait... calling me a b**ch is supposed to be an insult of some sort, right? Heh.

Edited by LuxFerum: 

to add *

 

[HopkinsMedStudent]

A little more background on the general state of chiropractic. I dont know if any of you have noticed, but they are in a sorry state overall. Sure, there are some chiros who do well by ripping off the public, and there are actually a few "legit" chiros who advocate manipulation only for certain kinds of low back pain, in which research has shown chiro to be somewhat effective (more on that later).

Did you know that in the US, chiropractic students are the #1 defaulters on federally backed student loans?

Did you know that in chiropractic schools, the STUDENTS are responsible for bringing in their own patients?

Did you know that its very common for chiropractors to prostitute themselves in flea markets and walmarts scouting for customers by offering free spinal screenings? Some even offer free coupons to fast food joints and other "perks" for agreeing to a free consultation.

Chiropractic schools do a disservice to their students. First, there are way too many schools to begin with, such that the market is flooded. Most chiro students go into large amounts of debt and never get to make a career out of their education. The large chiro factories that do exist make a lot of money for their chiropractors, but at the expense of honesty and legitimacy. They tell everyone who comes in that they have a subluxation and need "maintenance therapy" over the course of 2 or 3 years.

I dont deny that people "feel" better after going to chiros, and for SOME kinds of low back pain, going to a chiro is a legit alternative. The problem is that its hard for chiros to make a lot of money by just treating low back pain, so therefore they get involved with quackery. The desire to make more money is a powerful corrupting influence on all of us, and chiros are no different. Many chiros who origianlly were legit, cross over into quackery when they realize that the market is flooded and that its hard to make ends meet by staying strictly legit.

 

[Unsubluxated]

icpa4kids.org/research_child_chiropractic_asthma.htm

 

[Dr. Popalot]

HopkinsMedStudent is right on the money here! As a former DC I can say that I have seen many of his concerns with the profession first hand. A few are good, and do a decent job. Unfortunately, they are in the minority and have a difficult time making it. That's why I left it and went back to medical school.

 

[Zep]

And low back pain can sometimes be treated successfully with NON-chiro physio and massage anyway. So why is chiro any different or any better in that case?

 

[Suezoled]

OK, try icpa4kids.org

Why do you have a problem with kids being adjusted? Five years ago, my daughter was 3 years old and had battled chronic ear and sinus infections her whole life. Our next option was sinus surgery. I decided to try chiropractic on the advice of a friend. Within days her green runny nose had stopped and within 2 weeks, she was pink and healthy for the first time in her life. I know, how dare I not trust the MDs to carve up her beautiful little face. Bad Mom!!!!! My kids get adjusted about once every 2-3 months, they don't get colds, flu, sore throats or URIs. Most kids respond wonderfully to adjustments, which are administered totally different to a child than an adult. I can't count the number of children we see in our office who stop having ear infections, colic, asthma symptoms, allergy symptoms, headaches, sinus problems, bowel problems-I could go on but I fear I'm wasting my breath.

and yet earlier Unsub had said,

No, I don't have the pleasure of being a Chiropractor, merely a voice for stisfied CHiropractic patients. And no, my D.C. hasn't killed anyone unlike Medical care, which according to Kaiser Permanente in CA, is (conservatively) the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S. Hmm, 3 out 4 who die are from medical care, keep working at it, you can probably go higher. BTW, aputate the wrong limb lately?

Sniff test...sniff test....
I smell a chiropractic assistant. One who has eaten the lies and paranoia anti-med advocates fed to her, and she in turn passes it on to her kids.

http://www.canoe.ca/PedChiro/home.html

that's a pretty decent site about chiros and why they shouldn't treat kids.

As for your kid, Unsub, did you ever think...oh wait. Okay, let me rephrase that: there is the possibity of herd immunity, the illness could have run its course, the child could be taking mainstream medicine in conjunction with chiro treatment, or chiro could really work. I tend to doubt the last option, however, for reasons supported by scientific study, case history, etc.

All you've done Unsub is offer poor links that don't qualify as evidence, lies, attempts to divert, insults, and anecdotes. Your case is not building up, your assertions remain invalid.

 

[Suezoled]

And low back pain can sometimes be treated successfully with NON-chiro physio and massage anyway. So why is chiro any different or any better in that case?

I agree. Chiro does have some benefits. But they are far more limited than one would have others believe.

Still, that massage therapy is pretty nice, too.

 

[Dr. Popalot]

Unsubluxated,
You are at least getting better at this. You finally gave a link to support a claim. I went to it and looked. Just as I thought; not good evidence. The study give had no controls. It was just an outcome study. They reported some improvement. There was no controll group (one that got a shame treatment) to compare it with. The conclusion: we don't know if this is better than a placebo or not.

 

[Unsubluxated]

A little more background on the general state of chiropractic. I dont know if any of you have noticed, but they are in a sorry state overall. Sure, there are some chiros who do well by ripping off the public, and there are actually a few "legit" chiros who advocate manipulation only for certain kinds of low back pain, in which research has shown chiro to be somewhat effective (more on that later).

Did you know that in the US, chiropractic students are the #1 defaulters on federally backed student loans?

Did you know that in chiropractic schools, the STUDENTS are responsible for bringing in their own patients?

Did you know that its very common for chiropractors to prostitute themselves in flea markets and walmarts scouting for customers by offering free spinal screenings? Some even offer free coupons to fast food joints and other "perks" for agreeing to a free consultation.

Chiropractic schools do a disservice to their students. First, there are way too many schools to begin with, such that the market is flooded. Most chiro students go into large amounts of debt and never get to make a career out of their education. The large chiro factories that do exist make a lot of money for their chiropractors, but at the expense of honesty and legitimacy. They tell everyone who comes in that they have a subluxation and need "maintenance therapy" over the course of 2 or 3 years.

I dont deny that people "feel" better after going to chiros, and for SOME kinds of low back pain, going to a chiro is a legit alternative. The problem is that its hard for chiros to make a lot of money by just treating low back pain, so therefore they get involved with quackery. The desire to make more money is a powerful corrupting influence on all of us, and chiros are no different. Many chiros who origianlly were legit, cross over into quackery when they realize that the market is flooded and that its hard to make ends meet by staying strictly legit.

Study your history a little and find out why chiropractors were delgated to being 'low back pain' doctors. In the early part of this century, it was well accepted that adjustments were effective for a wealth of physical ailments. When the AMA, attacked chiropractors, they were forced to admit that chiropractic was effective for low back pain, so thats what DCs latched onto. They are trying to dig ourselves out of the hole the AMA put them in and like it or not, millions of people depend on them for their helth care. Can't stand to see patients going to anyone else besides a MD can you? It because of attitudes like yours that make it difficult for a Chiropractic graduate to make it today. You want to learn about toughness, look at a sucessful chiropractor today. And I could give you studies and sources until I'm blue, you dismiss them anyway, what's the point. I could tell you the sky was blue and you would tell me, no it's fuschia, prove that it's blue. Must be nice to be right all the time.

 

[Unsubluxated]

Unsubluxated,
You are at least getting better at this. You finally gave a link to support a claim. I went to it and looked. Just as I thought; not good evidence. The study give had no controls. It was just an outcome study. They reported some improvement. There was no controll group (one that got a shame treatment) to compare it with. The conclusion: we don't know if this is better than a placebo or not.

Thanks for the 'encouragement'. You can't do a 'sham' adjustment without altering something in the spine. Therefore, there is no 'sham' adjustment, just an imprecise one. And I'm not a DC, I'm a Mom and a very satisfied chiropractic patient and I happen to be a technical chiro assistant. I'm sorry if I can't tell you all the scientific aspects of it. My boyfriend, however, is a DC. He chooses not to fight an unwinnable battle such as with the likes of you. He chooses to save those who want to be saved and let burn those who choose to burn. I would have expected you to be more open minded.

 

[Unsubluxated]

HopkinsMedStudent is right on the money here! As a former DC I can say that I have seen many of his concerns with the profession first hand. A few are good, and do a decent job. Unfortunately, they are in the minority and have a difficult time making it. That's why I left it and went back to medical school.

This is just sad!

 

[Unsubluxated]

and yet earlier Unsub had said,

Sniff test...sniff test....
I smell a chiropractic assistant. One who has eaten the lies and paranoia anti-med advocates fed to her, and she in turn passes it on to her kids.

http://www.canoe.ca/PedChiro/home.html

that's a pretty decent site about chiros and why they shouldn't treat kids.

As for your kid, Unsub, did you ever think...oh wait. Okay, let me rephrase that: there is the possibity of herd immunity, the illness could have run its course, the child could be taking mainstream medicine in conjunction with chiro treatment, or chiro could really work. I tend to doubt the last option, however, for reasons supported by scientific study, case history, etc.

All you've done Unsub is offer poor links that don't qualify as evidence, lies, attempts to divert, insults, and anecdotes. Your case is not building up, your assertions remain invalid.

Sorry, I took her off all her meds, she started care several months later. You believe what you want, but I know what worked for my child.

 

[HopkinsMedStudent]

And low back pain can sometimes be treated successfully with NON-chiro physio and massage anyway. So why is chiro any different or any better in that case?

Its been a while since I looked at the data, but from what I remember its a mixed bag. Some show chiro more effective than meds, some show chiro more effective than placebo but equivalent to meds, some show chiro less effective than either placebo or meds. The placebos vary in these studies too, some are pill placebos and some are sham manipulations.

Here are a few studies that show a variety of results:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14973958&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14744207&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14673408&dopt=Abstract

http://www.jfponline.com/content/2003/12/jfp_1203_00925.asp

 

[Unsubluxated]

A little more background on the general state of chiropractic. I dont know if any of you have noticed, but they are in a sorry state overall. Sure, there are some chiros who do well by ripping off the public, and there are actually a few "legit" chiros who advocate manipulation only for certain kinds of low back pain, in which research has shown chiro to be somewhat effective (more on that later).

Did you know that in the US, chiropractic students are the #1 defaulters on federally backed student loans?

Did you know that in chiropractic schools, the STUDENTS are responsible for bringing in their own patients?

Did you know that its very common for chiropractors to prostitute themselves in flea markets and walmarts scouting for customers by offering free spinal screenings? Some even offer free coupons to fast food joints and other "perks" for agreeing to a free consultation.

Chiropractic schools do a disservice to their students. First, there are way too many schools to begin with, such that the market is flooded. Most chiro students go into large amounts of debt and never get to make a career out of their education. The large chiro factories that do exist make a lot of money for their chiropractors, but at the expense of honesty and legitimacy. They tell everyone who comes in that they have a subluxation and need "maintenance therapy" over the course of 2 or 3 years.

I dont deny that people "feel" better after going to chiros, and for SOME kinds of low back pain, going to a chiro is a legit alternative. The problem is that its hard for chiros to make a lot of money by just treating low back pain, so therefore they get involved with quackery. The desire to make more money is a powerful corrupting influence on all of us, and chiros are no different. Many chiros who origianlly were legit, cross over into quackery when they realize that the market is flooded and that its hard to make ends meet by staying strictly legit.

Define quakery, sound like it's anything that doesn't involve drugs or surgery.

 

[Unsubluxated]

Its been a while since I looked at the data, but from what I remember its a mixed bag. Some show chiro more effective than meds, some show chiro more effective than placebo but equivalent to meds, some show chiro less effective than either placebo or meds. The placebos vary in these studies too, some are pill placebos and some are sham manipulations.

Here are a few studies that show a variety of results:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14973958&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14744207&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14673408&dopt=Abstract

http://www.jfponline.com/content/2003/12/jfp_1203_00925.asp

So, with a mixed bag of (scientific)results, do you choose to believe the negative studies?

 

[HopkinsMedStudent]

Unsubluxated,

I honestly feel sorry for you and your boyfriend and I'm not saying that in a disingenuous fashion. Tell your boyfriend not to be deceived by the outrageous claims that his "professors" spewed at him in chiro college.

Chiro is a legit alternative for some kinds (not all) of low back pain, and MAYBE for neck pain/headaches (although there is also evidence indicating a small risk of vertebral dissection/stroke for cervical manipulation). Other than that, there is no scientific evidence backing them up. Until that occurs, its UNETHICAL to mislead patients into believing that you can treat asthma, infertility, etc.

Your boyfriend should have asked his professors why he had to pay outrageous fees in tuition and yet still had to find his own patients to bring into the chiro clinics. Isnt it their job to have patients for him? No medical school in the united states requires its students to bring in their own patients for study and practice. You should know that there is something very wrong about that.

I hope your boyfriend can become a legit DC and that he can build a career collaborating with MDs who will refer some patients to him for the right reasons (but not for asthma, COPD, ADHD, etc).

If he's one of the quacks who is misleading patients into thinking that he's a primary care doctor, then forgive me when i say that I hope he goes out of business and has to find a new career before he contributes to the death of a patient thru his ignorance.

 

[Suezoled]

Study your history a little and find out why chiropractors were delgated to being 'low back pain' doctors. In the early part of this century, it was well accepted that adjustments were effective for a wealth of physical ailments. When the AMA, attacked chiropractors, they were forced to admit that chiropractic was effective for low back pain, so thats what DCs latched onto. They are trying to dig ourselves out of the hole the AMA put them in and like it or not, millions of people depend on them for their helth care. Can't stand to see patients going to anyone else besides a MD can you? It because of attitudes like yours that make it difficult for a Chiropractic graduate to make it today. You want to learn about toughness, look at a sucessful chiropractor today. And I could give you studies and sources until I'm blue, you dismiss them anyway, what's the point.

well chirst on a cracker. (Yes, I do mean chirst.) Talk about closed minds, unfounded assumptions, and a "I DID provide evidence and if it's not good enough well doody on you" usual series of statements. And millions of people do not depend on them; if every chiropractor in the US today became a car mechanic tomorrow, people would live on fine. Chiros are simply not necessary, much as they try to integrate themselves as an inportant part of another person's lifestyle. And having a tough time making a career of chiropractic is not a reasonable excuse to become a quack.

(snipped) And I'm not a DC, I'm a Mom and a very satisfied chiropractic patient and I happen to be a technical chiro assistant. I'm sorry if I can't tell you all the scientific aspects of it. My boyfriend, however, is a DC. He chooses not to fight an unwinnable battle such as with the likes of you. He chooses to save those who want to be saved and let burn those who choose to burn. I would have expected you to be more open minded.

Since when does making use of your reproductive organs, hence bearing offspring, make you an authority on anything, except perhaps your own child? (sniff test... I'm thinking maybe Unsub was infertile, and she got herself adjusted and became pregnant about that same time, so attributes it to the chiro treatment). If people choose to not go to a chiro, why does that mean they will be burned? Can you answer that question?

 

[HopkinsMedStudent]

So, with a mixed bag of (scientific)results, do you choose to believe the negative studies?

Those studies deal specifically with lower back pain, which I already said can be treated effectively by chiropractors.