Chiropractic medicine.

[Showmeproof]

I personally dont believe in the work of chiropractic medicine. I do not want no one messing with my spine. What are other peoples opinions on chiropractic medicine. Does anyone have any scientific evidence against chiropractic medicine?

 

[Senex]

This will keep you busy for a while http://www.chirobase.org/

 

[scepticat]

It is easy to put down chiropractic medicine. And certainly there are an embarrassing number of quacks in the field. And much of the published information is loopy at best. The problem is that many "sceptics" go too far and claim it is never useful under any circumstances.

But the far greater problem is that doctors don't offer anything better. With a doctor, it's either surgery or painkillers. Many doctors for whatever reason have a poor knowledge concerning the back. On the contrary, the intricate knowledge of some chiropractic practitioners is astounding. (Doctors generally are ill prepared to answer questions they don't expect you to ask.)

There are a number of studies attempting to claim that chiropractic is useless, however the majority of these are poorly constructed and incomplete or flawed in a number of ways.

Certainly a lot of the negative ideas surrounding chiropractic can be assigned to practitioners within the field who have no ethical standards and tell people without problems to keep coming, or attempt to tell asymptomatic people that they need treatment anyway. Additionally, many chiropractic practitioners tend to put down doctors and make claims that are without merit. However this latter part is certainly true of both sides.

 

[a_unique_person]

Physical therapy is a recognised field of medical science, and it doesn't rely on 'woo' to explain itself.

 

[autumn1971]

scepticat, the problem with chiropractic is that it has never had even an ounce of evidence for its most basic claims. Chiropratic is simply a brand of snake oil from early in the last century. Even when it was first advanced, its methodology was roundly criticised by actual scientists, as well as actual people with the ability to make logical conclusions. Never has chiropractic advanced a single idea which would promote it to the status of "as yet undetermined". It has wallowed in the idiocy of its founder, and has relied on the fact that "massage makes me feel good" to advance its position.
If you can give anyone a scientific and testable example of a "subluxation" or whatever they call it, you are very likely in line for a Nobel Prize.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is no such thing as "chiropractic medicine".

Chiropractic is not medicine.

Doctors of chiropractic or chiropractic physicians are not medical doctors and have not attended medical school (unless they did so in addition to their "training" in chiropractic).

Chiropractic theory was invented from whole cloth (i.e. it is not an outgrowth of any field of medicine or science) by an Iowa grocer.

 

[athon]

Physical therapy is a recognised field of medical science, and it doesn't rely on 'woo' to explain itself.

This is my gripe as well.

There is no such thing as 'alternative' medicine. There is medicine. Full stop. That's it. Within medicine there are specialties and options available for practitioners to choose from.

If somebody has a problem with their spine, what is the point of seeing a chiropractor over a back specialist? So many people think they are synonymous (much like naturopath = homeopath). I don't get it.

Sure, today in most cases chiro's are little more than another name for a physiotherapist who focuses on your spine, with few selling the woo that the philosophy came from. So why not become a back specialist then? What distinguishes the two if not the woo philosophy?

Athon

 

[autumn1971]

Wait, I just noticed that you claim that "Many doctors for whatever reason have a poor knowledge concerning the back".


My wife is studying to be a nurse, and I can attest that the level of knowledge required, vis-a-vis the back, is frakking enormous. Nurses are required to know every vessel and nerve in the areas which may require needle-sticking, and my assumption is that doctors are aware of this as well. Where the hell is your docmentation that even ONE chiroprator is more knowledgable in the area of the spine than even the most idiotic neurosurgeon?

 

[arthwollipot]

The problem is that many "sceptics" go too far and claim it is never useful under any circumstances.

I found chiropractic to be useful for a very limited range of neck and back problems. My chiropractor never once spouted any claims about chiropractic beyond that range.

However, as others have suggested, the origin of chiropractic betrays its reliance on totally nonscientific principles (subluxations being the cause of everything from haemorrhoids to cancer).

I stopped getting chiropractic for my neck when I realised that each visit was in effect forcing me into the next visit. And they were somewhat expensive. Michael Shermer has written about this "addiction" to chiropractic in Why People Believe Weird Things. The more you have your back manipulated, the more it tends to go "out" and the more you have to have your back manipulated.

I no longer get chiro, and I don't recommend it to anyone else. There is always the chance that someone may come to rely on chiropractic at the expense of proper medicine.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wait, I just noticed that you claim that "Many doctors for whatever reason have a poor knowledge concerning the back".


My wife is studying to be a nurse, and I can attest that the level of knowledge required, vis-a-vis the back, is frakking enormous. Nurses are required to know every vessel and nerve in the areas which may require needle-sticking, and my assumption is that doctors are aware of this as well. Where the hell is your docmentation that even ONE chiroprator is more knowledgable in the area of the spine than even the most idiotic neurosurgeon?

Well said.

When I worked as an interpreter for the Deaf, one of my last clients was an Occupational Therapy student. OT school is part of medical school. Even they had gross anatomy and had to learn the spine in great detail. In particular, they focused on spinal cord and other nerve injuries. They'd have to know, for example, if a patient had a spinal cord injury at a certain level, which muscles would still work and therefore what motions would still be possible--in great detail.

And these were OT students!

 

[Ryokan]

Chiropractic medicine

Oxymoron.

 

[circuit_bent]

I was stupid enough to go to a chiropractor when I injured my back at the gym. It was actually positioned inside the gym so it would have a steady stream of people with pulled muscles and sore backs etc..
Looking back, I was a fool. He used to try and elicit a 'crack' from my back at various points and if it could be heard, that was regarded as a succesful attempt. It seemed plausible at the time.
Nothing really helped and the benefit was no greater than that of a massage. To make things worse though, he finished off after a couple of months by directing me to an acupuncturist who used needles that carried current and painfully made my muscles convulse. I was encouraged to take the highest setting that could be endured.
It was insane, the machine was even covered in dust and looked like it was from the 1960's. Oh, and have these traditional roots as well for $25 dollars. Usually $35 but you have a 'good face'. Urghhh! Shoot me!!!

I left in the most pain I had ever experienced in my life and I was in agony for at least a few days.

Don't use chiropractors or get acupuncture. Run away.

 

[Acleron]

It appears that chiropractice can also be dangerous.

See this post by JJM

 

[JJM]

{snip} Does anyone have any scientific evidence against chiropractic medicine?

The more important question is whether anyone has evidence for chiro. The answer is that the best evidence shows chiro is as effective as less expensive methods (e.g., massage) for low back pain and some kinds of headache. Although, if your chiro snaps your neck for the headache it can be lethal.

{snip} But the far greater problem is that doctors don't offer anything better. With a doctor, it's either surgery or painkillers.

Whether you know it or not, this is pure, chiro propaganda. Real doctors also prescribe physical therapy, diet and exercise for back trouble.

Many doctors for whatever reason have a poor knowledge concerning the back.

More propaganda. Many medical specialties don't require such knowledge. Chiros don't know anything about the back that medical specialists don't know.

On the contrary, the intricate knowledge of some chiropractic practitioners is astounding.

It may appear so to the lay public.

{snip} There are a number of studies attempting to claim that chiropractic is useless, however the majority of these are poorly constructed and incomplete or flawed in a number of ways.

More propaganda. As I said, the best studies show it is an expensive massage (by someone with delusions of medical grandeur). More to the point, there is no indication in the medical literature that it is superior for any indication, or that it is even effective for any of their claims for treatment of any visceral disease.

{snip}

 

[Blue Wode]

Here is the most up-to-date scientific study on spinal manipulation:

A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation

CONCLUSIONS: Collectively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment.

http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/4/192

And here is the most up-to-date scientific study on complications associated with spinal manipulation:

Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review

CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation.

http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/7/330

And here is the most up-to-date scientific study on complications associated with paediatric spinal manipulation:

Adverse Events Associated With Pediatric Spinal Manipulation: A Systematic Review

CONCLUSIONS. Serious adverse events may be associated with pediatric spinal manipulation; neither causation nor incidence rates can be inferred from observational data. Conduct of a prospective population-based active surveillance study is required to properly assess the possibility of rare, yet serious, adverse events as a result of spinal manipulation on pediatric patients.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/119/1/e275

Note what the National Council Against Health Fraud had to say about the paediatric study:

Adverse events associated with chiropractic care of children. A systematic review has identified 34 cases in which spinal manipulation in children was associated with adverse events. [Vohra S. Adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation: A systematic review. Pediatrics 119(1) January 2007, pp. e275-e283] Fourteen of the cases involved "direct" events in which the treatment was followed by death, serious injury, symptoms requiring medical attention, or soreness. The rest involved "indirect" events in which appropriate diagnosis was delayed and/or inappropriate manipulation was done for serious medical conditions such as meningitis. The reviewers commented that despite the fact that spinal manipulation is widely used on children, pediatric safety data are virtually nonexistent. This type of review cannot determine how often adverse events occur. That would require a prospective study with active surveillance. The article did not consider harmful aspects of chiropractic care that are far more common than the reported events. These include (a) decreased use of immunization due to misinformation given to parents, (b) psychologic harm related to unnecessary treatment, (c) psychologic harm caused by exposure to false chiropractic beliefs about "subluxations," and (d) financial harm due to unnecessary treatment.

http://www.ncahf.org/digest07/07-14.html

[My Bold]


How many people knowing the above facts (and they have an ethical and legal right to be informed of them) would still go to a chiropractor?

Certainly a lot of the negative ideas surrounding chiropractic can be assigned to practitioners within the field who have no ethical standards

To help you understand that this would appear to apply to the majority of chiropractors, I suggest that you read these two recent threads (both are three pages long):

MSNBC/Self article: dangers of chiropractic
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85046&highlight=chiropractic

Chiropractic Woo?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85436&highlight=chiropractic

 

[JJM]

There is a survey of chiros by chiros that is hard to get; but it is summarized here:
http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/21/12/19.html

They think it shows great unity in the beliefs of the cult members. What it really shows is the prevalence of bizarre beliefs that they hold. For example, 94% offer regular adjustments, I guess they make the other 6% look bad.

 

[Spindrift]

Saw this site on a commercial. Not sure if it was a PSA or a paid ad.

http://www.chiropracticstroke.com/

 

[JJM]

Saw this site on a commercial. Not sure if it was a PSA or a paid ad.

http://www.chiropracticstroke.com/

It is a paid ad, and the chiros are not happy about it. The group started with a billboard a couple years ago. However, the owners were deluged with calls from chiroquacks and took it down, quickly. A year ago they put the message on the sides of some municipal buses. This time, the telephone campaign was ineffective because the city has rules that any legitimate sign stays up as long as the client pays for it.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Time-traveling chiroparctic treatment $60 per visit

The chiropractic field is riddled with worthless woo, as exemplified in the following news story from 2006:

Chiropractor claims to travel through time

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A chiropractor who claims he can treat anyone by reaching back in time to when an injury occurred has attracted the attention of state regulators.

The Ohio State Chiropractic Board, in a notice of hearing, has accused James Burda of Athens of being "unable to practice chiropractic according to acceptable and prevailing standards of care due to mental illness, specifically, Delusional Disorder, Grandiose Type."

Burda denied that he is mentally ill. He said he possesses a skill he discovered by accident while driving six years ago.

"My foot hurt and, knowing anatomy, I went ahead and I told it to realign and my pain went away," Burda said Thursday.

Burda calls his treatment "Bahlaqeem."

 

[Phytotherapist]

I've never been treated by a chiropractor and I never referred (and never will) a single patient to them. I always refer patients with muscular and skeletal problems to orthopaedic specialists.

15 years ago I met an American chiropractor mainly practising manipulation of the backbone. He sees an average of 30-40 people each day and refers many of them to me for, sometimes serious, medical problems. Almost all of his clients belong to the upper-middle class and pay 100-120 EUR for a single treatment. To be honest, I must say that all the patients he refers to me are more than satisfied with his "treatments" and none of them has had any side-effect from his "treatments".

An excellent orthopaedic specialist (friend of mine) and I went to visit him and we've been the whole working day in his practice where he "visited" and "treated" 32 clients. We were allowed to ask questions to him and to his clients.

I'm often discussing with this orthopaedic specialist (friend of mine) and with one of the best orthopaedic surgeons, whether chiropractic works or not, whether it is useful or not and, we haven't got a clear-cut answer yet.

How can any of you, that know little or nothing about medicine or chiropractic, be so sure that chiropractic doesn't work (or works)? By the way, Americans are, by far, the best chiropractors in Italy and there hasn't been a single case of malpractice reported.