Chiropractic stroke publicized

[JJM]

When you weigh risk vs benefit, the scale tips toward rejecting spinal manipulation because there is zero benefit.

{snip} "'I'm more of a believer for acute problems like short-term back pain, although I know [chiropractic] can be helpful for some cases of more-chronic conditions.'" {snip}

Aside from your appeal to authority, if you read (carefully) I think you will find that skeptigirl was commenting manipulation of the cervical spine. It is accepted that chiro may be as effective as massage or analgesia for acute, low-back pain. Why a doctor would recommend a chiro over a masseur, I cannot imagine.

 

[JJM]

I LIVE in Wethersfield. I've been seeing these billboards for months. Next time I pass one on my way to see my son, I'll snap a picture of it!

Here is a picture of the original (ca. 2005). http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/news/billboard.htm#top

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I'm forwarding this information to some friends of mine who routinely go to chiropractors. I've been trying to get them to stop, but to no avail. Maybe this will help.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But. But. There is only one chance in a hundred trillion of that happening.

But what are the chances that chiropractic will do what it claims (help the function of the body by clearing up "subluxations" or some sort of blockage of neural flow)?

It's all about risk vs. benefit.

ETA: Once again, I see this has already been said.

 

[Blue Wode]

I'm forwarding this information to some friends of mine who routinely go to chiropractors. I've been trying to get them to stop, but to no avail. Maybe this will help.

They might also be interested in watching the following video clips of chiropractic victims speaking out…

Britt Harwe, chiropractic victim and founder of the Chiropractic Stroke Awareness Group (3mins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wCicEGlRXk

A short presentation about neck manipulation and stroke featuring a young stroke victim - ‘Is A Headache Worth Dying For? (2mins)
http://www.neck911usa.com/vide.htm

Video clip featuring tetraplegic chiropractic victim, Sandra Nette (3mins 12 secs)
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/class-action-lawsuit/#clip59878

Video clip of quadriplegic chiropractic victim, Diane Rodrigue (see from 25min 45 secs in)
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0505/primetime.html


Also, ‘What’s the harm in going to a chiropractor’ is worth a read as it gives details of people who have been seriously injured or killed by chiropractic treatment:
http://whatstheharm.net/chiropractic.html

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

But what are the chances that chiropractic will do what it claims (help the function of the body by clearing up "subluxations" or some sort of blockage of neural flow)?

It's all about risk vs. benefit.

ETA: Once again, I see this has already been said.

Sorry -- Note to Gord: Must put more smilies in posts -- my natural sarcasm is being misinterpreted.

The point I was attempting to make is that the chiroquacks like to claim the risk is astonishingly small. In the absence of research we don't know this to be true.

I would not go to a chiroquack for "treatment" if I was paid to.

 

[Rodney]

So the opinions of individual physicians can be taken as more reliable than evidence-based recommendations?

First of all, Dr. Lauerman is a specialist in orthopedic surgery, and so I think his opinion counts a tad more than the average physician. Second, the evidence with respect to chiropractic medicine is not nearly as one-sided as you and others here make it out to be. From some of the posts on this thread, one would gather that chiropractors are evil frauds who kill more people than they assist.

Cool, I've always wanted others to regard me as infallible.

I'm one of the few on this Forum who doesn't.

Excuse me, I'm off to wield some power.

I'll text message your children.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Skeptigirl. I think you risk dumping the baby with the bathwater here.
By your "zero benefit" statement, do you mean there is absolutely never any potential benefit from spinal manipulation?

Nothing that can't be obtained by OTC pain medication and exorcise though.

It is not more effective than safer techniques.

 

[JJM]

First of all, Dr. Lauerman is a specialist in orthopedic surgery, and so I think his opinion counts a tad more than the average physician. Second, the evidence with respect to chiropractic medicine is not nearly as one-sided as you and others here make it out to be. {snip}

See (Edzard Ernst 2008 Journal of Pain and Symptom Management) "With the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition. Manipulation is associated with frequent mild adverse effects and with serious complications of unknown incidence. Its cost-effectiveness has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. The concepts of chiropractic are not based on solid science and its therapeutic value has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt."

Aside from whining and hand-waving, can you specifically point to literature that refutes those conclusions?

 

[fls]

First of all, Dr. Lauerman is a specialist in orthopedic surgery, and so I think his opinion counts a tad more than the average physician.

Clearly you haven't heard enough doctor jokes if you're willing to depend upon the thinking power of an Orthopod.

Second, the evidence with respect to chiropractic medicine is not nearly as one-sided as you and others here make it out to be.

I haven't made it out to be anything on this thread. I haven't made any statements about chiropractic that aren't evidence-based in other threads, though.

From some of the posts on this thread, one would gather that chiropractors are evil frauds who kill more people than they assist.

Yeah. I'm still undecided about this particular campaign.

I'm one of the few on this Forum who doesn't.

How could you? I don't agree with you, which seems to be your sole criterion.

I'll text message your children.

Evil mother that I am, my kids don't have cell phones.

Linda

 

[ponderingturtle]

First of all, Dr. Lauerman is a specialist in orthopedic surgery, and so I think his opinion counts a tad more than the average physician. Second, the evidence with respect to chiropractic medicine is not nearly as one-sided as you and others here make it out to be. From some of the posts on this thread, one would gather that chiropractors are evil frauds who kill more people than they assist.

Well we are also not counting the people they cripple either.

So with Mehmet Oz you believe in energy healing too? He is a noted cardiac surgeon after all so he must know what he is talking about.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nothing that can't be obtained by OTC pain medication and exorcise though.

Was that intentional?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Second, the evidence with respect to chiropractic medicine is not nearly as one-sided as you and others here make it out to be. From some of the posts on this thread, one would gather that chiropractors are evil frauds who kill more people than they assist.

Aside from relief of backpain equal to pretty much any other kind of "manipulative therapy", what else is there?

What about the fact that the theory of chiropractic subluxations, which is the backbone (if you will) of chiropracty is sheer nonsense?

The point is, since they don't help ANYONE for the reasons they give, no harm they cause is justified.

 

[Rodney]

See (Edzard Ernst 2008 Journal of Pain and Symptom Management) "With the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition."

So, if you have back pain and a medical doctor can't help you, should you then go to a chiropractor? If not, what should you do?

"Manipulation is associated with frequent mild adverse effects and with serious complications of unknown incidence. Its cost-effectiveness has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. The concepts of chiropractic are not based on solid science and its therapeutic value has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt."

Not terribly damning statements. People here are claiming that chiropractic medicine is not only worthless but harmful, but Ernst concedes that it may well be effective for back pain and that its value for other conditions simply cannot be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

Aside from whining and hand-waving, can you specifically point to literature that refutes those conclusions?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_medicine --

"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, 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."*

*Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans R, Kawchuk G, Dagenais S (2008). "Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization". Spine J 8 (1): 213–25. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.023. PMID 18164469.

 

[Tomblvd]

Not terribly damning statements. People here are claiming that chiropractic medicine is not only worthless but harmful, but Ernst concedes that it may well be effective for back pain and that its value for other conditions simply cannot be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

We are specifically talking about cervical manipulation, and the risk/benifit ration of that. There is no evidence cervical manipulation treats anything, and it can be dangerous.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_medicine --

"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, 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."*

And your point? Other posters have pointed out that chiro has been shown in a few studies to be as effective as other modalities to treat low back pain (although around three times more expensive). Your quote merely states the same thing.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So, if you have back pain and a medical doctor can't help you, should you then go to a chiropractor? If not, what should you do?


Not terribly damning statements. People here are claiming that chiropractic medicine is not only worthless but harmful, but Ernst concedes that it may well be effective for back pain and that its value for other conditions simply cannot be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.


According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_medicine --

"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, 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."*

*Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans R, Kawchuk G, Dagenais S (2008). "Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization". Spine J 8 (1): 213–25. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.023. PMID 18164469.

So at its best it is only good for low back pain and even then it "at least as effective for chronic low back pain as other efficacious and commonly used treatments"? Seems as worthless as has been claimed.

 

[JJM]

So, if you have back pain and a medical doctor can't help you, should you then go to a chiropractor? If not, what should you do?

I think I said go to a massager, they are equally effective as chiros.

{snip} People here are claiming that chiropractic medicine is not only worthless but harmful, but Ernst concedes that it may well be effective for back pain and that its value for other conditions simply cannot be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, they may may be effective for just one purpose, out of thousands of claims.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_medicine --

Wiki ... "Spine" ??!! Next, you'll be citing Cayce.

 

[Rodney]

Next, you'll be citing Cayce.

TEXT OF READING 264-7, F 39, 23rd day of July, 1930:

" . . . (Q) Could Dr. Edw. P. Brenner, chiropractor, at Roanoke Rapids, N.C., give the proper manipulations to the body to keep up drainages?

"(A) As outlined here, anyone who may give the gentle massage, if these are made with CORRECTIVE measures - unless there be found alignments at times that are not perfect, these would be more harmful than beneficial, but given as a gentle massage, following through all of the centers along the cerebrospinal system from which impulses in the system operate, we will find the conditions would be helpful . . ."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"'I'm an orthopedic spine surgeon, so I treat all sorts of back problems, and I'm a big believer in chiropractic,' says William Lauerman, chief of spine surgery and a professor of orthopedic surgery at Georgetown University Hospital. 'I'm more of a believer for acute problems like short-term back pain, although I know [chiropractic] can be helpful for some cases of more-chronic conditions.'" See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301836.html

He can believe what he wants and you can believe the fact he's an MD and an ortho surgeon means he's knowledgeable.

I have thoroughly investigated this issue, and have even argued via email with Dr Barrett of Quackwatch over it.

The consensus is, some chiropractors have evolved their profession into sort of a glorified or maybe even advanced practice physical therapy. The majority of these modern practicing chiropractors have disavowed the dangerous and completely ineffective practice of subluxation adjustments.

However, the colleges of chiropractic study still teach subluxation adjustments. The theory of chiropractic care which is akin to the theory of homeopathy is still taught at chiropractic colleges. And these colleges still teach that one can cure all disease by simply correcting spinal subluxations as was the original theory.

Until these guys get their practice straight, one cannot be sure one is going to a modern physical therapy chiropractor or a mid-evil quack chiropractor.

But regardless of this confusion, 'chiropractic spinal adjustments' are 100% bogus. The rest of what they do is another question.

And BTW, I have seen a patient turned quadriplegic by one of these adjustments. The vertebral artery was torn, leaving the spinal column with no blood supply at neck level.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The consensus is, some chiropractors have evolved their profession into sort of a glorified or maybe even advanced practice physical therapy. The majority of these modern practicing chiropractors have disavowed the dangerous and completely ineffective practice of subluxation adjustments.

Even so, unlike a PT, a chiropractor need not have any medical training whatsoever.

So the best a chiropractor can do is ignore or disavow what he was taught in his college of chiropractic.