Chiropractors

[SciFi Chick]

I still have friends that not only go to them, but think it would solve every health problem I have. I think they're rolling the dice. Even some of my friends in Australia insist that they have more stringent requirements there rather than here, but I reckon masseuse is the way to go. Manipulate muscles, not joints! If you fuck up a muscle, it probably won't kill you.

[pumpkinpi]

People should try osteopaths (actual board licensed doctors) instead. I had a killer bad back for years, and it got so much better after a series of manipulation sessions.

[SciFiFisher]

People should try osteopaths (actual board licensed doctors) instead. I had a killer bad back for years, and it got so much better after a series of manipulation sessions.

It's getting harder and harder to find an actual D.O. who does manipulation as part of their practice. Insurance doesn't cover manipulation most of the time.

[Thumper]

My Grandfather was an osteopath, and even back in the 70's it got harder and harder for him to perform manipulations. When The Kid had some back issues during volleyball a couple years ago, we were able to get her to an osteopath at the sports med center we went to. He was going to do a series of manipulations. I was excited, she was horrified. She unfortunately refused to go back. She didn't like being touched.

[squ1d]

I had an unpleasant argument about this subject with someone in real life the other day.

SFC, with a shitty TEE score, you can go to a shitty university in WA, and do a shitty UNDERGRADUATE degree that gives you the protected title of Dr in Chiropractic. It is a total joke that the entire legitimate medical establishment in this country bemoans.

In no actual real scientific discipline can you get the title of "Dr" that way.

I'd call that a higher level of recognition rather than a higher level of training. If its worse in the USA then I pity your spines and sensibility.

[pumpkinpi]

People should try osteopaths (actual board licensed doctors) instead. I had a killer bad back for years, and it got so much better after a series of manipulation sessions.

It's getting harder and harder to find an actual D.O. who does manipulation as part of their practice. Insurance doesn't cover manipulation most of the time.

Well, this was about 17 years ago so I guess things are allowed to change....

[SciFiFisher]

I had an unpleasant argument about this subject with someone in real life the other day.

SFC, with a shitty TEE score, you can go to a shitty university in WA, and do a shitty UNDERGRADUATE degree that gives you the protected title of Dr in Chiropractic. It is a total joke that the entire legitimate medical establishment in this country bemoans.

In no actual real scientific discipline can you get the title of "Dr" that way.

I'd call that a higher level of recognition rather than a higher level of training. If its worse in the USA then I pity your spines and sensibility.

According to the National Institute of Health it is a safe and accepted medical treatment.

In California it is regulated and licensed. Any Chiropractor who does not follow the standards of practice would be out of business in short order. For example, if you walk into a chiropractor and say you have back pain the first thing they should do is a medical assessment and ex-rays to make sure there are no broken bones or other reasons why it would be a bad idea to manipulate your spine. I have never been to a chiropractor who didn't follow that standard.

Each state has pretty much similar rules and a licensing board. That doesn't mean that there aren't some hacks that graduate. Hell, medical schools graduate hacks all the time.

[squ1d]

The whole discipline is built on pseudoscience. It is quackery.

[SciFi Chick]

The whole discipline is built on pseudoscience. It is quackery.

Exactly! If they acknowledged that fact and said they no longer believed it, I might think progress was being made, but from what I can tell, they don't. I went to one when I was about 18, and I lucked out, and really benefited from it, but I really think it's a roll of the dice - one I'm no longer willing to take. Stretching and the osteopath option makes much more sense.

[SciFiFisher]

The whole discipline is built on pseudoscience. It is quackery.

You just described half the professions in the world.

[squ1d]

The whole discipline is built on pseudoscience. It is quackery.

You just described half the professions in the world.

That's complete bollocks.

Daniel David Palmer invented Chiropractic, he was a total quack and it is built on mystical ideas that are scientifically discredited.

Here are some professions straight off the top of my head: plumber, builder, electrician, engineer, doctor, manager, cleaner, waiter, pilot, taxi driver, accountant, carpenter.

None of these are based on pseudoscience.

I think you'll find the vast majority of all professions are not built on pseudoscience, and the number is close to zero when you exclude professions associated with religion and "alternative medicine" .

[Sigma_Orionis]

I think there's a difference on the definition of what Chiropractic is.

Up till 10 minutes ago I had the impression that Chiropractic was limited to Spinal Manipulation to mitigate Back Pain , which is about the only part of what Chiropractic promotes to be of any purported value according to what I've just read read

The thing that makes me weary of anything to do with Chiropractic, is that way too many Chiropractors (particularly in the early days) propose that they can cure virtually ANYTHING with their practice, which is of course pure unadulterated bullshit. Apparently Chiropractors consider Vaccination harmful (which is a telltale sign right there isn't it?)

THAT is what makes me weary of them. Because if you remove all the unscientific bullshit, all that remains is that their stuff can help for back pain.

[SciFiFisher]

The whole discipline is built on pseudoscience. It is quackery.

You just described half the professions in the world.

That's complete bollocks.

Daniel David Palmer invented Chiropractic, he was a total quack and it is built on mystical ideas that are scientifically discredited.

Here are some professions straight off the top of my head: plumber, builder, electrician, engineer, doctor, manager, cleaner, waiter, pilot, taxi driver, accountant, carpenter.

None of these are based on pseudoscience.

I think you'll find the vast majority of all professions are not built on pseudoscience, and the number is close to zero when you exclude professions associated with religion and "alternative medicine" .

And almost every single one of those professions engage in at least one professional practice that is based on "because that's how we have always done it". And that practice is not based on science.

Example 1: Nursing teaches every nurse that if you are in the hospital you should have a bed bath every single day for hygiene. Evidence Based Practice has shown that daily bed baths with soap strip essential body oils from the skin making it more prone to drying, cracking, and infections. Yet, nursing schools are still teaching daily bed baths. Because cleanliness = bathing daily. Why? Because Florence Nightingale taught that fresh air, clean bodies, and clean hospital wards made people well. And getting nurses and the rest of the medical world to question that is darn difficult.

Example 2: Medical Doctors frequently treat diseases based on what they were told to do as interns. Scientific basis is usually minimal or empirical at best. Evidence Based Practice is still strongly resisted in a significant percentage of the medical field. Many doctors treat patients based on what worked with previous patients with similar symptoms. If it didn't make the patient worse and they got better eventually they keep using that same treatment for the same symptoms. Which leads to hundreds (if not thousands) of mis-diagnosed diseases and less than optimal outcomes annually.

Example 3: Just about everyone working in the fields of sociology and psychology. Try interacting with most clinical licensed social workers on a daily basis (as I have) and you soon realize that the science is very fuzzy. They are effective at what they do. They use the scientific method to conduct research in their respective field. But, a lot of what they do is done because last week it worked. This week it might work again.

Consider this. Doctors of osteopathy manipulate people. It is commonly accepted as a safe and effective practice. Doctors of Chiropractic perform essentially the same function. Yet, the AMA decries them as quacks. The NIH accepts them as a reasonably safe medical alternative. The NIH uses scientific evidence and research to make it's decisions. Yet, many people reject the findings of the NIH.

The fact that Palmer had ideas that have been proven to be bunk does not discredit what the modern chiropractor does today. Look at a typical Chiropractic Curriculum

Courses include biochemistry, anatomy, embryology, histology, immunology and microbiology, neuroscience, pathology and physiology. These courses provide a firm foundation for developing the clinical skills and knowledge needed to progress through the chiropractic school curriculum.

Diagnostic and clinical sciences

A full six trimesters are devoted to the skills of making a diagnosis. Courses include:
Clinical skills which prepare students to obtain a medical history and perform a physical exam
Clinical pathology
The diagnosis and management of a variety of health and chiropractic problems
Lectures, small groups, labs, self-directed study and online learning

Health promotion and wellness

These courses introduce you to the unique needs of pregnant patients, infants and children, women and the elderly. Additional courses cover how chiropractic plays an important role in public health, health promotion and wellness.

Diagnostic imaging

This sequence covers the role of imaging technology in diagnostic decision-making. You’ll begin with courses covering normal radiographic anatomy. Later courses include interpretation of advanced imaging and the diagnosis of chiropractic and medical pathologies.

This is the curriculum for what you refer to as Quackery.

But, Finis! I believe I am trying too hard to convince you against your will. Perhaps you shall change your mind still.

[SciFiFisher]

I think there's a difference on the definition of what Chiropractic is.

Up till 10 minutes ago I had the impression that Chiropractic was limited to Spinal Manipulation to mitigate Back Pain , which is about the only part of what Chiropractic promotes to be of any purported value according to what I've just read read

The thing that makes me weary of anything to do with Chiropractic, is that way too many Chiropractors (particularly in the early days) propose that they can cure virtually ANYTHING with their practice, which is of course pure unadulterated bullshit. Apparently Chiropractors consider Vaccination harmful (which is a telltale sign right there isn't it?)

THAT is what makes me weary of them. Because if you remove all the unscientific bullshit, all that remains is that their stuff can help for back pain.

Unfortunately, there are people with bad opinions in every profession. See my reply about the "science of medicine".

[Sigma_Orionis]

Unfortunately, there are people with bad opinions in every profession. See my reply about the "science of medicine".

I presume you mean this:

Consider this. Doctors of osteopathy manipulate people. It is commonly accepted as a safe and effective practice. Doctors of Chiropractic perform essentially the same function. Yet, the AMA decries them as quacks. The NIH accepts them as a reasonably safe medical alternative. The NIH uses scientific evidence and research to make it's decisions. Yet, many people reject the findings of the NIH.

The fact that Palmer had ideas that have been proven to be bunk does not discredit what the modern chiropractor does today. Look at a typical Chiropractic Curriculum

Courses include biochemistry, anatomy, embryology, histology, immunology and microbiology, neuroscience, pathology and physiology. These courses provide a firm foundation for developing the clinical skills and knowledge needed to progress through the chiropractic school curriculum.

Diagnostic and clinical sciences

A full six trimesters are devoted to the skills of making a diagnosis. Courses include:
Clinical skills which prepare students to obtain a medical history and perform a physical exam
Clinical pathology
The diagnosis and management of a variety of health and chiropractic problems
Lectures, small groups, labs, self-directed study and online learning

Health promotion and wellness

These courses introduce you to the unique needs of pregnant patients, infants and children, women and the elderly. Additional courses cover how chiropractic plays an important role in public health, health promotion and wellness.

Diagnostic imaging

This sequence covers the role of imaging technology in diagnostic decision-making. You’ll begin with courses covering normal radiographic anatomy. Later courses include interpretation of advanced imaging and the diagnosis of chiropractic and medical pathologies.

From your quote, and the info I got here, looks like Chiropractic is trying to clean up its act. You mention that AMA thinks they're still quacks and NIH thinks that under all the historical bullshit Chiropractic surrounded itself with, some parts of that practice has at least some value, I ASSUME that: IF so they must cut loose ALL the bullshit they've been pushing for years, and it will take quite a while. MY question is: ASSUMING that they do, I'd presume that EVENTUALLY, whatever parts of Chiropractic that actually work would end up being absorbed by Osteopathy wouldn't it? I suspect that actual Osteopaths won't be too happy with it, considering how much unscientific crap Chiropractic still carries around its neck. And I also presume Chiropractors won't be too happy either, because of course they'd be out of business by then.

From what you said earlier, Osteopaths these days tend to shy away from Spinal Manipulation because it's not covered by Medical Insurance Plans. The first link I posted, it mentions that APPARENTLY, at least some Chiropractors seek to keep Spinal Manipulation for themselves. So, if you ask me, Chiropractic has quite an uphill battle to become an accepted medical practice.

I get that all professions have their hacks. HOWEVER: MOST of Chiropractic is bullshit, so I suspect that they have more hacks than those usually found in other professions.

[SciFiFisher]

[From your quote, and the info I got here, looks like Chiropractic is trying to clean up its act. You mention that AMA thinks they're still quacks and NIH thinks that under all the historical bullshit Chiropractic surrounded itself with, some parts of that practice has at least some value, I ASSUME that: IF so they must cut loose ALL the bullshit they've been pushing for years, and it will take quite a while. MY question is: ASSUMING that they do, I'd presume that EVENTUALLY, whatever parts of Chiropractic that actually work would end up being absorbed by Osteopathy wouldn't it? I suspect that actual Osteopaths won't be too happy with it, considering how much unscientific crap Chiropractic still carries around its neck. And I also presume Chiropractors won't be too happy either, because of course they'd be out of business by then.

From what you said earlier, Osteopaths these days tend to shy away from Spinal Manipulation because it's not covered by Medical Insurance Plans. The first link I posted, it mentions that APPARENTLY, at least some Chiropractors seek to keep Spinal Manipulation for themselves. So, if you ask me, Chiropractic has quite an uphill battle to become an accepted medical practice.

I get that all professions have their hacks. HOWEVER: MOST of Chiropractic is bullshit, so I suspect that they have more hacks than those usually found in other professions.

From your quote, and the info I got here, looks like Chiropractic is trying to clean up its act. You mention that AMA thinks they're still quacks and NIH thinks that under all the historical bullshit Chiropractic surrounded itself with, some parts of that practice has at least some value, I ASSUME that: IF so they must cut loose ALL the bullshit they've been pushing for years, and it will take quite a while. MY question is: ASSUMING that they do, I'd presume that EVENTUALLY, whatever parts of Chiropractic that actually work would end up being absorbed by Osteopathy wouldn't it? I suspect that actual Osteopaths won't be too happy with it, considering how much unscientific crap Chiropractic still carries around its neck. And I also presume Chiropractors won't be too happy either, because of course they'd be out of business by then.

From what you said earlier, Osteopaths these days tend to shy away from Spinal Manipulation because it's not covered by Medical Insurance Plans. The first link I posted, it mentions that APPARENTLY, at least some Chiropractors seek to keep Spinal Manipulation for themselves. So, if you ask me, Chiropractic has quite an uphill battle to become an accepted medical practice.

I get that all professions have their hacks. HOWEVER: MOST of Chiropractic is bullshit, so I suspect that they have more hacks than those usually found in other professions.

I am not sure at what point a medical practice/profession becomes 100% accepted. What I do know is that many medical insurance plans cover chiropractic treatment. Specifically for spinal and skeletal manipulation. They will also allow acupuncture as part of the treatment plan.

The U.S. military and the Veteran's Healthcare administration also cover both chiropractic and acupuncture. Usually the chiropractor is also a practitioner of acupuncture.

I have talked to a number of osteopaths who tell me their curriculum barely covered skeletal manipulation. IMO the Osteopaths have all but given up that fight due to the low or no re-imbursement for spinal/skeletal manipulation.

Yes, there are chiropractors who make wild claims for what they can do. But, I don't think those are the ones who are representative of where the profession wants to be.

[Sigma_Orionis]

I am not sure at what point a medical practice/profession becomes 100% accepted. What I do know is that many medical insurance plans cover chiropractic treatment. Specifically for spinal and skeletal manipulation. They will also allow acupuncture as part of the treatment plan.

Well, much you're closer to Medical Professionals than I'll ever be. So, of course I have no idea either. I do suspect that it's a lot harder these days than it was, say....... in the 19th century. The bar is a lot higher these days, and unfortunately, with good reason.

The U.S. military and the Veteran's Healthcare administration also cover both chiropractic and acupuncture. Usually the chiropractor is also a practitioner of acupuncture.

You of course realize, that THAT doesn't exactly make me more confident about Chiropractors. Based on what I've read I can accept that SOME parts of Chiropractic have some value. But Acupuncture, SO FAR, has failed to show that it's anything more than a placebo.

I have talked to a number of osteopaths who tell me their curriculum barely covered skeletal manipulation. IMO the Osteopaths have all but given up that fight due to the low or no re-imbursement for spinal/skeletal manipulation.

On the wikipedia link I posted, I found this

While no single profession "owns" spinal manipulation (SM), and there is little consensus as to which profession should administer SM, chiropractors have expressed concern that orthodox medical physicians and physical therapists could "steal" SM procedures from chiropractors. Chiropractors regularly introduce bills into state legislatures to further prohibit non-chiropractors from performing SM, and they are opposed by physical therapist organizations.[98] Two U.S. states (Washington and Arkansas) prohibit physical therapists from performing SM,[99] some states allow them to do it only if they have completed advanced training in SM. In the most restrictive states, SM is limited to chiropractors and medical physicians.

A focus on evidence-based SM research has also raised concerns that the resulting tighter practice guidelines could limit the scope of chiropractic practice to treating backs and necks

If the above is accurate, It sounds like MAYBE therapy based on Chiropractic can find its place among the Medical Profession with regards to Spinal Manipulation only, but then we go beyond the realm of what can be determine scientifically and enter politics within Practitioners of the Medical Profession in which case all bets are off

Yes, there are chiropractors who make wild claims for what they can do. But, I don't think those are the ones who are representative of where the profession wants to be.

That's not my point. By now, it's obvious that at least some people in the practice of Chiropractic want to take the parts of it that are valid and merge it with the Mainstream of the Medical Profession. HOWEVER, they still have way too many "fellow travelers" among them that promote bunk, which they will have to get rid off entirely. The bar is high and probably not all that fair, and I'm sure that politics within the Medical Profession will throw a couple of Monkey wrenches. But, considering the history of quacks within Medicine I can understand why it is the way it is. Hell, it's already hard enough within Mainstream Medicine to keep the quacks away.