|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 2, 2002 8:51:00 PM
|
|
|
ChiroGuy
Posts: 63
Joined: January 24, 2002
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
|
Researchdoc,
Wow, a guy doesn’t check in for a few days and look all the action he misses! After reading your first post, my initial reaction was one of refreshment that this forum had a new contributor who was rational and evidence based. While I must admit that much of the proper terminology I learned in my first year Critical Thinking class that you so astutely refer to is quickly vanishing, your criticisms were understandable and well taken. My impetuous excitement was lessened, however, on reading your very partial and evidence-lacking comments that became apparent as I read on. In this posting, I will attempt to respond to some of the concerns you voiced in your first posting.
I apologize for a lack of coherence in the question I posed. Many of the postings I make are late at night after an evening of studying and just before hitting the sack, so may be ill-formulated. My intent was to question why chiropractic is so often criticized for a lack of evidence and efficacy, when it seems that many of the treatments we provide (such as treatment for low back pain) have a vast amount of research to support them relative to medical therapies for similar conditions. I meant to admit that we don’t have research for every treatment provided, but that this lack of data is not a valid reason to attack the profession – research takes time and money, the latter of which has only become sufficient within the last 15-20 years due to a lack of government support. Before you attack me on this point, I will again remind you that only 15% of medical treatments are supported by research.
Is cervical manipulation safer than taking NSAIDs for similar conditions? Absolutely, unequivocally and without question. As Anthony Rosner, PhD writes, deaths “caused by NSAIDs (such as ibuprofen) are reported to approach an annual toll of 16,000 (Wolfe MM, Lichenstein DR, Singh G. Gastrointestinal toxicity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. New England Journal of Medicine 1999;340(24):1888-1899.) - dwarfing any estimate of chiropractic facilities by several orders of magnitude that could ever be served up by crusading neurologists, the scientific literature, or whatever.” I’d suggest reading the rest of this informative and well written article at [URL=http://www.chiroweb.com/columnist/rosner/index.html.]http://www.chiroweb.com/columnist/rosner/index.html.[/URL]
Here’s some other places to look for support : The best evidence indicates that cervical manipulation for neck pain is much safer than the use of NSAIDs, by as much as a factor of several hundred times. There is no evidence that indicates NSAID use is any more effective than cervical manipulation for neck pain.
Dabbs V; Lauretti WJ; A Risk Assessment Of Cervical Manipulation vs. NSAID's For The Treatment Of Neck Pain. J Manipulative Physio Ther 1995; 18(8):530-6
Numerous studies have shown that the use of NSAIDs increases the risk of hospitalization or death from gastrointestinal bleeding. In Canada 365 people die and 3900 people are hospitalized every year from taking NSAIDs. The corresponding numbers for the United States are 7600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations. It has also been estimated that one third of the cost of treating arthritis patients relates to treatment of the side-effects of NSAIDs.( Tamblyn, Robyn, et al. Unnecessary prescribing of NSAIDs and the management of NSAID-related gastropathy in medical practice. Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 127, September 15, 1997, pp. 429-38)
Conservative calculations estimate that approximately 107,000 patients are hospitalized annually for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related gastrointestinal (GI) complications and at least 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone. The figures for all NSAID users would be overwhelming, yet the scope of this problem is generally under-appreciated.( Singh G. Recent considerations in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy.Am J Med 1998 Jul 27;105(1B):31S-38S )
I find it disturbing yet not surprising that the risks involved with these drugs are largely unknown to even those in the health field, such as yourself. While a case of one death in Canada in a patient who saw a chiropractor over 2 WEEKS before having a stroke is front page news, the fact that people are at a much higher risk of dying by taking a simple aspirin for neck pain rather than seeing a chiropractor is disregarded.
I must inform you that our profession on the whole does indeed change procedures, sometimes drastically, when evidence supports this. For example, at our school we are trained to only take radiographs of patients when needed rather than as a screening tool, as research does not support this practice by and large. Only 15 years ago this practice might have been balked at.
While I cannot represent all of the claims made by chiropractors, I can tell you that a huge amount of research now exists supporting various types of back and neck pain. I’d suggest looking at JMPT and Spine.
“Medicine has the legitimacy of science behind it. Chiropractic doesn't.” Can you please support and qualify this statement? As I read the current research, only 15 percent of medical procedures have been validated by scientific data, and only one percent has been deemed high quality research.
“Nearly half of all newly licensed chiropractors are out of practice within 5 years, and I suspect this will only get worse over time.” – Again, please support this comment. I find it ironic that you accuse me of making claims without foundation and then go on to purport fallacious comments yourself. As can easily be found on the US department of Labour’s website, “Job prospects are expected to be good for persons who enter the practice of chiropractic. Employment of chiropractors is expected to grow faster than the average for all occupations through the year 2010.” Hmmm, seems your opinion might be a bit biased. Further, “Median annual earnings of salaried chiropractors were $67,030 in 2000. The middle 50 percent earned between $44,030 and $105,520 a year.”
Thanks for your comments, and let me know what you think about my responses.
Chiroguy
[This message has been edited by ChiroGuy (edited April 03, 2002).]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 3, 2002 3:02:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
ChiroGuy,
I'd not suggest using Dr. Rosner as a research reference. Although I find his editorials entertaining, he's not at all an objective researcher. He clearly has an agenda --- facts be dammed. He has whined and complained about publication bias against chiropractors for years, but has done little to reseach and publish a counter (such as meta-analysis and calculation of a fail-safe-n). This is despite the offers of myself and others to help him with collection of relevant articles and calculation of the statistic --- allowing him to do what he does best --- draft a biased conclusion based upon the findings. Conclusion, of course, being the ONLY place that subjectivity should plainly seep through on that kind of study.
In short, check not only your references, but the quality and strengh of fact from which they speak before allowing yourself to sound as equally as silly. That's not you Chiroguy. Don't slip into being a joke by using a poor reference. Your other peer reviewed references should be read and answered by PT's on this forum, but throwing Rosner into the mix will loose your message.
Drew
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 3, 2002 3:50:00 AM
|
|
|
ChiroGuy
Posts: 63
Joined: January 24, 2002
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
|
Hi Drew,
Thanks for the suggestion, but I must say that I'm not familiar with the experiences you've had with Dr. Rosner. Regardless of what his history may or may not be, I don't feel that using him as a reference was inappropriate. I was merely trying to point to an editorial I came across which illustrated the point I was trying to make. For this time, in the very least, he utilized current research for which I am not aware of competing data. In addition, I referred to 3 more articles to support my point in case of dispute.
I must say that I truly respect the opinion of serious and constructive contributors to this site such as yourself and MCAP. In this case, however, I fail to see how using the name of a person who has commented on research (regardless of his performance in other venues) to weaken my point - can you find any errors in the excerpt I quoted? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the input none the less.
Chiroguy
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 3, 2002 3:59:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1205
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
Chiroguy: there seems to be a bit of confusion : you state that there is a lot of research on the benefits of chiropractic, and then you quote studies that address the safety of the practice vs NSAIDS. (Again, comparing chiro with bad medicine is not helpful). I bet when you compare the safety of chiropractic with cardiac transplant surgery, or with grand prix racing, chiropractic will come out ahead. On the other hand, massage therapy has a better safety record than chiro - does it mean it's more effective? It does not say a **** thing about the effectiveness.
Recently, a study was published with regards to "effectiveness of manipulation, mobilisation" - it suggest that "most of the research is subject to criticism, because it lacks adequate definitions of the techniques. Without adequate definitions there is a high risk of misinterpreting conclusions provided in clinical studies. At present, few studies provide quality evidence regarding the efficacy of manipulation and mobilisation."
in: "The use and misuse of the terms 'manipulation' and 'mobilisation' in the literature establishing their efficacy in the treatment of lumbar spine disorders" Kotoulas M, Physiotherapy Canada, Vol 54, #1, 2002.
The study credits Gatterman et al for conducting a study to develop chiropractic nomenclature based on consensus. Their results will make any future studies much more credible!
My 02 cents....
Sebastian
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 3, 2002 4:27:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
Let me see if I can clarify ---
The best of objective arguments loose strength and stability when biased, and subjective elements are thrown into the mix. You have a reasonable argument, albeit thin, with the articles you referenced (one of which I'm going to have to re-read before commenting further). I'd simply suggest that in the future, you don't "invoke the Rosner," associating yourself with him and the FCER, makes you look far less objectively evidence-oriented than you're demonstrated yourself to be to date on this forum. Dr. Rosner and the FCER have a place, but it's in public relations, not objective discussion of research.
As it adds nothing to your argument, and gives evidence-based oriented clinicians, such as myslef, cause to dismiss your otherwise well constructed thoughts as biased and unscientific chiropractic brainwash. Personally, I had to re-read your post several times before commenting because as the first five or so times I read it, seeing Dr. Rosner referenced, I (admittingly unfairly) lumped you in with all of the other brainwashed chiropractic pseudoscientists less interested in truth and fact, than with pushing a chiropractic philosophy, belief, and agenda. One can discuss research, as well as clinical differences of opinion, but once someone reduces their profession to a fanatical chiropractic religion, there is no discussion anymore --- so why bother? Once a healthcare professional devolves to that point, their ego can't afford for their own personal religion to be wrong. This isn't an attack on chiropractic (although it may seem that way), physical therapy has it's fair share of strain-counterstrain sorcerers and craniosacral militants too.
Anyway, the questions that you've asked to date, and the way you've responded to date have been only slightly biased, which is more than any one person should ever ask of another. I therefore owe you something of an apology for jumping to the wrong conclusion. Knowing you by e-mail, however, I was able to catch myself --- others may simply ignore you on first pass and miss your valid points. Don't let that happen. Be heard.
To this end, I'd suggest that you let your thoughts and peer-reviewed references speak for themselves. You of all chiropractors, don't need to use the FCER as a crutch --- it's slowing you down.
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 3, 2002 7:20:00 AM
|
|
|
researchdoc
Posts: 34
Joined: March 29, 2002
Status: offline
|
Chiroguy-
You clearly do not understand statistical methods, or at least, you have little ability to critically review the literature. My question may have been not well understood by you, but at this juncture, I am not sure how to really "dumb things down" very well.
Let me try this:
You show that X number of adverse effects occur from the use of NSAIDs, and use this as a comparative variable to the safety of "adjustments".
But really, HOW MANY of those NSAIDs ADEs were in people who had conditions that chiropractors could help, i.e. neck pain. In other words, what is the RISK of taking NSAIDs for my acute neck pain, copmpared to the RISK of a chiropractic manipulation for acute neck pain- that is the ONLY true comparative statistic.
Most ADEs from NSAIDs are in patients with chronic problems like RA and OA; they are often in older patients who have been taking NSAIDs for a long time; and most of these patients have co-morbidities that contribute to the problem significantly.
The fact that you choose to mix these statistics (NSAIDs risk vs. SMT) for the purpose of supporting your to quoque argument is demonstrative of your lack of desire to objectively evaluate your practice.
Apparently, from the looks of your references, your chiropractic research colleagues have this same problem.
"I find it disturbing yet not surprising that the risks involved with these drugs are largely unknown to even those in the health field, such as yourself."
Nice try, Chiroguy, but the risks ARE known by "those in the medical field", including myself. The thing is, they have little to do with the issue here- a comparative look at the risk of NSAIDs vs. SMT for SIMILAR conditions. Maybe "risk/benefit ratio" would be a better term for you. For a given condition (neck pain), what is the risk/benefit ratio of NSAIDs vs. SMT?
"As I read the current research, only 15 percent of medical procedures have been validated by scientific data, and only one percent has been deemed high quality research."
I already addressed this issue- you are only continuing to misrepresent medical practice as a tu quoque argument here, Chiroguy- do you not get this? That is the entire point of my posting- you are engaing in tu quoque. I can only assume at this point that you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend this issue, with any objectivity.
Cervical manipulation is exceedingly safe- we get it. We know this. But you attempt to impugn medicine (using the NSAIDs statistics) in a fallacious tu quoque argument. You attempt to make the (erroneous) claim that medicine is not supported by science- in an argument tu quoque.
You are trying to "knock" medicine as a way to "build up" chiropractic- well, it ain't gonna fly in the real world, Chiroguy.
The point is- argumentum tu quoque is a logical fallacy- you don't seem to understand this, so I am prepared to drop it. Just beware that everything you say and claim, we have heard it all before, and I for one am frankly tired of having to point out the lack of critical reasoning skills I see in chiropractors, generally.
"Nearly half of all newly licensed chiropractors are out of practice within 5 years, and I suspect this will only get worse over time.” – Again, please support this comment."
I read an article which suggested this- I don't have a ref., nor do I feel compelled to argue it. I didn't claim it was a scientific fact. If you hold a differing OPINION, then fine, we agree that our OPINIONS are different.
Your BLS stats aside, the fact is, the chiropractic profession is a very difficult profession to make a good living in, especially for new grads. How do I know this? I just do.
"Hmmm, seems your opinion might be a bit biased."
Duh. Opinions ARE biased. So what? Your BLS stats are biased, as well, only I doubt you can tell me why- I could tell you, but I'll let you figure it out yourself.
Am I biased against chiropractic? You bet. I have seen too many unsubstantiated claims and practices not to be. The same way I am biased that small, furry, black, four-legged animals with a white stripe down their backs are skunks- most animals fitting this description are skunks- a few might not be, but I'm better off avoiding them anyway- I'll be safer in the long run.
The world is not a "fair" place, and the world does not demand an unbiased mindset. CHIROPRACTORS make the claims- then CHIROPRACTORS need to support them- not by "knocking" medicine, but by "supporting" their claims- get it?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 3, 2002 9:01:00 AM
|
|
|
Mark Hirsch
Posts: 101
Joined: December 11, 2001
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Interesting topic. Researchdoc, I think it's really sad there is so much factionism on the issue. Looks like a turf war to me. Seems like PT's and Chiros get defensive pretty quickly when we should be using logic and reason. I think sarcasm -- especially written sarcasm for all to see -- does not help communication a bit, it's just inflamatory and creates more factionism. You can't blame Chiroguy for not "understanding" your message...IMHO bulletin boards are suboptimal communication devices. Cheers. Mark
[This message has been edited by Mark Hirsch (edited April 03, 2002).]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 3, 2002 10:29:00 AM
|
|
|
researchdoc
Posts: 34
Joined: March 29, 2002
Status: offline
|
Mark-
You are right- I probably did come across as sarcastic. I apologize to Chiroguy and those on the forum who were offended by my statements.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 3, 2002 12:16:00 PM
|
|
|
Bobcat
Posts: 493
Joined: July 13, 1999
Status: offline
|
[URL=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/14/18/23.html]http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/14/18/23.html[/URL]
[URL=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/14/22/26.html]http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/14/22/26.html[/URL]
[URL=http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/BookContents/cv.html]http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/BookContents/cv.html[/URL]
[URL=http://www.covellichiro.com/english/ahcpr/chapter2.html]http://www.covellichiro.com/english/ahcpr/chapter2.html[/URL]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 4, 2002 8:23:00 AM
|
|
|
swoodard23
Posts: 36
Joined: March 18, 2002
From: Abilene
Status: offline
|
On an earlier topic dealing with the placebo effect, I found some interesting information. Somatoform disorders can account for 80% of all physician visits and make up a large portion of clients in a therapy setting. Personality disorders, though rare in the general population, are common in the medical arena. Sweet J. Reynolds C: Handbook of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings. New York, Plenum Press, 1992.
It seems to me that even treatments that work mostly as placebo are very valuable with the possibility of such a large portion of patients having little or no physiologic cause for their ailments. I think the fact that both physical therapist and chiropractors are holistic in the healing approach is a great advantage to patients. That both professions deal with the psychological as well as the physical wellness has to be of great benefit to patients even if they achieve it through different methods.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 4, 2002 1:29:00 PM
|
|
|
Barrett
Posts: 967
Joined: July 28, 1999
From: Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
Status: offline
|
researchdoc,
I don't see any sarcasm in your posts. They are perfectly fine with me and I agree wholeheartedly with your assertions. It would be nice to know who you actually are and what your connection to clinical or academic life you can claim.
I cannot agree that PTs who attend to the psychology of the patient are "holistic." I do, and I'm not.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 4, 2002 4:54:00 PM
|
|
|
swoodard23
Posts: 36
Joined: March 18, 2002
From: Abilene
Status: offline
|
If you treat patient on the basis of physical, psychological basis, and take into consideration their spiritual factors (how their religion and culture effects how they are treated such as tolerances of pain and so on), then you are practicing a holistic approach.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 4, 2002 6:52:00 PM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
According to the American Holistic Health Health Association, you're both right.
The following is an excerpt from an article by Suzan Walter, President of the American Holistic Health Association. It provides a quick introduction to the two main definitions of the term holisticas it is used in today's society:
Are you confused about the meaning of holistic? Have you ever been discussing holistic health and discovered that the other person was defining holistic in a totally different way than you? This is not surprising, since there are no accepted standard definitions for holistic, holistic health, or holistic medicine. Most usage falls within two common definitions:
Holistic as a whole made up of interdependent parts. You are most likely to hear these parts referred to as 1) the mind/ body connection, 2) mind/ body/ spirit, or 3) physical/ mental/ emotional/ spiritual aspects. When this meaning is applied to illness, it is called holistic medicine and includes a number of factors, such as 1) dealing with the root cause of an illness, 2) increasing patient involvement, and 3) considering both conventional (allopathic) and complementary (alternative) therapies.
Holistic as a synonym for alternative therapies. By this definition, "going holistic" means turning away from any conventional medical options and using alternative treatment exclusively. This meaning mainly relates to illness situations, and sometimes is used for controversial therapies.
The expanded perspective of holistic as considering the whole person and the whole situation allows us to apply holistic as an adjective to anything. For example, we can develop a new project at work or re-organize our life holistically. When illness is involved, the broad definition of holistic allows us to integrate both conventional and complementary therapies. Consider adopting this holistic approach to your life.
I submit for discussion the idea that when chiropractors use the term "holistic," it's in terms of the first definition, and when physical therapists (such as Barrett) use the term, it's generally used to refer to alternative therapies. For the purposes of clarification on the form, I suggest that we use the following convention:
WHOLISTIC = the mind-body-spirit connection
HOLISTIC = alternative therapies not yet proven by the evidence base, including craniosacral therapy, myofascial release, etc.
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 6, 2002 9:24:00 PM
|
|
|
ChiroGuy
Posts: 63
Joined: January 24, 2002
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
|
Hmmmm, I'm not sure if I totally agree with your definitions of Holistic and Wholistic, but I understand that you're trying to establish a convention for this forum so I'll play along. I'll start off by saying that Holism need not be a dirty word - let us remember that even Western Medicine was rather Holistic until the beginning of last century (or even later?). It is through well-designed research that Holistic therapies which work will be separated from those which are bunk.
On another note, I feel that with the knowledge we now have of how the mind interacts with the body it is foolhardy to NOT practice in a Wholistic manner. Even though some might argue we are only officially trained to treat patients physically, I think it's imperative to consider their mental and emotional well being to the best of our abilities. Does anyone disagree with this? Would any subscribers to this forum deny that the best therapy is one that is Wholistic (as defined by Drew)?
ChiroGuy
P.S. Mark, thank you for your opinions. I agree that when we sink to a level of pre-adolescent name calling and insults progress is not made.
P.P.S. ResearchDoc, although you may balk at the suggestion, I actually have a pretty good understanding of statistical methods - I did a full year thesis in the clinical epidemiology and biostatistics department at McMaster Medical School. I won't claim to be an expert at research methodologies, but I feel I can dicipher most basic analyses given in research papers ... no quid pro quo about it [IMG]http://www.rehabedge.com/forums/smile.gif[/IMG]
[This message has been edited by ChiroGuy (edited April 07, 2002).]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 7, 2002 7:39:00 AM
|
|
|
researchdoc
Posts: 34
Joined: March 29, 2002
Status: offline
|
Chiroguy-
Nice segue into another topic, but really I am still interested in discussing the issue of risk of NSAIDs vs. risk of SMT.
Can you, or can you not, support your implied contention that the RISK of NSAID use in a given condition is greater than the RISK of SMT?
Once the risks are established, we can then move on to the "benefit" for the specified condition- at this point, a risk/benefit ratio can be established, and discussions can ensue regarding the appropriate intervention for that condition.
Surely, during your year-long thesis at McMaster, you studied the concept of risk/benefit profiling? And in comparing one intervention against another, isn't that the vital consideration?
Now, as for your comments re: name calling and insults- nowhere has there been "name calling" or "insults", pre-adolescent or otherwise. Debate is de rigeur in scientific discourse- you may have seen my statements as "sarcastic", but there was no "name calling" or "insults" presented.
In fact, in a fit of equivocation, you "agree" with Mark Hirsch that "name calling" and "insults" are not appropriate- but Mark Hirsch did not accuse anyone of "name calling" or "insulting". So, it might be seen by some as a thinly disguised ad hominum for you to even suggest that someone here was, indeed, "insulting" people and "name calling".
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 7, 2002 12:52:00 PM
|
|
|
swoodard23
Posts: 36
Joined: March 18, 2002
From: Abilene
Status: offline
|
Does anyone have any research dealing with accupuncture. Many chiropractors also offer this service and I was wondering if it had any foundation in research. Does anyone know of any PT clinics that offer this service?
Thanks,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 7, 2002 2:33:00 PM
|
|
|
PTstud
Posts: 86
Joined: March 8, 2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
To be certified to do accupuncture, I believe one must have a degree in Chinese Medicine, which I think are offered by independent schools around the country. I believe they have it set up like a Masters degree, where you must attend after receiving a bachelors from a university. I am also aware that they have short programs for physicians where they can become certified in accupuncture without all the years a non-physician would have to take. This leaves PTs out, they would have to go through the full course of study for certification.
Here in TX, there is a Pt clinic that offers accupuncture (one of the PTs is certified). They are so confident in these tecniques that they guarantee cures for gray hair, potruding veins, and pain. I spoke with a girl that had treatment for vericos veins(I think thats how you spell it) and she claimed that the accupuncture treatment made them go away.
Mike
[This message has been edited by PTstud (edited April 07, 2002).]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 7, 2002 3:16:00 PM
|
|
|
ChiroGuy
Posts: 63
Joined: January 24, 2002
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
|
In Canada, several types of medically trained practitioners are allowed to take a certification course in Accupuncture, including MDs, DCs and Rns. PTs, may also be eligible, but I'm not positive. The main reason this is allowed is that these professionals already have basic medical and anatomy knowledge, which would otherwise be covered in a course of this nature. As yet, accupuncture is an unregulated practice in Canada which means that you do not need a licence to practice. I'm not aware of what the research indicates for it's efficacy.
ResearchDoc, sorry but I don't want to enter into a debate of semantics. I'm sorry if I responded incorrectly to a post, but I was not trying to single you out with my comments. If you look at previous posts under this category you will see what I was referring to. I will try to find some research relevant to your questions.
ChiroGuy
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! - April 7, 2002 4:40:00 PM
|
|
|
Bobcat
Posts: 493
Joined: July 13, 1999
Status: offline
|
A meta-analysis of the literature also suggests that playing air guitar, as a method of relieving cervical pain, is several hundred fold less lethal than use of NSAIDs for relief of cervical pain. The act of playing air guitar to relieve symptoms, and shuffling off to chiropractic to get the neck popped, are both suprisingly similar in that neither have any potency of actual effect, whereas NSAIDs, when input to the physiology, is known and has been proven to initiate a cascade of biochemical events which can result in various modes of systemic kidney, liver and GI failure, which if neglected ultimately result in death. The fact that you can get a bottle of Acetominophen in a plastic tub with 3000 500mg tablets is an indication that perhaps this chemical agent should be more closely regulated in light of the possibility that people are taking perhaps double or triple the dose, and over an extremely long period of time by persons with predisposition to susceptibility to toxicity or organ failure as SJ has suggested, which can result in mortality. By comparison, careful administration of chiropractic adjustments, particularly with that weird little spring-loaded Activator widget, when done properly, will not result in neurological injury and oddly will also ultimately have no effect whatsoever beyond psychological succor. It is a relief that someone so extraordinarily knowledgeable in statistical measures and interpretation of research methods has brought up such an excellent comparative scenario -- otherwise, an educated person might suppose that the argument was totally spurious and provided out of ignorance or simply to deceive through topical diversion. Now a comparison between use of NSAIDs in a controlled situation, performed in comparison with some physical methods validated by objective proof of positive effect on cervical function and pain would be much more interesting and deserving of review. Let's not bother with the subjective, anecdotal methodology of chiropractic "science". One is better off playing Air Guitar or conjuring Voodoo sub-deities responsible for normal flow of nerve impulse, and plus, there is no need to placate the wallet and egotism of someone with magic manipulating hands whom can legally diagnose and remedy "Passive Congestion" all by himself, and without copying any methods from that smarter guy in Medicine.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.125
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> Re: Chiropractic madness!!!!!!!!!!!! 
