|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 10, 2004 6:43:00 AM
|
|
|
chiroortho
Posts: 655
Joined: February 18, 2004
Status: offline
|
Researchdoc,
What do you think of Bogduk's quote (above)...is he full of it, or is chiropractic not the only field that requires more research to prove its methods?
------------------
ChiroOrtho
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 10, 2004 8:53:00 PM
|
|
|
LouDC
Posts: 48
Joined: February 18, 2004
From: Florence,Italy
Status: offline
|
Researchdoc
"The powers that be"(good old boys),religeon,science,and Medicine never like anything new to come along and shake the "status Quo". Thats why Leonardo had to write upside down and backward to keep from being burned at the stake. Things have changed only in a matter of degree. Medicine has good reason to look at Chiropractic with suspicion we are nipping at their heels and their afraid its going to get worse. And their right, It is going to get worse as public gravitates to Chiropractic for neuro/muscular problems and abandons medicine,in large numbers,for these conditions. In my field Sports Medicine) they don't have a prayer, we will slowly take over this field. Most people with neuro/muscular problems have some type of mechanical dysfunction and you don't correct them with infiltrations and medication.
I am continuing with post on EBM because I think we have a double standard here.
Chiropractic Report:V6N3pg1
BMJ (1992) (article exerpts)
titled 'Where is the wisdom?...The poverty of Medical Evidence' by Prof.David Eddy MD, cardiothoracic surgeon,Professor of Health Policy and Management,Duke University.
Only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by valid scientific evidence.
One reason is that "only 1% of articles in medical journals are scienticly sound."
Another is that "many treatments have never been assessed at all."
He evaluated 21 different areas within Medical field and found that 17 of them had validation ranging from poor to none.
(End article)
With this kind of record it is understandable why organized Medicine throws so much flack at Chiropractic to deflect attention from their own poor record.
To second this opinion."CR"V7N6pg1
Professor Pran Manga,PhD
Director, Health administration program,Universiy Ottawa.
commissioned by Gov.)
states:
" In our view, the constellation of the evidence of,
a)the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of chiropractic management of low back pain.
b)the untested, questionable or harmful nature of many current medical therapies.
c)the economic efficiecy of chiropractic care for low-back pain compared with medical care.
d)the safety of chiropractic care.
e)the higher satisfaction levels expressed by patients of chiropractors, together offers an overwhelming case in favor of much greater use of chiropractic services in the management of low-back pain.
There should be a shift in policy to encourage and prefer chiropractic services for most patients with low back pain.
Manga Report to Ontario Ministry of Health (Augusy 1993)
I don't present this as an arguement but just to encourage you to at least listen to what we have to say without trying nit pick every statement to death.
Lou
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 10, 2004 8:58:00 PM
|
|
|
LouDC
Posts: 48
Joined: February 18, 2004
From: Florence,Italy
Status: offline
|
Researchdoc
"The powers that be"(good old boys),religeon,science,and Medicine never like anything new to come along and shake the "status Quo". Thats why Leonardo had to write upside down and backward to keep from being burned at the stake. Things have changed only in a matter of degree. Medicine has good reason to look at Chiropractic with suspicion we are nipping at their heels and their afraid its going to get worse. And their right, It is going to get worse as public gravitates to Chiropractic for neuro/muscular problems and abandons medicine,in large numbers,for these conditions. In my field Sports Medicine) they don't have a prayer, we will slowly take over this field. Most people with neuro/muscular problems have some type of mechanical dysfunction and you don't correct them with infiltrations and medication.
I am continuing with post on EBM because I think we have a double standard here.
Chiropractic Report:V6N3pg1
BMJ (1992) (article exerpts)
titled 'Where is the wisdom?...The poverty of Medical Evidence' by Prof.David Eddy MD, cardiothoracic surgeon,Professor of Health Policy and Management,Duke University.
Only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by valid scientific evidence.
One reason is that "only 1% of articles in medical journals are scienticly sound."
Another is that "many treatments have never been assessed at all."
He evaluated 21 different areas within Medical field and found that 17 of them had validation ranging from poor to none.
(End article)
With this kind of record it is understandable why organized Medicine throws so much flack at Chiropractic to deflect attention from their own poor record.
To second this opinion."CR"V7N6pg1
Professor Pran Manga,PhD
Director, Health administration program,Universiy Ottawa.
commissioned by Gov.)
states:
" In our view, the constellation of the evidence of,
a)the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of chiropractic management of low back pain.
b)the untested, questionable or harmful nature of many current medical therapies.
c)the economic efficiecy of chiropractic care for low-back pain compared with medical care.
d)the safety of chiropractic care.
e)the higher satisfaction levels expressed by patients of chiropractors, together offers an overwhelming case in favor of much greater use of chiropractic services in the management of low-back pain.
There should be a shift in policy to encourage and prefer chiropractic services for most patients with low back pain.
Manga Report to Ontario Ministry of Health (Augusy 1993)
I don't present this as an arguement but just to encourage you to at least listen to what we have to say without trying nit pick every statement to death.
Lou
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 11, 2004 4:04:00 AM
|
|
|
researchdoc
Posts: 34
Joined: March 29, 2002
Status: offline
|
Let's see, you, LouDC, state that you have RCTs to support chiropractic intervention for otitis media and colic.
When pressed to provide evidence (references) to support YOUR STATEMENT, we get the run-around. So far, to avoid coughing up the studies (aside from the one that I provided for you), you have said you can't find it in your 41 years of files, you ran to Chiroweb asking others to provide references for you, and now you want to discuss other healthcare fields' limited evidence base.
Look, I am too busy to continue to play footsie with you regarding this issue. You clearly spoke about things that you have no knowledge of, namely research to support chiropractic intervention for otitis media and colic. And now that this has become evident, you want to change the subject. A classic chiropractor response when empty claims are challenged.
Please, go back to "chiroweb", and take your scientifically retarded chiropractor friends with you. There you can make all the unsubstantiated claims you want, and nobody will challenge you.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 11, 2004 4:15:00 AM
|
|
|
Jeep
Posts: 353
Joined: March 28, 2003
From: USA
Status: offline
|
rehabdoc-
What is your problem with the "organizationally challenged"?
If Lou can get the information to you faster by asking collegues, is that a problem?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 11, 2004 9:23:00 AM
|
|
|
nrl
Posts: 121
Joined: May 23, 2002
From: israel
Status: offline
|
Researchdoc, you are right,we do get the run-around . However it is a nice operttunity to cough up some PT references. I know it might be seized as a chance for changing discussion from references promised to references actually posted .I hope it will not. It is just to show how easy it is to find references show some evidence for effectiveness of PT.
A list of Cochrane reviews that show evidence for effectiveness of PT . Of course Cochrane reviews look only at RCTs :
ć Physiotherapy interventions for Ankylosing Spondylitis
ć Chest physiotherapy compared to no chest physiotherapy for cystic fibrosis
ć Ergonomic and physiotherapeutic interventions for treating upper extremity work related disorders in adults
ć Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain
ć Pre-operative education for hip or knee replacement.
ć Exercise therapy for patellofemoral pain syndrome.
ć Therapy-based rehabilitation services for stroke patients at home
ć Interventions for preventing and treating pelvic and back pain in pregnancy.
ć Rehabilitation for distal radial fractures in adults .
ć Progressive resistance strength training for physical disability in older people (Cochrane Review
ć Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for knee osteoarthritis .
ć Pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women .
ć Exercise therapy for low back pain.
ć Breathing exercises for asthma.
BTW, it is recomended to read full review to see detail of the evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 12, 2004 4:31:00 AM
|
|
|
Scanner
Posts: 71
Joined: March 17, 2003
Status: offline
|
Research Doc,
The reference on colic and spinal manipulation was published in JMPT circa 2000. There were 2 groups of children - one got standard Dimethicone treatment for colic and the other received spinal manipulation at 3x/week for 1 week, then 2, and then 1 and were released.
Outcome measures I beleive were the hours of crying reported by parents. The chiropractic group did much better. I'll see if I can dig up the reference.
About 6 months later, contrary evidence was published that showed spinal manipulation did not alter the course of colic.
You want to know my opinion?
I am suspicious of both studies.
"Miraculously", a contrary study always turns up 6 months later whenever a positive study is published on chiropractic.
Do you find that odd, Researchdoc? I do. I mean, I find research "interesting reading", like picking up a copy of Good Housekeeping and reading about your pet projects or something but I can't attach too much significance to the work you do.
There is a vast chasm between the world of research and practice and bridging that gap is problematic.
As Mark Twain said, "There are 3 types of lies - lies, **** lies, and statistics."
I think too much money is wasted in the US every year in the name of "research." But I know "research" is big business, so don't let me stand in your way. Keep forming those committees and requesting those grants from taxpayors.
A new Disease-Curing Drug is just around the corner. . .
Here, let me help you with your next conclusion in your discussion of your paper:
After the mixed results of the above RCT, the authors conclude that more research is needed. . .
It's in every conclusion I have ever read.
Here's your references. Have fun:
Ear Infection: A retrospective Study Examining Improvement from Chiropractic Care and Analyzing for Influencing Factors. Froehle, Rosann, JMPT, Volume 19, Number 3. March/April 1996 pp169-76.
[URL=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10543581&dopt=Abstract]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10543581&dopt=Abstract[/URL]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 12, 2004 10:13:00 AM
|
|
|
LouDC
Posts: 48
Joined: February 18, 2004
From: Florence,Italy
Status: offline
|
"The powers that be"(good old boys),religeon,science,and Medicine never like anything new to come along and shake the "status Quo". Thats why Leonardo had to write upside down and backward to keep from being burned at the stake. Things have changed only in a matter of degree. Medicine has good reason to look at Chiropractic with suspicion we are nipping at their heels and their afraid its going to get worse. And their right, It is going to get worse as public gravitates to Chiropractic for neuro/muscular problems and abandons medicine,in large numbers,for these conditions. In my field Sports Medicine) they don't have a prayer, we will slowly take over this field. Most people with neuro/muscular problems have some type of mechanical dysfunction and you don't correct them with infiltrations and medication.
I am continuing with post on EBM because I think we have a double standard here.
Chiropractic Report:V6N3pg1
BMJ (1992) (article exerpts)
titled 'Where is the wisdom?...The poverty of Medical Evidence' by Prof.David Eddy MD, cardiothoracic surgeon,Professor of Health Policy and Management,Duke University.
Only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by valid scientific evidence.
One reason is that "only 1% of articles in medical journals are scienticly sound."
Another is that "many treatments have never been assessed at all."
He evaluated 21 different areas within Medical field and found that 17 of them had validation ranging from poor to none.
(End article)
With this kind of record it is understandable why organized Medicine throws so much flack at Chiropractic to deflect attention from their own poor record.
To second this opinion."CR"V7N6pg1
Professor Pran Manga,PhD
Director, Health administration program,Universiy Ottawa.
commissioned by Gov.)
states:
" In our view, the constellation of the evidence of,
a)the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of chiropractic management of low back pain.
b)the untested, questionable or harmful nature of many current medical therapies.
c)the economic efficiecy of chiropractic care for low-back pain compared with medical care.
d)the safety of chiropractic care.
e)the higher satisfaction levels expressed by patients of chiropractors, together offers an overwhelming case in favor of much greater use of chiropractic services in the management of low-back pain.
There should be a shift in policy to encourage and prefer chiropractic services for most patients with low back pain.
Manga Report to Ontario Ministry of Health (Augusy 1993)
I don't present this as an arguement but just to encourage you to at least listen to what we have to say without trying nit pick every statement to death.
Lou
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 12, 2004 1:19:00 PM
|
|
|
Dr.Wagner
Posts: 1242
Joined: January 24, 2003
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline
|
I am always eager to respond to questions like this, primarily because answers are multi-factoral and simply do not get the "yes or no" treatment.
First, it should be noted that the quote was an EDITORIAL originally noted 13 years ago. Furthermore, placing RCT's to every aspect of medicine is difficult. If that were the case, every day practices would be put into questions, simple things that honestly mean very little..."does that trauma patient REALLY need blood...do a RCT and find out"..."Does that baby REALLY need pain meds for their appendicitis...do a RCT and find out"..."Is it effective and appropriate monetarily to treat a 90 yr old ECF patient for Pneumonia?" Obviously, ethics, and common knowledge come into play. OF COURSE not all of our practices are EBM, nor should they be. But EVEN HIS statement cannot be supported by evidence...it is PURELY editorial
Furthermore, BMJ publishers distribute a book called "Clinical Evidence", in the December 2003 issue 10, pg 256-257 state "(for acute low back pain) Spinal manipulation is in the 'unknown effectiveness' category as 'systematic reviews found conflicting evidence on the effects of spinal manipulation'" Furthermore it states "(for acute low back pain) Back Exercises were found to be Unlikely Beneficial as 'Systematic reviews and additional RCTs have found either no significant difference between back exercises and conservative or inactive treatments in pain or disablity, or have found that back exercises increase pain or disability"
The only Beneficial treatments for acute low back pain were "advice to stay active" and "NSAIDS".
Now there is evidence that looks at ALL of the studies...do I choose to believe?
you may also find this on [URL=http://www.clinicalevidence.com]www.clinicalevidence.com[/URL]
Perhaps this simply means there needs to be MORE studies or BETTER studies...or should we abandon our thoughts all together???
Now, perhaps the above poster should rethink his statements.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 13, 2004 1:52:00 AM
|
|
|
LouDC
Posts: 48
Joined: February 18, 2004
From: Florence,Italy
Status: offline
|
Just to show you guys how green I am on computers and the net. I have been trying to post the article on Eddy/Manga posted above. No matter what I did it wouldn't post. I finally ask my ever patient wife for help and she said did you check on page 2?---Page 2???--- Ok!!! you can stop laughing now.
Didn't see it,now how do I clear the multiple post off the thread?
Sorry,
Lou
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 13, 2004 6:19:00 AM
|
|
|
LouDC
Posts: 48
Joined: February 18, 2004
From: Florence,Italy
Status: offline
|
I accept responsibility for this flap over RCTs on Otitis Media and Infantile Colic. The RCT on Infantile colic I feel is good, the Otitis Media article was a clinical study and not an RTC and I am in error on this point. The Osteopathic pilot study was not Chiropractic but the techniques are essentially the same for OM.
I do not feel that all medical/manipulative procedures need to have an RCT in order to be considered valid,its just not necessary.
Greenfield MD, in a NEJM stated :
"An exclusive reliance on randomized controlled trials to provide definite information about effectiveness is not the answer. We cannot afford to conduct randomized controlled trials for every test ,procedure, or medication in use. To do so would require far too many research resources and would not produce results soon enough."
He then argues in support of observational studies.
He then comments at some lenght in support of the type of research outcomes seen in the Danish study (Infantile Colic-my note)-qualitative outcomes("...such as the reduction of symptoms, improvement in daily functioning, or improvement in the sense of well being and quality of life")rather than quantitative (precise numbers,complete removal of symptoms)
Hurst MD, in a recent article in JAMA agrees with this approach to studies.
Dr. Wagoner
This seemed to agree with what you just posted.
ArmyPT has the right idea on how PTs and DCs can work together with mutual respect for the patients benefit. Check Chiroweb post by ArmyPT.
Lets do some more of this constructive discussion on rehab. and much less EBM arguements.
This morning I read an article on a Marine injured severely in Iraq-It gave me some very bad flashbacks from my past. My practice has a significant percent of severe injuries from car/motorcycle accidents,and sports injuries and therefore I have a lot of rehab. experience. I would like to make a pledge to the community to treat military personnel injuried in a combat zone at no charge. If you know of someone who needs help please post their E-mail address.
Lou
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 13, 2004 6:40:00 PM
|
|
|
Mitch
Posts: 38
Joined: September 12, 2001
From: Somerdale, NJ
Status: offline
|
As far as infants are concerned (and adjustments (a non-term)) baby's have adapted over the years just fine witout intervention. Whatever perceived structural effects, isn't it amazing that despite not having one hand touch the infants spine how they do just fine on their own! If there is some sort of birth problem, GUESS WHAT WILL BE BLAMED FIRST MOST LIKELY?
Any problems that follow birth are only 'ASSUMED' to have some correlation. Remember, the following applies for everything...
Two Canadian chiropractors who conducted an extensive literature search found no scientific evidence supporting the widely held belief that periodic spinal adjustments improve health status. They also concluded: (1) the term "preventive maintenance" has not been precisely defined, (2) appropriate ways to measure health status have not been determined, and (3) both of these steps would be essential before valid controlled studies could be performed. [Aker PD, Martel J. Maintenance Care. Topics in Clinical Chiropractic 3(4):3235, 1996.] (Web Site: [URL=http://www.ncahf.org/newslett/nl18-3.html#mediamisleads]http://www.ncahf.org/newslett/nl18-3.html#mediamisleads[/URL]
Magner: Mark Sanders, D.C., who practiced privately for a decade and taught at a chiropractic college for three years has stated, “I’m not aware of any scientific proof that spinal manipulations have a preventive effect, yet I’ve reviewed hundreds of cases in which patients received them without documented complaints of pain or significant objective findings” . He says this is treatment of “nonexistent problems.” Scott Haldeman, DC., MD, PhD a neurologist who is also a third-generation chiropractor, affirms that “there are no long-term outcome trials on the value of preventive chiropractic care”. (Chiropractic, The Victim’s Perspective, George Magner, edited by Stephen Barrett, M.D., Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, p. 78)
While one may gauge the amount of force to impart to an infants spine, the purporting of beneficial effects of said adjustments can only be speculative. (see, “Crelin, et al” & “Dr.Kuslich and the misaligned Vertebra”, and see ‘Two Canadian Chiropractors’). Also to consider is the proper amount of force to use can only be speculative as well. The adult facet joints only move about 3mm and are very slippery; what of an infants facet joints? If an argument can be made for providing infant adjustments, than you open the door for any of a number of speculative preventative treatments which appear to make sense to the practitioners who use said procedures. Maybe somebody out there believes that an infants body needs to be tossed in the air to stimulate vestibular activity; an argument can be concocted for this, can’t it? Maybe it will prevent balance problems in the future. Maybe he/she won’t get sea sick or air sick as easily because the cochlear fluids are being acclimated to swishing around. Maybe it’s important to brace a child’s legs straight periodically as they tend to flex often which some may believe can lead to flexion contractures in the knees.
Some say infant massage is important to raise a calm child. As this is a relatively simple procedure, parents can easily massage their own infants. However, do we have newborn spines adjusted on mere speculation? How does one know that damage won’t result from the supposed subtle pressures being imparted to a newborns spine? The potential for harm has just as much weight as the potential for benefit, if not more. If one can speculate that a particular amount of pressure can effect A CHANGE, than THAT CHANGE can only be speculated. THAT CHANGE could as easily be BAD! Therefore, play it safe, don’t have your newborns adjusted.
I believe the human body was designed to withstand a lot more than most people give credit for. For example: When my son was born, although cesarean born, he still had a Very Conical (Cone) shaped head, as my wife spent several hours in labor prior to deciding to have the C-section. In a matter of 1 to 2 weeks his head reshaped itself into a nicely rounded cranium, and this was accomplished ‘All By Itself.” Baby’s are born every day who haven’t been adjusted and they grow up to be healthy children acclimating to their environment and growing in accord with their genetic make up.
We have tangible examples of natural adaptation, the independent re-shaping of a newborns head, the natural acclimation of a newborn to a non-fluid environment, a new breathing mechanism that takes effect through his/her new lungs, innumerable changes related to the maturation process so the infant appropriately adapts to his/her surroundings, a continuous changing as the infant matures. With all of these tangible signs that newborns appropriately adapt without any external intervention, is it reasonable to assume that an infants spine is possibly the only thing that needs external intervention in order to prevent future problems?
While complications can occur during the birthing process, those complications are hopefully addressed and treated! Suction may be used to clear an infants lungs for one example. But as we know, palpation is unreliable in itself in adults let alone children and one can only assume the existence of a problem and assume it needs to be manipulated in some way. There is a wide range of what would be considered ‘normal’ with regard to symmetry and segmental mobility in the adult spine; what kind of variations would one find from infant to infant? The Spine is not an engineered building, it was designed to move and bend with stress and everyone’s spine develops to accommodate those stresses and everyone’s spine is genetically individual and in non-pathological cases and most cases is normal for that individual.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 14, 2004 9:59:00 PM
|
|
|
LouDC
Posts: 48
Joined: February 18, 2004
From: Florence,Italy
Status: offline
|
Mitch
Apparently you've never had a persistently crying /colicly baby. I have and lots of them in newborns and pediatrics,they can,t tell you whats wrong but they are long term unhappy ( I requested transfer-and got it).Like us pain in babies is usually dysfunction not structural.
I currently have three adult pts. with an atrophied obstectrical paralysis of the arm. None of the three had interruption of the a nerve, all three had compression of the brachial plexus that could have been 100% correctable if decompressed when they were infants. You can bet your last dollar that these pts. were chronic crying babies. I can improve these pts. after 40-60 years but the arm is atrophied you can get only 30-50% improvement in ROM but the pain and paraesthesia go away.
This wasn't malpractice on the part of their Medical doctors of their infancy it was just ignorance. However, it would be malpractice today if someone closed their mind to possibility that babies can have structural/visceral dydfunction just like us.
Lou
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 15, 2004 3:16:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1205
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
LouDC, I cannot help but ask: How do you know the nerve issue was 100% reversible? In order to state that, you must have some evidence that this type of pathology can be reliably reversed - with outcomes BETTER than just chance or time-based.
I am concerned that since this issue is about infants and babies, not enough care and scrutiny is applied - the emotional status of parents is such that they can be vulnerable to ANY suggestion: be it suggested future health problems, or suggested cures. That puts even more onus on the practitioner to have a solid evidence base.
Sebastian
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 15, 2004 12:20:00 PM
|
|
|
LouDC
Posts: 48
Joined: February 18, 2004
From: Florence,Italy
Status: offline
|
Sebastian
Your right-no therapy is 100% Successful. However, in cases where there is no cns pathology or interruption of the peripheral nerve. I would expect a very high percentage of complete recovery in infants. This is not my field but I have worked OB, newborn, and pediatrics in the past. IN OB I was astounded by the amount of traction they applied with forcepts on newborns. It seemed to me the doctors were trying to rush the process to fit their schedule instead of respecting the natural timing of nature. As a Chiropractor we are bioengineers and we become quite attuned to physical tolerances, I haven't seen current procedures for an OB birth, but if its anything like the past Its sufficent to cause nerve compression.
"CR"V7N6pg.2
The Manga report stated that It is Ontario,Canada policy to substitute midwifery services for over 90% of well births by the year 2000. (A government inquiry in the late 1980s found that midwives... provided a superior service to obstetricians in terms of effectiveness, cost effectiveness and patient satisfaction.
(END article)
This I think is a positive change, in that the midwife probably assist "Mother Nature" instead of demanding that the fetus be born on some schedule. I would want a surgical suite on site, I have seen two bleeders and I know you have got minutes to get that person into surgery.
If nerve compression occurs in an infant it should be taken care of right away, every year after birth reduces the percentage of successful recovery.
In these adults that I am currently treating all of the shoulder girdle muscles are in contracture and in a severe state of atrophy.I usually see at least 30% improvement as to ROM and active movement, This indicates to me that it was not CNS pathology or perpheral nerve interruption but was a frank compression of the brachial plexus and most likely correctable after birth. This was an avoidable tragedy for these patients ,its no question it altered the quality of their life. MDs and PTs and parents should be aware that there are alternatives if an obstetrical paralysis occurs and if they can't correct the condition they legally and morally obliged to refer to someone who can fix the compression.
I don't think Allopathic Medicine is anymore evidence based than Chiropractic to a large degree. If you look to the above post by Prof. Eddy he seems to agree that 85% of medicine is not evidence based.
Lou
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - March 17, 2004 1:11:00 PM
|
|
|
Mitch
Posts: 38
Joined: September 12, 2001
From: Somerdale, NJ
Status: offline
|
Lou your information re: the symptom of Colic is total assumption! You are merely predicting outcomes long into the future and you have no way of taking into consideration the ENORMOUS amount of variables that could potentially influence long term outcomes! Even well structured research studies would find it hard to uncover all of lifes inherent influential variables; however, at least this is what always needs to be done to minimize said hidden variables.
If you can assume a positive future benefit of any kind, than you better be ready to assume a negative effect as well! As humans tend to block out of their minds non-responders or negative results and focus only on those who appear to have benefited, this is 0f course what leads to many assumptions and this is what research is all about. You also have to take into consideration the numbers of such infants who have somehow managed to grow normally w/out any problems, despite problems which cause the symptoms of colic after birth. Such numbers are probably not available and would certianly be an important consideration! Heck, you could have similar results using anything non-invasive. It certianly doesn't seem worth the risk of applying too much pressure by those who tend to be heavy handed.
Scott Haldeman, DC., MD, PhD: Neurologist who is also a third-generation chiropractor, affirms that “there are no long-term outcome trials on the value of preventive chiropractic care”. (Chiropractic, The Victim’s Perspective, George Magner, edited by Stephen Barrett, M.D., Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, p. 78)
Two Canadian Chiropractors: Conducted an extensive literature search found no scientific evidence supporting the widely held belief that periodic spinal adjustments improve health status. They also concluded: (1) the term "preventive maintenance" has not been precisely defined, (2) appropriate ways to measure health status have not been determined, and (3) both of these steps would be essential before valid controlled studies could be performed. (Aker PD, Martel J. Maintenance Care. Topics in Clinical Chiropractic 3(4):3235, 1996.] (Web Site: [URL=http://www.ncahf.org/newslett/nl18-3.html#mediamisleads)]http://www.ncahf.org/newslett/nl18-3.html#mediamisleads)[/URL]
Mark Sanders, D.C.: Practiced privately for a decade and taught at a chiropractic college for three years has stated, “I’m not aware of any scientific proof that spinal manipulations have a preventive effect, yet I’ve reviewed hundreds of cases in which patients received them without documented complaints of pain or significant objective findings” . He says this is treatment of “nonexistent problems.” ”. (Chiropractic, The Victim’s Perspective, George Magner, edited by Stephen Barrett, M.D., Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, p. 78)
Consumer Reports describes preventative maintenance a hallow chiropractic tradition. (Chiropractic, The Victim’s Perspective, George Magner, edited by Stephen Barrett, M.D., Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, p. 77)
Strangely enough, I have and continue to be willing to work with chiro's who are willing to use their skills relative to joint function and movement; even if similar results can often be obtained via patient self generated forces or perhaps mobilization procedures!
[This message has been edited by Mitch (edited March 17, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Mitch (edited March 17, 2004).]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT-DC CONFLICT - July 3, 2004 6:53:00 PM
|
|
|
suhaib31302
Posts: 5
Joined: June 21, 2004
From: Pakistan
Status: offline
|
OUR PROFESSIONS ARE RELATED, SO IT IS NATURAL THAT THE COMPETITION SHOULD EXIST , I THINK BOTH WANT TO GO AHEAD FOR THE TREATMENT,EVERY DC'S BELIEVE THAT THE SOLUTION IN THEIR FIELD AND VICE VERSA ,
I AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD INTERVIEW BOTH OF THEM THEN WE WILL GET THE SULUTION
_____________________________
suhaibmajeed
|
|
|
|
 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: PT-DC CONFLICT 
