This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I've never seen a chiropractor. However, based around a case where they (or at less a major governing body) had sued simon Singh because he had tried to refute their claim that chiropractors could cure asthma and skin conditions etc I got a very bad impression. anyway, it all sounded extremely shady but this is half remembered stuff I skim read from the guardian so I might be wrong.
So my question is: while it seems very unlikely that a chiropractor is going to cure an ear infection by manipulating the spine. Can they cure bad backs/necks by manipulating the spine. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Chiropractors: specifically for bad backs/necks - snake oil or specialist?
So my question is: while it seems very unlikely that a chiropractor is going to cure an ear infection by manipulating the spine. Can they cure bad backs/necks by manipulating the spine. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Chiropractors: specifically for bad backs/necks - snake oil or specialist?
In reply to Kemics:
Dangerous snake oil sellers. Do not go to a chiropractor. If you have to ask the question - can a chiropractor cure Asthma through manipulating the spine? then you should re-assess your bullsh1t radar.
Go to an osteopath for back/neck troubles - medically evidenced and trained practitioners
For asthma, skin ailments or any of the conditions Chiropractors claim they can cure - go to your GP.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chiropractic
Dangerous snake oil sellers. Do not go to a chiropractor. If you have to ask the question - can a chiropractor cure Asthma through manipulating the spine? then you should re-assess your bullsh1t radar.
Go to an osteopath for back/neck troubles - medically evidenced and trained practitioners
For asthma, skin ailments or any of the conditions Chiropractors claim they can cure - go to your GP.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chiropractic
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
i must say even though i have a couple of GMP friends I dont think they do an awful lot other than prescribe drugs for the symptoms
Ive never had the experience of a chiropractor but never intend to either, I have been to a kinesiologist, also a bit of a sham
i must say even though i have a couple of GMP friends I dont think they do an awful lot other than prescribe drugs for the symptoms
Ive never had the experience of a chiropractor but never intend to either, I have been to a kinesiologist, also a bit of a sham
Post edited at 19:21
In reply to Kemics:
Some years ago I used to go to a chiropractor who used to clunk my neck and provided instant pain relief. He moved on, and I went to a different guy when I had some lower back problems; he used more force than seemed appropriate and was no use! So I think they vary a lot; if you find the right one they can be very good indeed, for the neck and back.
I think I was very lucky that I started climbing and that sorted out my back, although I get the inevitable belayer's neck.
Some years ago I used to go to a chiropractor who used to clunk my neck and provided instant pain relief. He moved on, and I went to a different guy when I had some lower back problems; he used more force than seemed appropriate and was no use! So I think they vary a lot; if you find the right one they can be very good indeed, for the neck and back.
I think I was very lucky that I started climbing and that sorted out my back, although I get the inevitable belayer's neck.
In reply to Kemics:
Due to my occupation - drystonewalling - I sometimes get a bad back. Well, all you get from your GP is pain killers and/or anti-inflamitory pills/lotions. Oh,; "And take six weeks off work".
Persuaded by Mrs P I eventually decided to go to a chiropractor she'd had success with over her back problems. Anything to help my back I went not expecting a lot.
Getting out of my car, I limped across the park to his rooms. An hour or so later saw me going back to the car £40 lighter and wondering whether it was worth it. Then I noticed I wasn't limping. Nor did the car ride back home make by backside sore. The general lower back pain went after another day or two. I'm a convert.
And when I've had back trouble since I've gone back again with similar results. I've also come across people who've had long term back problems, in some cases caused by surgery, and they have had good to excellent treatment by chiropractors. I've also come across people with bad backs who claim their bad back hasn't been cured by visiting other chiropractors.
Their training is done over a number of years - I can't recall exactly how long. And like doctors, surgeons, lawyers and I guess drystone wallers and others, the amount of ability and skill varies from person to person. I've come across useless lawyers, surgeons and doctors. (And drystone wallers).
So get someone to recommend a chiropractor and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
OK, I've never heard tell of any claims to cure other stuff such as ear infections. But I have heard the British Medical Council make all sorts of claims for their doctors and I also hear of even more claims for pharmaceutical company claims about their snake oil potents & pills.
Due to my occupation - drystonewalling - I sometimes get a bad back. Well, all you get from your GP is pain killers and/or anti-inflamitory pills/lotions. Oh,; "And take six weeks off work".
Persuaded by Mrs P I eventually decided to go to a chiropractor she'd had success with over her back problems. Anything to help my back I went not expecting a lot.
Getting out of my car, I limped across the park to his rooms. An hour or so later saw me going back to the car £40 lighter and wondering whether it was worth it. Then I noticed I wasn't limping. Nor did the car ride back home make by backside sore. The general lower back pain went after another day or two. I'm a convert.
And when I've had back trouble since I've gone back again with similar results. I've also come across people who've had long term back problems, in some cases caused by surgery, and they have had good to excellent treatment by chiropractors. I've also come across people with bad backs who claim their bad back hasn't been cured by visiting other chiropractors.
Their training is done over a number of years - I can't recall exactly how long. And like doctors, surgeons, lawyers and I guess drystone wallers and others, the amount of ability and skill varies from person to person. I've come across useless lawyers, surgeons and doctors. (And drystone wallers).
So get someone to recommend a chiropractor and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
OK, I've never heard tell of any claims to cure other stuff such as ear infections. But I have heard the British Medical Council make all sorts of claims for their doctors and I also hear of even more claims for pharmaceutical company claims about their snake oil potents & pills.
In reply to Dave Perry:
Unfortunately, Dave, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence of efficacy.
It's a sad fact that people like yourself resort to going to a chiropractor who is in essence an Un-licenced (by any meaningful NGB at least), unqualified (medically) and dangerous person (any manipulation of the neck or back should be done by medically trained and licenced physiotherapist or osteopath).
Anyone who lets anyone else mess with these sensitive parts of the body is playing with fire.
There have been a number of documented cases where people have been left paralysed or dead because of such manipulations - check out the links in the URL I posted above.
Unfortunately, Dave, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence of efficacy.
It's a sad fact that people like yourself resort to going to a chiropractor who is in essence an Un-licenced (by any meaningful NGB at least), unqualified (medically) and dangerous person (any manipulation of the neck or back should be done by medically trained and licenced physiotherapist or osteopath).
Anyone who lets anyone else mess with these sensitive parts of the body is playing with fire.
There have been a number of documented cases where people have been left paralysed or dead because of such manipulations - check out the links in the URL I posted above.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
If you go to a GP for these conditions you are very likely to recieve some skin cream or an inhaler. These things will not cure your problem. Most of the solutions proposed by medics merely remove symptoms. If you want a real cure you need to look at underlying causes which relate to environment and diet; GPs very rarely inquire into these but (as others have commented) some doctors are better than others.
> For asthma, skin ailments or any of the conditions Chiropractors claim they can cure - go to your GP.
If you go to a GP for these conditions you are very likely to recieve some skin cream or an inhaler. These things will not cure your problem. Most of the solutions proposed by medics merely remove symptoms. If you want a real cure you need to look at underlying causes which relate to environment and diet; GPs very rarely inquire into these but (as others have commented) some doctors are better than others.
In reply to Dave Perry:
On those rare occasions when I go to a doctor it is usually for mechanical injury; I wouldn't trust them for anything else. A fundamental problem is that all medical personnel are biased by the perks which pharmaceutical companies shower on them. So far as BIG PHARMA is concerned, you visit a doctor to put funds into their coffers.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/03/us-pharmaceuticals-britain-idUSBR...
> OK, I've never heard tell of any claims to cure other stuff such as ear infections. But I have heard the British Medical Council make all sorts of claims for their doctors and I also hear of even more claims for pharmaceutical company claims about their snake oil potents & pills.
On those rare occasions when I go to a doctor it is usually for mechanical injury; I wouldn't trust them for anything else. A fundamental problem is that all medical personnel are biased by the perks which pharmaceutical companies shower on them. So far as BIG PHARMA is concerned, you visit a doctor to put funds into their coffers.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/03/us-pharmaceuticals-britain-idUSBR...
In reply to Kemics:
What you want is a physiotherapist. They use exercise, massage, etc but are trained in evidence based medicine. Can be NHS or private.
It wouldn't surprise me if some of the techniques used by physiotherapists and chiropractors overlap, but the chiropractor is doing it from more of a basis of woo.
What you want is a physiotherapist. They use exercise, massage, etc but are trained in evidence based medicine. Can be NHS or private.
It wouldn't surprise me if some of the techniques used by physiotherapists and chiropractors overlap, but the chiropractor is doing it from more of a basis of woo.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Give me a chiropractor over an osteopath for back pain any day of the week. A kinder and gentler process with far better results IME.
I've yet to meet one who claims to be able to cure anything as outlandish as asthma.
> Go to an osteopath for back/neck troubles - medically evidenced and trained practitioners
Give me a chiropractor over an osteopath for back pain any day of the week. A kinder and gentler process with far better results IME.
I've yet to meet one who claims to be able to cure anything as outlandish as asthma.
In reply to Kemics:
Like most things it depends on the practitioner and their expertise.
I have had good Chiropractors and lousy physiotherapists and if you are only using them for lower back pain then it is down to individual recommendation (from people you trust I hasten to add).
The training for physios has a more rigorous standard and certification procedure and there are less outlandish claims for the benefits.
There is some evidence that manipulation can relieve certain back problems and I have plenty of anecdotal evidence for myself that it works but it is not a panacea for all back pain, which can arise from many different causes.
Anyone who claims to cure ear infection by spinal manipulation is, in my opinion, best viewed as one might a rabid dog
Like most things it depends on the practitioner and their expertise.
I have had good Chiropractors and lousy physiotherapists and if you are only using them for lower back pain then it is down to individual recommendation (from people you trust I hasten to add).
The training for physios has a more rigorous standard and certification procedure and there are less outlandish claims for the benefits.
There is some evidence that manipulation can relieve certain back problems and I have plenty of anecdotal evidence for myself that it works but it is not a panacea for all back pain, which can arise from many different causes.
Anyone who claims to cure ear infection by spinal manipulation is, in my opinion, best viewed as one might a rabid dog
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
I will look at the link. But don't forget doctors are not always 100% efficient or effective. Backs cannot be cured by pills or potions. And doctors kill people too!!
Its a fact that older people die quite often following a visit to a doctor.
I will look at the link. But don't forget doctors are not always 100% efficient or effective. Backs cannot be cured by pills or potions. And doctors kill people too!!
Its a fact that older people die quite often following a visit to a doctor.
In reply to Dave Perry:
Maybe because they've gone to the doctor after falling ill with something serious (hence the visit to the doctor?)
Edited to add non-agressive smiley face ---->
> Its a fact that older people die quite often following a visit to a doctor.
Maybe because they've gone to the doctor after falling ill with something serious (hence the visit to the doctor?)
Edited to add non-agressive smiley face ---->
Post edited at 21:43
In reply to Dave Perry:
Doctors don't claim to be able to cure anything without the medical e vidence to back up their claims.
Chiropractors have no medical basis for their interventions and their treatments are predicated on the fact that back pain often comes and goes - take a look at regression to the mean.
> I will look at the link. But don't forget doctors are not always 100% efficient or effective. Backs cannot be cured by pills or potions. And doctors kill people too!!
Only if They are called Harold...Doctors don't claim to be able to cure anything without the medical e vidence to back up their claims.
> Its a fact that older people die quite often following a visit to a doctor.
Those people were probably going to die anyway. Old people often don't like doctors so end up dying because of delaying treatment and not through the treatment itself. Chiropractors have no medical basis for their interventions and their treatments are predicated on the fact that back pain often comes and goes - take a look at regression to the mean.
Post edited at 22:19
In reply to Kemics:
Who doesn't enjoy a good crack and click? I've used a chiropractor for lower back pain, I've found her to be efficacious, I'm happy with the low level of risk.
Who doesn't enjoy a good crack and click? I've used a chiropractor for lower back pain, I've found her to be efficacious, I'm happy with the low level of risk.
In reply to ThunderCat:
Did you know that if you eat more ice cream it raises the temperature of the air around you...or at least more people eat ice cream in the summer
in case it wasn't clear, clearly chiropractors treating medical conditions is total nonsense.
I just wondered if they do know about the back/spine treatments? But ill probably go to a physio instead
Did you know that if you eat more ice cream it raises the temperature of the air around you...or at least more people eat ice cream in the summer
in case it wasn't clear, clearly chiropractors treating medical conditions is total nonsense.
I just wondered if they do know about the back/spine treatments? But ill probably go to a physio instead
In reply to Dave Perry:
That is hardly surprising. Presumably they are likely to have gone to the doctor because they were ill, and old, ill people have a tendency to die. I suspect that they would have been even more likely to die had they not gone to the doctor.
> Its a fact that older people die quite often following a visit to a doctor.
That is hardly surprising. Presumably they are likely to have gone to the doctor because they were ill, and old, ill people have a tendency to die. I suspect that they would have been even more likely to die had they not gone to the doctor.
In reply to Kemics:
While there is certainly an element of "alternative" in chiropractic, it certainly cannot be bracketed with bollocks like homeopathy and crystal therapy, which anyone with the most basic scientific knowledge would know could not possibly have any physical effect; crunching your spine certainly is a real physical process. Clearly the discredited claims of cure for asthma etc. are bollocks, but there is no reason to immediately discount claims of help for back problems. I went from lying on my back virtually immobile in pain to full on winter clmbing in a week with three visits to a chiropractor. Of course this is anecdotal evidence, but the relief was so immediate and lasting that it seems very unlikely to have been a coincidence. Incidentally, I have also used an osteopath for a similar cmplaint; they used exactly the same "crunches" but did other stuff more like a physio would as well.
While there is certainly an element of "alternative" in chiropractic, it certainly cannot be bracketed with bollocks like homeopathy and crystal therapy, which anyone with the most basic scientific knowledge would know could not possibly have any physical effect; crunching your spine certainly is a real physical process. Clearly the discredited claims of cure for asthma etc. are bollocks, but there is no reason to immediately discount claims of help for back problems. I went from lying on my back virtually immobile in pain to full on winter clmbing in a week with three visits to a chiropractor. Of course this is anecdotal evidence, but the relief was so immediate and lasting that it seems very unlikely to have been a coincidence. Incidentally, I have also used an osteopath for a similar cmplaint; they used exactly the same "crunches" but did other stuff more like a physio would as well.
In reply to Kemics:
Some yes, and very well. Most not in my experience. I have a magic person and he does something called Bowen Technique. Very rarely see him these days
> So my question is: while it seems very unlikely that a chiropractor is going to cure an ear infection by manipulating the spine. Can they cure bad backs/necks by manipulating the spine. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
> Chiropractors: specifically for bad backs/necks - snake oil or specialist?
Some yes, and very well. Most not in my experience. I have a magic person and he does something called Bowen Technique. Very rarely see him these days
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Looking about the web. The risk is low, there is some evidence for efficacy in lower back pain. I enjoy a good cracking.
Mind you I'm more inclined to go here; http://www.footandthai.com/
for a work over If I put my back out these days.(And no, they don't do "happy endings!"
Looking about the web. The risk is low, there is some evidence for efficacy in lower back pain. I enjoy a good cracking.
Mind you I'm more inclined to go here; http://www.footandthai.com/
for a work over If I put my back out these days.(And no, they don't do "happy endings!"
In reply to Kemics:
It amazes me how many have replied saying "don't use a chiropractor, they're just quackery, use an osteopath instead". Osteopathy is the same thing, a branch of homeopathy.
There was a thread on this a while back, it's scary that the words chiropractor and osteopath have become associated with genuine medicinal practise.
I also find it strange that paying for temporary relief seems fine to some people but getting temporary relief from anti-inflammatory drugs is deemed bad.
Nothing wrong with a good massage, as long as they don't make out they're a doctor.
It amazes me how many have replied saying "don't use a chiropractor, they're just quackery, use an osteopath instead". Osteopathy is the same thing, a branch of homeopathy.
There was a thread on this a while back, it's scary that the words chiropractor and osteopath have become associated with genuine medicinal practise.
I also find it strange that paying for temporary relief seems fine to some people but getting temporary relief from anti-inflammatory drugs is deemed bad.
Nothing wrong with a good massage, as long as they don't make out they're a doctor.
In reply to andi turner:
Osteopathy is not another branch of homeopathy. I suggest you do some reading on both those interventions.
Chiropractic is an un-regulated un-medical practise based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Osteopathy is backed by science, not conjecture.
Osteopathy is not another branch of homeopathy. I suggest you do some reading on both those interventions.
Chiropractic is an un-regulated un-medical practise based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Osteopathy is backed by science, not conjecture.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Why couldn't it be a coincidence?
There's evidence to show that the more physical the intervention, the more effective the placebo effect seems to be.
Why couldn't it be a coincidence?
There's evidence to show that the more physical the intervention, the more effective the placebo effect seems to be.
Post edited at 08:25
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Reading suggests that there is little didn't see between the two.
Experience suggests that chiropractors are more effective.
Why do you think the General Osteopathic Council is any better or more rigorous than the General Chiropractic Council?
> Osteopathy is not another branch of homeopathy. I suggest you do some reading on both those interventions.
> Chiropractic is an un-regulated un-medical practise based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Osteopathy is backed by science, not conjecture.
Reading suggests that there is little didn't see between the two.
Experience suggests that chiropractors are more effective.
Why do you think the General Osteopathic Council is any better or more rigorous than the General Chiropractic Council?
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Which leaves me wondering why osteopathic treatment doesn't produce a stronger placebo effect. IME it is by far the most "physical" of the two "interventions".
> Why couldn't it be a coincidence?
> There's evidence to show that the more physical the intervention, the more effective the placebo effect seems to be.
Which leaves me wondering why osteopathic treatment doesn't produce a stronger placebo effect. IME it is by far the most "physical" of the two "interventions".
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Sorry, I shouldn't have said homeopathy, just alternative therapy is probably more precise.
Same thing, looks like you have fallen for it too. Osteopathy is quackery too, not based in science. I'd suggest you do your own research and try and enlighten me. You could start with doing a search for the word "osteopathy" or "what is an osteopath"
Sorry, I shouldn't have said homeopathy, just alternative therapy is probably more precise.
Same thing, looks like you have fallen for it too. Osteopathy is quackery too, not based in science. I'd suggest you do your own research and try and enlighten me. You could start with doing a search for the word "osteopathy" or "what is an osteopath"
In reply to andi turner:
Apologies, There's a between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine - I was referring to the latter. The former is apparently indistinguishable from chiropractic.
Apologies, There's a between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine - I was referring to the latter. The former is apparently indistinguishable from chiropractic.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
No, I think you're still of the mark. If you'd said there's a difference between an orthopaedic surgeon and an osteopath, then I'd agree. But an osteopath is as much a snake oil seller as a chiropractor and a homeopathist.
The worrying thing is that even educated people like your good self are led to believe otherwise.
No, I think you're still of the mark. If you'd said there's a difference between an orthopaedic surgeon and an osteopath, then I'd agree. But an osteopath is as much a snake oil seller as a chiropractor and a homeopathist.
The worrying thing is that even educated people like your good self are led to believe otherwise.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Regulated or not, my osteopath did exactly the same manipulations as my chiropractic.
> Chiropractic is an un-regulated un-medical practise based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Osteopathy is backed by science, not conjecture.
Regulated or not, my osteopath did exactly the same manipulations as my chiropractic.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
It could be. It just seemed too big a coincidence though. He said the joint between my spine and my pelvis was out of place and impinging on nerves. He crunched the joint back into place (very physical). The pain went away. Seemed very credible to me.
That does sound perfectly reasonable.
> Why couldn't it be a coincidence?
It could be. It just seemed too big a coincidence though. He said the joint between my spine and my pelvis was out of place and impinging on nerves. He crunched the joint back into place (very physical). The pain went away. Seemed very credible to me.
> There's evidence to show that the more physical the intervention, the more effective the placebo effect seems to be.
That does sound perfectly reasonable.
In reply to Robert Durran:
people are using personal stories to try and give the uncredable some credibility.
i had a fall and hurt my back.my dad in his naivety booked me in.
she felt my back and said my muscles were bruised and used electric pads.
it did f&%£ all!
i went the doctors a few weeks later and was diagnosed with 2 fractured vertabrae.
doctors = good
chiropractors= waste of money connmen
people are using personal stories to try and give the uncredable some credibility.
i had a fall and hurt my back.my dad in his naivety booked me in.
she felt my back and said my muscles were bruised and used electric pads.
it did f&%£ all!
i went the doctors a few weeks later and was diagnosed with 2 fractured vertabrae.
doctors = good
chiropractors= waste of money connmen
In reply to Robert Durran:
> It could be. It just seemed too big a coincidence though. He said the joint between my spine and my pelvis was out of place and impinging on nerves. He crunched the joint back into place (very physical). The pain went away. Seemed very credible to me.
I'm amazed he could diagnose and cure that without looking at an x-ray.> That does sound perfectly reasonable.
Theres a lot to be said about placebo but people like chiropractors and homeopaths prefer to allude to woo and fancy treatments to elicit something a sugar pill and a bit of reassurance can do without the risk of severing a few nerves. In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Do you realise osteopaths and chiropractors use the same treatment methods?!?!
> Go to an osteopath for back/neck troubles - medically evidenced and trained practitioners
Do you realise osteopaths and chiropractors use the same treatment methods?!?!
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
He also had my history of gradually increasing pain over a month. The first thing he told me was that he wanted to ascertain whether it was something he could treat or whether I should go to a conventional doctor. I'm not totally ruling out placebo, but it seemed pretty convincing to me and he certainly did something very physical to the area of pain. Don't get me wrong - I would be the first person to dismiss "therapies" which cannot possibly have any physical basis such as homeopathy.
> I'm amazed he could diagnose and cure that without looking at an x-ray.
He also had my history of gradually increasing pain over a month. The first thing he told me was that he wanted to ascertain whether it was something he could treat or whether I should go to a conventional doctor. I'm not totally ruling out placebo, but it seemed pretty convincing to me and he certainly did something very physical to the area of pain. Don't get me wrong - I would be the first person to dismiss "therapies" which cannot possibly have any physical basis such as homeopathy.
In reply to chrisbaggy:
Yes. I would classify chiropractors as a subset of osteopaths. Osteopaths do the same stuff as chiropractors but other stuff more like conventional physio too (at least that is my experience).
> Do you realise osteopaths and chiropractors use the same treatment methods?!?!
Yes. I would classify chiropractors as a subset of osteopaths. Osteopaths do the same stuff as chiropractors but other stuff more like conventional physio too (at least that is my experience).
In reply to Kemics:
According to the below review http://www.chiromt.com/content/22/1/12 There is favourable evidence that Manual Therapy (The stuff used by Chiropractors, Osteopaths, and physiotherapists that have done further training on spinal manipulative therapy) is effective for sciatia type pain, neck pain and mid back pain for example.
The same review also looks at asthma, colic etc and surprise surprise there is little evidence for this.
While it is plausible that treatment may effect these types of complaints, as there may be anecdotal evidence to show this, it is not proven and thus results should not be expected!
Chris
According to the below review http://www.chiromt.com/content/22/1/12 There is favourable evidence that Manual Therapy (The stuff used by Chiropractors, Osteopaths, and physiotherapists that have done further training on spinal manipulative therapy) is effective for sciatia type pain, neck pain and mid back pain for example.
The same review also looks at asthma, colic etc and surprise surprise there is little evidence for this.
While it is plausible that treatment may effect these types of complaints, as there may be anecdotal evidence to show this, it is not proven and thus results should not be expected!
Chris
In reply to Robert Durran:
Wrong,
The only difference is their initial philosophies when they started back in 1893 and 1895, one believed that energy flowed through the vascular system, one believed it to be through the nervous system.
Now days these philosophies are replaced by evidenced based methods and clinical thinking by both practitioners and there is little difference apart from one may favour different treatments over the other.
> Yes. I would classify chiropractors as a subset of osteopaths. Osteopaths do the same stuff as chiropractors but other stuff more like conventional physio too (at least that is my experience).
Wrong,
The only difference is their initial philosophies when they started back in 1893 and 1895, one believed that energy flowed through the vascular system, one believed it to be through the nervous system.
Now days these philosophies are replaced by evidenced based methods and clinical thinking by both practitioners and there is little difference apart from one may favour different treatments over the other.
In reply to chrisbaggy:
1893 & 1895 eh. Were'nt doctors still doing blood letting then and various other quackery?
1893 & 1895 eh. Were'nt doctors still doing blood letting then and various other quackery?
In reply to Kemics:
i dont care who treats me so long as the problem is cured, not just the symptoms treated like GMPs do, actually finding the source of the problem and sorting that
i dont care who treats me so long as the problem is cured, not just the symptoms treated like GMPs do, actually finding the source of the problem and sorting that
In reply to chrisbaggy:
That may be the case but one does it with anatomical and scientific knowledge, the other, well, doesn't.
> Do you realise osteopaths and chiropractors use the same treatment methods?!?!
That may be the case but one does it with anatomical and scientific knowledge, the other, well, doesn't.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
So which one does and which one does not?
> That may be the case but one does it with anatomical and scientific knowledge, the other, well, doesn't.
So which one does and which one does not?
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
I am typing this without much knowledge of how a computer works. It still works just as well as if a computer scientist was typing it. Oh,and people have been sailing for millennia without understanding fluid dynamics.
> That may be the case but one does it with anatomical and scientific knowledge, the other, well, doesn't.
I am typing this without much knowledge of how a computer works. It still works just as well as if a computer scientist was typing it. Oh,and people have been sailing for millennia without understanding fluid dynamics.
Post edited at 14:23
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Really?
Which one is which?
> That may be the case but one does it with anatomical and scientific knowledge, the other, well, doesn't.
Really?
Which one is which?
In reply to Kemics:
Well while I wouldn't know enough to say if it helps or not, a lot of people seem to think "science and evidence" isn't based largely on studies involving trying things and seeing what happens most often. If someone is recommended as being able to help having done so in a large number of cases, that's evidence!
Also 'unregulayef'/'unlicenced' doesn't mean 'clueless'. I think the most correct statements here are the 'some are good but its a risk'
Well while I wouldn't know enough to say if it helps or not, a lot of people seem to think "science and evidence" isn't based largely on studies involving trying things and seeing what happens most often. If someone is recommended as being able to help having done so in a large number of cases, that's evidence!
Also 'unregulayef'/'unlicenced' doesn't mean 'clueless'. I think the most correct statements here are the 'some are good but its a risk'
In reply to Robert Durran:
That's got absolutely nothing to do with it. Unless you were charging someone for you to type in their computer and referring to yourself as Dr Durran whilst claiming those computer scientists don't really 'get' computers and the way electricity flows through them....
That's got absolutely nothing to do with it. Unless you were charging someone for you to type in their computer and referring to yourself as Dr Durran whilst claiming those computer scientists don't really 'get' computers and the way electricity flows through them....
In reply to andi turner:
I was simply making the point that if something works, it is not always necessary, for practical purposes, to understand how it works. You have read too much into my analogy (maybe it wasn't a very good one).
> That's got absolutely nothing to do with it.
I was simply making the point that if something works, it is not always necessary, for practical purposes, to understand how it works. You have read too much into my analogy (maybe it wasn't a very good one).
In reply to Robert Durran:
But you've made the very point for why I'm anti-practor
Massages work, hot baths work, but we don't see them as proper treatment as such. It worries me how many people don't see osteos and chiros as alternative medicine, that's my gripe. Everyone knows what they're getting with homeopathy, acupuncture and reiki (I hope), but so many people don't know that back-crackers come under the same category.
I'd go to one in the same way I'd go for a massage, for some minor relief. But like mark said earlier, it took a doctor to find he'd broke his vertebrae. Would've been great if they started cracking that....
But you've made the very point for why I'm anti-practor
Massages work, hot baths work, but we don't see them as proper treatment as such. It worries me how many people don't see osteos and chiros as alternative medicine, that's my gripe. Everyone knows what they're getting with homeopathy, acupuncture and reiki (I hope), but so many people don't know that back-crackers come under the same category.
I'd go to one in the same way I'd go for a massage, for some minor relief. But like mark said earlier, it took a doctor to find he'd broke his vertebrae. Would've been great if they started cracking that....
In reply to andi turner:
Yes. Absolutely nothing.
With Chiropractic I am clearly getting something (likewise with massage etc). That is why chiropractic is NOT in the same class as homeopathy.
> Massages work, hot baths work, but we don't see them as proper treatment as such. It worries me how many people don't see osteos and chiros as alternative medicine, that's my gripe. Everyone knows what they're getting with homeopathy.
Yes. Absolutely nothing.
> But so many people don't know that back-crackers come under the same category.
With Chiropractic I am clearly getting something (likewise with massage etc). That is why chiropractic is NOT in the same class as homeopathy.
In reply to andi turner:
A physical examination (posture, feeling, prodding etc) and my description of symptoms.
> How was your back problem diagnosed?
A physical examination (posture, feeling, prodding etc) and my description of symptoms.
In reply to Robert Durran:
it is in the class of alternative medicine though. Having listened to the guff behind why it works from a chiropractic trainee I'm surprised they're allowed to practice. Not because of risks an things but because it was such obvious guff.
Strait manipulation may work but they talk about little tiny realignments in cells and stuff due to their manipulation. At least other alternative medicine is bloddy obviously so.
it is in the class of alternative medicine though. Having listened to the guff behind why it works from a chiropractic trainee I'm surprised they're allowed to practice. Not because of risks an things but because it was such obvious guff.
Strait manipulation may work but they talk about little tiny realignments in cells and stuff due to their manipulation. At least other alternative medicine is bloddy obviously so.
In reply to puppythedog:
Isn't Robert's point, though, that while the ideas that chiros have as to the basis of what they do may be straight out of the homeopath's doolally book of what counts as sensible, they are doing something physical to you, so that it is possible that they may have an effect on you, good or bad, in the way that a vial of water cannot, whatever someone says may be in it.
Personally, I would not go near them. I would want anyone who touched me in a medical way to talk something that approached sense.
Isn't Robert's point, though, that while the ideas that chiros have as to the basis of what they do may be straight out of the homeopath's doolally book of what counts as sensible, they are doing something physical to you, so that it is possible that they may have an effect on you, good or bad, in the way that a vial of water cannot, whatever someone says may be in it.
Personally, I would not go near them. I would want anyone who touched me in a medical way to talk something that approached sense.
Post edited at 18:35
In reply to mbh:
I'm sure that is his point, I was pointing out that them not being like homeopaths (which was also his point) does not mean they are not alternative.
For me I go with Tim min chin's line; "do you know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine." What really bothers me is NHS money being spent on them but that's a different discussion.
I'm sure that is his point, I was pointing out that them not being like homeopaths (which was also his point) does not mean they are not alternative.
For me I go with Tim min chin's line; "do you know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine." What really bothers me is NHS money being spent on them but that's a different discussion.
In reply to Robert Durran:
So, if it was a fracture, undiagnosed spinobiphida, cancer, virus etc, you'd be happy with the diagnosis? I can crack your back of you like, and I give a good massage. You wouldn't listen to me, so why them?
So, if it was a fracture, undiagnosed spinobiphida, cancer, virus etc, you'd be happy with the diagnosis? I can crack your back of you like, and I give a good massage. You wouldn't listen to me, so why them?
In reply to Robert Durran:
But no X-ray?
> A physical examination (posture, feeling, prodding etc) and my description of symptoms.
But no X-ray?
In reply to Kemics:
http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/
You cannot claim you are a chiropractor unless you are qualified.
If you look you'll see that their training takes at least four years.
And after going through their website I can find no where it claims that they can cure ear infections. Perhaps Kemics you can provide a link where this assertion comes from?
http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/
You cannot claim you are a chiropractor unless you are qualified.
If you look you'll see that their training takes at least four years.
And after going through their website I can find no where it claims that they can cure ear infections. Perhaps Kemics you can provide a link where this assertion comes from?
In reply to puppythedog:
I've seen 3 different chiropracters and not one of them has talked about "tiny realignments in cells".
A bit of gentle manipulation/massage to ease the muscular spasms that are compounding the problem and some great advice on how to excercise in order to prevent the problem re-occurring is more normal in my experience.
> it is in the class of alternative medicine though. Having listened to the guff behind why it works from a chiropractic trainee I'm surprised they're allowed to practice. Not because of risks an things but because it was such obvious guff.
> Strait manipulation may work but they talk about little tiny realignments in cells and stuff due to their manipulation. At least other alternative medicine is bloddy obviously so.
I've seen 3 different chiropracters and not one of them has talked about "tiny realignments in cells".
A bit of gentle manipulation/massage to ease the muscular spasms that are compounding the problem and some great advice on how to excercise in order to prevent the problem re-occurring is more normal in my experience.
In reply to timjones:
Yep, my experiences too. Would only go to someone highly recommended and with decades of experience under their belt to boot.
Yep, my experiences too. Would only go to someone highly recommended and with decades of experience under their belt to boot.
In reply to Kemics:
And perhaps someone with great knowledge can explain how a doctor of medicine can cure such things as shin splints, achillies tendentious?????? Every time I have had these I've always had to resort to stretching, massage and manipulation. No doctor does this.
And perhaps someone can explain how a doctor manipulates and corrects spinal problems. Lets say the sort of thing that causes lower back pain, hip pain & neck pain.? Any one like to admit they went to a doctor and he said "Take this pill and it'll sort you out" and low and behold it worked? Any one on here willing to admit that their doctor massaged and moved their back for them????
I find it slightly alarming to think that most people place a great deal of trust in the medicine promoted through the BMC and practiced only by GPs whose training or practice only seems to only involve :-
a) dishing out pills (40% - 60% don't work for most people - BMC own study 1997)
b) recommending rest
c) referral to another branch of the profession such as surgery, and so on.
If you think GPs and the General Medical Council don't practice quackery, next time you have the flue or perhaps 'man flue' or 'man cold', or feel 'under the weather', you'll almost certainly come away with some kind of pill. None of which can cure either a cold or the flue or stop you feeling under the weather.
Its only within the last few years that the BMC now recognise that such things as food allergies are real. Before that it was suggested by the BMC that patients were guilty of imagining their symptoms as there was no such thing as food allergies.
Please take some responsibility for your own health and do not let GPs take responsibility alone.
And perhaps someone with great knowledge can explain how a doctor of medicine can cure such things as shin splints, achillies tendentious?????? Every time I have had these I've always had to resort to stretching, massage and manipulation. No doctor does this.
And perhaps someone can explain how a doctor manipulates and corrects spinal problems. Lets say the sort of thing that causes lower back pain, hip pain & neck pain.? Any one like to admit they went to a doctor and he said "Take this pill and it'll sort you out" and low and behold it worked? Any one on here willing to admit that their doctor massaged and moved their back for them????
I find it slightly alarming to think that most people place a great deal of trust in the medicine promoted through the BMC and practiced only by GPs whose training or practice only seems to only involve :-
a) dishing out pills (40% - 60% don't work for most people - BMC own study 1997)
b) recommending rest
c) referral to another branch of the profession such as surgery, and so on.
If you think GPs and the General Medical Council don't practice quackery, next time you have the flue or perhaps 'man flue' or 'man cold', or feel 'under the weather', you'll almost certainly come away with some kind of pill. None of which can cure either a cold or the flue or stop you feeling under the weather.
Its only within the last few years that the BMC now recognise that such things as food allergies are real. Before that it was suggested by the BMC that patients were guilty of imagining their symptoms as there was no such thing as food allergies.
Please take some responsibility for your own health and do not let GPs take responsibility alone.
Post edited at 20:34
In reply to Dave Perry:
Well the first hit on google for chiropractor and ear infection is http://www.acatoday.org/content_css.cfm?CID=69
No idea if US chiropractors are the same as UK ones.
> And after going through their website I can find no where it claims that they can cure ear infections. Perhaps Kemics you can provide a link where this assertion comes from?
Well the first hit on google for chiropractor and ear infection is http://www.acatoday.org/content_css.cfm?CID=69
No idea if US chiropractors are the same as UK ones.
In reply to MeMeMe:
Nothing in the US is the same as in the UK!
> Well the first hit on google for chiropractor and ear infection is http://www.acatoday.org/content_css.cfm?CID=69
> No idea if US chiropractors are the same as UK ones.
Nothing in the US is the same as in the UK!
In reply to Dave Perry:
If you go to a doctor for shin splints or the flu (unless you're elderly etc) then you deserve to be alleviated of your cash for a massage.
Believe what you want to believe, but good luck to you when get the wrong diagnosis.
My wife was suffering terrible back pain only two months ago, it turned out to be something called guillain Barre syndrome. Do you think an osteopath would have diagnosed that and potentially saved her from paralysis or even death? I certainly don't.
If you go to a doctor for shin splints or the flu (unless you're elderly etc) then you deserve to be alleviated of your cash for a massage.
Believe what you want to believe, but good luck to you when get the wrong diagnosis.
My wife was suffering terrible back pain only two months ago, it turned out to be something called guillain Barre syndrome. Do you think an osteopath would have diagnosed that and potentially saved her from paralysis or even death? I certainly don't.
In reply to andi turner:
And what makes you think a doctor can always make an accurate diagnosis??. After all not all doctors have spent four years studying spinal problems. And like the Chiropractor, osteopath, physocopath, physiotherapist etc., they may well have been asleep for that lecture or failed that particular module/exam/assessment. Doctors do NOT need a pass at 100% to qualify.
I'd go as far as saying that there are lots, and lots of athletes - and climbers/mountaineers on this site who know far more about treating muscle/tendon injuries such as tendonitis than the average GP.
Ask my mother whose back was ruined by a surgeon who unsuccessfully tried to free a simple trapped nerve in her spine by carrying out a major operation. Or indeed the surgeon who operated on Mrs P's foot for a Morton's Neuroma which caused some discomfort previously and now she has great discomfort subsequently.
Why do people unfailing worship everything about Doctors?
And what makes you think a doctor can always make an accurate diagnosis??. After all not all doctors have spent four years studying spinal problems. And like the Chiropractor, osteopath, physocopath, physiotherapist etc., they may well have been asleep for that lecture or failed that particular module/exam/assessment. Doctors do NOT need a pass at 100% to qualify.
I'd go as far as saying that there are lots, and lots of athletes - and climbers/mountaineers on this site who know far more about treating muscle/tendon injuries such as tendonitis than the average GP.
Ask my mother whose back was ruined by a surgeon who unsuccessfully tried to free a simple trapped nerve in her spine by carrying out a major operation. Or indeed the surgeon who operated on Mrs P's foot for a Morton's Neuroma which caused some discomfort previously and now she has great discomfort subsequently.
Why do people unfailing worship everything about Doctors?
In reply to andi turner:
Yes however there are also the people with fractured vertebrae who the GP gave NSAIDs and rest who the Chiropractor then X-rayed to diagnose/ rule out possible fracture if the case history warrants it.
Mistakes happen but Training is aimed at reducing the chance of this happening both to chiropractors and medical doctors
> I'd go to one in the same way I'd go for a massage, for some minor relief. But like mark said earlier, it took a doctor to find he'd broke his vertebrae. Would've been great if they started cracking that....
Yes however there are also the people with fractured vertebrae who the GP gave NSAIDs and rest who the Chiropractor then X-rayed to diagnose/ rule out possible fracture if the case history warrants it.
Mistakes happen but Training is aimed at reducing the chance of this happening both to chiropractors and medical doctors
In reply to andi turner:
Well from my experience yes, chiropractors do know about GBS.
> My wife was suffering terrible back pain only two months ago, it turned out to be something called guillain Barre syndrome. Do you think an osteopath would have diagnosed that and potentially saved her from paralysis or even death? I certainly don't.
Well from my experience yes, chiropractors do know about GBS.
In reply to Dave Perry:
Doctors are not perfect, nor do most of them claim to be. Medicine is often an inexact science (at least it's a science, eh!) Chiropractors, homeopaths, Accupuncturists, on the whole, think what they do is perfect for all sorts of ailments.
>
> Why do people unfailing worship everything about Doctors?
> Why do people unfailing worship everything about Doctors?
Doctors are not perfect, nor do most of them claim to be. Medicine is often an inexact science (at least it's a science, eh!) Chiropractors, homeopaths, Accupuncturists, on the whole, think what they do is perfect for all sorts of ailments.
In reply to Dave Perry:
well a doctor might reccomend it
I'd be pretty surprised if a doctor did either.
Are you refering specifically to back pain here - or everything?
As far as C goes a big part of the role of GP's is to identify patients that require referral to other branches of medicine
no, but it will get rid of some annoying punter who demands some pills - see your last point.
got a ref for that? I'm only a vet but food allergies were very well established in animals when I trained 20 years ago, but I doubt that the medicos were all that far behind the vets.
fully agree - the role of medical staff is to help you manage your health care, not do it for you.
> And perhaps someone with great knowledge can explain how a doctor of medicine can cure such things as shin splints, achillies tendentious?????? Every time I have had these I've always had to resort to stretching, massage and manipulation. No doctor does this.
well a doctor might reccomend it
> And perhaps someone can explain how a doctor manipulates and corrects spinal problems. Lets say the sort of thing that causes lower back pain, hip pain & neck pain.? Any one like to admit they went to a doctor and he said "Take this pill and it'll sort you out" and low and behold it worked? Any one on here willing to admit that their doctor massaged and moved their back for them????
I'd be pretty surprised if a doctor did either.
> I find it slightly alarming to think that most people place a great deal of trust in the medicine promoted through the BMC and practiced only by GPs whose training or practice only seems to only involve :-
> a) dishing out pills (40% - 60% don't work for most people - BMC own study 1997)
> b) recommending rest
> c) referral to another branch of the profession such as surgery, and so on.
Are you refering specifically to back pain here - or everything?
As far as C goes a big part of the role of GP's is to identify patients that require referral to other branches of medicine
> If you think GPs and the General Medical Council don't practice quackery, next time you have the flue or perhaps 'man flue' or 'man cold', or feel 'under the weather', you'll almost certainly come away with some kind of pill. None of which can cure either a cold or the flue or stop you feeling under the weather.
no, but it will get rid of some annoying punter who demands some pills - see your last point.
> Its only within the last few years that the BMC now recognise that such things as food allergies are real. Before that it was suggested by the BMC that patients were guilty of imagining their symptoms as there was no such thing as food allergies.
got a ref for that? I'm only a vet but food allergies were very well established in animals when I trained 20 years ago, but I doubt that the medicos were all that far behind the vets.
> Please take some responsibility for your own health and do not let GPs take responsibility alone.
fully agree - the role of medical staff is to help you manage your health care, not do it for you.
In reply to Dave Perry:
i typed "chiropractors uk claim to cure asthma"
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/chiropractic/pages/introduction.aspx
"Many chiropractors only treat conditions related to the spine, such as lower back or neck pain.
Some chiropractors, however, treat a wider range of conditions, including asthma, infant colic, irritable bowel syndrome and many others"
ironically it's an NHS website
Mitchell & Webb have a great sketch - youtube.com/watch?v=orS4U3xZPTU&
> And after going through their website I can find no where it claims that they can cure ear infections. Perhaps Kemics you can provide a link where this assertion comes from?
i typed "chiropractors uk claim to cure asthma"
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/chiropractic/pages/introduction.aspx
"Many chiropractors only treat conditions related to the spine, such as lower back or neck pain.
Some chiropractors, however, treat a wider range of conditions, including asthma, infant colic, irritable bowel syndrome and many others"
ironically it's an NHS website
Mitchell & Webb have a great sketch - youtube.com/watch?v=orS4U3xZPTU&
In reply to Kemics:
The only thing homeopathy cures is thirst!
>
The only thing homeopathy cures is thirst!
>
> Mitchell & Webb have a great sketch - youtube.com/watch?v=orS4U3xZPTU&
In reply to puppythedog:
Yes it is.
Agreed.
> I'm sure that is his point.
Yes it is.
> I was pointing out that them not being like homeopaths (which was also his point) does not mean they are not alternative.
Agreed.
In reply to andi turner:
I listened because of a personal recommendation from someone I have great respect for who had had a similar lower back problem and also because he didn't say anything which smacked of bollocks (I am a very sceptical person and would have been straight out the door if he had). Maybe I did take a risk but the fact remains that the relief of pain was dramatic, rapid and lasting. Yes, it could have been placebo or coincidence but it certainly didn't seem so.
I do get the impression that the more outlandish claims of chiropractic are now thoroughly discredited and disowned by responsible practitioners who stick to problems which can be sorted plausibly by physical manipulation.
> So, if it was a fracture, undiagnosed spinobiphida, cancer, virus etc, you'd be happy with the diagnosis? I can crack your back of you like, and I give a good massage. You wouldn't listen to me, so why them?
I listened because of a personal recommendation from someone I have great respect for who had had a similar lower back problem and also because he didn't say anything which smacked of bollocks (I am a very sceptical person and would have been straight out the door if he had). Maybe I did take a risk but the fact remains that the relief of pain was dramatic, rapid and lasting. Yes, it could have been placebo or coincidence but it certainly didn't seem so.
I do get the impression that the more outlandish claims of chiropractic are now thoroughly discredited and disowned by responsible practitioners who stick to problems which can be sorted plausibly by physical manipulation.
In reply to Robert Durran:
I have full confidence in the chiropractors I've seen and they have always worked really well for me.
In the UK I believe it is thoroughly regulated and I would always recommend it as an effective treatment for backs and necks. It's certainly cured any climbing injuries I've had.
I have full confidence in the chiropractors I've seen and they have always worked really well for me.
In the UK I believe it is thoroughly regulated and I would always recommend it as an effective treatment for backs and necks. It's certainly cured any climbing injuries I've had.
In reply to chrisbaggy:
I'd expect you to say that. Do you use your chiropracting during the mountain rescues you're involved in or do you call an ambulance?
I suppose it's each to their own in the end, but if it was myself or a loved one, I know who I would go to before wasting a penny on alternative medicine.
So, with your knowledge of gbs, what would your identification and treatment involve? Does manipulation of the spine aid diseases of the nervous system?
I'd expect you to say that. Do you use your chiropracting during the mountain rescues you're involved in or do you call an ambulance?
I suppose it's each to their own in the end, but if it was myself or a loved one, I know who I would go to before wasting a penny on alternative medicine.
So, with your knowledge of gbs, what would your identification and treatment involve? Does manipulation of the spine aid diseases of the nervous system?
In reply to mark s:
You are using a personal story to try to discredit it, plus ca change.
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> people are using personal stories to try and give the uncredable some credibility.
>
> people are using personal stories to try and give the uncredable some credibility.
You are using a personal story to try to discredit it, plus ca change.
In reply to stroppygob:
no im not i was just showing that stories mean nothing.
i don't need personal stories about removing nose rings to fix elbow problems to know chiropractors are con men
no im not i was just showing that stories mean nothing.
i don't need personal stories about removing nose rings to fix elbow problems to know chiropractors are con men
In reply to Kemics:
Quacks the lot of them.
Chiropractor = alternative = snake oil and tiger knobs
Real = http://www.csp.org.uk/
Quacks the lot of them.
Chiropractor = alternative = snake oil and tiger knobs
Real = http://www.csp.org.uk/
In reply to Dave Perry:
No other school of health treatment has the pharmaceutical business behind it. Doctors are merely puppets in the hands of corporate interests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry_in_the_United_Kingdom
More money spent on publicity than on research. 8.4bn annual turnover.
Furthermore most of us want to believe that cures can be bought in a plastic bottle; its a damn sight easier than taking responsibility for one's own health. Even if you know whats right exercising the necessary self discipline to do it is bloody hard work.
> Why do people unfailing worship everything about Doctors?
No other school of health treatment has the pharmaceutical business behind it. Doctors are merely puppets in the hands of corporate interests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry_in_the_United_Kingdom
More money spent on publicity than on research. 8.4bn annual turnover.
Furthermore most of us want to believe that cures can be bought in a plastic bottle; its a damn sight easier than taking responsibility for one's own health. Even if you know whats right exercising the necessary self discipline to do it is bloody hard work.
In reply to andi turner:
Yes funnily enough i come to similar diagnoses as the rest of the paramedics/medical doctors that come into contact with within MR. I also know my limits, the treatment I can do is similar to any other MR personnel who has the MREW cas. care qualification.
The treatments I can do on hill are exactly the same, as any other MR cas. carer why? because thats first aid, chiropractic care is secondary aid.
Yes my knowledge of the human body is extensive as is all chiropractors. This is becuase i could have a patient come into my office who has back pain.... before treating them i need to check if it is something i can treat. Is the back pain caused by pancreatic cancer, gall stones? prostate cancer? kidney infection? or is it caused by something I can treat such as back pain caused by muscular dysfunction, injury, ligamentous injury or irritation of joints for example.
Did you have a look at the article put above? (I'm guessing not as you've continued talking)
As you seem to have realised, I am a chiropractic student, I treat people currently under the supervision of qualified chiropractors and will be qualified in 8 or so weeks time and then out on my own as a qualified chiropractor. This is a four year undergraduate masters degree not something done over two weekends.
I could tell you all the anecdotal evidence that manual therapy works however as stated above this is not the highest quality of evidence and thus RCTs and systematic reviews are better such as the article i posted above (This is the latest review and thus the most up to date).
I would ask if you have read the article ( http://www.chiromt.com/content/22/1/12 ) to help inform your views on the subject but by your continual posts i feel you have not...
> I'd expect you to say that. Do you use your chiropracting during the mountain rescues you're involved in or do you call an ambulance?
Yes funnily enough i come to similar diagnoses as the rest of the paramedics/medical doctors that come into contact with within MR. I also know my limits, the treatment I can do is similar to any other MR personnel who has the MREW cas. care qualification.
The treatments I can do on hill are exactly the same, as any other MR cas. carer why? because thats first aid, chiropractic care is secondary aid.
Yes my knowledge of the human body is extensive as is all chiropractors. This is becuase i could have a patient come into my office who has back pain.... before treating them i need to check if it is something i can treat. Is the back pain caused by pancreatic cancer, gall stones? prostate cancer? kidney infection? or is it caused by something I can treat such as back pain caused by muscular dysfunction, injury, ligamentous injury or irritation of joints for example.
Did you have a look at the article put above? (I'm guessing not as you've continued talking)
As you seem to have realised, I am a chiropractic student, I treat people currently under the supervision of qualified chiropractors and will be qualified in 8 or so weeks time and then out on my own as a qualified chiropractor. This is a four year undergraduate masters degree not something done over two weekends.
I could tell you all the anecdotal evidence that manual therapy works however as stated above this is not the highest quality of evidence and thus RCTs and systematic reviews are better such as the article i posted above (This is the latest review and thus the most up to date).
I would ask if you have read the article ( http://www.chiromt.com/content/22/1/12 ) to help inform your views on the subject but by your continual posts i feel you have not...
In reply to Dave Perry:
And the chances are that the GP will say "there's a lot of 'it' about", without doing any sputum cultures to identify what 'it' is, or if it's the same 'it' as the other 'its' they've seen recently. And, when the course of antibiotics has finished, they don't do any further tests to check that the infection has cleared.
Or, if you have a foot fracture that has gone undiagnosed for weeks, and is finally put in plaster, when the plaster is removed 6 weeks later, no tests are done to check that the fracture has fused, despite the patient experiencing considerable pain on walking.
I don't have any experience of chiropractic, but my experience of 'conventional medicine' tells me that they don't use the same level of 'science-based treatment' as I use as an engineer to diagnose, fix and check faults. If I were as slack in my methods as the medics seem to be, I'd be likely to find myself charged with professional negligence.
> next time you have the flue or perhaps 'man flue' or 'man cold', or feel 'under the weather', you'll almost certainly come away with some kind of pill.
And the chances are that the GP will say "there's a lot of 'it' about", without doing any sputum cultures to identify what 'it' is, or if it's the same 'it' as the other 'its' they've seen recently. And, when the course of antibiotics has finished, they don't do any further tests to check that the infection has cleared.
Or, if you have a foot fracture that has gone undiagnosed for weeks, and is finally put in plaster, when the plaster is removed 6 weeks later, no tests are done to check that the fracture has fused, despite the patient experiencing considerable pain on walking.
I don't have any experience of chiropractic, but my experience of 'conventional medicine' tells me that they don't use the same level of 'science-based treatment' as I use as an engineer to diagnose, fix and check faults. If I were as slack in my methods as the medics seem to be, I'd be likely to find myself charged with professional negligence.
In reply to Kemics:
"You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work?"
"Medicine"
(Tim Minchin)
"You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work?"
"Medicine"
(Tim Minchin)
Post edited at 23:38
In reply to chrisbaggy:
I read the abstract and summary, you must have read it with different eyes to me. It says evidence was low quality and inconclusive apart from a limited amount of high quality results (like the anecdotal evidence above).
I want to know, how in 8 weeks from now, you'll identify a kidney infection, or gbs for your 80 grand a year or whatever chiros earn.
I read the abstract and summary, you must have read it with different eyes to me. It says evidence was low quality and inconclusive apart from a limited amount of high quality results (like the anecdotal evidence above).
I want to know, how in 8 weeks from now, you'll identify a kidney infection, or gbs for your 80 grand a year or whatever chiros earn.
In reply to chrisbaggy:
I'm also interested how you can claim to diagnose a problem, yet also say that you're not doing a 'first' aid?
I'm also interested how you can claim to diagnose a problem, yet also say that you're not doing a 'first' aid?
In reply to andi turner:
In the context of what looks to be a fairly rigorous review, "limited amount of high quality results" would not equate to anecdotal ones.
You can tell the authors had a hard time:
"Conclusion
We consider that it is unlikely that the evidence which is available provides a reliable representation of the likely success of manual therapy as provided in the UK. The magnitude of the benefits and harms of all manual ther- apy interventions across the many conditions reported on cannot be reliably estimated due to the paucity, poor methodological quality and clinical diversity of included studies."
Worth noting also however that this review is looking at things that have previously been shown to have limited data to support them and trying to update the knowledge base.
> I read the abstract and summary, you must have read it with different eyes to me. It says evidence was low quality and inconclusive apart from a limited amount of high quality results (like the anecdotal evidence above).
In the context of what looks to be a fairly rigorous review, "limited amount of high quality results" would not equate to anecdotal ones.
You can tell the authors had a hard time:
"Conclusion
We consider that it is unlikely that the evidence which is available provides a reliable representation of the likely success of manual therapy as provided in the UK. The magnitude of the benefits and harms of all manual ther- apy interventions across the many conditions reported on cannot be reliably estimated due to the paucity, poor methodological quality and clinical diversity of included studies."
Worth noting also however that this review is looking at things that have previously been shown to have limited data to support them and trying to update the knowledge base.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
But how would the same review read if it was conducted for real medical professionals? Do you think they would have a limited amount of high quality results....
As I've started numerous times, my concern is that people think they're going to a doctor when they visit a chiro. I've no problem with them as a kind of tertiary care, some people live with chronic back pain and I'm sure they can alleviate some of the pain and give a break from anti inflammatories etc, it's the idea that you would go there for something more serious (apologies to those who suffer chronic pain, I know it is serious).
But how would the same review read if it was conducted for real medical professionals? Do you think they would have a limited amount of high quality results....
As I've started numerous times, my concern is that people think they're going to a doctor when they visit a chiro. I've no problem with them as a kind of tertiary care, some people live with chronic back pain and I'm sure they can alleviate some of the pain and give a break from anti inflammatories etc, it's the idea that you would go there for something more serious (apologies to those who suffer chronic pain, I know it is serious).
In reply to Dr.S at work:
And doesn't that conclusion mean that they couldn't show that manual therapy works? That's how it reads to me.
And doesn't that conclusion mean that they couldn't show that manual therapy works? That's how it reads to me.
In reply to andi turner:
For some things, yes!
This review is only looking at things that have limited evidence to support them, and providing an update from a previous review - it's not looking at all things that chiropractic therapy claims to treat - perhaps the student could have provided a more persuasive article for core treatments, I don't know. And can't be bothered to look.
> But how would the same review read if it was conducted for real medical professionals? Do you think they would have a limited amount of high quality results....
For some things, yes!
This review is only looking at things that have limited evidence to support them, and providing an update from a previous review - it's not looking at all things that chiropractic therapy claims to treat - perhaps the student could have provided a more persuasive article for core treatments, I don't know. And can't be bothered to look.
In reply to andi turner:
For the conditions considered in that study, that's there broad conclusion I think.
> And doesn't that conclusion mean that they couldn't show that manual therapy works? That's how it reads to me.
For the conditions considered in that study, that's there broad conclusion I think.
In reply to LeeWood:
In the USA, perhaps. Nowadays in the NHS, there are very few freebie incentives for doctors to prescribe one drug over the other. The vast majority of prescriptions are done on a generic basis, based on what the health boards feel is appropriate to fund. An individual doctor will reveive no personal benefit for prescribing x drug or inhaler over y, but will prescribe whatever is best for the patient depending on funding constraints. It is illegal to receive money in return for prescribing anything.
P.S. I don't think a lot of people realise what the real work of a GP involves with management of chronic disease and palliative care taking up a huge amount of time and effort. Te UKC demographic skews what GP's are usef for. Advice for comparatively minor, self limiting problems is not why their salary is justified.
In the USA, perhaps. Nowadays in the NHS, there are very few freebie incentives for doctors to prescribe one drug over the other. The vast majority of prescriptions are done on a generic basis, based on what the health boards feel is appropriate to fund. An individual doctor will reveive no personal benefit for prescribing x drug or inhaler over y, but will prescribe whatever is best for the patient depending on funding constraints. It is illegal to receive money in return for prescribing anything.
P.S. I don't think a lot of people realise what the real work of a GP involves with management of chronic disease and palliative care taking up a huge amount of time and effort. Te UKC demographic skews what GP's are usef for. Advice for comparatively minor, self limiting problems is not why their salary is justified.
In reply to Kemics:
I'll say it again, we all like a good crack and click don't we? I love it, hearing and feeling my spine and neck cracking like dry timber being snapped. Doesn't matter if it's the chiro or the tasty little Thai girl at the massage place I use, god it feels good.
I'll say it again, we all like a good crack and click don't we? I love it, hearing and feeling my spine and neck cracking like dry timber being snapped. Doesn't matter if it's the chiro or the tasty little Thai girl at the massage place I use, god it feels good.
In reply to andi turner:
Well the biggest thing is the history and presentation of the problem. experience and knowledge of the body are the best diagnostic tools.
this can be confirmed often by urinalysis tests and there being leucocytes or often blood in the urine (we do them in our clinic)
for GBS its all case history for us.
Yes I admit there is not a great deal of evidence, and most of it is "low quality" in the grand scheme of things however it is very hard to blind/double blind trials and also get trials with high numbers in relatively short lengths of time. The profession knows this and is working to build better research.
>I'm also interested how you can claim to diagnose a problem, yet also say that you're not doing a 'first' aid?
Well chiropractors are Primary Care Practitioners. This means that whatever patients come through our doors with we must deal with in an appropriate manner and triage it. This means it either is sent out to GP, AE or is something we can treat or manage ourselves or a combination of the above.
First aid simply put is keeping someone alive until they get to the appropriate secondary care i.e hospital.
Chiropractors are secondary care.
> I want to know, how in 8 weeks from now, you'll identify a kidney infection, or gbs for your 80 grand a year or whatever chiros earn.
Well the biggest thing is the history and presentation of the problem. experience and knowledge of the body are the best diagnostic tools.
this can be confirmed often by urinalysis tests and there being leucocytes or often blood in the urine (we do them in our clinic)
for GBS its all case history for us.
Yes I admit there is not a great deal of evidence, and most of it is "low quality" in the grand scheme of things however it is very hard to blind/double blind trials and also get trials with high numbers in relatively short lengths of time. The profession knows this and is working to build better research.
>I'm also interested how you can claim to diagnose a problem, yet also say that you're not doing a 'first' aid?
Well chiropractors are Primary Care Practitioners. This means that whatever patients come through our doors with we must deal with in an appropriate manner and triage it. This means it either is sent out to GP, AE or is something we can treat or manage ourselves or a combination of the above.
First aid simply put is keeping someone alive until they get to the appropriate secondary care i.e hospital.
Chiropractors are secondary care.
In reply to andi turner:
I was posting it as it is a broad spectrum of conditions we can and cannot treat. Its also one of the easiest ones to post as it is free licence and you would not have to pay to get it (I get log in details from the university) therefore it was the easiest one to link.
Out of interest what do you mean when you say something "more serious" than chronic back pain? are you talking more serious in a musculoskeletal form or in a general medicine form?
> So probably not the best evidence for a trainee chiro to link to
I was posting it as it is a broad spectrum of conditions we can and cannot treat. Its also one of the easiest ones to post as it is free licence and you would not have to pay to get it (I get log in details from the university) therefore it was the easiest one to link.
Out of interest what do you mean when you say something "more serious" than chronic back pain? are you talking more serious in a musculoskeletal form or in a general medicine form?
In reply to andi turner:
No we could not "cure" GBS, there is no cure for GBS. Plasmapheresis or intravenous immunoglobulin tends to be used within the first 2 weeks of neuropathic symptoms and the patient is supported as the spontaneous recovery of GBS is quite high.
No we could not "cure" GBS, there is no cure for GBS. Plasmapheresis or intravenous immunoglobulin tends to be used within the first 2 weeks of neuropathic symptoms and the patient is supported as the spontaneous recovery of GBS is quite high.
In reply to chrisbaggy:
When I say more serous, I mean back pain caused by an underlying issue as opposed to a bad back caused by wear and tear. If I have a heavy day, don't warm up properly, twist too suddenly i can get a bad back, and a massage really helps. I know people who have a back which 'plays up', certain drugs, massages and back cracking really help, but it's chronic. These are what I mean by non serious.
Broken bones, diseases etc causing bad backs, I'm classing as more serious.
When I say more serous, I mean back pain caused by an underlying issue as opposed to a bad back caused by wear and tear. If I have a heavy day, don't warm up properly, twist too suddenly i can get a bad back, and a massage really helps. I know people who have a back which 'plays up', certain drugs, massages and back cracking really help, but it's chronic. These are what I mean by non serious.
Broken bones, diseases etc causing bad backs, I'm classing as more serious.
In reply to andi turner:
So what you are referring to are what we call Red flags. These are signs of diseases which we cannot treat and/or are in need of serious referral.
We are taught to rule out these red flags in order to ensure that we are happy with our diagnosis if it is one we are happy to treat.
So what you are referring to are what we call Red flags. These are signs of diseases which we cannot treat and/or are in need of serious referral.
We are taught to rule out these red flags in order to ensure that we are happy with our diagnosis if it is one we are happy to treat.
In reply to andi turner:
Not a great deal as cure would indicate that you have removed the cause of the pain/ condition. A lot of back pain for instance is caused by bad posture, lifestyle and is unlikey to be fully resolved without the patient also changing these.
What can i treat and cause pain relief of.... lots. all musckuloskeletal, not asthma, colic or anything similar to these.
> What do you cure then?
Not a great deal as cure would indicate that you have removed the cause of the pain/ condition. A lot of back pain for instance is caused by bad posture, lifestyle and is unlikey to be fully resolved without the patient also changing these.
What can i treat and cause pain relief of.... lots. all musckuloskeletal, not asthma, colic or anything similar to these.
In reply to chrisbaggy:
Oh, so why do some claim they do and how do I know whether I'm walking into a practice which thinks it can?
Oh, so why do some claim they do and how do I know whether I'm walking into a practice which thinks it can?
In reply to chrisbaggy:
Do you remember the thread last year, where Mina LW had tweeted thanks to her chiro for solving her elbow issue by getting her to remove her nose ring.... Is this the same sort of thing you do?
Do you remember the thread last year, where Mina LW had tweeted thanks to her chiro for solving her elbow issue by getting her to remove her nose ring.... Is this the same sort of thing you do?
In reply to all:
Anyone who thinks GP's and other doctors are puppets of big pharma are deluded by the media. I suggest those who think alternative therapy are a better option to Medicine should perhaps read both Ben Goldacre's books - Bad Science and Big Pharma.
Anyone who thinks GP's and other doctors are puppets of big pharma are deluded by the media. I suggest those who think alternative therapy are a better option to Medicine should perhaps read both Ben Goldacre's books - Bad Science and Big Pharma.
In reply to andi turner:
No it is not something that i do,
I have shadowed Chiro's who do use Applied Kinesiology (AK). They have had similar results such as headaches stopping after having metal fillings replaced with white fillings, or metal on the body such as piercings removed causing results.
This has very little evidence apart from the fact that it works for that individual.
Would i use it? No, Mainly as its something were not taught due to the lack of evidence, However I am open to the fact that we don't know exactly how the body works.
For example I know of someone who had ankylosing spondylititis which to put it simply is an autoimmune arthritis which causes progressive stiffening of the spine, back pain, iritis amongst other things for 12-15 years if i remember correctly. It was diagnosed by MD's however at the time there was no treatment. He took wheat out of his diet and all of his symptoms stopped (even radiological signs resolved).
Does this mean all AS suffers will be cured if they take wheat out of their diet? NO, it shows theres a possible link to the body and potential "allergens/irritants" that we currently don't understand.
It could also be a pure fluke and remain unexplained.
In my view there is nothing wrong ethically or morally with trying treatments like this, as long as the patient is aware "there is no evidence for this, but it may work" as long as there are no potentially severe side effects.
Chris
No it is not something that i do,
I have shadowed Chiro's who do use Applied Kinesiology (AK). They have had similar results such as headaches stopping after having metal fillings replaced with white fillings, or metal on the body such as piercings removed causing results.
This has very little evidence apart from the fact that it works for that individual.
Would i use it? No, Mainly as its something were not taught due to the lack of evidence, However I am open to the fact that we don't know exactly how the body works.
For example I know of someone who had ankylosing spondylititis which to put it simply is an autoimmune arthritis which causes progressive stiffening of the spine, back pain, iritis amongst other things for 12-15 years if i remember correctly. It was diagnosed by MD's however at the time there was no treatment. He took wheat out of his diet and all of his symptoms stopped (even radiological signs resolved).
Does this mean all AS suffers will be cured if they take wheat out of their diet? NO, it shows theres a possible link to the body and potential "allergens/irritants" that we currently don't understand.
It could also be a pure fluke and remain unexplained.
In my view there is nothing wrong ethically or morally with trying treatments like this, as long as the patient is aware "there is no evidence for this, but it may work" as long as there are no potentially severe side effects.
Chris
In reply to chrisbaggy:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Applied_Kinesiology
> No it is not something that i do,
> I have shadowed Chiro's who do use Applied Kinesiology (AK).
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Applied_Kinesiology
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Also If you think RCT's are needed to prove something works rather than anecdotal evidence heres a little study you may like
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/?utm_source=dlvr.it&...
Also If you think RCT's are needed to prove something works rather than anecdotal evidence heres a little study you may like
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/?utm_source=dlvr.it&...
In reply to mark s:
thats not true.. if youve got some sort of nerve issue then thy could be the person.. I'm not convinced they can cure the stuff some say they can, but sciatic issues etc.. they could be the person.
> all chiropractors should be done for fraud.no evidence to back up their claims
thats not true.. if youve got some sort of nerve issue then thy could be the person.. I'm not convinced they can cure the stuff some say they can, but sciatic issues etc.. they could be the person.
In reply to chrisbaggy:
RCT's aren't just to prove something works. They're to prove something works without bias.
RCT's aren't just to prove something works. They're to prove something works without bias.
Post edited at 16:34
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Well, it sounds like you're a pretty cool chiro to be honest. Can you offer any advice then regarding how we can tell if we're using a chiro like you, or a quack. How is it regulated? And do you not find it a concern that you could be tarred with the same brush as the ones who think they can treat meningitis aligning your spine?
Well, it sounds like you're a pretty cool chiro to be honest. Can you offer any advice then regarding how we can tell if we're using a chiro like you, or a quack. How is it regulated? And do you not find it a concern that you could be tarred with the same brush as the ones who think they can treat meningitis aligning your spine?
In reply to andi turner:
I'm assuming this is in reply to chrisbaggy as I am not a Chiropractor. Far from it. I effing hate all forms of quackery and woo, most of all the ones that can potentially leave you dead or paralyised.
I'm assuming this is in reply to chrisbaggy as I am not a Chiropractor. Far from it. I effing hate all forms of quackery and woo, most of all the ones that can potentially leave you dead or paralyised.
In reply to chrisbaggy:
We should bear in mind that the body is interconnected in many ways - blood, lymph, nerves. It therefore follows that rectifying *any* evidence of ill health will help the body as a whole to function better.
So, a simplistic but worthy manner of treating complex chronic problems is not to get hooked up on the unknown but to start with basics; when these are put in order the body has a chance to put more complex issues right.
We should bear in mind that the body is interconnected in many ways - blood, lymph, nerves. It therefore follows that rectifying *any* evidence of ill health will help the body as a whole to function better.
So, a simplistic but worthy manner of treating complex chronic problems is not to get hooked up on the unknown but to start with basics; when these are put in order the body has a chance to put more complex issues right.
In reply to Kemics:
People use the term, 'alternative medicine' in a derogatory way, which is at odds with how the world works. Its as though the use of any medicine or treatment not carried out doctors of medicine is in someway less than satisfactory - because it is not performed by doctors of medicine.
I wonder whether we would agree if it was suggested that Fords are proper cars, therefore other cars are 'alternatives' and thus less than good? Does that make walking or cycling, or trains, or planes etc., an 'alternative' and thus, less than normal and natural method of movement?
We have 'alternative' churches, alternative political parties and alternative shops, and in my pub, alternative beers This is seen as perfectly normal. And I, along with the majority in this world like choice. We'd live in a poor world if we never had a choice. And having a choice means it is not necessarily wrong to choose something which you personally don't like or agree with.
And that should surely apply to how we treat our own body shouldn't it?
People use the term, 'alternative medicine' in a derogatory way, which is at odds with how the world works. Its as though the use of any medicine or treatment not carried out doctors of medicine is in someway less than satisfactory - because it is not performed by doctors of medicine.
I wonder whether we would agree if it was suggested that Fords are proper cars, therefore other cars are 'alternatives' and thus less than good? Does that make walking or cycling, or trains, or planes etc., an 'alternative' and thus, less than normal and natural method of movement?
We have 'alternative' churches, alternative political parties and alternative shops, and in my pub, alternative beers This is seen as perfectly normal. And I, along with the majority in this world like choice. We'd live in a poor world if we never had a choice. And having a choice means it is not necessarily wrong to choose something which you personally don't like or agree with.
And that should surely apply to how we treat our own body shouldn't it?
In reply to Dave Perry:
I agree. It is a virtually meaningless term. It would be much better to concentrate on the distinction between "evidence based medicine" and "non evidence based medicine".
> People use the term, 'alternative medicine' in a derogatory way, which is at odds with how the world works.
I agree. It is a virtually meaningless term. It would be much better to concentrate on the distinction between "evidence based medicine" and "non evidence based medicine".
In reply to Robert Durran:
And you wouldn;'t get far there either. Don't forget that the word evidence is also a movable feast depending on what you take to become a believer and this depends on where you live. What passes for evidence in some cultures or countries won't cut the mustard here. And other countries view our evidence as flawed anyway ask a chinese doctor for example. But that does not mean those people - or us are wrong or right. As Machiavelli said; "In your country your right is our wrong'.
It would be too rude to pour scorn over the evidence based medicine which not too long ago once carried out blood letting, removed tonsils (mine included), carried out Electric shock treatment to attempt to cure some medical conditions, removed bits of brains (full frontal lobotomies anyone?). What was good practice several years ago, is not always considered good practice now. Yet both were based on 'evidence'. The medical 'evidence' on what constitutes a live or legal baby and can or can't be aborted has changed a number of times in my own life time.
And you wouldn;'t get far there either. Don't forget that the word evidence is also a movable feast depending on what you take to become a believer and this depends on where you live. What passes for evidence in some cultures or countries won't cut the mustard here. And other countries view our evidence as flawed anyway ask a chinese doctor for example. But that does not mean those people - or us are wrong or right. As Machiavelli said; "In your country your right is our wrong'.
It would be too rude to pour scorn over the evidence based medicine which not too long ago once carried out blood letting, removed tonsils (mine included), carried out Electric shock treatment to attempt to cure some medical conditions, removed bits of brains (full frontal lobotomies anyone?). What was good practice several years ago, is not always considered good practice now. Yet both were based on 'evidence'. The medical 'evidence' on what constitutes a live or legal baby and can or can't be aborted has changed a number of times in my own life time.
In reply to Dave Perry:
Strange I thought the use came from those fans of it. However it has got derogatory association now since after all if it worked it wouldnt need the prefix.
Well I wouldnt say planes are particularly natural but each to their own.
I can also quickly and easily test all those forms of transport against cars and establish that they do in fact work and are better in varying scenarios.
How you treat your body is up to you. However if you are trying to convince others that you should be allowed to treat them then I think requiring some minimum standards of supporting evidence isnt unreasonable.
> (In reply to Kemics)
>
> People use the term, 'alternative medicine' in a derogatory way, which is at odds with how the world works.
>
> People use the term, 'alternative medicine' in a derogatory way, which is at odds with how the world works.
Strange I thought the use came from those fans of it. However it has got derogatory association now since after all if it worked it wouldnt need the prefix.
> I wonder whether we would agree if it was suggested that Fords are proper cars, therefore other cars are 'alternatives' and thus less than good? Does that make walking or cycling, or trains, or planes etc., an 'alternative' and thus, less than normal and natural method of movement?
Well I wouldnt say planes are particularly natural but each to their own.
I can also quickly and easily test all those forms of transport against cars and establish that they do in fact work and are better in varying scenarios.
> And that should surely apply to how we treat our own body shouldn't it?
How you treat your body is up to you. However if you are trying to convince others that you should be allowed to treat them then I think requiring some minimum standards of supporting evidence isnt unreasonable.
In reply to Dave Perry:
Doesnt make something right or not. After all a country might decide gravity doesnt apply but they will just end up with lots of bodies.
Yes thats because we tested them and they failed the test (although most of those do have some limited application).
Not sure this line of argument is going where you want it to.
> As Machiavelli said; "In your country your right is our wrong'.
Doesnt make something right or not. After all a country might decide gravity doesnt apply but they will just end up with lots of bodies.
> It would be too rude to pour scorn over the evidence based medicine which not too long ago once carried out blood letting, removed tonsils (mine included), carried out Electric shock treatment to attempt to cure some medical conditions, removed bits of brains (full frontal lobotomies anyone?). What was good practice several years ago, is not always considered good practice now.
Yes thats because we tested them and they failed the test (although most of those do have some limited application).
Not sure this line of argument is going where you want it to.
In reply to Dave Perry:
Electric shock treatment is still carried out with some mental illnesses with good results. Given that our bodies work on electrical current, this sounds reasonable?
Electric shock treatment is still carried out with some mental illnesses with good results. Given that our bodies work on electrical current, this sounds reasonable?
In reply to Skol:
Actually it doesn't. Electric shock kills too!!
Our backs can be treated by non doctors with good results. After all our backs are connected to our bodies too!
Actually it doesn't. Electric shock kills too!!
Our backs can be treated by non doctors with good results. After all our backs are connected to our bodies too!
In reply to dissonance:
Actually Dissonance, if you read some of the earlier posts you'll see that the NHS (evidence based) DOES accept that chiropractors can fix some back injuries.
Full frontal lobotomies and some of the other now quack treatments were they not the result of 'evidence based medicine'?? or is this evidence based medicine something you;ve only just found out about?
As for your gravity example thats nonsense to apply that example. We no longer practice capital punishment for example. That doesn't mean that other countries are wrong if they still practice it.
Are you a christian?
Actually Dissonance, if you read some of the earlier posts you'll see that the NHS (evidence based) DOES accept that chiropractors can fix some back injuries.
Full frontal lobotomies and some of the other now quack treatments were they not the result of 'evidence based medicine'?? or is this evidence based medicine something you;ve only just found out about?
As for your gravity example thats nonsense to apply that example. We no longer practice capital punishment for example. That doesn't mean that other countries are wrong if they still practice it.
Are you a christian?
In reply to Dave Perry:
Did I say otherwise? So thats some which has passed the test. However is it down to the rather bizarre theories which chiropractory is based on and does it excuse some of the other things they claim? Especially when they bugger around with the neck or claim they can cure random diseases?
If you mean randomised controlled trials then yes it is fairly new. Since people figured out the methods used prior to that were dubious and allowed for to much bias and chance.
I am confused why alt medicine bods keep harking back to 18th medicine since that is prior to when effective testing was in place and hence the evidence was about the same level as alt med bods would like it to be now.
Although I would mention that full frontal lobotomies are effective its just the side effects and ethics leave a bit to be desired.
Nope its not. It doesnt matter whether where you are the same rules apply as to whether some particular form of medicine works or not (well ignoring genetic tendencies in the population).
What do you mean by works? Makes people happy or deters crimes?
> Actually Dissonance, if you read some of the earlier posts you'll see that the NHS (evidence based) DOES accept that chiropractors can fix some back injuries.
Did I say otherwise? So thats some which has passed the test. However is it down to the rather bizarre theories which chiropractory is based on and does it excuse some of the other things they claim? Especially when they bugger around with the neck or claim they can cure random diseases?
> Full frontal lobotomies and some of the other now quack treatments were they not the result of 'evidence based medicine'?? or is this evidence based medicine something you;ve only just found out about?
If you mean randomised controlled trials then yes it is fairly new. Since people figured out the methods used prior to that were dubious and allowed for to much bias and chance.
I am confused why alt medicine bods keep harking back to 18th medicine since that is prior to when effective testing was in place and hence the evidence was about the same level as alt med bods would like it to be now.
Although I would mention that full frontal lobotomies are effective its just the side effects and ethics leave a bit to be desired.
> As for your gravity example thats nonsense to apply that example.
Nope its not. It doesnt matter whether where you are the same rules apply as to whether some particular form of medicine works or not (well ignoring genetic tendencies in the population).
> We no longer practice capital punishment for example. That doesn't mean that other countries are wrong if they still practice it.
What do you mean by works? Makes people happy or deters crimes?
In reply to dissonance:
Capital punishment is wrong in this country but right in other countries. Whether it works is dependent on what you believe. A bit like Christianity I guess. Its just the same with medicine.
Earlier on I asked if anyone could come up with evidence of these odd chiropractor claims that they can cure all sorts of ailments. A site from the USA was cited and something from wiki but that was about all. Perhaps it was in the red tops?
I'm afraid the rules as to whether something works or not depends on what you base your believe on. That is a fact - unless of course unless you only believe what you are told. In some countries some medicines are banned because they are proven not safe. In others they are allowed because they are proved to be safe. And of course this happens the other way around. It is also the same in the case of treatments. Different evidential requirements proof for different things.
Capital punishment is wrong in this country but right in other countries. Whether it works is dependent on what you believe. A bit like Christianity I guess. Its just the same with medicine.
Earlier on I asked if anyone could come up with evidence of these odd chiropractor claims that they can cure all sorts of ailments. A site from the USA was cited and something from wiki but that was about all. Perhaps it was in the red tops?
I'm afraid the rules as to whether something works or not depends on what you base your believe on. That is a fact - unless of course unless you only believe what you are told. In some countries some medicines are banned because they are proven not safe. In others they are allowed because they are proved to be safe. And of course this happens the other way around. It is also the same in the case of treatments. Different evidential requirements proof for different things.
In reply to Dave Perry:
No. Something works when a high quality trial has been carried out to show that it is statistically very likely to be the cause of an intended outcome. The same goes for any form of medical intervention, prayer, capital punishment, whatever action that is intended to produce an outcome.
> I'm afraid the rules as to whether something works or not depends on what you base your believe on. That is a fact - unless of course unless you only believe what you are told.
No. Something works when a high quality trial has been carried out to show that it is statistically very likely to be the cause of an intended outcome. The same goes for any form of medical intervention, prayer, capital punishment, whatever action that is intended to produce an outcome.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Tamiflu was evidence based medicine.
> I agree. It is a virtually meaningless term. It would be much better to concentrate on the distinction between "evidence based medicine" and "non evidence based medicine".
Tamiflu was evidence based medicine.
In reply to Dave Perry:
no, it really isnt.
Now it can be very difficult to prove when something works or not but it isnt based on our personal beliefs. Its just that with limited information we may come to different conclusions.
For any particular country capital punishment will either be effective or not (if we take effective as deterring other criminals) however its just difficult to prove it satisfactory.
Fortunately for many medical conditions its a lot easier to investigate, its a tad hard to carry out a double blind test on capital punishment.
Sorry didnt see that. Here are just a couple of examples.
I am not sure if you are aware of the Singh vs BCA lawsuit, as part of which the BCA tried to support its case by providing some papers on using Chiropractory to cure various aliments.
This post mostly covers just the claims regarding mumps but links to various others.
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1775
However admittedly less such claims are made now by chiropractors, at least on the web, although a cynic might suggest this is down to them being called out on it.
For example why do you think this letter needed sending, if they didnt think the likelihood their members were making the claims was rather high?
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/chiropractors-told-to-take-down-the...
Not sure what you are trying to say here but it seems a rather confused post modernist approach. Again, to paraphrase Sokal, my belief that gravity doesnt count will not help when I leave his apartment by the window and not the door.
A particular medicine doesnt work depending on my beliefs (leaving aside the placebo effect which is controversial in itself).
All it means if something is "safe" in one country and not another is that either the tests one country is using are flawed or that the risk assessment allow it. For example if there was a perfect vaccine for malaria but it had a x% death rate then that may be considered acceptable in some countries with a high number of deaths from malaria but not in the UK where the risk is a lot lower.
> Capital punishment is wrong in this country but right in other countries. Whether it works is dependent on what you believe. A bit like Christianity I guess. Its just the same with medicine.
no, it really isnt.
Now it can be very difficult to prove when something works or not but it isnt based on our personal beliefs. Its just that with limited information we may come to different conclusions.
For any particular country capital punishment will either be effective or not (if we take effective as deterring other criminals) however its just difficult to prove it satisfactory.
Fortunately for many medical conditions its a lot easier to investigate, its a tad hard to carry out a double blind test on capital punishment.
> Earlier on I asked if anyone could come up with evidence of these odd chiropractor claims that they can cure all sorts of ailments.
Sorry didnt see that. Here are just a couple of examples.
I am not sure if you are aware of the Singh vs BCA lawsuit, as part of which the BCA tried to support its case by providing some papers on using Chiropractory to cure various aliments.
This post mostly covers just the claims regarding mumps but links to various others.
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1775
However admittedly less such claims are made now by chiropractors, at least on the web, although a cynic might suggest this is down to them being called out on it.
For example why do you think this letter needed sending, if they didnt think the likelihood their members were making the claims was rather high?
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/chiropractors-told-to-take-down-the...
> I'm afraid the rules as to whether something works or not depends on what you base your believe on. That is a fact - unless of course unless you only believe what you are told.
Not sure what you are trying to say here but it seems a rather confused post modernist approach. Again, to paraphrase Sokal, my belief that gravity doesnt count will not help when I leave his apartment by the window and not the door.
A particular medicine doesnt work depending on my beliefs (leaving aside the placebo effect which is controversial in itself).
All it means if something is "safe" in one country and not another is that either the tests one country is using are flawed or that the risk assessment allow it. For example if there was a perfect vaccine for malaria but it had a x% death rate then that may be considered acceptable in some countries with a high number of deaths from malaria but not in the UK where the risk is a lot lower.
In reply to Kemics:
It might not be trepannng, but removing relatively large amounts of skull to relieve intracranial pressure is not unheard of, and ECT is still used.
It might not be trepannng, but removing relatively large amounts of skull to relieve intracranial pressure is not unheard of, and ECT is still used.
In reply to stroppygob:
Not really since the problem was the evidence was, according to some, being manipulated and/or withheld.
I dont think anyone is claiming that mainstream medicine doesnt have problems, particularly in removing vested interests, but thats not a problem with the underlying theory.
> Tamiflu was evidence based medicine.
Not really since the problem was the evidence was, according to some, being manipulated and/or withheld.
I dont think anyone is claiming that mainstream medicine doesnt have problems, particularly in removing vested interests, but thats not a problem with the underlying theory.
In reply to dissonance:
It's a good case in point for how evidence based medicine works: the evidence grows over time, becoming more reliable. The first evidence available is distorted by commercial interests, but as drugs are used more, the evidence becomes more robust. Once you have enough data for a Cochrane Review, you've got a pretty good idea about the efficacy of drug/technique.
> Not really since the problem was the evidence was, according to some, being manipulated and/or withheld.
It's a good case in point for how evidence based medicine works: the evidence grows over time, becoming more reliable. The first evidence available is distorted by commercial interests, but as drugs are used more, the evidence becomes more robust. Once you have enough data for a Cochrane Review, you've got a pretty good idea about the efficacy of drug/technique.
In reply to Dave Perry:
I'm afraid that shows how little you know about medicine and how little you have read the thread. Physiotherapists have been mentioned in tho thread. In our health system care and treatment are meted out by nurses, occupational therapists, psychologists, psychotherapists, play therapists, medical doctors, pharmacists and I'm sure other professions.
To make this argument that you are confronting the belief only doctors can do safe care is a straw man. No one has yet said that.
> People use the term, 'alternative medicine' in a derogatory way, which is at odds with how the world works. Its as though the use of any medicine or treatment not carried out doctors of medicine is in someway less than satisfactory - because it is not performed by doctors of medicine.
I'm afraid that shows how little you know about medicine and how little you have read the thread. Physiotherapists have been mentioned in tho thread. In our health system care and treatment are meted out by nurses, occupational therapists, psychologists, psychotherapists, play therapists, medical doctors, pharmacists and I'm sure other professions.
To make this argument that you are confronting the belief only doctors can do safe care is a straw man. No one has yet said that.
In reply to Dave Perry:
> Actually it doesn't. Electric shock kills too!!
Yes it does. Cell action is reliant on creating electricity. Think nerve conduction and how your heart works.> Our backs can be treated by non doctors with good results. After all our backs are connected to our bodies too!
Aye? Get out the cups.In reply to Kemics:
3 weeks with a bad back, been to a gp, physio and a chiropractor. what an experience, haha, is it still worth writing about it?
3 weeks with a bad back, been to a gp, physio and a chiropractor. what an experience, haha, is it still worth writing about it?
In reply to Dave Perry:
Because people view the world rationally. They know that while a doctor might make a wrong diagnosis, or they may indeed experience a number of poor outcomes from conventional medicine, they know where to place their bets.
The world is a probabilistic, statistical place. In order to get the outcomes you want, you need to know the odds.
> And what makes you think a doctor can always make an accurate diagnosis?
> Why do people unfailing worship everything about Doctors?
Because people view the world rationally. They know that while a doctor might make a wrong diagnosis, or they may indeed experience a number of poor outcomes from conventional medicine, they know where to place their bets.
The world is a probabilistic, statistical place. In order to get the outcomes you want, you need to know the odds.
In reply to chrisbaggy:
It is a light hearted article, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ in an annual tradition. The most recent one was something about 'speed bump positive' findings for diagnosing appendicitis. It does illustrate the point that not all of our treatments have RCTs backing them up.
However one of the fundamental ideas around running trials is that they should not compare a new treatment against placebo, ie nothing. They should compare a new treatment to the current best treatment.
This is a trick pharma companies use all the time. They give their new antidepressant drug, in an RCT comparing it to a placebo 'sugar-pill'. Some of the time it is shown to be better than the sugar pill. But what does this actually show us? That the new intervention is better than nothing.
That's not hugely helpful when deciding what to treat patients with. The treatment needs to be compared to the current best available treatment.
It is a light hearted article, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ in an annual tradition. The most recent one was something about 'speed bump positive' findings for diagnosing appendicitis. It does illustrate the point that not all of our treatments have RCTs backing them up.
However one of the fundamental ideas around running trials is that they should not compare a new treatment against placebo, ie nothing. They should compare a new treatment to the current best treatment.
This is a trick pharma companies use all the time. They give their new antidepressant drug, in an RCT comparing it to a placebo 'sugar-pill'. Some of the time it is shown to be better than the sugar pill. But what does this actually show us? That the new intervention is better than nothing.
That's not hugely helpful when deciding what to treat patients with. The treatment needs to be compared to the current best available treatment.
In reply to Martin Davies:
^This.
There is nothing to be gained from comparing like with like (a sugar pill with homeopathic treatment for example).
> It is a light hearted article, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ in an annual tradition. The most recent one was something about 'speed bump positive' findings for diagnosing appendicitis. It does illustrate the point that not all of our treatments have RCTs backing them up.
> However one of the fundamental ideas around running trials is that they should not compare a new treatment against placebo, ie nothing. They should compare a new treatment to the current best treatment.
> This is a trick pharma companies use all the time. They give their new antidepressant drug, in an RCT comparing it to a placebo 'sugar-pill'. Some of the time it is shown to be better than the sugar pill. But what does this actually show us? That the new intervention is better than nothing.
> That's not hugely helpful when deciding what to treat patients with. The treatment needs to be compared to the current best available treatment.
^This.
There is nothing to be gained from comparing like with like (a sugar pill with homeopathic treatment for example).
In reply to Kemics:
snake oil.
my experience was that i wasted £650 on a 'course' of treatment.
a good physio every time for me.
snake oil.
my experience was that i wasted £650 on a 'course' of treatment.
a good physio every time for me.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...