UKC

First off, this isn't pointing a finger at any particular practice, but I'm interested to know. Out of those of you who use Chiropractors:

i) Why do you choose to use them over other forms of health care?
2) What do you know about the hisory and regulation of chiropractors?
3) How does your belief in chiropractic practise spill over in to other aspects of your life?

I'm not really interested in testimonials as such, as there are clearly plenty out there, but more how people differentiate the parts of their lives in which they rely on 'holistic practises' and those parts of their lives which are more mechanical or 'science based' as it's something I can't get my head around.

In reply to andi turner:

Never regarded them as 'holistic', I was recommended to try a specific one by my friend (an NHS consultant surgeon) for a back injury, worked perfectly. So I guess:

1. Was told to go by my friend a consultant surgeon.

2. A little, not a lot, but actually probably more than I know about say dentists, vets or optitions.

3. It doesn't. I wouldn't actually put it as a 'belief' anyway. I had back pain, I went, I didn't have it afterwards. It's a 'belief' no more than I have a headache, I take paracetamol, most of the time it goes. Paracetamol does not spill over into othe aspects of my life other than carrying it around in my bag.

In reply to andi turner:

1) Went to GP with back pain - GP recommended chiro - went to chiro
2) not much - went on GP recommendation
3) not at all - wouldn't even say I 'believe' as such in chiro but it does seem to help my back

In reply to andi turner:

I went to a chiro regularly a few years ago due to lower back pain, mainly because she was recommended and the practice was walking distance away.

I previously had a girlfriend who could do some sort of shiatsu/reiki stuff too.

I never understood or wasted time trying to understand the various bullshit, as it didn't pass the 'it is really worth my time?' threshold.

I've never had other types of massage or manipulation but this seemed as effective as sports physio that I have also had for various injuries.

I guess I know as much about the history and regulation of chiro as I do about dentistry, although I've been to the dentist more often.

In reply to andi turner: when I had a bad fall.I suffered from a bad back.my dad booked me in at someone in town.I went along,she connected these electrodes and put some oil on it.she said I'd bruised it.that's 30 quid please.
It did nothing,I went to the real doctor who knows about real conditions and had it diagnosed.
I looked in to these chiro's and was surprised to find nothing medical in what they do.
I'd I took my car in with the timing out,and got a clean of the engine bay I'd want answers.seems they can get away with it.
It all falls in the sme category as homeopathy and reflexology etc.
I would never recomend them to anyone.

In reply to mark s:

When I first did my back, I went to my GP. He wasn't in and there was a locum in.

The locum thought that because he was in a bad part of town everyone was trying to con the GP into sick notes. He tested my back by making me face the wall and then thumping me in the back. He used to intensity of the scream to gauge who was real and who was fake.

I didn't see him again, although it didn't put me off going to see the doctor if I think I need to.

In reply to Tiberius: What did the Chiropractor do to fix your back?

In reply to winhill: Ha, it's a shame there aren't more doctors like him. Now THAT'S science.

In reply to andi turner:

Actually, sorry it was an Osteopathy rather than a Chiropractor, but my understanding from talking to people who have been is that they are similar.

Basically it was a strong massage (after a series of questions on my general health). He told me it would take about 3 sessions to fix comletely.

Both my neck and back had 'locked up', I couldn't turn my head. He 'massaged' it then I could turn my head, though there was still some pain and I didn't have full movement. After I went home, it stiffened up a bit over the next few hours, but not as bad as before I went. I went again 2 days later and came out a bit better than the first time. Again over the next day or so it stiffened up again, but not as much as the first time. Finally I had one last visit and it was pretty much ok after that.

I assume you occasionally get a stiff neck? Generally a massage from your wife/gf/mistress will help. Now, imagine that stiff neck 10 times as bad and affecting your entire back, so imagine a massage that is 10 times as good. That's about the best explanation I can come up with.

It was about 7 years ago. Never had back problems before, never had them again.

In reply to Tiberius: Yes, same sort of thing in my understanding too, both originating in the states at the end of the 19th Century.

I would completely agree that massages are very beneficial, the research is out there and backs this up too. I suppose you could have gone to any of a number of places with similar results.

I suppose my scepticism is more based around the alternative therapies they offer outside of what is effectively 'sports massage'.

In reply to andi turner:

1) I was pointed to one by my athletics coach to get treatment for a knee injury which the GP didn't do much for.
As to why i continue treatment, It works for me, and i understand the principles and understanding of the profession and agree with the majority of them.

2) A lot.

3) Thats hard to answer as i wouldn't say it does affect other parts of my life apart from situations where it helps to prevent injuries.

In reply to andi turner:

I don't have a problem with this aspect (the sports massage), but the claims around infant colic and similar are harder to forgive. There's a large Simon Singh shaped elephant in the room.

In reply to andi turner:

The one I went to didn't off anything that I would consider 'alternative' really. As for equating it with a sports massage, I guess the grand canyon could be considered a hole in the ground, but it doesn't really describe it.

My surgeon friend was married to an NHS phsyio, he rated the osteopath a class above the physio for fixing back problems that didn't require surgery

In reply to toad:

This is where knowledge to answer question 2 comes in, as to the person you have treat you and the techniques they use.

In reply to andi turner: What do you mean by holistic practises by the way?

In reply to andi turner:
Hello old boy, hope your doing well these days!

Whether or not any actual physical help is being applied, there is a lot of research at the moment into the placebo effect. It is very very powerful. If you are struggling to get your head around these kind of things, I'd really recommend reading into the placebo effect.

Trist

In reply to andi turner: I thought chiropractors were in the same league as homoeopathy practitioners - Quacks?

In reply to Smelly Fox:

It's powerful longer term issues I think, not when you have a stiff back that needs a decent 'massage'. I use the word massage in a very loose sense. For a 'mild' case, then any unskilled person may help, for something more serious, then I recommend an osteopath unreservedly.

If he gets out healing crystals or any other such nonsense, then I'd run a mile, but that's never happened to me, my wife, a few other friends, or the consultant surgeon I was referring to

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Why do you think that?

In reply to higherclimbingwales: I think that's hard on Chiropractors, where it's more the case that they have a rather outre fringe and a stupid and bloody minded trade association.

Homeopaths are just charlatans from the ground up. Even hopi ear candling does something, even if it's just sticking a candle in your ear. Homeopathy does the same job as severn trent water, except it's more expensive and doesn't treat your sewage (or indeed anything else)

In reply to andi turner:
i) After trying a combination of physios, chiropractors and NHS I hit up on one who knew what he was about and sorts my back out nicely.

ii) Quite a bit and I reckon that whole lot of chiropractice is complete testes

iii) I don't believe in chiropractice as a philosopy or anything I am just happy to have someone who can manipulate my back and it works. Simples.

On the whole I go with science everytime. It is just that in this instance it works for me

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I can certainly appreciate that. As I've looked into it, it appears that there are two strains of chiropracts "straights" and "mixers", which kind of equates to, as far as I can tell as reflexology and podiatry in the foot world, one being based in facts and scientifically proven things and the other based on some strange quackery. I think this is perhaps sometimes to blame for the misunderstanding relating to Chiropractors.

I don't think they do themselves any favours by associating with pseudoscience, I also think it's grossly misleading when they refer to themselves as a Doctor, when they've not had to do a PhD. I notice as well that many of the testimonies come from people who are coming from the NHS and then paying for a chiropractor. I wonder how many of you would have had similar (yet science based and tested) results had you gone to a private health clinic?

Smelly Fox: Nice to hear from you. Yeah, placebos, interesting huh! I remember reading about Valium, that's weird eh! (apparently, if you don't know that you're taking it, it doesn't work! Yet it's been medically proven to be one of the most successful anti-depressants)

In reply to chrisbaggy:

Perhaps I've used that in the wrong way in this instance. I'm referring to holistic in the kind of modern sense associated with alternative therapies as opposed to the true definition of holistic as in 'all encompassing'.

Don't get me wrong, I like a massage, I like warm buck-wheat, tibetan bells and even ear candles (I don't like reiki though), they're all quite nourishing, but I don't like them mascarading as a genuine medical practice.

In reply to andi turner: I agree, it seems as if chiroprqactors / osteopaths are little short of rip off artists, orthopaedic surgeons referring patients to these people are like gp's referring people of homeopaths i.e. there's nothing really wrong with you but go take a placebo.

Personally I wouldn't want some half trained monkey wretching my neck or back about.

In reply to Tiberius:

Why do you recommend an osteopath over an orthopedist?

In reply to KTT: This is a little how I see it too. I think sometimes the doctor sees a patient and thinks "the guy needs a little TLC" and suggests a chiro, much in the same way that sometimes they prescribe placebo drugs just so that the patient thinks that they are being dealt with. The fact that a doctor has suggested seeing a Chiro doesn't mean that the doctor thinks that Chiro's are medically sound, but perhaps that they are sometimes nice for a patient and a good alternative to be told "give it a fortnight and you'll feel right as rain".

We all like to go to the Dr's and be given some sort of treatment for our time.

In reply to andi turner: http://www.skepdic.com/osteopathy.html

dont think there will be many prefering the above to an orthopedist

In reply to andi turner:
There was also a study done with patients with osteoarthritus knee problems. Some had the real surgery, some not. It was found that both groups were just as likely to report back with good results as the other!

I think a strong belief that what you are doing is going to help you could possibly be the key. I think this could be why homeopaths, osteopeths etc create this elaberate proffessional aura around themselves. If they didn't you wouldn't "believe" and the placebo may not work as well.

There is no doubting that some people do get a genuine boost from such practices. Homeopathy in cancer patients, and osteopathy in people with neck and back complaints, being two examples.

In reply to Smelly Fox:


You mean 'in addition to' treatments that actually work, rather than 'instead of', surely?

just checking...

In reply to andi turner:

I heartily agree. For me it is the simple fact that spinal manipulation (done well) offers demonstrable relief from certain types of back problem. That is as far as it goes for me. Now I have a particularly good chiropractor but I do agree that it is an area where it seems from what I have read too easy to set up as a "doctor". Granted as with most things in life you will get good and bad and you can certainly get good and bad doctors. I think that if you have a good practioner be they chiropractor or physio (and I have had good physios too) stick with them.

In reply to ThunderCat:
I don't know where you got the "instead of" quote from? I thought the word "boost" would imply "in addition to" but hey ho.

I know many people who use only osteopathy to control back pain, with no additional conventional treatment.

But yes, obviously it would be unwise to just treat cancer with homoeopathy.

In reply to andi turner:

i) Why do you choose to use them over other forms of health care?

I've got arthritis in my spine and have had surgery in my lower spine and also have problems with my neck. Whenever I've had Physio for my back it hasn't helped one little bit. Private physio that I paid an arm and leg for gave me ultrasound, massage and exercises to do none of which helped and they then recommended themselves that an Osteopath would be better for my back than Physio. I really couldn't afford anymore private therapy at the time so I went to NHS physio including a back specialist who gave me McKenzie exercises which were totally innapropriate for me and left me crippled. Had steroid epidural injections into my spine which helped for a short while and then finally had surgery. After my surgery, instead of having Physio, my consultant recommended I stick to the Chiropracter.

The Chiro, whilst doesn't cure my back problems as arthritis isn't cureable, helps greatly. If I do too much exercise and push myself then I hurt badly but if I don't exercise enough I hurt badly. My spine often locks up and I suffer badly from muscle spasm and symptoms of nerve irritation in my arms, neck and sometimes legs with muscle spasm in legs and neck also. None of these symptoms are severe enough for surgery but severe enough when they hit that I can't sleep and have to pop a painkiller. If I see my Chiro regularly then he helps to keep my back mobile and less locked up and my muscles spasm eases greatly.

Also took my daughter to a private Phyiso when she had back problems (she's 15 and climbs hard and I was worried about her beginning to get spinal problems as it's hereditary) Again, physio gave exercises to do which made her worse but then Chiro immediately diagnosed a weakned Psoas muscle on one side and showed us how weak it was as she was unable to push one leg out against pressure but could do so really easily with the other leg. One manipulation given, several exercises to do to strengthen Psoas which she could incorporate into her climbing and her back is better. The Chiro is a climber himself and will give all people exercises to do which they can incorporate into their chosen sport if they have one.


2) What do you know about the hisory and regulation of chiropractors?

Absolutely nothing!


3) How does your belief in chiropractic practise spill over in to other aspects of your life?

I guess the only thing it influences is that I would happily recommend my Chiro over Physio and, but like one other poster mentioned it doesn't spill over as it's just another form of treatment and management as far as I'm concerned which I'm happy to use alongside more conventional treatment such as pill popping when it gets really bad.

In reply to andi turner:

tbh, I never said that I did. Let me repeat.

I had chronic neck/back pain. I could not turn my head. My friend, an NHS consultant surgeon recommended a particular osteopath who he had used for a rugby injury. I went and he fixed it (3 visits, timeframe one week, total cost less than £100).

The problem wasn't the type I could see a placebo effect working on, and it wasn't coincidence in that each time I walked out after treatment there was a definite improvement in my ability to flex my neck without pain. It did stiffen up again after the first 2 treatments, but not as bad as before them.

There was no homeopath mumbo jumpo, no crystals, no smelling salts or incantations to repeat. The treatment consisted of a kind of massage, but as I've said, describing it as such is a bit like describing the grand canyon as a hole in the ground.

I've since recommended 3 people with back pains to go to the same osteopath and all have come back with positive feedback...and no stories of any crystals or other 'odd' treatments.

The first treatment included a series of questions about my general health which seemed to be designed to see if there was a deeper problem that meant I should seek more conventional treatment (e.g. question about had I seen any blood in my urine etc). In general I saw or heard nothing to lead me to think this wasn't a thoroughly professional operation.

If an orthopodist is successful for you over a similar cost and timeframe, then I have no reason to persuade you otherwise. However if someone relates a back problem to me, then I can recommend a particular osteopath with a degree of confidence.

In reply to mark s:

Well, all I can say is that my osteopath didn't 'shake' me, nor did he promise he could cure scarlet fever or any of the other 'claims' alluded to in that article. He did however cure my bad back and allow me to go back snowboarding.

Just to put some background. I hadn't had back problems for 47 years, and I've had no more in the last 3 years. I don't particularly put that down to the osteopath, just the one instance of relieving the pain 3 years ago.

In reply to Tiberius:

You said you would unreservedly recommend an Osteopath to anyone with 'more serious' back pains I think?

I'm just interested as to why you would recommend someone who has a non-medical background over someone who does?

Without intending to be patronising, did you know the difference between an Orthopodist and Osteopath when you went to the Osteo?

In reply to andi turner:

Ha! Sorry, I meant Orthopedist! I dread to think what an Orthopodist does for fun!

In reply to andi turner: Hi Andi, interesting thread. I have a bad back at the moment and I see an NHS Physiotherapist and my G.P. I thought about seeing a chiropractor but then decided that if the NHS didn't supply it it probably wasn't for me.
I don't like non science based medicine and avoid it especially if there is a cost.

For reference Diazepam is an anxiolytic and not an antidepressant. Sedation is one of it's side effects and certainly is apparent when people take it. As for when they know they take it or not I am unaware of the study but I have (caveat this is personal anecdotal stuff) seen Benzodiazepine medication, including diazepam, work on people whom are cognitively impaired and therefor do not know what they are taking. It may be that the study showed it had antidepressant qualities akin to placebo? I can assure you that is not what it is licensed for or prescribed for.

In reply to andi turner:

Yes, I never said I recommended them 'over' an 'orthopodist' as you stated. I also never recommended them over a chiropractor or any other form of treatment. I did relate a story from my surgeon friend that HE recommended a particular osteopath over a particular physiotheropist.



Again, the phrase 'over someone who does' hasn't been part of my recommendations. I recommend an osteopath. I don't recommend them 'over' any other form of treatment. I recommend them from personal experience for a particular condition.


Not the finer detail no. Nor do I know the finer detail of the difference between a cabinet maker and a joiner, however if you want a set of bedroom furniture making I can recommend somone who I have personal experience with who I know will do you a very good job.

Let's put this in perspecive. I have had about half a dozen NHS operations for various complaints (mainly broken bones). I wouldn't go to an osteopath for those. I work with several departments at several hospital in the mid-yorkshire nhs trust, mostly the obs and gynae units. If I was having a baby, I wouldn't go to the osteopath. I personally know several nhs doctors in various disciplines, in all of those I would uses their expertise.

If I get a bad back again, I will go to an osteopath.

In reply to andi turner:

1)I rang a physiotherapist, who was no longer working, but who recommeded one. At the time, I knew nothing about the difference between physios, osteopaths and chiropractors.
2)I since have read a bit more about chiropractice and was a bit shocked. However, since going has made a real difference not only to my original problem of sciatica and lower back pain, but also worked on hip pains that I didn't think were anything to do with my back, I keep on going every 8 weeks.
3) I don't have a belief in 'chiropractic'. I think it is a load of mumbo jumbo. However, as used by physios and osteopaths, I think that manipulation can be a good tool for treating back problems and I trust my chiropractor as I have been going a while. i might think twice before going to a different one!

In reply to andi turner:

Here is a meta study for manipulation for lower back pain.

It is inconclusive - neither saying it works or it doesn't work, but just recommending further study:

http://journals.lww.com/spinejournal/Abstract/1996/12150/Spinal_Manipulatio...

In reply to Tiberius:

I suppose you've kind of underlined my concern in a way, and I believe a general survey would confirm my beliefs. Both a cabinet maker and a joiner are 'carpenters' but Osteos, Ortho and Chiros are all different beasts. Two being alternative therapies and one being based in medical fact. The fact that many people seem to go regularly to Chiros and Osteos kind of further compounds my issue i.e. they seem not to fix the problem, just offer temporary relief. I'd be a bit upset if I went to the Dr's with a head ache and was told to take paracetamol forever more (Ok, that's a pretty weak analogy, but maybe you get the picture?)

I've been asking other people too this week if they knew the difference between Orthopedists and Osteopaths, non yet did and many see Chirpractors as back specialists yet their qualifications required to open a practice of their own are more akin to opening centre for acupuncture than a medical practice.

I'll reiterate that I think it's incredibly misleading that they refer to themselves as Doctors too.

I used to have a television that would flicker, when you hit the side of it it would become clear again. I suppose I could open an electricians....

In reply to andi turner:

I had a bad back once, around 3 or 4 years ago. I went, he fixed it (in 3 visits, with no medication), never had a problem before or since.

>I'd be a bit upset if I went to the Dr's with a head ache and was told to take paracetamol forever more (Ok, that's a pretty weak analogy, but maybe you get the picture?)

I think that's pretty common tbh. You go to a Dr's, they give you paracetamol, only if you go many times they would look for a deeper issue. It's not that I think it's a weak analogy, I just don't really understand where you're going with it?

My father had problems with his knee, he went to the Dr's many times, they gave him various treatments starting off with medication, then with a few intsances of 'keyhole' surgery. Eventually they did a larger operation and gave him an aritifial knee. I'm not sure what this example illustrates, but it seems similar to your example above.


I'd be more interested in concentrating on effectiveness or not of the treatment. Start with this thread, count the number of people who have reported good results and the number of people who have reported bad or indifferent results?

I'm about to set off home and have a 4 hour drive, I might count when I get home if I remember.


The ones I have experience of refer to themselves as Osteopaths, tbh I don't care if they refer to themselves as a florist, only interested in the effectiveness of the treatment.


If you can repeat that with my tv, but I can't, then yes. I'm more concerned about results than about what you call yourself.

My impression is that you keep trying to equate osteopaths with magic, and wierd 'alternate' beliefs, almost witchdocters. My experience is more that they are very good at massage, they take it to a level that it's almost worth calling it something else...let's say osteopathy?

In reply to andi turner: Ragarding doctor's responses my nhs local trust has a 'back speciality team' which can be referred to by G.P. or physiotherapist (within NHS). I had one appointment with G.P. about my back and they were already talking about potential for an MRI if the symptoms persist because of the nature of my symptoms.

PLenty of people access alternative therapies to help with all manner of complaints, it interesting how this particular branch of alternative therapy has achieved a credibility most others have not.

Regarding strength of evidence in the Meta analysis and the non conclusive nature of the arguments within in; if you examine the evidence for many treatments recommended by NIHCE it is easy to critique the studies they have used.

In reply to Smelly Fox:

Nope. It doesn't imply that at all.

In reply to andi turner:

Also, I have a few friends who have been put on medication and told outright that they will need to remain on this medication for the rest of their lives. Of all the people I know who have been to an osteopath, I don't know any who have been told they will need to go back forever more. In fact my case of 3 or 4 visits seems to be the longest I know of.

So yeah, I agree with you, it's a poor example.

In reply to ThunderCat:

Then please accept my humble apologies. Did my explanation satisfy you?

In reply to andi turner:

My Doctor has told me that I have to take medicine for evermore to control my asthma.

For years before I saw the chiropractor, I had back problems. I had to have a special chair at work. I found it really hard to get up from sitting at times because of pains shooting down my leg. I went to see a physio about it and she put a tens machine on it and gave me exercises, which seemed to make no difference at all, with the problems simply recurring.

Since going to the chiro, my back has been very different. I don't know how or why it helps, but it does help me, be it placebo effect or whatever... so I will keep on going. When I first went, I really didn't know that it wasn't a scientific thing, and now that I do know, I will still keep on going.

But I wouldn't generally be one for any sort of hocus pocus - I wouldn't bother with homeopathy, faith healing, crystals or any of that stuff.

To be honest, I find it a bit weird that there isn't more research on back manipulation out there? I certainly wouldn't use a chiro to try to treat my asthma, even though they claim to be able to do so.

In reply to Tiberius:

Well I've never met anyone who has been "cured" by osteopathy. The people I know that use it have to go back every month or so. It apparently gives great temporary relief, but the pain does come back. I'd have thought that every case would be different though, and I'm happy to accept some people are "cured" by these techniques.

One should not forget the bodies own healing mechanisms could be at work in the cases of people that are "cured". Also deep massages break up scar tissue which could be a factor in back or neck pain. A good massage, in my experience, is cheaper than an Osteopathy session.

In reply to Smelly Fox:

My back stiffend up over a week, starting with a mild ache and proceeding to the point were I could not turn my head. I had a great temporary relief at each of the 3 visits although the pain did come back over the next 24 hours, not to the same extent. After the 3rd visit it hasn't come back again in 3 years.


Yes, my back may have healied itself over time, but there was a definite improvement at each visit, so I'm confident that the osteopath at least speeded the healing process.

Also deep massages break up scar tissue which could be a factor in back or neck pain. A good massage, in my experience, is cheaper than an Osteopathy session.

I don't really claim this treatment to be anything other than a 'good massage'. Sometimes if you sleep funny, then you wake up with a stiff neck, generally a massage from your partner will cure it, though some are better than others. This was simply that multiplied many times.

Cost is a different argument. I'm happy with the price I paid for the service I received. In a similar situation I would willingly pay again.

In reply to Tiberius:


oops, I missed the quote mark of that

Also with regard to cures/long term treatment, I know several people with long term back issues attending 'regular' nhs treatment. Their problems are recurrent and not 'cured' by standard nhs medicine. I'm not saying they'd be any better off if they went to an osteopath, but part of the arguments given above is that osteopaths only offer a short term relief, at least implying that nhs treatment would be 'permanent'. That isn't my experience.

In reply to Tiberius:
Haha, I guess that's why in order to do a proper scientific study you should have a large number of test subjects. It seem both of us have the ends of the spectrum here!

I think the conclusion is that it may or may not work, depending on the cause of your problem. That goes for conventional or unconventional treatment. Back problems are notoriously hard to diagnose and treat, even with access to the best possible technology.

I'm glad it worked for yourself and your associates. And I'm sure you can't put a price on freedom from chronic pain, heaven knows I'd try anything to cure mine. Unfortunately painkilling drugs are the only things that work for me!

In reply to Smelly Fox:

Not sure why you're getting the arse, but I'm sure you'll get over it.

In reply to ThunderCat:
Not sure why you think I'm getting "the arse". It was a genuine question!

In reply to andi turner: chiro's and osteopaths should have to say,"what we provide has no medical background what so ever,there is no real evidence it works.if you want to believe it will help you,it may well do.please read into placebo as this is what you will be paying you hard earned cash for"

In reply to mark s:

that is utter crap

In reply to wercat:

yeah ive always thought chiros are a load of crap as well

In reply to andi turner:

My Doctor is also a Chiropractor and an Mountain Guide, though I have no idea where he found the time to do all that.

My missus suffers from really bad back problems, ever since a car crash when she was 19. She absolutely swears by what he does and can go to see him in absolute agony and come out with almost no pain. Whatever he does, it seems to work.

Last year I had a bad back and needed to use crutches to walk around as I couldn't support myself upright. I went to see him and he manipulated my back a bit and I could hear and feel things clicking back into place and ten minutes later I managed to walk out unaided although still in some pain. He gave me some exercises to do to strengthen my core and I haven't suffered back pain since.

In reply to mark s:

Have you had back pain and tried one? Interestingly the majority of people I meet who are as dismissive as this have no personal experience. Take a look at the posts on here, I think you'll find several positive reports from real personal experience and plenty of dismissive notes from people who haven't.

In reply to Tiberius:

I'll answer on Mark's behalf here. Mark fell off climbing a few years ago. He had a very bad fall landing on his bum. Before he could get into the Drs his dad had booked him into a Chiro believeing them to be medical experts as opposed to alternative therapists (a common misconception it appears). Mark went along, the women clicked him a bit and did some suction cups and ssaid he had a bruised back and charged him tried to book him back in. Before he went back he went for an x-ray and he had cracked several vertibrae - just think, she could have paralysed him.

Yes, there are lots of positive testimonials but no medical research confirming there ability to solve problems, a bit like acupuncture really.

I suppose if you have a stiff neck because you've slept funny, then it's all fair if you want to pay for a massage to loosen up, but that's as far as I'd go and the most I would recommend. I imagine that many of the Drs who are recommending chiros/osteos are recommending them knowing that the patient is in need of a bit of TLC and good rub as opposed to fixing a serious/genuine complaint.

In reply to andi turner: cheers for replying.I don't think the man who knows everything about chiros can say I told you so to that 1.so yeah I have had a really serious back injury that can still flair up now 3 years later.that's where I have every right to question non medical people pretending to be real doctors.
If more people knew the truth.a lot of chiros would be out of work.that would not be a bad thing in my eyes.

In reply to andi turner:

An interesting tale.

Given that situation, the osteopath I go to would have sent you to get an xray before he agreed to treat you.

Given that situation and the situation described above by winhill re the doctor who stood patients against the wall and punched them in the back, how do you feel the qualified Dr would have performed? A scenario that YOU agreed with andi. Strangely I think you'll find that non of the users of osteopaths thought it was good treatment, nor have they described any osteopath doing that sort of treatment.

Basically you're providing inconsistent evidence that is offering poor support to your case.

In reply to andi turner: http://www.dcscience.net/?page_id=733

In reply to mark s: Your making the mistake of tarring all Chiropracters with the same brush just because you've experienced one who's rubbish. I can understand this as I've a bad habit of tarring all Physiotherpists as being rubbish because I had a bad experience of one of them being rubbish and crippling me, even though in the hospital where I work I see them doing a good job with mobilising patients after Orthopaedic surgery.

I've had a bad experience with my GP, where he read my MRI report wrongly and told me my back was fine, whereas the report said it wasn't fine so when I finally went back to my Ortho consultant I got a bit of a shock when he showed me just how bad my back was! But I don't tar all GP's as being rubbish.

I had a bad experience after having my steroid injection because I bled continuously for 4 weeks afterwards, after being told there would be no side effects, yet I know that steroid injections helps thousands of people and I'm involved in the screening of patients who have them.

My Chiropracter may not be a doctor but to say he has no medical training is rubbish. He's highly knowledgeable and well trained on anatomy, physiology and pathologies.

The consultant who operated on my back has the reputation of being the best spinal surgeon in Scotlant and I spent a good bit of time in his office (and work at the same hospital as him at the moment!) and he's very much the type to tell you how it is, a spade is a spade kind of type. He's not hammer and saw handy and won't operate on anyone's spine unless he deems it 100% necessary. The recommendation for people with back problems is to keep mobile and that's exactly what massage and manipulation does, is to keep the spine and the musculature mobile, which is why Orthopaedics recommend it. Chiropracters and Osteopaths and Physiotherapists, whilst not Doctors are all highly trained individuals at mobilisation techniques.

PS - If someone suffers from back problems, then first port is your GP who *should* be trained to spot red flag symptoms that mean the patient should be referred. If not serious enough to warrant orthopaedic attention then any form of treatment that mobilises the back is good. And like choosing and going to see a GP that you like and that gets good results, most people choose a manual therapists, whether that be Chiro, Osteopath or Physio, that they like and that gets results.

In reply to andi turner: http://sandynette.com/

In reply to andi turner:

Sorry, got to ask again, how do you think the Dr described by winhill would have performed? A procedure that YOU agreed with.

How do you think the thump in the back by the Dr would have resulted in a different result from the manipulation that you think could have paralysed him?

Is this a 'trained' thump in the back? I don't know, I'm just trying to understand your logic.

In reply to mark s:

http://www.medical-negligencesolicitors.co.uk/news/news/501-teenager-left-p...

...we can all find links through google, but ultimately, what's the point? You find a bad chiro, I find a bad doctor, that's not really what this debate was about is it?

In reply to mark s:

Trump card, don't think you'll find an osteopath even close to this league

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman

In reply to andi turner:

Still wondering why winhill's locum Dr's punch in the back, approved by andi, is going to be less likely to damage a broken spine than the osteopath though

In reply to Tiberius:


Yes but there are many many more doctors than chiropractors, so it should be harder to find bad chiropractors.

I think though, that you would struggle to find a doctor that thinks they can cure headaches, colic, etc etc (through to much more serious disease in some cases), by back massage.

In reply to Tiberius:


Looking back at andi's 'approval' of this, I think it might not have been entirely serious.

Clearly this is not a good way to deal with back complaints, but I think a very tiny minority of doctors would think this was appropriate (hence it being posted here as an extreme example). On the other hand, there are plenty of chiropractors (a higher proportion, but clearly not all) who will happily 'manipulate' a spine, following a presumptive diagnosis, in some cases with dire consequences, as in a couple of examples posted here.

In reply to Tiberius: i know what i think of chiros.from experience and from what ive seen on the net.
i really cant see how anyone can defend a chiro who thinks taking a nose stud out will cure a shoulder injury,its total bollocks.i have damaged rotator cuff,there is nothing a chiro can do for me.you will no doubt come back with something because i can tell you are one of those people who has to have the last word.
there is still no evidence that all your bodies problems can be fixed from back manipulation.
there is no chiro that would have diagnosed my problem without sending me to a gp.and that is basically saying if you have a real problem dont see me.
its a bit like religion this chiro crap,if you have faith in it.you will sing its praise all day and not question it.

In reply to Jonathan:

pmsl, how many doctors do you know? I'm involved in medical training in two NHS trusts, I could relate some very funny tales for you concerning Dr's beliefs.

In reply to andi turner:

Link to a study published in the BMJ demonstrating positive outcomes from manipulation techniques.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC535454/?tool=pmcentrez

In reply to mark s:

More to the point, there IS evidence that you can't!

Many of the testimonials above can be put down to regression to the mean. That is to say, all the stories following the familiar 'I tried the GP, and the orthopaedic surgeon, and the physio, etc etc...then i went to the chiro and it got better' -clearly it would have eventually got better on it's own, and it could be just coincidentally timed with you going to the chiro. A bit of a boost from the placebo effect perhaps, but no real therapeutic effect.

In reply to Tiberius:

I'm sure you could, but it's irrelevent.

In reply to Jonathan:

Clearly it was, and clearly it isn't. However my point is that andi is ok to have a joke about a doctor who did this, yet rages that a chiro would do something that could cause injury. It's dual standards...'just think - she could have paralysed him'...he rages. And that didn't seem like a joke, but perhaps we should consider it so given the above?

There has been a consistent diatribe from some people that is clearly promoting double standards. e.g several times it has been mentioned that osteopaths would provide only temporary relief, without adding that NHS treatment is just as likely to be non permanent. In fact one example about Dr's prescribing ongoing medication was just plain silly.

In reply to Tiberius:

Haven't read the whole thing, but:

1) Look at figure 2. At 3 months no difference between exercise, manipulation and combination of the 2, but all better than without. At one year, no difference between any of them. So it shows that there might be some short term benefit in keeping your back moving (one way or another) if you have back pain. Of course, since this is assessed by subjective questionnaire, it could very easily be placebo.

2) I think the main point here is that manipulating your back, whilst it may help your back, won't help other health problems. That study has nothing to do with this.

In reply to Jonathan:

Oh, this is precious

I just post about double standards, now you give an example of silly ideas by osteopaths, but when I say there are equally silly ideas among Dr's you say it's irrelevant?

You're being ironic aren't you? Please tell me it was meant as a joke

In reply to Tiberius:
However my point is that andi is ok to have a joke about a doctor who did this, yet rages that a chiro would do something that could cause injury. It's dual standards...

Yes it is dual standards. For the doctor that would be considered serious malpractice, whereas what the chiro/osteo does would be considered routine.

To be honest though, treating back pain is not the issue I have, especially as some have said their chiro would rule out these things first. My issue is with trying to treat things with manipulation that clearly cannot be treated with manipulation. This is at best naive, and at worst fraud where vulnerable people are the victim.

If your car's electrics went, you wouldn't fix it by changing the tyres.

In reply to Jonathan:

eh? 2 mins ago you said the silly ideas that osteopaths and Dr's had about strange things that can be cured were irrelevant, now you're bringing them up again. Make your mind up.

Nobody on this thread has suggested that osteopaths can cure colic, asthma or a host of other ailments, just that they're pretty good in most cases where you have a bad back. Some of them might claim that, as some Dr's will also make some silly claims...but we agreed that was irrelevant and now we're going round in circles.

In reply to Tiberius:


I'm not sure there are equally silly ideas being taught to medical students/junior doctors en masse as there are being taught to osteopaths en masse. Would you like to give an example?

It is irrelevant on the basis that just because there are stupid ideas amongst other people, doesn't make it ok. Homeopathy is bullshit too, does that make iridology ok?

In reply to andi turner:I persnally work on a "whatever works" basis usually from personal reccomendation.- whether the science stacks up is secondary

In reply to Jonathan:

Yup, homeopathy is bullshit. I think you came into this thread late and missed some of my earlier posts.

My point about double standards is that some posters on this thread bring up silly ideas amongst osteopaths, but imply that these are not present in Dr's, or turn them into a joke when they come up.

If you're going to joke about a real story of a real Dr punching patients in the back, but then rage how an osteopath could possibly injure someone with a fractured spine then your argument falls down, especially when the Dr is an actual incident, the osteopath incident is a conjecture.

In reply to Tiberius: Well in that case I've already answered that point. People view the idea of a dr doing that as a joke because it is so outside the scope of what most doctors would do, and the punishment would be severe for that gp if he was called up in front of the GMC on it.

For an osteo/chiro, the practice of manipulating a spine with an unknown problem is more widespread, and whilst in most cases it is probably safe, the consequences can occasionally be dire.

The dr case may be an actual incident, or it may be a myth/exaggeration. The osteo/chiro incident is not conjecture, someone posted a link above to one case, and I personally know of another similarly serious case.

In reply to Tiberius: it was a chiro i went to see not an osteo.it was the chiro who had no idea i had fractured my vertabrae in 2 places,it was the chiro who wanted me to return and pay up again.just to have the same crap done to me.if you believe in chiro or not,my fractures would not have been diagnosed.no chiro could have told me what was wrong with my back.thats why its stupid to give up money to fund these witchdoctors.your belief in chiros is obviosly very strong but id expect that from any one who buys into faith based medicines

In reply to winhill:
Is this your gp?

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=GB#/watch?v=jZG10g2HOw0

In reply to mark s:

Dude, you've come to the thread late and seem to only be reading the later bits. If you read it all you'll see that I have no faith whatsoever in chiro's and that my belief in osteo is based upon a very real incident rather than faith. Actually if you ever read any of my other posts on ukc, I think you'll find that I have no 'faith' whatsover.

However, an osteo allowed me to return to work earlier and this saved me a lot more money than he cost.

In reply to andi turner:
I went to a Chiroproctor once couldn't sit down for a week

In reply to andi turner:

Forgive me for being naïve, but what is the difference between a chiropractor and an osteopath? I guess I could Google it, but since you're discussing it...

In reply to Rat know-all:

I once had a bad lower back which I had allowed to get worse and worse for a month until I was largely immobile with constant pain. I was recommended a chiropractor. After three sessions in a week I was out winter climbing again pain free. Now I am as sceptical as anyone about "alternative" therapies and I cannot rule out the placebo effect or the fact that it might have suddenly got better anyway, but I doubt it. There was no "holistic" mumbo jumbo, just a diagnosis a misaligned pelvis and some obviously genuinely physical spine crunching manipulation.

I had understood that the absurd claims made by some chiropractors have been largely abandoned in favour of the remaining evidence based claims. This might not be universal and I am sure there are bad chiropractors and mistakes made by good ones.

I later went back to the chiropractor with similar pain accompaied by sciatica. The sciatica was not helped and I tried a recommended osteopath. He in fact did exactly the same manipulations as the chiropractor, but also some very specific deep massage. The sciatica gradually cleared, though whether the osteopath hastened this I don't know. However, the stretches he gave me do seem effective in warding off incipient attacks of sciatica.

In reply to jon:

Osteopathy was invented by Dr. Andrew Taylor Still in 1872 and Chiropractic care was invented by Daniel David Palmer who was a student of Dr. Still towards the end of the 19th century. So I guess it's correct to say that Chiropractic therapy is derived from Osteopathy.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I've experienced the same, with a chiropractor recommended to me who's been practicing for >30 years. The manipulation feels like spinal/pelvic realignment rather than spiritual or pseudo-scientific therapy.

In reply to Tiberius:


But what is the difference? As I understand it, both manipulate the spine. How do the manipulative techniques differ. Do they do anything else with other parts of the body? If so does a chiropractor concentrate on parts that an osteopath doesn't (or vice versa)?

In reply to jon: Look, don't get worried about the details, in short it's all bollocks.

In reply to KTT:

I don't think osteos are bollocks. I'm interested in how the two differ.

In reply to jon:

There is definitely an overlap. As I said in my earlier post,they both did precisely the same manipulation on me for the same diagnosis.

In reply to jon:

My personal experience is only of Osteopaths. As I said above, the experience is like a very firm massage. However that's a bit like saying Stanage is a bit of rock in Derbyshire. Technically correct, but not too helpful really.

My understanding from people I've spoken to who have had Chiro is that it's more about manipulating the spine.

I'm sure as other people have said, there's a whole host of loopy ideas amongst other practitioners, as there are silly ideas amongst doctors. If my Osteo had offered me crystals, or incantations to chant, then I would have walked out the door.

In reply to Tiberius: Think about what you're saying 'manipulation of the spine' I'm sure manipulating the spine is quite straightforward, a bit like cracking your knuckles, no risk of any kind what so ever.

Now let's presume that the osteopath can manipulate the spine without causing any damage to the muscles, tendons, ligaments or bones and then say exactly how that 'treats' the symtoms?

Remember the Dr Singh lible trial? As far as I can remember there was no credible scientific evidence to support the basis on which osteopathy, chiropracty etc is supposed to work (beyond placebo etc)

In reply to Tiberius:

Hello again.

I think the main problem that you are grasping to understand here is that you seem to be arguing that back massages are a good thing, which I agree with, you don't seem to be grasping the point that osteos and chiros are NOT medical experts, yet they feign that they are by calling themselves Doctors! As for my double standards, to be honest, I don't believe that a Doctor was punching people in the back, he would've been reported and out of work in a second. I was having a laugh, sorry you didn't catch my drift.

Jon, this explains what an Osteopath is: http://www.skepdic.com/osteopathy.html

and this is what a chiropractor is:
http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

Simple

In reply to Robert Durran:

Out of interest, why did you use an Osteo/Chiro as opposed to an NHS Physio for free?

In reply to andi turner:

I'm sure Robert has his own reasons, but mine were quite simple. I was recommended to by my friend, a consultant surgeon with the mid Yorkshire nhs trust.

You're coming to this thread late and are asking questions that have already been answered higher up.

In reply to KTT:

dude, you're coming to this thread late and you've missed an awful lot of things. It's pretty tiring and somewhat pointless for me to repeat them tbh. I was recommended to visit a particular person by a good friend who is a consultant surgeon in the nhs.

I had non of the mumbo jumbo you keep bringing up, I was simply given what I would describe as a deep massage. This allowed me to drive and return to work.

I'm quite aware of placebo's, for instance I have a doctor (gp) who regularly prescribes medicines for travel sickness that have no proven benefit. The scenario I have described above does not follow the placebo scenario in any real way, as you would know if you had read it, and read up on placebo's as you keep claiming.

What I'm kinda getting annoyed about is that all the detractors keep coming up with fanciful situations and wild claims, but those of us who have good experiences have not done this. e.g. you keep going on about faith healing and mumbo jumbo yet several of us have said that we've never had any of that. Other people go on about danger, yet feel it's ok to laugh about winhill's description of a Dr punching someone in the back. You keep going on about these people claiming to be Doctors, yet I've told you on more than one occasion that the one I visited doesn't.

For about the 4th time (because I keep being asked by people who seemingly can't be arsed reading the entire thread), I was advised to go to an osteopath on the specific recommendation of an nhs consultant surgeon. I was happy with the outcome and have since recommended the same obstetrician to my wife and two other friends. They have all reported back positive outcomes.

That success rate is slightly higher than the success rate of people visiting their GP.

In reply to Tiberius:

Yeah, I want his reasons, not yours.

I started this thread, how can I come to it late?

I understand, you had a really good massage from one once, that's great. It doesn't justify them calling themselves 'doctors' and it also doesn't help with understanding any of their spurious beliefs on which their practice is based. Your testimony is lovely, but it doesn't get away from the fact that you paid for either a placebo, or just a massage. If a simple massage can fix your back, well, your back can't have been all that bad in the first place.

In reply to andi turner:

I'm not sure how I'm grasping to understand that back massages are a good thing?


Dude, that's just plain rude. Why don't you read what I've said above? I have not referred to them as medical experts and I quite categorically stated above that my osteopath calls himself an osteopath, NOT a doctor. You're deliberate ignoring of this is now getting tiring.



I have no idea and didn't claim he was, it was a story from winhill. You don't seem to understand that it was your attitude that I was referring to as double standards. You quite clearly state that an osteopath 'might' cause injury in a theoretical situation, but you're happy to joke about a Dr punching people in the back.

In reply to andi turner:


You went away for a while and seem to be asking quesitons that have already been answered.


It doesn't really follow the placebo pattern, but I've never claimed it was more than a massage. However, I have said it was more than a simple massage, so again you're putting words into my mouth or making assumptions without the full facts. It was serious enough to stop me driving, no more, no less. After treatment, I was able to drive again. I've never claimed it was more or less 'bad' than that.

In reply to Tiberius:

Let me give you another analogy.

I'm a teacher. I'm on the teacher's register, I qualified for this by doing a degree and a post grad certificate. I can teach in mainstream school, or I can teach in a private school. On a whole, unfortunately, but undeniably, private schools are a little bit better.

The health service is the same, doctors can work for the NHS or private (many do both), again, the service from the private sector is generally better.

Now, you can send your children to my school, a private school or, if you want, you can send them to Sunday school. They'll learn some great stuff at Sunday school, but it'll unlikely be from a qualified teacher, and it will be based on religous belief system. That's is what will underlie the Sunday school teaching experience.

That's a bit like Chiros and Osteos, they're the Sunday school of the education system. They can make you feel good, but they are based on a faith belief system.

I suppose the only glaring difference is that we all know that Sunday school is a religous thing, yet we are fooled into believing that Osteos and Chiros are in the medical profession. But then again, I suppose all Fathers aren't fathers either...

In reply to Tiberius:

I asked someone else a question which you then answered as though I was asking you.

Your testimony is great, you had a good massage. Who was your Osteo?

In reply to andi turner:

They were both personally recommended to me by people I trust with similar problems. I had already been to a free drop-in physio before the chiropractor - no diagnosis; they just recommended putting a hot water bottle on my back and resting but this had no positive effect whatsoever.

Getting an appointment with a good NHS physio can take ages.

Incidentally, the osteopath, as well as doing the same manipulations to realign my poelvis and spine as the chiropractor, has also done very similar stuff on other injuries to that done by physios.

In reply to andi turner:

This is not my experience. My chiropractor, after exmining me, told me that my pelvis was attached assymetrically to my spine, probably due to tight hamstrings pulling assymetrically on my pelvis. By repeated manipulation, realigning the pelvis, the muscles etc. would adapt to hold it in the correct position. Long term, to avoid recurrence, I should stretch my hamstrings regularly. The treatment worked to relieve my pain fast and dramatically. I do not see what this has got to do with a faith belief system - it was a physical treatment of a physical problem.

In reply to andi turner:

Dude, this is getting tiring now, I'm repeating myself and you keep coming back with the same old tired argument. There was no 'faith' healing in my treatment. I went in with pain in my neck and back. Following physical examination and treatment the pain was lessened.

The only part of the treatment that was not physical was a series of questions that the osteopath used to determine that there were no obvious underlying conditions that would cause him to refuse me treatment before I had been checkout out by my GP.

To extend your analogy, my work situation is probably closer. I too am a teacher. I don't have your teacher training and cannot work in schools as a teacher (at least I don't think I can). I offer training in a limited number of specific IT skills to private companies.

Like the osteopath who treated me, I don't pretend to be a school teacher, however companies are quite prepared to employ me and pay my rates even so. Like the osteopath, I don't ask my clients to take anything on faith, I explain the reason for everything I show them. Some understand the reasons, but some do just take it on 'faith' that what I'm teaching them works.

Would you say that these companies are silly too? Perhaps they should understand that they aren't really learning anything, they're just getting a placebo? Your opinion seem to be that if people are not qualified with the specific qualifications you suggest, then their skills are not valid?

In reply to Tiberius:

You seem to not be listening, which is why you are becoming tired of the argument. I AGREE with you that massaging is good. This is a POSITIVE thing which Chiros/Osteos offer.

However, their systems are NOT based on a medical background, regradless that you never got any crystals or chants to repeat, it must have seemed very medical, I'm sure they used some big words.

I too have spent a considerable amount of money of treatment from a Chiro, I've also been to a chinese 'osteopath' who has made one wheelchair bound woman walk again. Amazing, eh? But, they offer temporary relief, unless it's a temporary problem, or they offer placebo healing.

I've done a little search for Osteos in Pontefract, they are certainly there, they wear white gowns and use the suffix D.O. (Doctor of Osteopathy) to mascarade their qualifications which are actually only Bachelor standard. They also study things like Naturopathy and the incredible sounding Biodynamic Cranio-Sacral Therapy.

So, yes, the massage thing is lovely, by all means pay for a massage if it relieves you of the problem you have and softens those tight and knotted tissues (which is ALL that massage does) but don't forget that the foundations of Osteopathy etc are based on quackery, yes, even the one you went to, and if it wasn't, well, you didn't go to an osteopath in that case.

In reply to Tiberius: The thing is, you went to an osteo with a particular problem with your back, which could well have been treatable by a good massage. The osteo did a good massage, and it helped, at least in the short term. A physio or appropriately trained medic might well have done exactly the same. For you this was a good experience.

What you don't know is what that osteo would have done had you gone to him with a leg ulcer, or kidney stones, or ear ache, or anything else. If he practices by the principles of osteopathy (or the equivalent for chiros), he would have told you that that too can be cured by back massage, possibly convinced you of that, massaged your back and taken your money. Your leg ulcer, kidney stone, ear ache or whatever would not be at all affected by this, you would just have been fleeced out of your money. The physio or medic would not have done this (yes I'm sure there are stupid doctors, but they are not en masse trained in nonsensical principles).

Now take that to its logical conclusion: desperate people with terminal disease like aids, cancers etc for whom conventional medicine can do no more, and they have been told so. These people frequently, in a desperate search for help, go to quacks like this and are willing to try anything. Of course, they would be turned away by many, but the underlying theory of chiro/osteo is that ANYTHING can be cured by spinal manipulation, so many would take their money and rub their back.

This is not good. Giving themselves 'Dr' titles adds an air of credibility. Universities offering degrees in such quackery add to the problem -this is not science and should not be branded as such. There are regulatory bodies (run by other chiro/osteos) which further adds to the percepton of credibility, without doing anything to protect patients from nonsense treatments. The fact that quackery gets branded 'complementary medicine' or 'alternative medicine' further confuses patients -this is not medicine, nor is it complementary. It is only alternative to real medicine that works. Medicine itself adds to this percept by using terms like 'evidence based medicine' -since all real medicine that actually works is evidence based, then the 'evidence based' part is unnecessary and suggests that there is some merit in 'alternative medicine'.

There are many forms of quackery (I posted a link to a list of some of them above), most, if not all have the potential to take the money of desperate and vulnerable people in the mistaken belief (of the patient and sometimes the practitioner too) that it may help them.

In reply to Jonathan: nail - whack. If that wad on ukb I'd wad you
That is the perfect reply to end the debate.

In reply to andi turner:

I’m listening and have answered your points, even when you raise a point that has already been answered, by myself and others. I don’t agree with some of your statements and provide evidence to the contrary. That seems to be why you think I’m not listening. Lack of agreement doesn’t mean that someone isn’t listening.

Actually I wasn’t surprised when you revealed that you were a teacher. It’s a common trait I’ve noticed amongst teachers. I guess you’re more used to dictating subject matter to pupils and if they argue it’s generally an indication that they are not listening or don’t understand the subject matter. In many other fields, such as my own business consultancy field it is more normal for people to have different ideas and for them to debate.

You asked 3 questions, which I, and a few other people answered with positive answers. The debate could have ended there by you saying something like, ‘oh, ok, people have positive results from osteopaths then’, but no, you had to rage on about how we must have all been fooled, or not really had a problem or we’ve been tricked by faith healing. I asked you some time ago to look at the results from people who have been. Add up those with positive results and those with negative results.



Not really sure where you’re going here. I guess it started off very medical in that it was a consultant surgeon who recommended this particular osteopath. It’s a problem if they use big words? How big is a problem? Are we talking letter count or no. of syllables? I don’t actually remember any ‘big’ words, but he did show me a model of the spine, that probably counts in the same category as being ‘very’ medical?


I guess this is where our experiences differ. I spent around £100. I couldn’t work for about a week. At the time my daily rate was considerably more than this. The osteopath saw me 3 times and I believe got me back to work faster any other route, including visiting my GP and obtaining treatment through the NHS. So as I’ve said in answers above, I’m happy for the service received at the price I paid.

Again you make claims that have already been countered. My experience was several years ago (5 – 7) I think. So far from a temporary relief. We’ve already discussed this, again you seem to be repeating arguments because I didn’t respond with the answer you wanted. Again you talk of placebo healing, again we’ve already discussed this, the pattern of injury/healing does not follow the placebo concept.



Castleford, no white coat, although it’s a fairly sensible item to wear in some scenarios. Actually the consultant surgeon who recommended the osteopath to me doesn’t wear a white coat any more. You have a problem with white coats? Mr Haddlington, my school chemistry teacher usually wore a white coat, perhaps he was trying to fool me into thinking he was a Dr?

My company offers all sorts of things, generally it’s an over enthusiastic marketing guy to blame, some of the things they come up with are quite funny. Again I’ve already told you of my real experience, and again other people have also told you of their real experience, none have mentioned being sold Biodynamic Cranio-Sacral Therapy. I used to teach people about polymorphism, I laughed as much as they did. There’s also a database locking strategy called ‘chaos’, that always brings a laugh.


The foundations of modern medicine are largely ‘based’ on the work of Galen, which includes an awful lot of quackery. Again you’ve brought this up, again I’ve explained my real experience, again several other people have explained their real experience, again you bring up the same argument.

In reply to Jonathan:

Yup, same with the other people who posted good experiences. The op asked 3 questions and several people answered in a generally positive manner. Not really sure where we’re going here?

Other professions might have done exactly the same yeah, look back at my previous posts on here, I’ve said that several times, probably would have taken longer and would have been more of an unknown quantity than going with a recommendation from a consultant surgeon, but might have worked. I’ve said all this before, not really sure why we’re re-visiting it. The op didn’t ask about physio’s or other trained medics, so why would I respond with information about physio’s or other trained medics?


Err, I made it pretty clear in my original posts that I wouldn’t have gone to him for things like that? Did you read those posts? Again, not sure where we’re going here?


Ah, I get you know, you’re saying that there are dishonest (and delusioned) people in the world, people like Dr Harold Shipman? Plastic Surgeons? (did you see that program recently where they took a very good looking girl round ‘reputable’ plastic surgeons claiming she wanted her nose sorting out?)

Yeah, I agree with you. Dishonest Dr’s, dishonest osteopaths, dishonest teachers, dishonest policemen, dishonest people in all walks of life. But that wasn’t what this thread was started for. The op asked 3 simple questions which were answered by a few people in a generally positive manner. Then you and a couple of other people made some assumptions that were demonstrably wrong, so I and a few other people responded.

If you want to start a thread saying ‘there are some dishonest people in life’, then do so, I’ll agree with you. With regard to the specific content of this thread, I, and a few other people have reported generally positive results from osteopaths, all physical treatment with no faith healing mumbo jumbo.

In reply to Tiberius:

You seem to be very fond of talking about who said what and who has or hasn't read your comments. In that respect, I would point you to the BMJ article that you helpfully posted earlier and which I summarised. It showed that manipulation had no effect at one year, hence it provided temporary relief for problems that would have gone away eventually anyway. Yes you may have got back to work sooner, but you can also bet that your back would have got better anyway eventually. If the problem was that bad that this isn't true, then a massage would not have fixed it. Temporary relief is exactly what was provided.


But medicine moves on, based on evidence, science. Chiro/osteo does not, in fact it continues despite science, it is antiscience and this is a fundamental difference. At the time chiro/osteo started, medicine couldn't do much better for many conditions. If someone started chiro/osteo today it would be rightfully ridiculed.

Please note that I am replying to your post, not answering the OP, or changing the topic, just answering your post.

With regard to your later post in reply to mine, I give up. You have been told the facts (note not opinions), whether you choose to ignore them is up to you. I concede that chiros/osteos may be good at back massage which may provide some relief from some back problems. However, if/when I have such a problem I will get the same massage from a physio on principle -see above for the reasons.

In reply to Jonathan:

Cool, looks like we've can come to an agreement then. If you want to get better in less than one year, go to an osteopath, otherwise don't bother?

In reply to Jonathan:

I forgot to add, my understanding from the consultant surgeon who recommended the osteopath to me is that physio's are not trained in massage. They will however give you a series of exercises, that if followed diligently and correctly will usually allievieate your condition over a period of time.

In reply to Tiberius:

No. Look at the graph provided.


They are. Does your friend know how much you wave his willy?

This thread is giving me a headache so I'm off for some Reiki.

In reply to andi turner:

A few answers to you misconceptions and questions in your last post.

The differences between Osteopaths and Chiropractors goes back to their roots. They both believed that energy travelled round the body and if this was blocked then it would cause an issue. The Osteopaths believe that this energy travels around the venous and arterial system, the chiropractors believe that the energy travels around the nervous system. Also Chiropractors use X-ray imaging to supplement their diagnosis and treatment.

Also they traditionally use different techniques, Osteopaths using a mobilisation technique which is slow but penetrates the tissue deep which is repeated many times, whereas chiropractors use an adjustment or manipulation which is a high speed movement which does not penetrate the tissue as deep and is only done once.

These days both professions use both techniques to give good results.

Anyway lets get back to Chiropractors, as you have stated above chiropractors can be split into two types....

1) the Straights, that believe all the dogma and original philosophies about subluxation and the thinking that they can treat things such as asthma, hay fever and also don't believe in vaccines (These are the more extreme straights)

2) The Mixer Chiropractors, These use the above, remove the stuff that cannot be proven or even be hypothesised and use evidence based medicine to provide the best conservative care and treatment for the patient.

Chronic conditions have developed over a long time (as their name states). This process cannot be reversed by one tablet or one adjustment or mobilisation. That is why you think that chiropractors do not cure, however the opposite is actually more likely in that the chiropractor is treating the cause not the symptoms as a doctor often does by giving a tablet!

Chiropractors are back specialist because of their training and their knowledge.

To become a Chiropractor and and open a clinic in the UK you need to become a member of the GCC and complete a 4yr masters degree as a minimum, a lot of chiropractors do more. This may seem nothing compared to the 7 Years done on a medicine degree however the stats show that the hours spent in practical sessions and lectures is similar for both medical degrees and Chiropracting.

To work as a Chiropractor without this is illegal!!!!!

Misleading to call themselves Doctors? Why? they have done the training, they know their stuff and as long as it is clear they are not a medical doctor then it is not illegal. e.g. Dr John Smith DC instead of Dr John Smith MD.

CB

In reply to Jonathan:

Chiro/osteopathic medicine is in no way an anti science, it may have been 50 years ago but now it uses evidence to prove its methods. This does not mean it is a better treatment as most of the trials for Spinal Manipulative therapy (SMT) are saying that it is equivocal to mainstream medicine e.g. heres some ibuprofen to shut you up, now get some bed rest!

Heres two articles you may find interesting.

http://chiromt.com/content/18/1/3

http://www.bmj.com/content/329/7479/1377.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hi...

CB

In reply to chrisbaggy: 'They both believed that energy travelled round the body and if this was blocked then it would cause an issue. The Osteopaths believe that this energy travels around the venous and arterial system, the chiropractors believe that the energy travels around the nervous system. Also Chiropractors use X-ray imaging to supplement their diagnosis and treatment'.

That sounds well scientific init?

I'm sure you'd think that four years becoming a Reiki Master is also the equivilent of a medical degree because learning how to keep a straight face when spouting bollocks is really quite tricky.

In reply to KTT:

I'm sure you'd think that four years becoming a Reiki Master is also the equivilent of a medical degree because learning how to keep a straight face when spouting bollocks is really quite tricky.

Funnily enough no i wouldn't!

In reply to chrisbaggy: It was the "mixers" trade association that went after Dr Singh, was it not?

In reply to KTT:
That sounds well scientific init?

Well considering it came about in 1895 what do you expect. However there are a few hypothesis that give physiological explanations to the Beliefs of both.

In reply to chrisbaggy: So we have a stufy that says that exercise and placebo works well, well all I can say is I'm not surprised.

What've yet to see is anyone come up with a theory for how osteopathy / chripracty works that won't cause a real medical doctor to wet themselves with laughter.

Most manipulations of joints I'm aware of usually result in sprains, fractures and the like. Try 'turning your ankle over' for a practical exercise.

In reply to chrisbaggy: Why not? Plenty of people believe in it, there's a 'theory behind it', they spend a lot of time 'studying' etc etc

Why is it different from osteopathy?

In reply to KTT:

Most manipulations of joints I'm aware of usually result in sprains, fractures and the like. Try 'turning your ankle over' for a practical exercise.

So why isn't every patient hobbling out of chiropractic clinics after receiving singular or multiple manipulations? oh thats because you have done what you have accused chiros and osteopaths of and jumped to conclusions without backing it up with evidence!!!!

Hypocrite!

In reply to chrisbaggy: So, are you a member of the BCA?

In reply to KTT:

I assume you mean why i would not study reiki?, I could do in a short course instead of a 4 year course.

However i do not agree with the theories, i can not see a physiological hypothesis that would explain how it could work and it is not recognised by the WHO etc.

In reply to toad:

No I'm not funnily enough

In reply to chrisbaggy: i can see you keeping this thread going for a long time as you are worried people are getting wise up to the belief behind chiro's.which would be a bad thing if you want to be one.

In reply to chrisbaggy: Ah, sorry. I'm getting the GCC confused with the BCA. I'm still a little sceptical about the picking and choosing of which bits of chiropracty are ok and which bits are hokum, but I appreciate you aren't with the odd kids.

In reply to mark s:

You are correct in the fact that I am in the second year of the four year degree course for the Chiro.

Am i worried that people will wise up to the belief behind chiros?

No as the evidence for SMT and other therapies Chiro's use, is showing equivocal or beneficial results comparable to standard treatments for things like Chronic Lower Back Pain.

The profession is going forward in the research and realising that it needs research to back up the principles of SMT, and it is adjusting teaching and therapies to suit research unlike many people think.

In reply to KTT:


David Colquhoun site has some interesting examples of what is spent in the years spent learning alt medicine.

http://www.dcscience.net/


For the manipulation i can see some benefits from massage and the like but not sure i would want anyone manipulating my spine, particularly my neck, without damn good reason.

In reply to chrisbaggy:


Slightly different, but both rubbish.


I would love to hear them, please do go on.


Well tablets often treat the cause, for example antibiotics kill bacteria which cause infections which may be painful -the symptom.


Whose standards are set, presumably, by chiropractors.


Looking at the course outline on the U.Glamorgan website, don't a lot of the courses contradict each other? Do you learn about physiology in one lecture, then 'energy flow' or whatever in another?


Well your own course website says approx 20 hours per week, which is not that much. Medical students spend a significant proportion of their 7 years working long hours in hospitals, doing way more than that. Also, a medic, upon completion of their course, simply embarks on another load of training, typically a minimum of a further 8 years to get to consultant level. So where are the statistics that show that?


Correct it's not illegal, anyone can call themselves Dr, including Dr Fox. It IS misleading though because as a chiropractor you are offering a service which will appear medical to many people, and so may assume you are a medical doctor. You are also not going to be trained to doctorate level (PhD or taught doctorate), you are (supposedly) being trained to masters level, so misleading in that respect as well.


Actually, you've just used evidence to disprove your methods. If it is equivalent to taking ibuprofen (not going to fix anything) and getting some bed rest (allowing the body to sort itself out), then it is doing nothing. To say that you have proved your methods based on them being equivalent to doing nothing IS anti science!

Think about it another way, eating green jelly beans is also likely to be equivalent to doing nothing, that doesn't mean it is helpful.


Don't have time to look at that now, but I will try to at some point, thanks.


Tiberius linked this one earlier. It shows very minimal (if any) effect. Unfortunately the authors compare this effect to best treatment, but not to best treatment plus placebo (I would suggest an untrained person wearing a white coat and calling themselves doctor giving a massage for the same amount of time as the chiro, or similar). This means that we can't separate the minimal (if any) effect from placebo. Thus this paper provides no useful evidence that chiropractic does anything in this case.


You point out the difference between straights and mixers, which has been an issue all through this thread. It may well be that some sort of back massage helps back problems, but it certainly doesn't help other problems. It seems to me that those chiros who only want to do evidence-based work (aside from the fact that the evidence needs to be improved, but you say chiros are working on that which is commendable) need to separate themselves from the wide variety of other quackery which is rife within the profession. Perhaps it is time to split off and call yourselves something else. Think about it, you can distinguish between a straight and a mixer, but 90 year old Mrs Jones who knows nothing about medicine, going to see Dr so and so the chiropractor about her bowel problems can't and this is a big problem.

In reply to dissonance:



Yeah there's some excellent stuff on there. Here's the 'plethora of evidence' produced in the Singh case (this is the evidence for the stuff described as 'straight' chiropractic above -i.e. none):

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1775

I'd also recommend Ben Goldacre's site (htttp://www.badscience.net/) and his book, also called Bad Science.

In reply to Jonathan: Seen as you are so anti-chiropractic/osteopathic what do *you* recommend as treatment for someone with my condition then that is based on science?

Should I go back to my GP and get more drugs, live the rest of my life on opiates and anti-inflammatories (which even the most modern ones of which give me stomach problems)

Should I go back to the NHS Physiotherapist and get a bunch of useless exercises which are not designed for my specific physiological needs and which leave me worse off?

Should I get continuous steroid injections into my spine which have awful side effects and the effects of which don't last in a percentage of people?

In reply to Sonya Mc: Well I have no idea what your condition is, but I would recommend any treatment that actually works. If that's a good massage (by whoever can deliver a good massage) then that's fine, there's no problem with that. Whether back massage helps or not is a side issue to those outlined above.

Personally, if I wanted a good massage to help a back problem I would spend my money on a private physio with experience in back problems.

In reply to andi turner: i have used chiropractors ocassionally over the last 20 years when my back has played up and, with only one exception, they all did the job of readjusting my back well and sorted the problem. I started using them because my dad had had beneficial experiences with them.

I have no clue about question 2 & 3

They are expensive though. Im not sure I buy into the whole "problems in your back affect everything chat" they give you, but the basic manipulation of the spine makes sense to me and has worked.

In reply to Jonathan:

Many people, myself included, have had good experiences with chiropractic "working", so that is fine then. Even if it is not understod why it works, I don't see a problem. After all the Romans were successfully building elaborate buildings with arches and so on long before Newton discovered his laws. Obviously the stuff about "energy flow" is total bollocks on a par with the the way homeopathy is supposed to work, but, unlike with homeopathy, chiropractic manipulations clearly have a physical effect and it is therefore plausible that there should be some physical mechanism to relieve pain and cure back problems.

In reply to Robert Durran:


when you say clearly works i take it you are sticking to back problems and not curing colick etc?
Problem is how do you trust someone who believes the latter anywhere near your spine and particularly your neck, considering the manipulations including jerking stuff around?

In reply to dissonance:

Yes. The first thing my chiropractic made quite clear was that he was going to examine me and then tell me whether my back problem was something that he could treat. I would not have gone to a chiropractic with colick.


I was personally recomended the chiropractor by someone who had had a good experience with a similar back problem. He expalined that the problem was due to misalignment of my pelvis and spine - no mention of "energy flow" or any other bollocks. I didn't ask him if he believed the "energy flow" stuff (I believe a lot of chiropractor's don't), but then I've never asked my GP whether he has any religious beliefs.

They are well trained in precise manipulation or "jerking stuff around" as you call it.

In reply to Robert Durran:


not quite the same thing, unless your doctor medical system is based around prayer, in which case it would be worth asking in advance whether they are going to ask for god to help or whether they think they are god.


evidence for this please, note saying x years studying doesnt really count. As Colquhouns blog shows people can spend time studying something which is pure fantasy. If a course teaches the bollox bit how can we trust the rest?
Why call themselves chiropractors if they refute the entire basis of their discipline?

In reply to dissonance:

I suspect my chiropracto didn't believe in energy flow; the rationale behind his diagnosis and treatment certainly had nothing to do with it.


He seemed very good at it and it worked


Fair comment. Maybe that's why my osteopath, despite using the same manipulations as my chiropractor, called hmself an osteopath.

In reply to Jonathan:

>I would love to hear them, please do go on

Ok lets use the Chiropractic adjustment, and I'm going to simplify it quite a lot.

The High Velocity Low amplitude (HVLA) thrust applied during a chiropractic adjustment has a neurological effect to the joint that is the issue. This for everything that surrounds the joint including the muscles. This is neurological effect is a signal that is then sent up the nerve and can solve an issue such as the nerve misfiring to the muscles around the joint.

The chiropractic adjustment can also cause a joint to cavitate (the crack).
This is due to a pressure change in the joint where the nitrogen changes from liquid to gas form very quickly causing this audible crack.

Research is shown that for the above neurological effect to occur the cavitation does not also need to occur, it is more the thrust. However many patients believe that this crack is required for an adjustment to work, chasing the crack is thought to be a placebo effect at the moment.

The physiological response of the adjustment is also that the range of movement in the joint is temporarily increased thus reducing the restriction.

Now you see why it is quite hard to gain evidence for these hypothesis, and thus why most evidence for SMT is anecdotal.


>Well tablets often treat the cause, for example antibiotics kill bacteria which cause infections which may be painful -the symptom.

Yes tablets often treat the cause of the infection however it is the inflammation that is also painful. This inflammation is caused by the destruction of cells which then triggers a response by the nerves which then release chemicals that cause inflammation which then also trigger the nociceptors (ends of nerves that detect pain).

However in the original point i meant the standard treatment given by a GP for an issue such as Chronic Lower Back Pain of which the standard is Bed Rest and Ibruprofen.

This only treats the symptoms (the pain due to inflammation, and the fact that if it hurts when you move-dont move)

Chiropractic treatment is holistic in that it looks at the lifestyle of the person, the general health of the person, the actual problem of the person along with many other things that give the best possible care to the patient.

As said before the chiropractors will also refer out if they cannot help the issue or if the issue has got to the point where they can't help any longer. (e.g. given the back pain sufferer 6months or a year extra pain free time before they have to go for back surgery)

>Looking at the course outline on the U.Glamorgan website, don't a lot of the courses contradict each other? Do you learn about physiology in one lecture, then 'energy flow' or whatever in another?

Not really, we are taught the diversified techniques, which use the best of the evidence based practice and the hypotheses. last year i had 21 hours contact time in lectures, practicals etc this year i have 22. Most of the people on the course did anywhere between an extra 2-3hours for every hour contact time a week. (This changes due to the time in the year, like at the moment i am doing over 60hours a week as its exam time (Hence why its taking me time to reply!) whereas in the "lulls" we rarely have i may only do 35 or 40hours.) This is a lot more than the friends I have that are doing medicine. and also the level of detail we need to know seems to be incredibly different. (my friends doing medicine need to know drugs i don't, they need to know the names of the muscles ligaments, etc whereas i need to know where they start where they join, what nerve innervates them etc. Its all about what do you need to know for the job you are doing.

Also you say medical students are trained for 7 years, yes thats right but the last 2 years they are working and I'm no saying its easy but it shouldn't be new stuff they are taught in that 2 years.

Im not saying that chiropractors are better than medics, as we both have our different areas of specialism.


>Actually, you've just used evidence to disprove your methods. If it is equivalent to taking ibuprofen (not going to fix anything) and getting some bed rest (allowing the body to sort itself out), then it is doing nothing. To say that you have proved your methods based on them being equivalent to doing nothing IS anti science!

The pain relief is equivocal. The treatment of the cause of the pain and the long term effects are why ibuprofen and bed rest is the part that differentiates them.


I would ask if you have ever had chiropractic treatment before, but i would imagine that if you had, it wouldn't have worked because you would have decided that before you walked into the practice.


CB

In reply to chrisbaggy: That stuff about the nerves sounds less credible than the stuff about trapped energy, any real doctors care to comment?

In reply to andi turner:

I haven't read all the above, just some of it. My understanding is that in the past there were Osteopaths around who needed no qualifications but some were good and others just 'quacks'. I went to an old guy who had a very good reputation but no qualifications and he sorted a problem out with my neck, shoulder and a trapped nerve in my elbow. I had had various medical treatments and worn a collar for quite some time and as far as the doctors were concerned that was it. In desperation I went to see him on the advice of a friend.

In one session this guy sorted me out and I have had no problem since which is about 29 years ago. But it was usual not to tell your doctor that you had used a Osteopath.

My understanding is that Chiropractors are trained to a specific standard and have qualifications so that people can rely on the standard of care they can expect. From what chrisbaggy is saying this is the case.

In reply to chrisbaggy:

Ok, this is your hypothesis. I reckon it's not true, but that's fine, the point is you have a hypothesis that you can set out to test.


There is very good evidence that the placebo effect is greater when the placebo is seen as more 'dramatic' by the patient. For example, 2 sugar pills are better than one at clearing gastric ulcers, saline injections relieve pain better than sugar pills, sham operations can fix long standing knee problems etc. (this is one of Ben Goldacre's standard points if it sounds familiar). The placebo effect can be very powerful, and it is very likely that patients who hear the crack may experience a more powerful effect as a result.


No, I don't. I see a series of perfectly testable ideas. This idea that it's untestable is very common amongst 'alternative medicine'. There are a multitude of electrophysiological techniques which you could use to test your first hypothesis. Of course, you would have to compare it against a valid placebo, not just against nothing. You could easily compare manipulation against sham manipulation, crack vs no crack etc. There is plenty you can do.



But the inflammation is the bodies own response to the infection. If you treat the inflammation but not the infection, the infection will get worse. If you treat the infection, the inflammation will subside of its own accord.


Sorry but I just see this as a branding exercise, of course medical doctors do this as well. E.g. if someone has diabetes because they are overweight, inactive and have a bad diet, you can bet they will be told this.


No-one is saying you don't work hard and have lots of lectures etc. The issue is whether what you are taught in the lectures is true. What medics do is kind of irrelevent, but I would point out that after this 7 years they have a broad understanding, but little specialist knowledge. If they want to specialise in a certain area, they take a training job in that area and spend another 6 years plus training and learning in their own time.


According to that paper, there are no long term effects over and above what would have happened anyway without the manipulation.


Very good point. No I haven't, and you're probably right it wouldn't work for me whereas it might work for others. This is because the placebo effect doesn't work if the patient knows it's a placebo.

Anyway, I think I've made my point. Chiropractic has its place for some people with some conditions and in some situations, I guess we won't agree on exactly what those conditions/situations are.

In reply to Jonathan: I have spinal arthritis (as I mentioned in my first post)

My first port of call was actually a private Physio who after 2 sessions honestly told me that she couldn't help me and recommended an Osteopath (whom I couldn't afford) The NHS physio (who was a supposed back specialist and trained in the MacKenzie technique) was the one who crippled me. After surgery, my Orthopaedic consultant recommended I go to the chiropracter and not the physio for my recuperation back to climbing.

The surgery I had was on my lower back and I now have problems with my neck (possibly related to a mix of climbing/running/belaying and the surgery changing the physiology of my spine) The chiropracter doesn't just give me a wee massage, he manipulates my neck, releases the facet joints and gives me exercises to stabalise my shoulders to help support my neck and the exercises he gives me are all related to climbing.

In reply to Jonathan:

>There are a multitude of electrophysiological techniques which you could use to test your first hypothesis. Of course, you would have to compare it against a valid placebo, not just against nothing. You could easily compare manipulation against sham manipulation, crack vs no crack etc. There is plenty you can do.

If its that easy why don't you have a word with a university medical department and get funding or at least pass them your superior knowledge for these tests/research that many of the worlds leading neurophisiologists have so blatantly missed?

it doesn't even need to be a chiropractic department as then you couldn't accuse the data produced of being manipulated to give the wanted conclusion.

In reply to Jonathan: I had another thought earlier today. In my profession (Radiography) we are governed by legal issues as set out by the Ionising Radiation Regulations, particularly the Ionising Radiations (Medical Exposure) regulations. These give the duties as to who exactly may refer a person for a diagnostic imaging test such as X-ray.

Referers MUST be Medics, Dentists, Chiropracters or Osteopaths. All of these professionals are fully trained and legally able to request on grounds of clincal competence. Nurses and Physiotherapists may request x-rays after suitable training.

The document from the Royal College of Nursing and endorsed by the Royal College of Radiographers states that "Chiropracters are autonomous primary care practitioners, competent to perform diagnostic triage. The majority are fully trained to take, as well as interpret, X-ray images and interpret reports from Radiologists. When requesting imaging procedures, they will provide a clear diagnostic rationale based on a well founded clinical impression."

http://www.nursepractitioner.org.uk/Documents/Clinical%20imaging%20requests...

In reply to chrisbaggy: Most forms of medicine require proof of their effectiveness and safety to be permitted, if Chiropracty was anything other than a con / placebo it would be able to provide this proof, it isn't. If you advance a hypothesis it is for you to prove it, you haven't, you can't and you're a fraud, no better or worse than homeopaths and witch doctors.

In reply to chrisbaggy:


Because it's actually very difficult to get funding for medical research, especially if you are proposing to test a hypothesis which is nonsensical. The reviewers of the application would point that out, and your proposal would be rejected. I'm not convinced many of the world's leading neurophysiologists are working on your theories, because they would probably say that either its been disproved already, or that it's not a plausible hypothesis, or that it's not their problem to disprove every fairy tale and they have better things to work on.

I wouldn't dream of accusing chiros of manipulating the data. However, critique of methods is a vital part of medical research, and if a study shows something new or unusual the first thing everyone does is scrutinise the methods to see if there's an alternative explanation. Unfortunately, many of the studies of alternative medicine that have been carried out with positive results so far have clear methodological flaws. You say chiros are working on improving this, and that's great.

In reply to andi turner:

Back manipulation has a reasonable evidence base, to the point were I would say that its benefits are close to being indisputable.

Osteopathy, when it limits itself to back manipulation, and massage in general, and drops any of the hocus pocus, has a growing and promising evidence base, and is gaining respect in orthodox medicine.

Chiropractic is a crock of shite.

In reply to The Scarlet Pimpernel:


Thats brilliant, you do realise that both osteopaths and chiropractors use the same types of manipulation and that essentially they are the same, its just the history of their formation and development of the skills that differs then.
To put it bluntly these days the difference is barely more than a name.

In reply to Jonathan:

Remember that I am only in my second year of study and therefore I have done nearly two years of anatomy, physiology etc however i have not built up my reference studies yet (although they are building) and it is more the fact that I do not have the articles to back up the theories (It is not that they don't exist)

However why are there numerous Doctors and professors (including MD's) that teach both chiropractic and Medical students that think these plausible. Their knowledge of anatomy, physiology and pathology far outweigh many, yet they still think/know it is possible.

Yet people without a knowledge of how the nervous system and the body along with neurotransmitters and other chemicals in the body say that they are not plausible.

In reply to chrisbaggy:

Having used both,I agree.