<p>The problem is that at least some chiro’s will prescribe their 'maintenance" regimen for perfectly healthy, non-hurting, non-dancing, young people. I think their proclivity to try to set everyone up for all of these repeat ‘maintenance treatments’ is highly suspicious and IMO - quackery, as is the idea tha ‘spine manipulation’ will treat and cure asthma and every other ailment a person could have. I understand that not all chiros behave this way as some posters have indicated, which is good.</p>
<p>So sorry to see you go leal. You seem to imply that your mind was open to the opposing views posted here. Somehow I must have missed that. And of course just because we may have a different opinion, that automatically means we have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of wholistic medicine. Such and open mind. I see…</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yeah, but the trick is also to not have your mind so open that all your brains fall out. </p>
<p>Trying to treat all those non-spine related conditions by manipulating the spine just doesn’t pass the laugh test.</p>
<p>I actually was able to bring a bit of levity to the jury room when one woman said that when she wrenches her back it might take 3-4 weeks of therapy before it feels good again (at around $200/visit according to her). My reply was that when I wrench my back, it sometimes takes 3-4weeks before it feels good again —doing nothing.</p>
<p>ucsd-ucla-dad
I never understood why chiropractors seem to set up booths at neighborhood fairs and such. They have their tent/booth, have people sit down-- they poke around a little bit, and then tell you you should come in for a series of xrays (at a cost) and a proscribed treatment. I usually skip those booths and head for the free massage. Ahhhhhh, so refreshing.</p>
<p>LOL Coureur!!! hahahahaha!! I am still chuckling!</p>
<p>My .02 for OP (bearing in mind I am not a medical practitioner of any kind):</p>
<p>Orthopods generally treat injuries with drugs, surgery and/or casting/immobilization (and they don’t do much for soft tissue injuries.) Therefore, if none of those treatments seems appropriate for your D’s condition, you might consider consulting a reputable chiropractor for his/her recommended treatment. Not only did my athlete/D find relief for her hip joint pain from a chiropractor, but my H was actually referred to a chiropractor by his (3rd) orthopod who could not solve his herniated disc problem with cortisone shots. The chiropractor resolved my H’s pain in one session.</p>
<p>Good one, MKM!!! The best treatment approach-- tincture of time. How many times a week did the juror go in to see his/her chiropractor? I think it was the chiro’s wallet that felt the best in that scenario.
I know I am being flippant. I am glad some people have had good experiences, and have gotten relief for appropriate physical injuries. I just don’t understand the blind eyed optimism. Coureur said it best. You cant cure all the ills in the body with an adjustment to the spine. Makes no sense.</p>
<p>I’ve never understood the mutual antipathy of MDs and DCs. I have a chronic shoulder pain that MDs have always treated by prescribing pain killers. Three visits to a chiropractor and the pain was gone. It flares up every once in a while and a visit or two makes the pain go away. On the other hand, I take medicine daily for my allergies and hypertension, and it works really well. I wouldn’t expect chiropractic to help that.</p>
<p>There was a comment earlier about the value of all treatments being tested by double-blind tests. This is a standard to which allopathic medicine is not subject. For example, let’s do a double blind test on the efficacy of splints for sprains, replacement heart valves, or eyeglasses for myopia correction. Can’t be done. In fact, it is only in the gold mine area of prescription drugs that medical double blind tests apply, and those are usually conducted by industrial corporations, not practitioners. I guarantee if there was some way to patent and profit from chiropractic procedures that Merck, Pfizer, and company would be all over it. There’s not much corporate interest in treatments that can’t be patented.</p>
<p>Anyway, I don’t get it…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honest doctors would also admit that you can’t cure all the ills in the body with drugs and surgery, either.</p>
<p>Huh, washdad?? Double blind studies are done in the field all the time. They are usually funded by the pharmaceutical co.s for sure, but they are frequently done in drs offices. I am about to participate in a study looking at a medication used with sleep apnea. Well, I was supposed to, but the drug just got some bad press, so I am not sure what will happen to the study. </p>
<p>As for other treatments, one can look at splint vs massage or splint vs PT, or splint vs anti-inflammatory or splint vs nothing for treatment of a sprain. But you can’t have a placebo splint, thats true. However, they could compare two different kinds of splints- both claiming to have some special insert (when one does and one doesnt) to compare response. Just a thought.</p>
<p>As for the disagreement across professions. Actually, I cross refer , and work with other disciplines all the time. I even work well with attorneys! The time when any practitioner is likely to raise his/her eyebrows is when some provider, or profession, makes outrageous claims that they can cure anything and everything, Credibility just goes down the flusher. Another area with marginal credibility is cranio-sacral therapy. they claim to fix all sorts of stuff with this “light touch” and claim that they somehow move around cerebrospinal fluid and cure all sorts of stuff. Show me the data.</p>
<p>
who is making this claim? Did someone recommend surgery for a headache?</p>
<p>And btw, I was repeating what coureur said, washdad. You incorrectly quoted me-- I was repeating coureurs comments.</p>
<p>** oh-- and I must be one of those “honest” doctors that you refer to. I don’t prescribe meds or perform surgery. Thanks for the compliment!</p>
<p>I came back to turn off the computer and alas, this thread was still up…</p>
<p>In post #27 I said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet coureur chooses to ignore my statement by saying:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…when I clearly said that chiropractors cannot treat all other conditions.</p>
<p>That’s hardly ‘blindeyed optimism.’ You are twisting my words, ignoring my words, and making false, arrogant statements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I did not say you have zero understanding of wholistic medicine because you have a different opinion. </p>
<p>I said you have zero understanding of wholistic medicine because your statements indicate a complete lack of understanding of wholistic medicine.</p>
<p>For example, in post #60 you said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>which demonstrates complete ignorance of reflexology.</p>
<p>coureaur’s comment in post #55,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>also demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the wholistic paradigm. You fail to understand the basic premise of wholistic medicine if you think in simplistic terms of a spinal manipulation ‘fixing’ an ailment. That shows a complete lack of understanding. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then, jym, you make a false statement while sounding authoritative. The book in question was NOT an ‘herbal book’ at all but was written by an MD, and cited numerous references from established medical journals. You have not even read it so have no basis for any opinion whatsoever. The fact that a questionable herbalist’s site happened to review the book is irrelevant. I pointed this out previously, yet you still persist in pretending that an herbalist wrote the book. That is misinformation, pure and simple, akin to bush saying that Iraq attacked us on 911. Ignorant people won’t catch the distinction, and gullibly believe the implication. Your implication in this case: that the book in question was written by a fringey herbalist and is therefore not legitimate. You, trained in scientific methodology: surely you can see my point here?</p>
<p>Then, in post #56, you post a link to one of the author’s other books, on a completely different subject. Completely irrelevant, since you are probably not an expert on that subject. Yet you post that as if it were proof that her findings are not to be taken seriously.</p>
<p>All in all, you seem to be perpetuating the conception that allopathic practitioners are blinded by their pharmaceutical-company-based training, rather than being the objective scientists they claim to be.</p>
<p>Your insults of another valid profession, with good practitioners and bad practitioners, and value and shortcomings just like your own, demonstrate extreme bias and a complete lack of professionalism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you honestly deny the commercial component here? Hello, historically, commercial interests have often distorted facts and corrupted even the most noble among us. Are you saying that the medical INDUSTRY is somehow immune?</p>
<p>A review of ‘Death by Modern Medicine’ from a panel of doctors:</p>
<p><a href=“Vitamins and Supplements Rooted in Science - Life Extension”>Vitamins and Supplements Rooted in Science - Life Extension;
<p>(Excerpt)
</p>
<p>And here is a link to the medical advisory board of the organization making the above statement:</p>
<p><a href=“Vitamins and Supplements Rooted in Science - Life Extension”>Vitamins and Supplements Rooted in Science - Life Extension;
<p>And here is a link to the scientific advisory board of the organization making the above statement:</p>
<p><a href=“Vitamins and Supplements Rooted in Science - Life Extension”>Vitamins and Supplements Rooted in Science - Life Extension;
<p>(Gosh, several dozens of them, and they are almost all MD’s!)</p>
<p>I thought you were choosing to leave this “silly thread”. Instead you came back with a sword and a gun, leal?? Really. Time to go to bed. Lighten up. The book your lady doctor wrote (when I finally figured out what you were talking about- the book vs the website-- it was confusing) is one of many she wrote on a variety of controversial topics. My linking one of her many edgy books was to point out the ridiculous range of topics that she seems to be an “expert” in. She sites medical journals. So what. So does quackwatch, but you have summarily dismissed that site. I didnt make any “false statements”. I don’t know what you are talking about. If you are saying I confused the links on that silly New Zealand website- thats true. That was one weird link you sent us to. I finally figured out what you were talking about when you linked to the amazon site. So, from your link, I looked at her other books. There are some real doozies there. </p>
<p>As for wholistic medicine–you dont know what I do and dont know-- I would appreciate your not making any assumptions or unkind cracks. I would prefer you put all that open minded brain power into figuring out when I am writing tongue in cheek. I will try to be clearer next time. </p>
<p>Saying people have a “complete lack of understanding” or “fail to understand” or “make false statements” sounds like you need an attitude adjustment from your saintly chiropractor.</p>
<p>I came back with some ammo, but it was not I who ‘drew first blood.’</p>
<hr>
<p>For your convenience, here is the text, complete with references, of the 2003 edition of ‘Death by Medicine.’</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.medicinefreeliving.com/Articles/Article_DEATH%20BY%20MEDICINE.pdf[/url]”>http://www.medicinefreeliving.com/Articles/Article_DEATH%20BY%20MEDICINE.pdf</a></p>
<p>(keep in mind that there is a newer, updated 2005 edition.)</p>
<p>This might also be of interest:</p>
<p><a href=“http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/2/5/pdf/10.1371_journal.pmed.0020138-S.pdf[/url]”>http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/2/5/pdf/10.1371_journal.pmed.0020138-S.pdf</a></p>
<p>by Richard Smith, who for 25 years was an editor for the British Medical Journal.</p>
<p>Geez, leal. let it go. I just reread your first diatribe (not to be confused with the second long quote) and you actually think I was consciously trying to pretend something about the author of that book you seem to think is such a world clas authoritative document? I was trying to figure out that ridiculous website you linked to, and the book it took me to was that herbalist mumbo jumbo. No “consious attempt to deceive”- Sheesh. You finally posted the link to amazon and I figured out what the heck you were talking about. </p>
<p>I acknowledged that I was being flippant a time or two. But hardly "unprofessional? Thats just downright inappropriate. Any profession should be able to acknowledge that it has good and bad providers. Why, I’ll bet you even know a few lousy insurance salesmen. What a shocker. </p>
<p>As for the marketing/commercialism of pharmeceuticals. OF COURSE it is a big business. Duh. I don’t know what your point is, except to rant and rail. Have a nice night, leal. Don’t let the bedbugs bite. If they do, go get an adjustment.</p>
<p>Sure, now you’re sounding more reasonable. But in past posts both you and courear were completely mocking and ridiculing.</p>
<p>You came BACK with ammo? Not how I see it. You came out with a full assault after you bid a fond adieu. No one attacked you- (wait- coureur made that funny comment about your brains falling out- I stand corrected). And you are making (inaccurate) assumptions about what I know, what I think, and what I do. You know what they say about assumptions…</p>