Robin Hood Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 Title says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 There's some iffy evidence they may be helpful for lower back pain, but no more than a physiotherapist would be. Otherwise, complete quacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Hood Posted April 24, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 There's some iffy evidence they may be helpful for lower back pain, but no more than a physiotherapist would be. Otherwise, complete quacks. If you ask me, I think chiropractic (and "alternative medicine") should be considered as illegally practicing medicine, but I wanted to hear the opinion of people in medicine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 I don't think it should be illegal - people should be free to spend their money on whatever hackery they want - but I do not think these people should be allowed to call themselves doctors. Homeopathic preparations (read: sugar pills and weak solutions of alcohol) shouldn't have DINs either, but science seems to matter very little to those doing the regulating about such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slipstream Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 I also found it interesting that chiropracty was founded by some random farmer in US? He also saw it as a "religious" movement... Sometimes I don't understand how it became such a big field. But I guess if patients want it, as long as it isn't dangerous, why not? Edit: Check out thread below - it's more dangerous than I originally thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 I also found it interesting that chiropracty was founded by some random farmer in US? He also saw it as a "religious" movement... Sometimes I don't understand how it became such a big field. But I guess if our patients want it, as long as it isn't dangerous, why not? It is dangerous. Cervical spine manipulation a have caused many strokes. It is one thing for there to be disclosed risks which a patient can weigh against the benefits (as there are with accepted treatments - informed consent necessitates that the patient be advised of risks. I know that and I'm not even in medicine yet) but chiropractors frequently claim their manipulations to be completely safe, which they are not. There is also no verifiable benefit, so the patient would be taking on risk of death or brain damage for no benefit whatsoever. To add to the thread in general, here is a list of the articles related to chiro practice at ScienceBasedMedicine, a wonderful blog that thoroughly investigates and explains such 'alternative medicine' practices. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/category/chiropractic/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slipstream Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 It is dangerous. Cervical spine manipulation a have caused many strokes. It is one thing for there to be disclosed risks which a patient can weigh against the benefits (as there are with accepted treatments - informed consent necessitates that the patient be advised of risks. I know that and I'm not even in medicine yet) but chiropractors frequently claim their manipulations to be completely safe, which they are not. There is also no verifiable benefit, so the patient would be taking on risk of death or brain damage for no benefit whatsoever. To add to the thread in general, here is a list of the articles related to chiro practice at ScienceBasedMedicine, a wonderful blog that thoroughly investigates and explains such 'alternative medicine' practices. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/category/chiropractic/ Yeah holy crap. Found this link too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/may/14/dangers-chiropractic-treatment-under-reported I'm glad I have some time to read about before I start med school, too . It's a bit worrying... Oh also: (more for general amusement about homeopathy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 Yeah holy crap. Found this link too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/may/14/dangers-chiropractic-treatment-under-reported I'm glad I have some time to read about before I start med school, too . It's a bit worrying... The horrifying part is they do this to *newborns.* And they tell people it can cure the flu, or gastric problems, or cancer. Some chiros aren't that bad, and they tend to act more like physiotherapists, so I can be okay with those ones for the most part, but the 'straights' (as they call themselves) are scary. Many actively encourage their patients to eschew real medicine in favour of regular adjustments. Not such a bit deal when the person has a bad back or a trick knee, but a big problem when they have heart disease or cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edict Posted April 25, 2013 Report Share Posted April 25, 2013 Title says it all. Aren't chiropractics just people who do massages? My mom goes to one, she feels better after she gets a massage, she has to go on a regular basis since the pain comes back, but she has insurance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seattle_best Posted April 25, 2013 Report Share Posted April 25, 2013 My family doctor is a chiropractor who later became a physician. He had said that chiropractics can be divided into two streams, the 'ultra-conservative alternative' and the 'evidence-based'. According to him some of the spinal manipulations they do have actually been seen to improve back function and things in clinical RCTs. Chiropractors who practice on that principle are supposed to be very reliable. He says the alternative 'spinal energy' voodoo docs give chiropractors a bad name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radhey23 Posted April 25, 2013 Report Share Posted April 25, 2013 My family doctor is a chiropractor who later became a physician. He had said that chiropractics can be divided into two streams, the 'ultra-conservative alternative' and the 'evidence-based' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shady Posted April 25, 2013 Report Share Posted April 25, 2013 I'm against any 'medicine' that is not evidence based. But you cannot regulate stupid. If people want snake oil to heal them, they will get it and you cannot stop them. So in the end we cannot stop snake oil salesmen from existing, but can at least ensure that they are not called doctors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebouque Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 I'm against any 'medicine' that is not evidence based. So you must be against roughly 80% of what is done in medicine (I'm only talking about ''standard medicine'' here, not chiro/acupuncture etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shady Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 So you must be against roughly 80% of what is done in medicine (I'm only talking about ''standard medicine'' here, not chiro/acupuncture etc). care to cite a source? edit: btw i like your signature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Hood Posted April 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 So you must be against roughly 80% of what is done in medicine (I'm only talking about ''standard medicine'' here, not chiro/acupuncture etc). So what do you think of chiro, particularly UQTR's program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolelol Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 So you must be against roughly 80% of what is done in medicine (I'm only talking about ''standard medicine'' here, not chiro/acupuncture etc). What do you mean by this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverwolf1277 Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 I don't think it should be illegal - people should be free to spend their money on whatever hackery they want - but I do not think these people should be allowed to call themselves doctors. Homeopathic preparations (read: sugar pills and weak solutions of alcohol) shouldn't have DINs either, but science seems to matter very little to those doing the regulating about such things. This is interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about its legality if it is potentially harmful. I'm all about people having the freedom to spend their money on whatever they want, but in this case we're talking about someone in a vulnerable situation going to someone they feel is a figure of authority. Similar to conversion therapies...is it really 'freedom' if you're in such a state of despair that you think you need to change who you are as a person? Just thinking out loud here. Not sure how I feel about it either. But I do think when it comes to medical care and therapy it may prudent to make certain things illegal IF there is no evidence for their benefit and/or any evidence for harm. But like you said, it's too bad our politics aren't based on science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 Well, I DO think there should be very strict regulations on their practice. Not being able to call themselves doctors - which gives them legitimacy in the eyes of their customers - would be a step towards that, IMO. I would also like to see private health plans not be allowed to cover them. That might step too far over the line so far as regulation of the free market, but I think it may be necessary to destroy the false legitimacy. In my health plan documents, chiropractors are listed in the same section as physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and several other valid medical practices. At least, I'd like to see regulation that forces insurers to offer it under 'non-medical alternative coverage' instead of 'additional health coverage.' Don't make it illegal, but make it very, very difficult for them to pretend to be healthcare practitioners, and work to remove the legitimacy they have built up in the eyes of the general public. I'd also absolutely LOVE to see Health Canada launch a program aimed at educating the general public about CAM practitioners and why they are dangerous. Well, that's just dreaming, but I can hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverwolf1277 Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 Well, I DO think there should be very strict regulations on their practice. Not being able to call themselves doctors - which gives them legitimacy in the eyes of their customers - would be a step towards that, IMO. I would also like to see private health plans not be allowed to cover them. That might step too far over the line so far as regulation of the free market, but I think it may be necessary to destroy the false legitimacy. In my health plan documents, chiropractors are listed in the same section as physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and several other valid medical practices. At least, I'd like to see regulation that forces insurers to offer it under 'non-medical alternative coverage' instead of 'additional health coverage.' Don't make it illegal, but make it very, very difficult for them to pretend to be healthcare practitioners, and work to remove the legitimacy they have built up in the eyes of the general public. I'd also absolutely LOVE to see Health Canada launch a program aimed at educating the general public about CAM practitioners and why they are dangerous. Well, that's just dreaming, but I can hope. Agreed. I struggle with it because I like the free market but not when it comes to things like health care and you're dealing with people's lives. So I definitely would like to see it heavily regulated at the least. And ya a pubic education program would be great...throw in alternative/homeopathic treatments in there as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Tulip Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 Making chiropractic medicine illegal is utterly useless. Many people find it useful and to a degree it does help in many of the ways physio can. Some people benefit more from physiotherapy, some from chiropractors. I went into a chiropractor's office for my foot and it's never been better since. A lot of them are quacks, but some of them really do want to help people and they do that with their practice. Chiropractors who go above and beyond manipulations for pain are the ones who you are referring to and who should be labelled as "illegal". They are a regulatory body and yet they seem to have no ethical standards concerning what they can treat for. Every other medical profession has a standard of care and entrusts other practitioners when the needs of their patient go above what they have been trained to do. Telling your patient you can cure them of asthma with your manipulations is a big phony and an example of how they should be more strict on their regulations. Telling them you may be able to help with their back pain, that is perfectly fine. They go through 4 years of intense medical/manipulative training for those reasons. You're really closed-minded to think that all alternative medicine isn't evidence-based. The only issue is nobody really wants to put in money to research it because well, why give someone an herb when you can charge them 50$ a month for a drug that does the same thing? I've used these methods in the past and some of them work and some of them don't. It's more reliant on the person and the medicine's interactions with the body. It's the same with prescriptions, some people get allergic to some or get nothing from them while others prosper. It's harder to prosper with alternative medicine and that's where you guys seem to go ape**** over it. What's the big deal with it? If it works and does no harm, then why complain that it exists? The only counter I have to that is that people need more education about alternative medicine before using it. The lack of a substantial background can lead to so many issues which the media and everyone else prosper off of. Need more warning labels on them if you ask me, and a real person that knows what they're talking about when they say don't mix this herb with this drug because you will die from it. Doctors are utterly useless for that. Going back to chiropractic... People need freedom of choice. You can't take that away because your mind is too small to think maybe something else might work for people. You can educate them on risks as you can regulate professions, which is a much easier and better way to get around these issues. I personally think they need some ethics of care in their practice and boundaries. Legal boundaries. Ones where if they step out they get their license revoked like the rest of us. Their amount of freedom is too much and harming the profession and their patients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehockeykid Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 I think chiropracting is better than physio therapy. The physio therepist i saw all she did was put electic pads, on me and give me some ineffective drills for my TMJ. I would of saw a chiro if only my insurance covered chiro instead of physio. this is prob from only one experience though. I do like RMT, feels good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futureGP Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 care to cite a source? edit: btw i like your signature http://www.veterinarywatch.com/CTiM.htm A bit out-dated but claims ~37% of interventions are supported by RCT, 76% supported by some compelling evidence oh also, there is conflicting data as to whether spinal subluxations actually cause strokes or not. Do NOT jump to conclusions that spinal manipulations cause vertebral artery strokes http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22994328 -- basically says there is no proof for and against cervical spinal manipulations causing stroke That said, most chiropractors who are sane would not conduct a cervical spinal manipulation on individuals who have previous history of stroke/evidence of arteriolar narrowing in carotid etc or history of endarterectomy imo chiropractors are a lot better than homeopathy/naturopathy 'doctors' but still probably on-par with physiotherapists and chiropractice shouldn't require a 'doctoral' degree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 You're really closed-minded to think that all alternative medicine isn't evidence-based. The only issue is nobody really wants to put in money to research it because well, why give someone an herb when you can charge them 50$ a month for a drug that does the same thing? I've used these methods in the past and some of them work and some of them don't. It's more reliant on the person and the medicine's interactions with the body. It's the same with prescriptions, some people get allergic to some or get nothing from them while others prosper. It's harder to prosper with alternative medicine and that's where you guys seem to go ape**** over it. What's the big deal with it? If it works and does no harm, then why complain that it exists? The only counter I have to that is that people need more education about alternative medicine before using it. The lack of a substantial background can lead to so many issues which the media and everyone else prosper off of. Need more warning labels on them if you ask me, and a real person that knows what they're talking about when they say don't mix this herb with this drug because you will die from it. Doctors are utterly useless for that. All of alternative medicine isn't science-based. I would like to distinguish that from evidence based - which brings to mind randomized controlled trials, because those aren't always possible - because they are different things. Medicine has a basis in science, and even if we don't have RCTs, we at least have a scientific basis for the belief that a particular treatment has a reasonable reliability of resulting in a particular outcome. That is not true of alternative 'medicine'. Usually vitalism of some sort is the basis which is pretty much as unscientific as one gets. While I will defend to the death someone's right to believe as they want, I will never defend some quack telling a cancer patient that their chi is the problem, or that they have cancer because they are 'too acidic' and that they should forego typical treatment to go on yeast killing diets or baking soda binges. That's not close minded, that's called protecting people from anti-science charlatans who will do them serious harm. All that said, yes, herbal medicines have some valid uses. SJW is known to have SNRI effects, grapefruit juice can severely interact with many medications, many modern pharmaceuticals have a direct descent from natural extracts and so on and so forth. Of course there are medicines in nature. Homeopathic preparations, though, and much of alt med have absolutely nothing to do with real herbal medicine. The crap that chiros and the like 'prescribe' (read: sell to the desperate at ridiculous markup) has no basis in *science.* It isn't a lack of evidence, it's a lack of possibility of any truth in their BS. There's a saying I've heard in a few places (I do not know where it originates) "What do you call alternative medicine that is evidence based? Medicine!" Alt med/CAM is by it's very definition NOT evidence based, because if it was it wouldn't be 'alternative.' Many herbs fall into the category of 'actual medicine.' Some herbal treatments have very useful effects (and the possibility of side effects as well. "Natural = safe" is one of the most ridiculous fallacies purported by alt med hacks) but that doesn't mean the rest of alt med is at all useful. I am not close minded because I refuse to be blind to the muddying of the waters of science by people who sell pseudoscience and false hope to the desperate and sick, or the worried well upon whom they prey relentlessly. It is not close minded to look at that 'baking soda cure' arsehole and say no, raising one's 'body pH' to 8.5 by ingesting baking soda isn't going to cure cancer. It isn't close minded to think that the hacks purporting chelation as a treatment for autism are doing serious damage to children. It isn't being close minded to think that people giving cervical adjustments to newborns for 'subluxations' that don't exist - and telling the parents their child is at serious risk of SIDS if the don't - is flat out wrong and predatory. As I've seen said so often, don't open your mind so much that your brain falls out. Edit: I do get a bit riled up about this topic, I'll admit. Being the parent of an autistic kid, I run into way, way too many people who put their kids through absolutely ridiculous, harmful, or even torturous things in pursuit of the cure promised by quacks. Chelation, immunoglobulin shots, diets designed to induce ketosis, 'yeast killing flushes,' bleach enemas or baths, and so on. They come up on autism parenting support groups. It's horrific stuff, and it makes me very, very frustrated to see otherwise rational people completely eaten up by the guilt these quacks heap on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Hood Posted April 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 +10 (10chars) All of alternative medicine isn't science-based. I would like to distinguish that from evidence based - which brings to mind randomized controlled trials, because those aren't always possible - because they are different things. Medicine has a basis in science, and even if we don't have RCTs, we at least have a scientific basis for the belief that a particular treatment has a reasonable reliability of resulting in a particular outcome. That is not true of alternative 'medicine'. Usually vitalism of some sort is the basis which is pretty much as unscientific as one gets. While I will defend to the death someone's right to believe as they want, I will never defend some quack telling a cancer patient that their chi is the problem, or that they have cancer because they are 'too acidic' and that they should forego typical treatment to go on yeast killing diets or baking soda binges. That's not close minded, that's called protecting people from anti-science charlatans who will do them serious harm. All that said, yes, herbal medicines have some valid uses. SJW is known to have SNRI effects, grapefruit juice can severely interact with many medications, many modern pharmaceuticals have a direct descent from natural extracts and so on and so forth. Of course there are medicines in nature. Homeopathic preparations, though, and much of alt med have absolutely nothing to do with real herbal medicine. The crap that chiros and the like 'prescribe' (read: sell to the desperate at ridiculous markup) has no basis in *science.* It isn't a lack of evidence, it's a lack of possibility of any truth in their BS. There's a saying I've heard in a few places (I do not know where it originates) "What do you call alternative medicine that is evidence based? Medicine!" Alt med/CAM is by it's very definition NOT evidence based, because if it was it wouldn't be 'alternative.' Many herbs fall into the category of 'actual medicine.' Some herbal treatments have very useful effects (and the possibility of side effects as well. "Natural = safe" is one of the most ridiculous fallacies purported by alt med hacks) but that doesn't mean the rest of alt med is at all useful. I am not close minded because I refuse to be blind to the muddying of the waters of science by people who sell pseudoscience and false hope to the desperate and sick, or the worried well upon whom they prey relentlessly. It is not close minded to look at that 'baking soda cure' arsehole and say no, raising one's 'body pH' to 8.5 by ingesting baking soda isn't going to cure cancer. It isn't close minded to think that the hacks purporting chelation as a treatment for autism are doing serious damage to children. It isn't being close minded to think that people giving cervical adjustments to newborns for 'subluxations' that don't exist - and telling the parents their child is at serious risk of SIDS if the don't - is flat out wrong and predatory. As I've seen said so often, don't open your mind so much that your brain falls out. Edit: I do get a bit riled up about this topic, I'll admit. Being the parent of an autistic kid, I run into way, way too many people who put their kids through absolutely ridiculous, harmful, or even torturous things in pursuit of the cure promised by quacks. Chelation, immunoglobulin shots, diets designed to induce ketosis, 'yeast killing flushes,' bleach enemas or baths, and so on. They come up on autism parenting support groups. It's horrific stuff, and it makes me very, very frustrated to see otherwise rational people completely eaten up by the guilt these quacks heap on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futureGP Posted April 29, 2013 Report Share Posted April 29, 2013 then i wonder... if there is actually some kind of scientific basis for chiropractice.... since a lot of people in kinesiology tend to want to do PT/OT/chiropractice, and these are the people who majored in a basic science that is supposed to understand how soft-tissue, muscles, bones work :S from my biomedical science background... it's just something outside of my field and need a kinesiology to explain if there is some scientific basis on maneuvering the body to the 'paraphysiologic space' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.