CreativeDominant
Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: thishereboi
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
You are the one who keeps insisting that only these three chiropractic doctors are right...perhaps because a portion of what they say is what you and the medical establishment and some others wish to hear. What you don't hear is that they ARE still doctors of Chiropractic, that they have NOT renounced anything but a portion of their teachings, and that they STILL make a living from chiropractic, one of them from the practice of it.
No quack. I'm insisting that evidence and science is right and magical thinking isn't. Since you subscribe to such I'm pointing it out. That that bothers you is not my problem.
And I've told you...as have others...that I and others DO NOT subscribe to magical thinking. Hell, if I did, I'd buy everything medical science tells us...kind of like you do.
As for being called a quack and that bothering me? A bit...but there again, I don't know of anyone who enjoys being called something they're not. But I have to tell you, Ken...given the way you continue to insist that I say I am something I am not, despite repeatedly being told something different...there's not a lot of sting to your words. Especially given your manner of argument. Additionally, my profession has faced opposition from the medical establishment since we began...just as has any other health care paradigm that refuses to kneel at the altar of medicine. We've been called quacks by men wayyyyy smarter than you but there's comfort in knowing they reserve that same word for people like Robert Mendelsohn, Scott Haldeman, Andrew Weil, Linus Pauling.
By the way....since, as Stef pointed out, you know everything...we never have had an answer on the other thread or this as to what your degree is in. Are you ashamed of your degree? I'm not.
Maybe if your "profession" had any basis whatever it wouldn't face opposition from the real medical practitioners. Have you considered that?
And I've already answered what my degree is in. But again since it seems to matter. I have a real degree. A B. Sc. in Mathematic from the University of Chicago. Which actually has to be earned by real work not involving any magical thinking.
Now one more time can you present any actual evidence that there is any basis to what you do? Not physical therapy but cracking backs to cure disease. You've danced around and admitted that all you really do is what a decent PT/OT does. Is that it? Can you identify a subluxation on an X-ray? MRI? or is it simply a figment of your imagination? We know that is what the science showed.
As others have pointed out, he really doesn't have to prove anything to you. He could come up with a hundred links proving he is right and you would still deny it and ignore it like you did to all the people who posted that they have been helped by this type of treatment. You obviously have a bug up your ass when it comes to chiropractors. Perhaps there is an underlying reason. Some kind of history from when you were declared disabled and found out you would have to depend on welfare to live. Some people become very bitter and disillusioned at that point. But that doesn't excuse you from at least trying to see things in a different light. Personally I don't understand why anyone even bothers with you when you get this way but maybe they see hope where I don't.
As I've already demonstrated the very basis of what he does doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a subluxation. That was the point of that journal article I linked to earlier. That's why he got so mad.
Ah, you see Ken...you are wrong again. Got so mad??? Over what you say? A mathematician? Not a doctor of anything but rather someone who picks out an article written by three chiropractic doctors who grind an axe with the very profession that affords them a living and by which they STILL continue to make a living. I'm a bit surprised that you are not asking yourself that if they think all of chiropractic is quackery, why are they still Doctors of Chiropractic? Are they charlatans? Quacks? If so, why take their word? Because their word matches up to what the "skeptics" and the "quackbusters" want in this instance? Do you honestly think I haven't heard this line before? After 32 years in practice? And even if you did think that, there are the additional words on the pages where I said...several times... that the only thing that bothered me was being called a quack by someone like you, unqualified to judge for anyone but yourself.
That article that you keep referring to? The one in which the three chiropractic doctors state that there is no such thing as "innate" or a chiropractic subluxation? How many times does it have to be pointed out to you Ken that what they said was that "innate" and the chiropractic subluxation AS D.D. PALMER DEFINED IT are looked at by myself and other "mixers" as an historical concept, much like osteopathy's "Law of the Artery" and medicine's own guidelines...what few there were...before the germ theory? Subluxation, just like the "Osteopathic Lesion" is an evolving concept. I am not going to continue to play this game with you Ken. For every article I bring on here, you will find some article by someone somewhere that disagrees with it. Then I will find another and you will find another and on and on and on....but you asked for an article. Rather than give you an article, I'll give you an article about the literature review, much like the initial paper you presented.
So there is a basis for what I and others like me do.
http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/ABSTRACTS/Review_of_the_Literature.shtml
quote:
So then what do chiropractors do? I've just gotten him to admit, where he claimed to treat neuropathy, that what he does is nothing that a physical and occupational therapist can do and they're actually specifically trained, equipped, licensed and monitored to do so. I treat diabetic neuropathy (in conjunction with the patient's medical doctor), I treat plantar fasciitis, I treat chronic headaches, I treat migraine headaches, I treat scoliosis, I treat a whole host of things. Sometimes by myself, sometimes in conjunction with other types of providers. I am trained, licensed and equipped to treat these things, same as the O.T.s and P.T.s you cited. The only difference is, I treat the whole individual, not just the set of symptoms they present me with. There is one other big difference. I am a doctor and do not have to be monitored. They do.
quote:
Let's be generous and call that the best case. Now for the worst. Chiropractors routinely do serious injury to their patients and get away with it. Manipulation of the neck causes strokes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11340209?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Ahhhhh yes....the infamous "chiropractors cause strokes" bullshit. Why don't you tell them the full truth, Ken?
Article: http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/stroke.shtml
The full article is worth reading, with plenty of citations from reputable, scientific studies. An except from the report.
"A well-balanced report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal [3], states that “neck manipulation as a therapeutic strategy for head and neck pain is common and may be effective” and concludes that until methods of identification of “high risk” populations improves, chiropractors should inform all patients of possible serious complications before neck manipulation (informed-consent)."
Here are some interesting tables from that study:
Probability of Stroke or Serious Adverse Events Following Cervical Manipulation
Source Methods Risk
Dvorak [28] Survey of 203 members of Swiss Society of Manual Medicine [all non-chiropractors] 1 serious complicaton /400,000
Patijn [29] Review of computerized registration system in Holland 1 serious complicaton /518,000
Haldeman [30] Extensive literature review to formulate practice guidelines 1-2 strokes /1,000,000
Jaskoviak [31] Clinical files of National College 0 complication/5,000,000 in 15 year period
Henderson/
Cassidy [32] Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College Clinic 0 complication/5,000,000 in 9 year period
Hurwitz [33] RAND Cervical Study Literature Review 0.64 Serious Complications /1,000,000
0.27 Deaths/ 1,000,000
Carey [34] Claim Review: Canada's Largest Malpractice Insurance Company 1 CVA/ 3,000,000
0 Deaths in 5 Year Period
NCMIC [35] Claim Review: Principal Chiropractic Malpractice Insurance Company Within the U.S. 1 CVA/ 2,000,000 in a 3 Year Period
Haldeman [36] Claim Review: Canada's Largest Malpractice Insurance Company 0.17 CVA/ 1,000,000
in a 10 Year Period
Table 2
Risk in Perspective:
Comparison of Death Rates Attributed to Various Causes [1]
Risk Frequency
(per Million)
Neurological Complications From Cervical Manipulations 0.3 [33]
Canoeing 3 [43]
Soccer or Football 39 [43]
Venipuncture 40 [41]
Drinking: 1 Bottle of Wine per Day 75 [43]
Automobile Driving (United Kingdom) 169 [43]
Nuclear Bone Scan 333 [40]
GI Bleeding Due to NSAID Use 400 [42]
Spinal Surgery 700 [37]
Smoking: 20 Cigarettes per Day 5000 [43]
Appendectomies 13,500 [39]
Total Hip Replacement 4900-15,300 [38]
Motorcycling 20,000 [43]
Table 3
Rates of Stroke Compared to Incidence of Arterial Dissections
Attributed Cause Rate per Million
Spontaneous, hospital-based [48] 10-15
Spontaneous, community-based [49-50] 25-30
Cervical manipulation [28] 25
Cervical manipulation [30] 10-20*
Cervical manipulation [31] 0
Cervical manipulation [33] 6.4*
Cervical manipulation [36] 1.7*
*Corrected to represent the average incidence per patient, assuming the average number of manipulations per patient to equal 10, as reported in the literature. [51]
Table 4A
Selected Activities Suspected of Disrupting Cerebral Circulation [ 44]
Angiography
Bleeding nose
Axial traction
Calisthenics
Cervical extension for xrays or CTS
Cervical rotation while backing up a car
Coughing
Dental procedure
Football
Gymnastics
Hanging out washing
Overhead work
Roller coaster
Telephone call
Traction and short wave diathermy
Trampoline
Watching aircraft
Yawning
Table 4B
Nonmanipulative Maneuvers Associated With CVAs [ 52]
Archery
Beauty parlor stroke
By surgeon or anethetist during surgery
Calisthenics
Childbirth
Emergency resuscitation
Fitness exercise
Neck extension during radiography
Neck extension for a bleeding nose
Overhead work
Rap dancing
Sleeping position
Star gazing
Swimming
Tai Chi
Turning the head while driving a vehicle
Wrestling
Yoga
Like I said everyone, please read the article. It gives you plenty of citations from plenty of SCIENTIFIC sources...know you love those Ken...and will give you something a lot closer to the truth.
quote:
The adverse reaction rate of spinal manipulation is at least 50% and chiropractic researchers ignore it.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/may/14/dangers-chiropractic-treatment-under-reported
Hmmmmmmmmmmm....not according to the report cited above. But here is another interesting excepts from the report above.
Dr. Scott Haldeman et al. wrote a follow–up article to the Canadian Stroke Consortium piece cited above. They reviewed a full 10 years worth of malpractice claims files in Canada for ALL 4500 chiropractors in practice. They found that:
The likelihood that a chiropractor will be made aware of an arterial dissection following cervical manipulation is approximately 1 per 8.06 million office visits, 1 per 5.85 million cervical manipulations, 1 per 1430 chiropractic practice years and 1 per 48 chiropractic practice careers.
This is significantly less than the estimates of 1 per 500,000–1 million cervical manipulations calculated from surveys of neurologists”. [4].
Of course, in addition to being an M. D., a D. O., a Ph.D., Dr. Haldeman is also a Doctor of Chiropractic. Does that make his work suspect?
Of course, when reading medical articles about manipulation causing strokes, one of the things often NOT cited by people like Dr. Barrett, Dr. Novella, Ken is that many times, the so-called chiropractic manipulation was performed by a romantic partner, an untrained medical doctor (not an osteopath), massage therapists, etc.
And then, there is this: Misuse of the Literature by Medical Authors in Discussing Spinal Manipulative Therapy
J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1995; 18 (4): 203-210
quote:
Now here's the biggie, is there anything at all that chiropractic treatment has been shown to treat better and more safely than other treatments? No. The only thing there is any evidence to support spinal manipulation treating is acute lower back pain and it is no more effective than massage or pain medication for that. Note that it even has to be acute. If the pain is chronic the problem can't be fixed by getting your spine twisted around. As a matter of fact the disc that is hurting might get worse due to all that stress and wear. I know chronic back pain sucks but that doesn't mean people should be making charlatans wealthy.
You're welcome to search pubmed all you want for any study supporting any chiropractic treatment for anything. I've looked at the research they're publishing and it's all the junk like what is cited by the Guardian article above.
The Guardian. Whose science column is by Dr. Ben Goldacre. An interesting note about Dr. Goldacre: He's been compared to the U. S.s own Dr. Steven Barret, the discredited nonlicensed psychiatrist. Like other quackbusters Goldacre claims to write factually based and scientifically accurate articles about health, medicine and science either supporting scientists and doctors or criticising individuals involved in alternative or nutritional health care. Goldacre’s writing, however, actually reflects the ideology of powerful industrial, technological and political vested interests.
Goldacre who it is claimed is a Junior doctor working in a London NHS hospital is actually a clinical researcher working at the centre of New Labour’s Orwellian spin operation that puts a sympathetic gloss on anything shown to create adverse reactions from MMR to Wi-Fi, while at the same time undermining cost-effective and long tried alternative therapies such as acupuncture and homoeopathy. You don't suppose any of that has anything to do with any bias in the articles he chooses to publish, do you Ken?
You can search online, such as I did. Where you will find this on the website of the American Chiropractic Association (you remember. One of Ken's chiropractic doctors sits on the board there):
Research shows that spinal manipulation – the primary form of care provided by doctors of chiropractic – may be an effective treatment option for tension headaches and headaches that originate in the neck.
A report released in 2001 by researchers at the Duke University Evidence-Based Practice Center in Durham, NC, found that spinal manipulation resulted in almost immediate improvement for those headaches that originate in the neck, and had significantly fewer side effects and longer-lasting relief of tension-type headache than a commonly prescribed medication.
Also, a 1995 study in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics found that spinal manipulative therapy is an effective treatment for tension headaches and that those who ceased chiropractic treatment after four weeks experienced a sustained therapeutic benefit in contrast with those patients who received a commonly prescribed medication.
Or you can look up almost any medication...most especially N.S.A.I.D.s but also muscle relaxants and painkillers and check out some of their adverse effects in treating headaches, neckaches, lower back pain, joint pain, arthritis and then do some research on chiropractic care for these conditions. Then ask yourself whether or not you want to use drugs alone or surgery or perhaps a wellness-based approach that may include some use of drugs along with natural health care.
Or you can buy a book such as The Chiropractic Theories: A Textbook of Scientific Research by Robert A Leach, D. C., F.I.C.C..
Is it any safer? Well, I cited at least one article with 5 different tables showing that in at least one type of care it is. One thing that Ken does not mention again is something that I have cited...it is called Failed Back Surgery Syndrome for a reason. Over 50 percent of back surgeries fail. And with each subsequent surgery, the chance that anybody NOT using surgery...whether it be a D. C., a P. T., an O.T....will be able to help this patient much is decreased. Why? Because in the failed cases, mobility gets worse. Function gets worse. Pain gets worse.
Another thing Ken does not mention in his report on lower back care is that other studies have found that AT THE MINIMUM, the patients receiving chiropractic adjustment did at least as well....and in most cases, better....than those receiving medication or exercise therapy only. As for his statement as to what "twisting" the lower back can do...tell you what, Ken. I won't tell you how to do your mathematics, you don't tell people your theories as to what mobilization (P.T.s, D. C.s) or manipulation (D. C.s, D. O.s) can do. O.K.?
Oh yes...one final thing I wanted to mention. In one of your other posts, you mentioned your hard hours of education. Thought the folks might like to see the educational requirements, side by side.
http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/drgrisanti/mddc.htm
Do you know it took me 2, 419 hours for me to get my degree? That I have completed at least an additional 800 hrs of orthopedic/neurology course in continuing education since?
Do you know that it takes 2,047 hours for the average medical doctor to get his degree? The study cited above does a comparison of the hours that each student gets in the courses.
As others have asked, Ken, who are you saving here? The 2000 and some people in collarspace? The ... maybe...100 people reading this thread? Are you really trying to save anybody? Doubt it.
GotSteel...DCnovice, if you didn't read what I had to say about neuropathy, then cmail me. And GS, it's chiropractic...not chiropracty.
< Message edited by CreativeDominant -- 9/25/2014 4:41:02 PM >
|
RE: Chiropractic Medicine: Real, Quackery, or Scam? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread