Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Lots of Vitriol, no Science
Scientists love to bash chiropractics. They regularly dredge up stories of Palmer's attachment to Mesmerism.
Personally, I consider "alignment" a hoax, but the release of nitrogen bubbles from joints may have some positive effect. I crack my knuckles all the time, because it feels good.
Like almost all of medicine, the debate here centers around personal anecdotes. Have there been clinical trials that try to guage the efficacy of chiropractics?
High quality clinical trials are lacking. Those that exist show no value for chiropractic except: There is reason to think that low-back pain of short (3 day to 4 week) duration can benefit from one (at most two) chiropractic "adjustments." The benefit is comparable to that obtained from a massage. Note that a masseur does not charge as much or expect to be called doctor. JM
Section entitled "Rejection of the classical chiropractic theory"
This section is a LONG quote from NACM [[1]]. Although I think NACM is important to mention as they do enjoy some mainstream acceptance, I think the insertion of long quotes is a lazy way to develop a Wiki article. I wanted to give a "heads up" that I may make some larger changes to this section. Edwardian 06:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
If you wrote an article on the Cardiff Giant, it would focus on the hoax. If you study anatomy and physiology, you will be able to understand that "classical chiropractic theory" has been thoroughly debunked. This is a fact (like the Earth circles the Sun), not an opinion.
The only reason this absurd practice continues is that, when it was demonstrated that the classic subluxation (a dislocated spinal joint) does not occurr, the chiropractors re-defined it rather than folding their tents or becoming real doctors. The current, vague description of subluxation could be shortened to "whatever we charge people for fixing." JM
Please cite some sources. Your previous charge that a masseuse does the same thing but charges less is arbitrary and unfounded. I have recently visited a chiropractor who charges $10 per visit ($5 with Alberta Health Care coverage) and will provide free x-rays and analysis. What is "classical chiropractic theory" and how was it debunked? Show me how subluxations do not occur, please. I have had more than my fair share of them, and they're not exactly hard to spot. Even a layman can feel the misalignment most of the time (often as an awkward protrusion,) and quite recently, I saw my own x-ray showing two vertebrae in my neck touching each other, causing a painful grinding that disabled me for over a week. After a single chiropractic visit, this was corrected. Can you explain this? Was it some form of faith healing? Did the chiropractor manipulate the photos to make it appear that I had an ailment exactly corresponding to what I felt? JM, I think you have a personal hatred of chiropractors, no doubt caused by a run-in with one of the many quacks in the field. (I can certainly agree that there is inadequate regulation of the practice, but there are also many good practicioners, who rely only on sound theory, and in my experience, charge from $5 to $15 Cdn per visit.) All I can say is that having a bad experience does not qualify you as an expert on the subject. - Fuchikoma
Title references in opening
In the opening of the article, it is stated that "They receive the degree Doctor of Chiropractic, (D.C.) and are commonly called doctor in the same way that a dentist is called a doctor." When an individual, like myself, is attempting to get basic introductory information on the topic, the above statement is almost information-free. In what way IS a dentist called a doctor? At bare minimum, the word dentist should be wikified, if that article includes an explanation of this, but I really think that, whatever point is struggling to be made in that sentence, it could be made better. I'll add this page to my watchlist as I continue to educate myself, as I get the feeling that this article is one of those "battleground" articles where quality is taking a back seat to combativeness. Fox1 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. I can't answer your specific question, but I have watchlisted this because anon POV gets inserted in this just about every day. I don't know much about the subject, but most of the POV is pretty obvious. (ie, deleting the entire criticisms section, etc.) Dmcdevit·t 22:36, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
My experiences with chiropractors, naprapaths and osteopaths
When I was 15 years old my back and neck was in such a bad condition that the total amount of movement I could do was to "turn" my nose about 2 cm / 1 inch in each direction relative to my hips. That is, my back and neck was more or less locked. I could not look down on my own stomach etc. And I was in constant pain.
The medical doctors at our local hospital considered my back so bad that they offered me a full "surgical stiffening" of my back and neck. That is, to surgically attach/implant a metal rod to my spine and neck to stop it from moving and thus at least stop it from getting worse. However since that would not make me well, just prevent me from getting worse I declined the offer and decided to try the alternatives.
After about 15 treatments by a naprapath (similar to a chiropractor) my back was more or less fully healthy. Since then I have lived a normal life and one of my hobbies is actually to dance the jitterbug! (I am now 36 years old.) Occasionally I do get some "lockups" in my back so about once every 1-2 years I visit my naprapth for some "maintenance". (Usually takes 1-2 treatments to get my back in order again.)
Almost every time I get a new medical doctor (well, I have some other problems too) they read my medical history and then wonder how my back and neck is nowadays? When I tell them I nowadays am ok and dance the jitterbug they usually are stunned.
Anyway, here's what I know about chiropractors, naprapaths and osteopaths:
Occasionally when it has been time for my "back maintenance" my naprapath has been on vacation. So then I have tried other naprapaths, chiropractors and osteopaths. It seems to me they all use the same or similar techniques when doing spinal adjustments. (Basically they pull, twist, turn, bend and press to make your vertebras pop into place again.) What differ are the techniques they use to treat the muscles and other tissues on the back and neck. The chiropractors seem to mainly use massage (using their hands) to treat the muscles. The osteopaths use massage and something that at least to me resembles acupressure, that is they press special points on the body. The naprapaths use massage, ultrasound massage devices and electrical massage/training. (They strap electrodes on you and stimulate your muscles. Rather nice actually, a tingling feeling.) Personally I find the naprapaths best at treating muscles. Ultrasound and electrical stimulation does wonders at least on me. Note that I live in Sweden, Europe, and I have read that osteopath training differs a lot in different countries. But naprapaths and chiropractors are supposed to be more "standardised".
If/when you go to a chiropractor the first time you might be shocked that your back might actually hurt more after the treatment then before. But if you "listen" to the pain you will notice it is another kind of pain. Instead of pain from the spine you just have muscle pain like when you have done over stretching of a muscle. And that is exactly what it is. There are several reasons for this. First reason is that since you were in bad shape before, your muscles might have been a bit stiff and during the spinal adjustment (the pull, twist and turn etc) your muscles might get a little damage. The other reason is that suddenly your back is straight again, and your muscles are not used to that. (The muscles on one side might be to short and on the other too long since the spine has been crooked for so long.) That kind of muscle pain usually disappears in a day or two as the muscles heal and adjust to your "new" spine. Usually on the second or third treatment your chiropractor will instead mainly treat your muscles (since now your spine should be pretty ok). And that is nice! After that treatment you feel soooo good!
Note that chiropractic, naprapathy and osteopathy are more or less art forms. It is done by hand. Which means some practitioners are good but some are pretty bad. Personally I prefer naprapaths since the ultrasound massage and the electrical treatment works so well on my muscles. But a good chiropractor is much better then a bad naprapath, so mostly it is down to the individual skill of the practitioner.
--David Göthberg 09:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. Although it's anecdotal evidence, I'd say we don't even have much of that on the Wiki, and could do with some more as it provides SOME information. To wit, I'll chip in my own. It's written a bit defensively, but it was originally part of an argument against RK's unsubstantiated attacks. Overall, David, I've found your expeience with naprapathy matches my own experience with chiropractic.
I have personally gone for treatment at five local chiropractors, and admittedly, one of them was into new age pseudoscientific cures such as colored lens therapy, and measuring the body's reaction to proximity to different tinctures... I will keep this as unlibelous as possible and say that in my own limited experience, he was a quack. The other four were quite competent, with varying degrees of success in my particular case, and have the following things in common: - All of them warn upfront about the possible risk of harm from adjustments in no uncertain terms, and require a waiver on the first visit. In fact, in the face of statistics about chiropractic injury, they make it sound worse than it is, and are certainly not glossing over the risks. - Any would perform adjustments on children, but sparingly, and with caution. Quite simply though, there are times when chiropractic care is NEEDED, regardless of age. - They all believe that subluxations CAN CAUSE other symptoms, and I speak from personal experience that they certainly can. If you pinch a nerve in your back, you may feel pain through any part of your body. (Personally, I find my lungs, arms, head, and legs are most common. Having a lung nerve pinched by a wayward rib is NOT fun.) NONE OF THEM claim that all disease of the body is caused by subluxations. - None of them will adjust with great frequency, allowing usually at least a week or two between sessions with the exception of emergencies. They simply will not take the money for additional sessions, as they believe the body should not be too rigorously adjusted in a short time frame.
I started seeing chiropractors as an adolescent, when a subluxation in my neck caused crippling headaches, and pain and stiffness in my arms to the point where I could not use them. I paid (or would have paid if not for Canadian health care,) about $10, and ten minutes later, a painless adjustment had cured me. It is rare now, but periodically I suffer from lesser painful spinal subluxations, and it is rare that one or two visits cannot return me to health. I have no qualms about visiting the chiropractor when this happens, as it is fast, cheap, painless, and very effective. I think you'll find anyone else who has been in a similar situation will tell you the same. But then again, until they have chiropractic MDs in hospitals (wait, don't they?) it will just be anecdotal, despite being obvious to anyone who's been to one for similar treatments. This isn't a "power of the mind" effect; it is an obvious displacement of the vertebrae, causing very tangible and real dysfunction. For this, a skilled chiropractor can reverse the misalignment, remove pain, and restore proper function with very little time or effort, provided the problem has not been left to worsen. (My father was in a car accident as a young man, and the severity of the subluxation, along with lack of care, has permanently damaged his spine, grinding through the cushioning tissues. It has since been straightened, but while the damage has stopped, it has gone too far to reverse.)
While this is worth little, I will at least cite sources for the chiropractors I know, unlike RK. One doctor, Lyle Whitney has retired. One is a quack and gets no specific mention. The others are doctors Wilf Foord, Donald Pedersen, and Lyle Smith of Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. If you dig a little, you'll find they are all real people, and my statements regarding them are factual. Please do not call them to pester for article information though, as they are busy people. On the other hand, while I don't check this page often, I can ask specific questions for a restored version of the main article.
--User:fuchikoma Nov. 26, 2005
My whole family has used chiropractic for many years. I, myself, remember seeing chiropractic techniques being applied to someone as early as 5 years old (I am currently 30).
My first personal experiences were when I was in elementary school, grade 5 if I remember correctly. I had jumped from the top of a snowbank and had expected there to be a soft landing under my feet and unfortunately, it was powder snow on pavement. I was taken to a chiropractor for lower back problems for a year with little improvement. At this point, my parents decided to try a different chiropractor and she was much better as results seemed to be more appearent.
As time went on, she decided to do some x-rays of my pelvis and lower back and discovered that when standing straight, my pelvis was out of level by a few millimeters. About a year of 3 to 6 week spaced treatments, the alignment issue was fixed. To date, I have had VERY few lower back issues.
I used to be very sports active and I managed to do serious damage to my right knee. By the time this damage was realized, we were now in a new city and had to find a new chiropractor. The one we tried, was convinced that her skills could fix my knee. Long story short, not so. I ended up at a sports injury specialist in 1994 and had arthroscopic surgery to repair the meniscus.
In 2000, I threw my back out lifting a 21" monitor. So badly, that I could not even stand up to walk up or down a set of stairs. It happened on a Thursday and became fully inflaimed by Sunday. I went to a chiropractor (A new one again that I was already experienced with that I liked) and 3 days later I was driving myself to work. 2 months later and I was running a chainsaw and clearing 50-100 year old forest off my newly bought land. Then later that summer I built my house.
Now, my wife has always been skeptical of chiropractic as she was trained to be a mainstream medical professional. After 3 years of headaches, I was able to convince her to go. After that one visit, it was months before she had another headache and they came back right after a nasty ride on a rollercoaster at Canada's Wonderland. Another visit when we got back home and all was well for many many months. As time has gone on, it has basically worked out to one visit every 3-4 months and she hardly ever gets the same kinds of headaches that she did before seeing a chiropractor.
In short, it just goes to show that there is anecdotal evidence from people and examples of non-addressable issues from the same people. Not to mention endorsements from once skeptical people that have tried it out.
--User:Jokerofdeath Nov. 29, 2005
POV stuff
This page is quite notorious for it. Just keep a look-out. The ext links at present are neutral. But the ones that I had to delete twice recently are not. Drdr1989 03:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, particularly the blogs. Edwardian 03:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Great! Just one thing: Don't be too shy to rv edits yourself next time - remember Wikipedia doesn't mind us being bold :). Drdr1989 05:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Osteoarthritis
I reverted the entry regarding the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine that states "they are essentially advocating the more liberal mixer style of treatment where manipulation is purported to be an effective treatment for osteoarthritis when there is actually no scientific evidence which supports this belief." I found a couple articles on the Arthritis Foundation website that states that manipulation may help osteoarthritis pain [2] [3], so I don't think there is enough here to show that the NACM is actually advocating a mixer style of treatment. Edwardian 04:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
