consider that the vast majority of medical interventions are either poorly understood or not understood at all...Perhaps you would like to site your sources for this statement. Modern traditional medicine is based on solid scientific principals of chemistry, biology, genetics, and biochemistry. Chiropractic treatments are based on flawed theories that have no basis in science. Traditional medicine has evolved over the past hundred years such that there are some treatments which were developed prior to the advent of what is today called Evidence Based Medicine or EBM. In recent years many of these older techniques have been tested and challenged in controlled trials. Those that stand up to the rigorous scrutiny continue to be used while others which don't (ie. doing radical mastectomies in all breast cancer patients, taking out tonsils in many young children who had more than one strep infection) have been modified or discarded. It would be a gross misstatement however to say that majority of treatments are poorly understood or not understood at all. You would have a difficult time finding a single medical treatment (much less the thousands required to support your "majority" statement) for which we don't have a a good understanding of the basic science and mechanism. The difference with Chiropractic treatments is that they don't subject their own treatments to this sort of objective scientific analysis because like any other religion, their belief system is based on dogma and faith, not rational scientific inquiry. The mark of any valid area of scientific pursuit is the willingness to replace an idea or theory if the weight of the evidence suggests it is false. I'm sure it would be difficult to find ANY treatments that the national chiropractic societies have discarded because they were found to be ineffective.
mckenzie
the reality is, some MD’s would have people believe we need protection from everything and everyone except them. As for your allegation that you can refute efficacy of most chiropractic interventions with competing studies consider this. Most research trials on pharma interventions are funded by drug companies so the outcome of many of those studies might be forgone conclusion because, well, that’s how the game is played. The chiropractic research world has no such luxury of drug companies funding studies.
the reality, my friend, is that chiropractic care is growing in use among the population and Chiropractors are increasingly being integrated into the mainstream health care system. In my hometown for instance, Doctors of Chiropractic have begun working alongside MD’s in provincially funded clinics and are paid at the same hourly wage.
It’s not the 1960’s anymore. You aren’t the first crusader against chiropractic and you won’t be the last. But know this. You are fighting a losing battle.
VYAMA, I'm actually having a discussion with the OP writer, so I don't know how you think my posts are shutting that down.Oh ok. Good for you.
But that's not at all what you do in these discussions. You just share your beliefs and then insult anyone who doesn't accept them.What was my belief here? Or my opinion? That you're an automaton? That's true, that is opinion. What other beliefs or opinions did I espouse?
mckenzie the reality is, some MD's would have people believe we need protection from everything and everyone except them. As for your allegation that you can refute efficacy of most chiropractic interventions with competing studies consider this. Most research trials on pharma interventions are funded by drug companies so the outcome of many of those studies might be forgone conclusion because, well, that's how the game is played. The chiropractic research world has no such luxury of drug companies funding studies. the reality, my friend, is that chiropractic care is growing in use among the population and Chiropractors are increasingly being integrated into the mainstream health care system. In my hometown for instance, Doctors of Chiropractic have begun working alongside MD's in provincially funded clinics and are paid at the same hourly wage. It's not the 1960's anymore. You aren't the first crusader against chiropractic and you won't be the last. But know this. You are fighting a losing battle.That's right and lot's of employers insurance companies have chiro visits built into them. Must be some kind of efficacy going on there...them sunsabitches are tight with the money! It's all about efficacy. That's the name of the game. Or is that opinion too?
mckenzie the reality, my friend, is that chiropractic care is growing in use among the population and Chiropractors are increasingly being integrated into the mainstream health care system.... It's not the 1960's anymore. You aren't the first crusader against chiropractic and you won't be the last. But know this. You are fighting a losing battle.The discussion here was not about the popularity of chiropractic care but about its benefits and scientific validity or lack thereof. People believe in and participate in all sorts of silly things from homeopathy to faith healing. The fact that a small percentage ( 8.5% in the U.S.) use chiropractic care is proof only that there will always be some people who will get better no matter what you do to them, even if the treatment is entirely ineffecive. That's what we call the placebo effect. That's why the only measure of the value of a treatment is when it is properly studied and measured against a placebo control group. That's also why there are hundreds of entirely useless and just as successful products sold in health food stores and alternative medicine shops in every country.
Sidney1,
As for your allegation that you can refute efficacy of most chiropractic interventions with competing studies consider this. Most research trials on pharma interventions are funded by drug companies so the outcome of many of those studies might be forgone conclusion because, well, that’s how the game is played. The chiropractic research world has no such luxury of drug companies funding studies.So, this argument makes no sense. First off, the studies that show a lack of efficacy to chiropractic aren't funded by Big Pharma, and they have nothing to do with that industry. Studies showing chiro doesn't work aren't part of some kind of plot to make only drugs look like they work. And yes, of course financial bias in the pharma industry is a problem. That has nothing to do with whether or not chiro works, though, it's just a distraction. If your pint is that drugs have evidence showing they work where chiro doesn't only because of funding bias, then you're ignoring 1) the regulatory oversight which reduces funding bias, 2) the study methodology which reduces funding bias, and 3) all of the studies showing therapies other than drugs work. Funding bias shifts the balance of the literature in favor of drugs, but it doesn't make the entire medical literature wrong or irrelevant. And if you are worried about funding bias, then you should be worried about the chiro industry too. The industry generates billions of dollars in revenue, and this supports colleges of chiropractic and journals which conduct and publish chiro research. Research money doesn't materialize magically. Someone always pays for medical research, and usually that money comes from an industry interested in using and/or selling the therapy. The chiro industry has its own professional lobby, which contributes to campaigns and lobbies politicians just like every other industry. So you can't simply say that the research for chiro is pure and the research for other medical therapies, including drugs, is so corrupt it should be ignored. Finally, you ignore all the other kinds of bias that influence studies. That vast majority of the sources of error in medical research have nothing to do with money, but with confirmation bias, selection bias, placebo effects, and all kind sof othe rmethodological and cognitive errors that obscure the truth about therapies being tested. What you are doing here is constructing a narrative where research is meaningful if it supports your position and worthless if it doesn't. That's the mark of a true crusader.
mckenzie.... Here are a few studies for you to no doubt find fault with which point to efficacy of chiropractic.. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003 (Jul 15); 28 (14): 1490–1502 J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2005 (Jan); 28 (1): 3–11 http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/ABSTRACTS/Adding_Chiropractic_Manipulative_Therapy.shtml BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 (Aug 28); 13: 162 ~I quickly looked through these studies. None of them have sham controls, they are only compared to other treatments. In addition while there is little information available in the abstracts concerning what they call "Standard Medical Care" at least one of the studies implies that the standard care was only medication. If true then the authors of the study don't know what standard care is. Standard medical care for lower back pain includes in addition to anti-inflammatories, the use of local heat, moderate activity to reduce stiffness, and when appropriate, physical therapy. Also as McKenzie already correctly pointed out, one needs to look at the entirety of the research done with an attempt to grade the quality of the studies and combine the data in a meta-analysis. Short of that its easy for anyone to cherry pick the few studies that simply support their own personal point of view which is what you have done here.
wow…you are in the medical profession and you criticize studies that are done in respected journals which are utilized by your own profession (all three are listed on index medicus) you set a standard higher than your own profession utilizes…but then that has always been the way in which the medical profession has judged chiropractic…we are held to a higher standard than medicine itself is…oh, the hypocrisy…!
wow...you are in the medical profession and you criticize studies that are done in respected journals which are utilized by your own profession (all three are listed on index medicus) you set a standard higher than your own profession utilizes...but then that has always been the way in which the medical profession has judged chiropractic...we are held to a higher standard than medicine itself is...oh, the hypocrisy...!Yes that IS how medicine works. we do not accept the outcome of a study as fact simply because it was published in a journal somewhere. Each study has to be judged on its merits regardless of where it was published. The studies you have listed have significant flaws as I outlined. That is the difference between chiropractic and medicine. We can't just go and cherry pick the few studies that support our point of view. The results have to be reproducible and verifiable and the weight of the evidence determines what our recommendations will be.
to senior member...you may want to look through JMPT, a peer reviewed journal which contains a number of chiropractic research studies..i'll provide you with a number of studies in other peer reviewed journals.....now one other thing to consider...here in canada where the public has the choice of going to one's MD and being seen for free...or visit a chiropractor ...in which case, you will be required to pay for service (unless you have been injured in a MVA or have had a workplace injury, in which place, we are covered). Now if what Chiropractor's did was as much scientific nonsense as you say it is...then why would people choose to see us? For exactly the same reason people buy snake oil and homeopathic remedies. Especially when they can get medical care for free...the answer lies in the fact that what we do provides relief for people and it is a means of getting musculoskeletal problems alleviated drug free... Look, it bothers me when my colleagues make outlandish claims about things outside our area of expertise. Just as it bothers me when family doctors try and deal with treating back and neck pain in patients which is biomechanical in nature -which is the majority of them. There is virtually nothing medicine can provide for these patients and a good MD will find a Chiropractor in their area to work with. It happens here routinely. I refer out to a number of MD's and they to me. When they do, I will send back a report of my findings and inform them of my intended treatment plan. I have no problem when those in the medical community get irate when they see a chiropractor advertising that they can cure asthma or whatever. But to try and discredit the whole profession will just leave you looking like a bitter jaded person with a personal vendetta. The chiropractic professiom discredits itself. These are the kind of things that are taught in chiropractic colleges! Chiropractors are taught to ignore medical science and the scientific method. When chiropractors bring themselves and their "profession" into the scientific community and use scientific methods, they may receive more respect. As long as they remain outside it their claims will be looked upon skeptically. It's up to chiropractors and the chiropractic community to show evidence that every one of their claims is scientifiically valid and that they can stand up to scientific scrutiny. It is not up to the medical community to prove them false. Nevertheless, the medical community has shown that many chiropractic claims are NOT scientifically valid and that some can cause damage. Meanwhile, chiropractic colleges continue to teach a philosophy and methods of treatment that are NOT scientifically valid. They SHOULD be discredited. And one other thing. We don't need an MD telling us what we can and cannot treat or who should be sent to us by referral...save your arrogant patronizing attitude as it doesn't work in 2016 anymore. People have many choices for healthcare. And, Chiropractors are portal of entry physicians which means patients don't need a referral to see us. Nobody needs a referral to see "Snake Oil Sam" either. If our ""arrogant patronizing" attitude doesn't work in 2016 anymore, it's because chiropractic philosophy and techniques have NEVER been shown to work scientifically. When you can show that they are and that chiropractic colleges are NOT teaching snake oil techniques, you might have a case worth considering. As I said previously, i'll provide some more research data shortly. Let's have a healthy discussion without the hyperbole folks...We'll be waiting.
I have been saddened by the high-pressure sales by Maximized Living in Indianapolis Indiana. The office operation was as described by other postings here. I felt like I was being herded through the diagnostic procedure and other patients were like hampsters being rushed through the procedures. Initial visit with husband who was told he had spinal pressure on the nerves to his heart and the condition was extremely threatening. I was told I had stage 2 arthritis in my spine and my condition was extremely serious. We were scheduled to come in on Saturday for a presentation about care options. It was like being intimidated by a used car salesman but it was a chiropractor. We were told my monthly visits would be $850 and my husband’s would be $1200, but entirely necessary if we wanted to maintain our health. When we said we did not have the money we were suddenly treated as second class citizens by Dr. S. Horrible experience. I feel like this chiropractic office’s staff would say just about anything to get clients (victims) to sign on the dotted line. Felt totally scammed.
<![CDATA[
to senior member…you may want to look through JMPT, a peer reviewed journal which contains a number of chiropractic research studies…i’ll provide you with a number of studies in other peer reviewed journals…now one other thing to consider…here in canada where the public has the choice of going to one’s MD and being seen for free…or visit a chiropractor …in which case, you will be required to pay for service (unless you have been injured in a MVA or have had a workplace injury, in which place, we are covered). Now if what Chiropractor’s did was as much scientific nonsense as you say it is…then why would people choose to see us?
For exactly the same reason people buy snake oil and homeopathic remedies.
Especially when they can get medical care for free…the answer lies in the fact that what we do provides relief for people and it is a means of getting musculoskeletal problems alleviated drug free…
Look, it bothers me when my colleagues make outlandish claims about things outside our area of expertise. Just as it bothers me when family doctors try and deal with treating back and neck pain in patients which is biomechanical in nature -which is the majority of them. There is virtually nothing medicine can provide for these patients and a good MD will find a Chiropractor in their area to work with. It happens here routinely. I refer out to a number of MD’s and they to me. When they do, I will send back a report of my findings and inform them of my intended treatment plan.
I have no problem when those in the medical community get irate when they see a chiropractor advertising that they can cure asthma or whatever. But to try and discredit the whole profession will just leave you looking like a bitter jaded person with a personal vendetta.
The chiropractic professiom discredits itself. These are the kind of things that are taught in chiropractic colleges! Chiropractors are taught to ignore medical science and the scientific method. When chiropractors bring themselves and their “profession” into the scientific community and use scientific methods, they may receive more respect. As long as they remain outside it their claims will be looked upon skeptically. It’s up to chiropractors and the chiropractic community to show evidence that every one of their claims is scientifiically valid and that they can stand up to scientific scrutiny. It is not up to the medical community to prove them false. Nevertheless, the medical community has shown that many chiropractic claims are NOT scientifically valid and that some can cause damage. Meanwhile, chiropractic colleges continue to teach a philosophy and methods of treatment that are NOT scientifically valid. They SHOULD be discredited.
And one other thing. We don’t need an MD telling us what we can and cannot treat or who should be sent to us by referral…save your arrogant patronizing attitude as it doesn’t work in 2016 anymore. People have many choices for healthcare. And, Chiropractors are portal of entry physicians which means patients don’t need a referral to see us.
Nobody needs a referral to see “Snake Oil Sam” either. If our "“arrogant patronizing” attitude doesn’t work in 2016 anymore, it’s because chiropractic philosophy and techniques have NEVER been shown to work scientifically. When you can show that they are and that chiropractic colleges are NOT teaching snake oil techniques, you might have a case worth considering.
As I said previously, i’ll provide some more research data shortly.
Let’s have a healthy discussion without the hyperbole folks…
We’ll be waiting. ]>
Sidney1,As for your allegation that you can refute efficacy of most chiropractic interventions with competing studies consider this. Most research trials on pharma interventions are funded by drug companies so the outcome of many of those studies might be forgone conclusion because, well, that’s how the game is played. The chiropractic research world has no such luxury of drug companies funding studies.So, this argument makes no sense. First off, the studies that show a lack of efficacy to chiropractic aren't funded by Big Pharma, and they have nothing to do with that industry. Studies showing chiro doesn't work aren't part of some kind of plot to make only drugs look like they work. And yes, of course financial bias in the pharma industry is a problem. That has nothing to do with whether or not chiro works, though, it's just a distraction. If your pint is that drugs have evidence showing they work where chiro doesn't only because of funding bias, then you're ignoring 1) the regulatory oversight which reduces funding bias, 2) the study methodology which reduces funding bias, and 3) all of the studies showing therapies other than drugs work. Funding bias shifts the balance of the literature in favor of drugs, but it doesn't make the entire medical literature wrong or irrelevant. And if you are worried about funding bias, then you should be worried about the chiro industry too. The industry generates billions of dollars in revenue, and this supports colleges of chiropractic and journals which conduct and publish chiro research. Research money doesn't materialize magically. Someone always pays for medical research, and usually that money comes from an industry interested in using and/or selling the therapy. The chiro industry has its own professional lobby, which contributes to campaigns and lobbies politicians just like every other industry. So you can't simply say that the research for chiro is pure and the research for other medical therapies, including drugs, is so corrupt it should be ignored. Finally, you ignore all the other kinds of bias that influence studies. That vast majority of the sources of error in medical research have nothing to do with money, but with confirmation bias, selection bias, placebo effects, and all kind sof othe rmethodological and cognitive errors that obscure the truth about therapies being tested. What you are doing here is constructing a narrative where research is meaningful if it supports your position and worthless if it doesn't. That's the mark of a true crusader.
I tried to respond to Sidney, who said he would send data supporting chiropractic. When I tried to
fix a sentence my submission would not go through because it said it could be spam. The correction was essentially the same as the original post, except for a few additional words and corrected typos. I tried several times and got the same result. Something is wrong with the CFI Forum program.
I wanted to point out that after a year and a month, Sidney had never provided the data he had promised.