Quacks

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Excelsius said:
I agree, but that's because there isn't a lot of research done on vitamins. Why would someone waste his/her time on vitamin research when he can spend that time working for Viagra and making a lot of money? Any research into these things takes some level of altruism, which many lack. The least we can do is not attack it until it is properly studied.

There was another study that showed the elderly taking vitamin E have an increased chance of death (JHU, I think). But here is the catch - vitamin E, like most vitamins, is not made of just one molecule. It consists of several types of tocopherols and tocotrienols. The artificial vitamin E that you buy consists of not only just ONE of the useful forms (tocopherol, which is far less potent anti-oxidant than tocotrienol), but it contains 50% junk that your body has no use for. That is because synthetic vitamin E is made of d,l-alpha-tocopherol. The body has no use for the levorotatory enantiomer, therefore it is junk. Yet the study at JHU used this synthetic form. How can we conclude vitamin E is inefficient or even harmful when we give the patients only 10% of vitamin E (missing alpha, beta, gamma, delta tocopherols and tocotrienols) of which 50% could be harmful (no studies on the effects of the levorotatory enantiomer)? It could be the L enantiomer to blame and without a proper control, you can't ascertain that.

My point is that things are not as simple. I have had a strong interest in supplements because I want to know, rather than let some vitamin sellers tell me what is good or bad for me. In my research I found that it is much more difficult to get the vitamins you need than just going to Rite Aid and buying one. You really have to get down to the molecular level, which the average person cannot do. That's why instead of banning all vitamins, I think doctors should take the more active approach and recommend that manufacturers call something vitamin E ONLY if it contains all eight forms and no useless enantiomers (otherwise the label must say "synthetic, 10% vitamin E", just like "10% juice"). We have a lot of work to do here.

As a side note, I did a small vitamin experiment myself. I fed huge amounts of vitamin A to identical rabbits (my sister's, but she didn't know:laugh:). One of them got the synthetic vitamin A, the other the natural from fish oil (I made sure they both got the same IUs). After a week, the rabbit that was taking the synthetic one began to look sick and lost about 30% of its fur. The other rabbit? Healthy as a bull. Now sure, this is a small study with an insignificant P, but it still demonstrates something. I think there have also been studies in the poising by synthetic vitamin A for people who spend long time in the Arctic, but no such effects have been observed with natural A...
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say here exactly? Why would the rabbit being fed the "huge amount" of "natural Vit A" not develop Vit A toxicity? Do you believe the only reason the other rabbit appeared ill was because of synthetic components?
Members don't see this ad.
 
cpants said:
Exactly. This is the problem with vitamin supplementation. Do you want to give the whole population bioactive chemicals, when only 10% actually need the supplement.
Click to expand...
See above.

cpants said:
IMO, better to encourage a healthy diet, regular exercise and then treat deficiencies should they arise.
Click to expand...

Encouraging a healthy diet and regular exercise are of course critical (it's a shame these recommendations are given little more than lip service in practice). And of course frank deficiencies should be treated. But don't confuse minimal intakes to avoid scurvy, beriberi, etc with optimal intakes to promote health.

cpants said:
On a side note, nutritional requirements are notoriously based on very shady science. We frankly do not know what the optimal levels of most vitamins are.
Click to expand...

Science marches on and we learn more everyday. And I think a lot of researchers out there would take issue with your characterization of their life's work as "shady".

cpants said:
Furthermore, vitamins can have negative effects even in sub-overdose concentrations. A famous recent example: a recent study of the protective effects of Vit. E and selenium had to be stopped, because the supplements were actually shown to increase cancer and diabetes risk.
Click to expand...

As Excelsius noted, vitamin E is a family of 8 compounds: 4 tocopherols and 4 tocotrienols. To give just a synthetic dl-alpha-tocopherol and make claims about vitamin E is just silly but it happens all the time.

A similar example of "shady" science would be the recent study of vitamin D for breast cancer, a large study surely costing millions of dollars. The headlines? "Vitamin D worthless for breast cancer." The problem? They used a dose of 400 IU of vitamin D. EVERYONE knows now that 400 IU is peeing in the wind in terms of dosage, so no kidding there was no effect found. At least se a meaningful dose (not a dangerously high dose, just a meaningful one)! To all of you who have applied for research money and got none, this kind of crap should make your blood boil.
 
Last edited:
facetguy said:
There are many studies that would strongly disagree with this. Again, I haven't read through your whole link, but I'm thinking the RDA values used there are the older, much lower values. We know now that the minimum serum 25-OH-D is 30 ng/mL (the older value was around 20). Below 30 or 32 ng/mL, we see an elevated PTH and calcium starts getting ripped out of bone. Many now consider the optimal (not just the minimal) levels of 25-OH-D to be around 50-60 ng/mL.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a source for this?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Excelsius said:
As a side note, I did a small vitamin experiment myself. I fed huge amounts of vitamin A to identical rabbits (my sister's, but she didn't know:laugh:). One of them got the synthetic vitamin A, the other the natural from fish oil (I made sure they both got the same IUs). After a week, the rabbit that was taking the synthetic one began to look sick and lost about 30% of its fur. The other rabbit? Healthy as a bull. Now sure, this is a small study with an insignificant P, but it still demonstrates something.
Click to expand...

That your sister should keep you away from her rabbits?

seriously, dude.
 
Excelsius said:
I agree, but that's because there isn't a lot of research done on vitamins. Why would someone waste his/her time on vitamin research when he can spend that time working for Viagra and making a lot of money? Any research into these things takes some level of altruism, which many lack. The least we can do is not attack it until it is properly studied.

There was another study that showed the elderly taking vitamin E have an increased chance of death (JHU, I think). But here is the catch - vitamin E, like most vitamins, is not made of just one molecule. It consists of several types of tocopherols and tocotrienols. The artificial vitamin E that you buy consists of not only just ONE of the useful forms (tocopherol, which is far less potent anti-oxidant than tocotrienol), but it contains 50% junk that your body has no use for. That is because synthetic vitamin E is made of d,l-alpha-tocopherol. The body has no use for the levorotatory enantiomer, therefore it is junk. Yet the study at JHU used this synthetic form. How can we conclude vitamin E is inefficient or even harmful when we give the patients only 10% of vitamin E (missing alpha, beta, gamma, delta tocopherols and tocotrienols) of which 50% could be harmful (no studies on the effects of the levorotatory enantiomer)? It could be the L enantiomer to blame and without a proper control, you can't ascertain that.

My point is that things are not as simple. I have had a strong interest in supplements because I want to know, rather than let some vitamin sellers tell me what is good or bad for me. In my research I found that it is much more difficult to get the vitamins you need than just going to Rite Aid and buying one. You really have to get down to the molecular level, which the average person cannot do. That's why instead of banning all vitamins, I think doctors should take the more active approach and recommend that manufacturers call something vitamin E ONLY if it contains all eight forms and no useless enantiomers (otherwise the label must say "synthetic, 10% vitamin E", just like "10% juice"). We have a lot of work to do here.

As a side note, I did a small vitamin experiment myself. I fed huge amounts of vitamin A to identical rabbits (my sister's, but she didn't know:laugh:). One of them got the synthetic vitamin A, the other the natural from fish oil (I made sure they both got the same IUs). After a week, the rabbit that was taking the synthetic one began to look sick and lost about 30% of its fur. The other rabbit? Healthy as a bull. Now sure, this is a small study with an insignificant P, but it still demonstrates something. I think there have also been studies in the poising by synthetic vitamin A for people who spend long time in the Arctic, but no such effects have been observed with natural A...
Click to expand...

Uhhh... I'm a little rusty, but I think that vitamin A is really toxic in high doses. It's a fat soluble vitamin that you have to be careful with. The body doesn't know or care where you get your vitamins from-- vitamin A is vitamin A molecularly. So if you got it from a fish or a pill, your cells really couldn't care less. The problem with fat soluble vitamins is that you can store them in, well, fat. If I'm remembering my biochemistry correctly, it's also crucial for cell differentiation, which is why you have to be careful taking straight vitamin A-- you want to take beta carotene instead, which your body converts to vitamin A if it needs the vitamin. The rest you just pee out.

I'm pretty sure that some drugs utilize vitamin A derivatives to target cells like chemotherapeutic agents in certain leukemias-- AML type 3, and I think that Accutane contains a vitamina A derivative. Both are teratogens.

So these supplements aren't always that harmless... you really have to know what you're doing before you start recommending them to patients/customers/clients-- I wouldn't recommend much of CAM to a patient because I don't think that it's been proven. There is too much risk for too little benefit. If a patient wanted to do acupuncture, that's one thing, but to choke down a bunch of herbs that I have no idea what they're doing; I'm not going to recommend that to find out 10 years down the road that they cause cancer. That's unethical.
 
Last edited:
To whose of you who mention the sunniest countries i.e. middle eastern countries i.e. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. as having vitamin D deficient people, you also have to take into account cultural factors.

In the Middle East and other areas of the world where people dress very conservatively to the point that the women never expose any part of their body in the outside, it is going to be hard to get sunlight exposure.

But I agree its these sort of people i.e. those who don't eat certain foods i.e. B12 rich foods like meat (i.e. vegetarian hindus), or who don't do certain other things like exposing themselves in the sunlight (i.e. muslims) for whom vitamins are truly meant for.
 
gujuDoc said:
To whose of you who mention the sunniest countries i.e. middle eastern countries i.e. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. as having vitamin D deficient people, you also have to take into account cultural factors.

In the Middle East and other areas of the world where people dress very conservatively to the point that the women never expose any part of their body in the outside, it is going to be hard to get sunlight exposure.

But I agree its these sort of people i.e. those who don't eat certain foods i.e. B12 rich foods like meat (i.e. vegetarian hindus), or who don't do certain other things like exposing themselves in the sunlight (i.e. muslims) for whom vitamins are truly meant for.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree...its the cultural/dress issues that impact sun exposure. But I think these findings are still surprising when you consider just how much sun they get in those parts of the world. Even more surprising perhaps were the studies from hot sunny regions right here in the US, where the findings were similar.
 
facetguy said:
Yes, I agree...its the cultural/dress issues that impact sun exposure. But I think these findings are still surprising when you consider just how much sun they get in those parts of the world. Even more surprising perhaps were the studies from hot sunny regions right here in the US, where the findings were similar.
Click to expand...

Sub-saharan Africans do get Rickets (despite the lack of the above stated cultural/dress issues) though i guess it could possibly be more from lack of calcium than Vit D.
 
Tired said:
Those of you in HPSP will enjoy this:

In the military system, chiropractors chart in AHLTA just like everyone else in order to measure their RVUs. But in order to generate RVUs, you need a diagnosis. But what diagnosis can a chiropractor put down for non-pathologic subluxations that only a chiropractor can see on xray?

So they've invented their own diagnosis: "Non-allopathic lumbar lesions".

:smuggrin:
Click to expand...

Invented? They're in the ICD-9. Did chiropractors invent the ICD-9?

And these refer to functional problems involving the spine, not a pathological lesion in the traditional sense. Why is that so hard to grasp? Maybe it's comments along the lines of "Well, Mr. Smith, your xrays and MRI are negative, so there is nothing wrong with you...Must all be in your head" that drives people to seek alternatives for these functional problems.
 
facetguy said:
Invented? They're in the ICD-9. Did chiropractors invent the ICD-9?

And these refer to functional problems involving the spine, not a pathological lesion in the traditional sense. Why is that so hard to grasp? Maybe it's comments along the lines of "Well, Mr. Smith, your xrays and MRI are negative, so there is nothing wrong with you...Must all be in your head" that drives people to seek alternatives for these functional problems.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you have to admit that the title, "non-allopathic lumbar lesion" is kind of funny. I mean, most of us would have said, lumbar pain of unknown etiology or some bullcrap like that.

However, if Tired is correct and his chiropractic "colleagues" (I use the quotation marks because if I don't he might crap a brick-- I mean, 4 years of undergraduate, 4 years of med school, and then residency... to call a chiropracter his colleague just might make him throw his back out-- and then what would he do? It's already been established by this thread that there are very few effective treatments for back pain.)are seeing lesions that no one else in the allopathic community can see after years and years of training-- now THAT is some serious voodoo. You gotta start wondering what herbs are in their tea that they are seeing lesions that trained RADIOLOGISTS (who do nothing but sit in a dark room ALL DAY LONG reading film after film) don't see.
 
Yes our limited diagnostic tools do not give us an answer, so clearly you must seek out someone who can give you an answer. And clearly because they are able to give you an answer, their answer is legitimate.
 
silas2642 said:
Yeah, but you have to admit that the title, "non-allopathic lumbar lesion" is kind of funny. I mean, most of us would have said, lumbar pain of unknown etiology or some bullcrap like that.

However, if Tired is correct and his chiropractic "colleagues" (I use the quotation marks because if I don't he might crap a brick-- I mean, 4 years of undergraduate, 4 years of med school, and then residency... to call a chiropracter his colleague just might make him throw his back out-- and then what would he do? It's already been established by this thread that there are very few effective treatments for back pain.)are seeing lesions that no one else in the allopathic community can see after years and years of training-- now THAT is some serious voodoo. You gotta start wondering what herbs are in their tea that they are seeing lesions that trained RADIOLOGISTS (who do nothing but sit in a dark room ALL DAY LONG reading film after film) don't see.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that the older chiropractic thought was much more static in nature, meaning there are bones out of place which can be seen on xray. The current model is more dynamic, more functional, and considers these "lesions" as regions of dysfunction. Using xray to simply see bones out of place is a dying notion. I think that's where some confusion arises (seeing things radiologists can't, etc.).
 
Members don't see this ad :)
meister said:
Yes our limited diagnostic tools do not give us an answer, so clearly you must seek out someone who can give you an answer. And clearly because they are able to give you an answer, their answer is legitimate.
Click to expand...

If that's the treatment/answer that works for that patient, then yes, you are correct, sir.
 
grandslam521 said:
I agree with this; however, it appears that NHANES showed only about 10 percent of the sample having a deficient amount of Vit D.
Click to expand...

Grandslam, I just read this in the current issue of American J Clin Nutrition. It pertains to some NHANES vitamin D data. Thought you might be interested.
www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/88/6/1455

There's a nice summary diagram in there about vitamin D's endocrine roles. Despite all the recent data being published on vitamin D, it is still below the radar. Your vitamin D knowledge to date already puts you ahead of most of your colleagues in this regard.:thumbup:
 
facetguy said:
Grandslam, I just read this in the current issue of American J Clin Nutrition. It pertains to some NHANES vitamin D data. Thought you might be interested.
www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/88/6/1455

There's a nice summary diagram in there about vitamin D's endocrine roles. Despite all the recent data being published on vitamin D, it is still below the radar. Your vitamin D knowledge to date already puts you ahead of most of your colleagues in this regard.:thumbup:
Click to expand...
I do not think any allopaths or osteopaths (or even premed) question the usefulness of vitamins. They're called vitamins (vital minerals) for a reason. What I and others are questioning is the validity of taking oral vitamins when one does not have a deficiency (i.e. one's general well being is unaffected). The upper limits of vitamin consumption are just as important as the lower limits of vitamin consumption, but this all but ignored by the proponents of CAM.

As for your linked review, it would appear that monitoring changes in Vitamin D is important. But this sentence says it all...
"Looker et al used sophisticated statistical techniques to tease out the shift in the mean serum 25(OH)D concentrations between the 2 decades that was due to changes in assay methods."
The measurment techniques were not the same between trials. Therefore it is very difficult to reliably compare the two set of data. The work done in the paper was on the data provided by the NHANES, and the data provided by NHANES obviously did not include the accuracy of the two methodologies on the same population group.

And why not just link the article? http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/88/6/1519?ijkey=b10d651be13ac3f0c05e9e85f77ed5a5d8ed9a1d
 
Last edited:
Vadd0 said:
I do not think any allopaths or osteopaths (or even premed) question the usefulness of vitamins. They're called vitamins (vital minerals) for a reason. What I and others are questioning is the validity of taking oral vitamins when one does not have a deficiency (i.e. one's general well being is unaffected). The upper limits of vitamin consumption are just as important as the lower limits of vitamin consumption, but this all but ignored by the proponents of CAM.
Click to expand...

I guess this implies that I am advocating megadoses of vitamins? I'd invite you to go back and read this entire thread; you'll see I've never taken that position at all. And I would suggest you not make a blanket assumption that "the proponents of CAM" collectively take such a position either.

Vadd0 said:
As for your linked review, it would appear that monitoring changes in Vitamin D is important. But this sentence says it all...
"Looker et al used sophisticated statistical techniques to tease out the shift in the mean serum 25(OH)D concentrations between the 2 decades that was due to changes in assay methods."
The measurment techniques were not the same between trials. Therefore it is very difficult to reliably compare the two set of data. The work done in the paper was on the data provided by the NHANES, and the data provided by NHANES obviously did not include the accuracy of the two methodologies on the same population group.
Click to expand...

So what? What are you saying here? Are you suggesting that monitoring vitamin D status is unimportant? Anyone who has been following the vitamin D research clearly knows that recommendations, methods, etc are changing based on newer data. I simply was giving Grandslam a heads-up on a new article that discusses something he had inquired about earlier, i.e., NHANES data. Frankly, there is better data out there now anyway. Please clarify.

Vadd0 said:
And why not just link the article? http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/88/6/1519?ijkey=b10d651be13ac3f0c05e9e85f77ed5a5d8ed9a1d
Click to expand...

Because those of us without an institutional account don't have access to the full-text article. But thanks for the effort.
 
cpants said:
The sun still shines in the winter in all of the continental US and the vast majority of Canada (especially the populated parts). A Caucasian person needs about 10 minutes of sunlight per day to manufacture enough vitamin D; a person of color slightly more. These are exposure levels you can get walking to and from your car.

Regardless, my point was that your example was poor, since the professor would not, in fact, have to eat pounds of bluefish to get enough vitamin D, nor would he have to take pills. All he would need to do is eat a normal diet and get a little UV light.
Click to expand...

cpants,

I saw this and thought of you:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Even though koopa pointed out that I don't know anything about Canada (which is largely true), I still think this info would be valuable to you guys.

I think we have established that you were misinformed regarding the 'vitamin D production in winter' issue, which is fine, as we are all striving to learn new things every day. However, where you went wrong was in professing to know for sure that all one needs is sun exposure over the winter to maintain ample supplies of vitamin D, when clearly you actually knew very little on the subject.

So, I can't help but think that perhaps there are other health-related issues out there that you feel you know all about but in reality you don't. Perhaps CAM, chiropractic in particular, falls into this category. Become informed first, THEN criticize. And please don't feel as though I am somehow picking on you. On the contrary, I am simply trying to open your mind a bit, which can make you a better physician in the long run.
 
facetguy said:
cpants,

I saw this and thought of you:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Even though koopa pointed out that I don't know anything about Canada (which is largely true), I still think this info would be valuable to you guys.
Click to expand...

In the article you posted, the highest percent of "suboptimal" vitamin D levels was 16 year-old boys with 13 percent of the study population having suboptimal levels. So look at it this way, 87% of 16 year-old boys in Quebec have adequate vitamin D levels. Younger males and all females had even better results. Keep in mind, this is in an area where there is no cutaneous D production throughout the winter months. Do we really want to supplement the entire population, especially when the real health benefits, even for the suboptimal population, are dubious. We actually know very little about what the optimal levels of most vitamins are. Vitamin supplementation is a 2-way street. There could be benefits, but these are bioactive substances with side effects, drug interactions, and risk of adverse outcomes.

I think we have established that you were misinformed regarding the 'vitamin D production in winter' issue, which is fine, as we are all striving to learn new things every day. However, where you went wrong was in professing to know for sure that all one needs is sun exposure over the winter to maintain ample supplies of vitamin D, when clearly you actually knew very little on the subject.
Click to expand...
All one needs is sun exposure to maintain ample Vitamin D supplies over the winter. I stand by that statement, as it is fact. I admit that I was unaware that the angle of the sun prevents adequate absorption in northern latitudes. So, yes, Canadian professors may need supplementation (or exposure to an artificial UV light source) to maintain optimal levels. I remain unconvinced that we need to supplement the entire population, that having "suboptimal" levels (above levels of frank deficiency) will necessarily cause serious health problems, that we even know what the optimal Vitamin D levels are, and that supplementation of Vitamin D will improve patient health. My mind is open to being convinced otherwise.

So, I can't help but think that perhaps there are other health-related issues out there that you feel you know all about but in reality you don't. Perhaps CAM, chiropractic in particular, falls into this category. Become informed first, THEN criticize. And please don't feel as though I am somehow picking on you. On the contrary, I am simply trying to open your mind a bit, which can make you a better physician in the long run.
Click to expand...
I don't claim to know everything about any health-related issue, including CAM. I do know quite a bit about several CAM modalities, and I am unconvinced about their plausibility as effective, safe treatment. My mind is open to CAM treatments, in the sense that if they are proven safe and effective I am 100% in favor of using them to treat patients. Once these standards are met, treatments should be considered standard medicine instead of CAM.

You are throwing around a lot of accusations about not being open minded. To me, open-mindedness in medicine does not mean you try a therapy until it is proven unsafe. It means you keep an open mind when reading controlled studies evaluating treatment, and you are willing to adopt new and innovative treatments.

Please explain the biomechanics of chiropractic and show me evidence that it works and is safe. Considering the popularity of chiropractic in this country, there should be an overwhelming amount of evidence to draw from.
 
Last edited:
cpants said:
In the article you posted, the highest percent of "suboptimal" vitamin D levels was 16 year-old boys with 13 percent of the study population having suboptimal levels. So look at it this way, 87% of 16 year-old boys in Quebec have adequate vitamin D levels. Younger males and all females had even better results. Keep in mind, this is in an area where there is no cutaneous D production throughout the winter months. Do we really want to supplement the entire population, especially when the real health benefits, even for the suboptimal population, are dubious. We actually know very little about what the optimal levels of most vitamins are. Vitamin supplementation is a 2-way street. There could be benefits, but these are bioactive substances with side effects, drug interactions, and risk of adverse outcomes.
Click to expand...

The study I posted for your review was not intended to be an 'end-all'-type study. I just stumbled upon it and remembered our earlier discussion, so I forwarded it. Regarding the percentages of vitamin D insufficient/deficient people of all age groups, there is a rapidly growing body of evidence that these numbers are not looking very good. This spans from pregnant women, to their newborns (particularly those who are exclusively breastfed...breast milk is a poor source of vitamin D due to the mother's own vitamin D status), to young kids, to adults, to the elderly (who are particularly at risk for a variety of factors). I wouldn't walk away with the idea that only 13% of people are vitamin D deficient.

cpants said:
All one needs is sun exposure to maintain ample Vitamin D supplies over the winter. I stand by that statement, as it is fact. I admit that I was unaware that the angle of the sun prevents adequate absorption in northern latitudes. So, yes, Canadian professors may need supplementation (or exposure to an artificial UV light source) to maintain optimal levels.
Click to expand...

By northern latitudes, we are talking about anywhere above an imaginary line from roughly mid-California to North Carolina. Above that, we run into the winter UVB problem. You could MAYBE argue that if someone enters the winter months with a completely "full tank" of vitamin D, these stores just MIGHT carry them through the winter. Without blood testing, we are only guessing though.

cpants said:
I remain unconvinced that we need to supplement the entire population,
Click to expand...

I'm not really advocating that either. However, we do need to supplement those either at high risk (dark skin, elderly, house/hospital bound, etc) or those with lab-proven insufficiencies/deficiencies. But if we never think to test these people, how will we know they need supplementation?

cpants said:
... that having "suboptimal" levels (above levels of frank deficiency) will necessarily cause serious health problems, that we even know what the optimal Vitamin D levels are, and that supplementation of Vitamin D will improve patient health. My mind is open to being convinced otherwise.
Click to expand...

I would invite you to take a look at the newer vitamin D data. A growing list of experts and the current literature would disagree with your position.

cpants said:
I don't claim to know everything about any health-related issue, including CAM. I do know quite a bit about several CAM modalities, and I am unconvinced about their plausibility as effective, safe treatment. My mind is open to CAM treatments, in the sense that if they are proven safe and effective I am 100% in favor of using them to treat patients. Once these standards are met, treatments should be considered standard medicine instead of CAM.
Click to expand...

I'm just venting at those who make pronouncements about things that they clearly have never bothered to really look into.

cpants said:
You are throwing around a lot of accusations about not being open minded. To me, open-mindedness in medicine does not mean you try a therapy until it is proven unsafe. It means you keep an open mind when reading controlled studies evaluating treatment, and you are willing to adopt new and innovative treatments.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that to a large degree. Speaking for spinal manipulation specifically, there is a lot of literature out there. Some here, in this forum in particular, have never lifted a finger to check, yet still make uninformed statements and expect to be taken seriously. One went so far as to say that to be open-minded is nothing more than being gullible...what???? (That person also exposed himself/herself as totally lacking credentials with some of his/her other ridiculous comments...you know who you are!).

cpants said:
Please explain the biomechanics of chiropractic and show me evidence that it works and is safe. Considering the popularity of chiropractic in this country, there should be an overwhelming amount of evidence to draw from.
Click to expand...

It's all out there for your discovery! I'm not here to introduce a new theory, so it's not my job to track down all of the literature that's out there and "prove" anything. If I get time, I'll try to post some links to useful articles, if you are interested.
 
BlondDoctor said:
Hmm...would make sense...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vertebral_artery.png
Click to expand...

Thank you for the enlightenment.:sleep:

For those interested in getting up to speed on the latest, most thorough review of neck pain and its various treatments, please see the Feb 15th issue of Spine. This group of acknowledged experts from around the world culled through over 30,000 studies, selecting 1000 or so of them as acceptable quality for inclusion in this huge paper from the 'Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders'. (Warning: if you don't like chiropractors, you may not like some of the treatment recommendations within:p)

As for the stroke thing, this group published the following, now considered much more definitive than the typical isolated case-based reports that we sometimes see published:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
(be sure to read the last line of the abstract please)
 
Excelsius said:
As a side note, I did a small vitamin experiment myself. I fed huge amounts of vitamin A to identical rabbits (my sister's, but she didn't know:laugh:). One of them got the synthetic vitamin A, the other the natural from fish oil (I made sure they both got the same IUs). After a week, the rabbit that was taking the synthetic one began to look sick and lost about 30% of its fur. The other rabbit? Healthy as a bull.
Click to expand...

You seriously need to read this site:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/
 
facetguy said:
I'll admit that the older chiropractic thought was much more static in nature, meaning there are bones out of place which can be seen on xray. The current model is more dynamic, more functional, and considers these "lesions" as regions of dysfunction. Using xray to simply see bones out of place is a dying notion. I think that's where some confusion arises (seeing things radiologists can't, etc.).
Click to expand...

The hidden subtext of your post, that somehow modern chiropractors are more scientific and research-oriented; that they are pulling chiropractic into the modern era and making it a useful therapy, is ridiculous.

Come on folks. The chiropractic theory of disease and treatment has no relationship to reality at all. I will never refer to a chiropractor any more than I would refer to a homeopath, a Reiki healer, or a shaman. They're all ridiculous and the idea that you who are supposedly the best and brightest, the most educated people in the country can't call a spade a spade is equally so.

Good Lord.

http://www.studentdoctor.net/pandabearmd/2008/03/25/defending-the-pie/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Panda Bear said:
The hidden subtext of your post, that somehow modern chiropractors are more scientific and research-oriented; that they are pulling chiropractic into the modern era and making it a useful therapy, is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Why is it ridiculous? I tried to understand your point of view by reading through your blog, but quickly realized there wasn't much sense to be found there either. (I would think a busy resident wouldn't have the luxury of so much free time to waste.) If you don't think that the chiropractic profession has become more scientific and has produced more research than the chiros of, say, 50 years ago, then you are a lunatic and have no idea what you are talking about. Don't be lazy...take a look around the literature.

Panda Bear said:
Come on folks. The chiropractic theory of disease and treatment has no relationship to reality at all.
Click to expand...

Tell us why you feel that way. Clue us all in to your knowledge of the "chiropractic theory".

Panda Bear said:
I will never refer to a chiropractor...
Click to expand...

Gee, the chiropractic profession weeps.:laugh:
 
Tell us why you feel that way. Clue us all in to your knowledge of the "chiropractic theory".
Click to expand...

Why don't you give us some of the salient points since you're so pro-chiro?

Some points I'd like to see addressed: Why do chiros claim to be able to treat systemic diseases like DM, HTN, asthma, even cancers with manipulations? What is the biochemical/anatomical/ pathophysiological basis for such claims?

For example, how does cracking his back improve my patient's insulin sensitivity? are you going to reverse my patient's airway inflammation?
 
Last edited:
Facetguy, you have yet to explain a logical mechanism, or at least a modern theory, for how chiropractic works. Your standard response seems to be that we are lazy, and that we should consult the literature. Well, throw us a bone. Tell us your theory of how chiro works, and we can do our research and decide to what degree it is crap. Also, I would like to see a list of conditions for which you believe chiropractic care to be effective treatment.

If there is a body of research which shows chiropractic's effectiveness, why don't you post a couple of citations to review articles which show it based on review of a sampling of well-controlled studies. So far the stuff I've seen on PubMed and Cochrane have me leaning toward chiro being safe, but probably not effective for much of anything.
 
a few more questions:

What percentage of chiro's surveyed 20 years ago outright denied the effectiveness of immunizations? What is the history of chiropractic's opinion regarding immunology?

What were the underlying beliefs of chiropractic founder D. Palmer regarding the scope of diseases treatable by chiropractic care?

Have "subluxations" in the chiropractic sense ever been scientifically proven to exist? What training do chiropractors undergo to allow them to diagnose and treat subluxations that other health-care providers lack?
 
Bueller? Anyone there? Facetguy? At least educate us about subluxations?
 
geogil said:
Bueller? Anyone there? Facetguy? At least educate us about subluxations?
Click to expand...

Ha! I didn't realize you would be waiting with such interest. It's a busy season (office, shopping, parties, family stuff...), and there IS life beyond SDN! Geogil, you need to get out more:)
 
geogil said:
Why don't you give us some of the salient points since you're so pro-chiro?

Some points I'd like to see addressed: Why do chiros claim to be able to treat systemic diseases like DM, HTN, asthma, even cancers with manipulations? What is the biochemical/anatomical/ pathophysiological basis for such claims?

For example, how does cracking his back improve my patient's insulin sensitivity? are you going to reverse my patient's airway inflammation?
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is where we are getting bogged down. I don't know any chiros who proclaim this stuff. 50 or 75 years ago? Probably. Today, no way. At least how it relates to spinal manipulation. Now, if we were to look at diet, nutrition, exercise and other lifestyle changes for insulin sensitivity, to follow your example, then I think there is a significant contribution from chiropractors. Not as an alternative to MD care for a full-blown Type 2 DM patient, but as adjunctive care, or 'complementary' care if you will.

The typical chiro is seeing neck and back pain, and some headache cases. Nobody is promoting spinal manipulation for cancer.
 
coldweatherblue said:
a few more questions:

What percentage of chiro's surveyed 20 years ago outright denied the effectiveness of immunizations? What is the history of chiropractic's opinion regarding immunology?
Click to expand...

Good question. Speaking only for myself, my child has been vaccinated.

coldweatherblue said:
What were the underlying beliefs of chiropractic founder D. Palmer regarding the scope of diseases treatable by chiropractic care?
Click to expand...

Who cares? That was over 110 years ago and is no longer relevant. Has medicine changed at all over the last 110 years?

coldweatherblue said:
Have "subluxations" in the chiropractic sense ever been scientifically proven to exist? What training do chiropractors undergo to allow them to diagnose and treat subluxations that other health-care providers lack?
Click to expand...

The subluxation thing again. On the first day of chiropractic school, they give you a pair of Chiro-Matic Subluxo-Vision goggles, but only chiropractors are qualified to use them. If you are lucky, maybe you can find a gently used pair on Ebay.

I, myself, do not even use that term. There is no "magical" subluxation, just as there is nothing magical about what chiropractors do every day in practice. There are only boring old pain generators and their subsequent mechanical and neurophysiological effects. Sorry to disappoint you.
 
cpants said:
Facetguy, you have yet to explain a logical mechanism, or at least a modern theory, for how chiropractic works. Your standard response seems to be that we are lazy, and that we should consult the literature. Well, throw us a bone. Tell us your theory of how chiro works, and we can do our research and decide to what degree it is crap. Also, I would like to see a list of conditions for which you believe chiropractic care to be effective treatment.

If there is a body of research which shows chiropractic's effectiveness, why don't you post a couple of citations to review articles which show it based on review of a sampling of well-controlled studies. So far the stuff I've seen on PubMed and Cochrane have me leaning toward chiro being safe, but probably not effective for much of anything.
Click to expand...

Clearly, no one here is truly lazy. On the contrary, pursuing medicine requires motivation, energy, drive, etc. I only used that term to remind some that it doesn't make much sense to give expert opinion on a subject into which one hasn't bothered to even scratch the surface.

The current model of spinal manipulation involves such things as tissue injury, subsequent release of noxious chemicals (histamine, prostaglandins, bradykinin, etc) which sensitize nociceptors, associated inflammation and pain, resultant muscle spasm and biomechanical alterations (joint hypomobility, for example). As the regional biomechanics become altered, tissue mechanoreceptor firing is reduced, which further increases pain (remember that mechanorector afferentation travels via relatively large myelinated fibers, while nociceptive signals travel via smaller diameter fibers, which has ramifications at the dorsal horn level). Reduced afferentation also has central effects as well.

In a nutshell (and this is obviously the simplified version), spinal manipulation has both mechanical effects (physically moving joints and vertebrae) and neurophysiologic effects (improving mechanoreceptive afferetation and reducing nociceptor firing, etc). The most obvious effects are pain reduction and improved mobility. But there are likely more complex central effects as well (reducing central sensitization, stimulating descending inhibitory pathways, etc). We also know that spinal manipulation has effects on the sympathetic nervous system (there are references...I'll track them down if time permits), but the exact meaning of this is unclear at this point.

This reference, while a little heavy on the neuro, describes some of these thoughts:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This is the some of the stuff that chiropractic students and chiropractors are learning about.

Regarding your question about effectiveness studies, I've stated earlier that no single discipline has all the answers for spine pain patients, and the available studies confirm this. Spinal manipulation is not the answer for every patient. But there are patients who (brace yourself for this next part...) will not respond to standard medical care but who do quite well under chiropractic care, which includes among other things spinal manipulation. That's what the research says. So why deny your patients an opportunity to seek a safe, responsible, conservative form of treatment simply due to some silly dogmatic old-fashioned "us vs. them" mentality?
 
So I did a little googling and here is a rather detailed site from a local chiropracter.


And Here is a small vid from the site explaining how 'spinal mal-alignment' can cause otitis media.

According to this guy, the bones are out of alignement, which causes muscle spasms, which then somehow cause the eustachian tube to become inflamed with ensuing OM. 1+1 =3. He then claims that chiropractic intervention will resolve the OM. So an intervention will resolve a self-limiting illness.

Another vid from the site:

The difference between medicine and chiropractic:
The chiropracter says that chiropractic is concerend with health and wellness, while medicine is concerened with sickness and disease. "My job as a chiropracter is to allow you to have the fullest expression of life no matter what you do. I'm not looking to find out why you're sick, I'm looking to find out how to keep you healthy. Whereas medicine is from the outside in. They're looking to find out why you're sick, and what they can do to treat that sickness. The problem is that when they treat that sickness, they're treating one particular part of your body, and it [the sickness] often winds up showing up in a different part later on. Whereas with chiropractic, since we're taking care of the whole body, what we see is that the body is a self healing organism, and by taking care of it that way, the body works from the inside out, and all sorts of problems disappear when patients start to get adjusted. "

again, by treating self limiting diseases, which the body is capable of healing, chiropractic "works". Isn't chiro just "as concerened with one part of the body" as mainstream allopathic medicine? Is the spine not the source of illness in chiropractic theory?


facetguy, I gotta hand it to you for remaining diplomatic.
 
Last edited:
What we need is a blinded study that no IRB would approve:
three cohorts of patients with back pain
one cohort recieves nothing, no treatments, no drugs, no PT, nothing. From them we will learn what fraction will resolve their pain on their own.

one cohort is sedated and given an amnestic, and re-awoken 20 minutes later.
the third cohort is sedated, given the amnestic, and while sedated, subjected to the apropriate chiropractic manipulation.

between the two sedated groups, then, we should see whether it is simply the awareness that one is being treated that helps to resolve the pain, or if the manipulation itself is curative.
 
geogil said:
So I did a little googling and here is a rather detailed site from a local chiropracter.


And Here is a small vid from the site explaining how 'spinal mal-alignment' can cause otitis media.

According to this guy, the bones are out of alignement, which causes muscle spasms, which then somehow cause the eustachian tube to become inflamed with ensuing OM. 1+1 =3. He then claims that chiropractic intervention will resolve the OM. So an intervention will resolve a self-limiting illness.

Another vid from the site:

The difference between medicine and chiropractic:
The chiropracter says that chiropractic is concerend with health and wellness, while medicine is concerened with sickness and disease. "My job as a chiropracter is to allow you to have the fullest expression of life no matter what you do. I'm not looking to find out why you're sick, I'm looking to find out how to keep you healthy. Whereas medicine is from the outside in. They're looking to find out why you're sick, and what they can do to treat that sickness. The problem is that when they treat that sickness, they're treating one particular part of your body, and it [the sickness] often winds up showing up in a different part later on. Whereas with chiropractic, since we're taking care of the whole body, what we see is that the body is a self healing organism, and by taking care of it that way, the body works from the inside out, and all sorts of problems disappear when patients start to get adjusted. "

again, by treating self limiting diseases, which the body is capable of healing, chiropractic "works". Isn't chiro just "as concerened with one part of the body" as mainstream allopathic medicine? Is the spine not the source of illness in chiropractic theory?


facetguy, I gotta hand it to you for remaining diplomatic.
Click to expand...

I don't know all the details about chiropractors and certainly there are some crazy practicans out there which do not represent the entire chiropractic discipline (much less the entire CAM), but I do know that doctors mainly concentrate on treatment, rather than prevention. That's what "concentrated on sickness and disease" means and I know that's the case. If you disagree, read some articles by AMA. They admit that doctors lack in the prevention aspect. Drug companies drive this whole thing. As a med student, your brain is probably filled with information as to what drug to use to treat thousands of diseases. How much space does it leave for prevention? It must take an astute and passionate doctor to forgo prescriptions and think about causes first. Many doctors are robotic that way. I have met only two doctors who were very active about pursuing causation and prevention rather than prescription. Admittedly, prescription makes your life easier - you just say "take this and go." And think about it, why do you think people go to chiros? It's because their doctors can't help them. I know several people who have excellent health insurance and some are wealthy, yet they are frustrated with their docs and have chosen the CAM route. Some of them say that going chiro has helped the pain that their doc couldn't resolve after more than two years. Maybe the particular doc wasn't a good one, but realize that it's probably the same way with chiros and CAM in general - you have some that are good, but many that are bad or inadequate. It applies to med students too and you probably can tell even in a forum like this who's who.
 
geogil said:
What we need is a blinded study that no IRB would approve:
three cohorts of patients with back pain
one cohort recieves nothing, no treatments, no drugs, no PT, nothing. From them we will learn what fraction will resolve their pain on their own.

one cohort is sedated and given an amnestic, and re-awoken 20 minutes later.
the third cohort is sedated, given the amnestic, and while sedated, subjected to the apropriate chiropractic manipulation.

between the two sedated groups, then, we should see whether it is simply the awareness that one is being treated that helps to resolve the pain, or if the manipulation itself is curative.
Click to expand...


While not addressing whether your conception is the best way to do this or not, I will note that your set up is not quite right in terms of control. Instead of sedating two separate group of patients just to establish control, you can have both groups be manipulated: one should be manipulated with a real chiro using all the proper techniques, the other one should be lightly touched as if being manipulated and you let the group know that it has been subjected to full chiro manipulation, when in fact it hasn't. All you have to do is trick the mind. No sedation necessary and no ethical limitations involved. If the "light touch" was actually a full massage by a masseuse, then you'll hit two birds with one stone in terms of comparing chiro to a massage. Still, I'd suggest keeping the control and just adding another group massaged by a masseuse.
 
Last edited:
From the ACA website (amerchiro.org):
Chiropractic Education

Educational requirements for doctors of chiropractic are among the most stringent of any of the health care professions.

The typical applicant at a chiropractic college has already acquired nearly four years of pre-medical undergraduate college education, including courses in biology, inorganic and organic chemistry, physics, psychology and related lab work. Once accepted into an accredited chiropractic college, the requirements become even more demanding — four to five academic years of professional study are the standard. Because of the hands-on nature of chiropractic, and the intricate adjusting techniques, a significant portion of time is spent in clinical training.

Doctors of chiropractic — who are licensed to practice in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and in many nations around the world — undergo a rigorous education in the healing sciences, similar to that of medical doctors. In some areas, such as anatomy, physiology, and rehabilitation, they receive more intensive education than most medical doctors or physical therapists.
ed_comparison.jpg
Like other primary health care doctors, chiropractic students spend a significant portion of their curriculum studying clinical subjects related to evaluating and caring for patients. Typically, as part of their professional training, they must complete a minimum of a one-year clinical-based program dealing with actual patient care. In total, the curriculum includes a minimum of 4,200 hours of classroom, laboratory and clinical experience. The course of study is approved by an accrediting agency which is fully recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. This has been the case for more than 25 years.
Before they are allowed to practice, doctors of chiropractic must pass national board examinations and become state-licensed. Chiropractic colleges also offer post-graduate continuing education programs in specialty fields ranging from sports injuries and occupational health to orthopedics and neurology. These programs allow chiropractors to specialize in a healthcare discipline or meet state re-licensure requirements.

This extensive education prepares doctors of chiropractic to diagnose health care problems, treat the problems when they are within their scope of practice and refer patients to other health care practitioners when appropriate.
Click to expand...
 
facetguy said:
Perhaps this is where we are getting bogged down. I don't know any chiros who proclaim this stuff. 50 or 75 years ago? Probably. Today, no way. At least how it relates to spinal manipulation. Now, if we were to look at diet, nutrition, exercise and other lifestyle changes for insulin sensitivity, to follow your example, then I think there is a significant contribution from chiropractors. Not as an alternative to MD care for a full-blown Type 2 DM patient, but as adjunctive care, or 'complementary' care if you will.

The typical chiro is seeing neck and back pain, and some headache cases. Nobody is promoting spinal manipulation for cancer.
Click to expand...


So basically, as you have no real education or qualification to counsel the patient on diet, exercise, and nutrition beyond the basic common sense things that do not require any special training, you offer nothing of real value to the patient which is the real meaning of "complementary."

Someone, for example, comes to you with Type II diabetes and you do what, exactly? Since your entire reason for being is manipulation, under the theory that if you have a hammer you nail, you are going to manipulate as your primary treatment coming up with whatever justification you need to satisfy your conscience. Are you going to prescribe medications? Follow his HGBA1C? Be on the lookout for developing cardiac, neurological, and endocrine problems?

Of course not. Your training does not qualify you to function as a primary care physician. Instead, you'll bring him to your office for twice-a-month adjustments to "prevent" his getting sick. You can't help it. It's your business model.
 
geogil said:
So I did a little googling and here is a rather detailed site from a local chiropracter.
Click to expand...

Uh oh...this can't be good.


geogil said:
And Here is a small vid from the site explaining how 'spinal mal-alignment' can cause otitis media.

According to this guy, the bones are out of alignement, which causes muscle spasms, which then somehow cause the eustachian tube to become inflamed with ensuing OM. 1+1 =3. He then claims that chiropractic intervention will resolve the OM.
Click to expand...

There are actually some small studies that show a benefit, and at least one that did not show benefit. If I am the parent of a child with recurrent ear infections and am looking at surgery anyway, I might just try a brief course of such care to see what happens.


geogil said:
So an intervention will resolve a self-limiting illness.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...self-limiting? In all cases? If that's the case, then remind me again why thousands of antibiotic prescriptions are written every day for otitis media. Either you are wrong, or most of the medical profession is wrong. What are your thoughts?

geogil said:
...again, by treating self limiting diseases, which the body is capable of healing, chiropractic "works". Isn't chiro just "as concerened with one part of the body" as mainstream allopathic medicine? Is the spine not the source of illness in chiropractic theory?
Click to expand...

The spine is the main focus of chiropractic, yes. And let's not forget that there is also the concept of prevention. Taking a patient who is reasonably healthy save for some neck or back pain and using that contact as a springboard into discussions of postural awareness, ergonomic concerns, diet and nutritional issues, exercise (both spinal stabilizing as well as general exercises), etc is hardly a bad thing. I would think family physicians do this all the time.


geogil said:
facetguy, I gotta hand it to you for remaining diplomatic.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'll try to gain a seat in the UN instead of in a med school somewhere!!
 
geogil said:
What we need is a blinded study that no IRB would approve:
three cohorts of patients with back pain
one cohort recieves nothing, no treatments, no drugs, no PT, nothing. From them we will learn what fraction will resolve their pain on their own.

one cohort is sedated and given an amnestic, and re-awoken 20 minutes later.
the third cohort is sedated, given the amnestic, and while sedated, subjected to the apropriate chiropractic manipulation.

between the two sedated groups, then, we should see whether it is simply the awareness that one is being treated that helps to resolve the pain, or if the manipulation itself is curative.
Click to expand...

There is already data on the natural progression of back pain (this was mentioned earlier in the thread). Acute LBP does tend to be self-limiting, although the length of pain, disability, etc will vary. It should be noted, however, that much of the early data had come out of worker's comp cases, where "resolved" simply meant "returned to work", not "pain free, episode over". Chronic LBP is a different story entirely, and many chiro patients fall into this category (many land in chiro offices because nothing else had worked for them).

I know you are probably only half-serious about it, but the sedation study you suggested wouldn't work because the treatment mechanism would be different than that of conscious patients. Manipulation under anesthesia (which already exists) utilizes slower, long-lever type manipulation designed to stretch chronically shortened tissue and break fibrous adhesions as much as it is to restore motion to joints. Also, a sedated patient's reflexes are different than a conscious one, particularly with regard to myospasm, so the situations are tough to compare. Here's one abstract reporting on only 4 MUA cases but just to illustrate that this treatment does exist:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

(And in case anyone is wondering, no, it's not the chiro who is administering the anesthesia...I think we'll leave that to the anesthesiologists, thank you very much.)
 
Panda, since you are a Resident, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are sleep deprived and therefore incapable of clear thought.

Panda Bear said:
So basically, as you have no real education or qualification to counsel the patient on diet, exercise, and nutrition beyond the basic common sense things that do not require any special training, you offer nothing of real value to the patient which is the real meaning of "complementary."
Click to expand...

And your qualifications in this area are what again? Chiro school places quite a bit of emphasis on the areas of diet, nutrition and rehabilitative exercise, surely beyond "common sense things". (And, speaking for myself, I have pursued a graduate degree in human nutrition beyond chiro school, so I at least as an individual have a lot to offer in this area.)

Panda Bear said:
Someone, for example, comes to you with Type II diabetes and you do what, exactly? Since your entire reason for being is manipulation, under the theory that if you have a hammer you nail, you are going to manipulate as your primary treatment coming up with whatever justification you need to satisfy your conscience. Are you going to prescribe medications? Follow his HGBA1C? Be on the lookout for developing cardiac, neurological, and endocrine problems?

Of course not. Your training does not qualify you to function as a primary care physician. Instead, you'll bring him to your office for twice-a-month adjustments to "prevent" his getting sick. You can't help it. It's your business model.
Click to expand...

First, I would like to have the chance of intervening BEFORE the patient becomes a full-blown diabetic (i.e., the guy comes in with back pain, which we treat, and along the way try to get him to eat better and exercise.) That would be prevention. If I am suspicious that he may already be headed in the wrong direction, he will be referred to his PCP to see where he is and how aggressive his management needs to be.

However, if as in your example, a patient has already been diagnosed with Type 2 DM, I would hope that he is already being monitored and utilizing appropriate meds. That's where your intervention apparently would end, and as we have clearly seen, we end up with a society full of diabetics on meds for life. Look around...I'm not blaming anyone but the current model is clearly not working. Diabetes alone threatens to sink our healthcare system.

As far as functioning as a primary care physician, I don't think too many chiropractors are eager to fulfill that role, nor is anyone suggesting that. (I should note that there have been some small-scale trials of chiros acting as PCP...in the Chicago area if memory serves?..., after some additional training of course, and the results were surprisingly positive.)
 
facetguy said:
As far as functioning as a primary care physician, I don't think too many chiropractors are eager to fulfill that role, nor is anyone suggesting that. (I should note that there have been some small-scale trials of chiros acting as PCP...in the Chicago area if memory serves?..., after some additional training of course, and the results were surprisingly positive.)
Click to expand...


Facet, see my post above.

Like other primary health care doctors, chiropractic students spend a significant portion of their curriculum studying clinical subjects related to evaluating and caring for patients.
Click to expand...

This is direct from the ACA, and found right under the chart in which they imply that chiropractors have more extensive training than medical doctors.
 
Ever since the beginning of HUMAN civilization, bone setters have existed in some form or another.

I don't think anyone here really understands what chiropractors do and what their philosophy is. Chiropractors conduct manipulations in order to facilitate healing of the body itself. They are at heart, facilitators for healing. They're not 'curing' anything. And a great majority of chiropractors (excluding those who only focus on superficial adjustments) DO refer their patients to MDs for medical problems requiring 'conventional' medical treatment.
 
veraisme said:
Ever since the beginning of HUMAN civilization, bone setters have existed in some form or another.

I don't think anyone here really understands what chiropractors do and what their philosophy is. Chiropractors conduct manipulations in order to facilitate healing of the body itself. They are at heart, facilitators for healing. They're not 'curing' anything. And a great majority of chiropractors (excluding those who only focus on superficial adjustments) DO refer their patients to MDs for medical problems requiring 'conventional' medical treatment.
Click to expand...

Yes, various forms of manipulation have existed for literally thousands of years.

As for referring to MDs, this happens every day. I think there remains a perception that somehow chiropractors wish to remain isolated in their own little world, avoiding anything medically related. This just is no longer true. And, much to the dismay of some here, chiros actually get referrals from MDs sometimes! It's the reality, like it or not.
 
cpants said:
Facet, see my post above.
Click to expand...

I read through your last few...I'm not sure which one you meant. The ACA one?

cpants said:
This is direct from the ACA, and found right under the chart in which they imply that chiropractors have more extensive training than medical doctors.
Click to expand...

As far as the more extensive training thing, I think it is arguable that chiro students do indeed focus more on anatomy and biomechanics and rehab exercises than do medical students. That's not to say that surgeons and radiologists, for example, do not during their training make up for this because they clearly do (the anatomy part, anyway). Nor is it to say that medical students aren't doing other stuff instead during those years...I think you can attest to that!

As to the use of the term 'primary health care', I think they are referring to the fact that patients can consult a chiropractor without having to be referred by another physician. The term 'direct access' might have been better here. It doesn't mean that chiros are suddenly taking over the care of acute infections, failing livers, or anxiety.
 
facetguy said:
Ha! I didn't realize you would be waiting with such interest. It's a busy season (office, shopping, parties, family stuff...), and there IS life beyond SDN! Geogil, you need to get out more:)
Click to expand...

.... he says before realizing he's one of the most frequent posters in this thread.....

:corny:
 
Random MS said:
.... he says before realizing he's one of the most frequent posters in this thread.....

:corny:
Click to expand...

Got me there, I guess. Hey, I'm just trying to get on Oprah like everyone else!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

cdmguy
Nursing licensing boards give 9.5 continuing ed hours for quacky cancer nutrition course
Replies
2
Views
1K
Noisewater-TDX
Noisewater-TDX
cdmguy
Stop Quacks at their source-petition for truth in education
Replies
17
Views
4K
PetMySausage
PetMySausage
cdmguy
Europe neuters quack post-secondary programs- chiropractic's new PR campaign
Replies
2
Views
3K
cdmguy
cdmguy
McDoctor
Quackery is a Religion
Replies
41
Views
3K
McDoctor
McDoctor
CatsandCradles
Acupuncture? Is it Quackery? Or did Stephen Barrett go to far?
Replies
18
Views
6K
CatsandCradles
CatsandCradles
Top