Man's Greatest Gift to Man : Chiropractic

Silly question: If you feel so strongly about chiropractic, why won't you attend chiro school instead of osteopathic school? Are you aware that osteopathic school will have a minimum of manipulation and most of the stuff you'll learn will be to function as a "medical doctor"?

I believe that manipulation (chiropractic, osteopathic or whatever) has a very valuable place in medical therapy but only in musculoskeletal disorders and sometimes it's limited by underlying pathology (you can alleviate some pain and increase range of motion on a patient with joint disease, but the disease won't go away with the manipulation). However, to think that modern medicine, allopathic or osteopathic, should take second place to some sort of "innate God-like power" is ludicrous.

For the record, I'm a first-year osteopathic student and very proud of my chosen profession. At a time when allopaths were bleeding and poisoning their patients, osteopaths were attempting to cure everything by manipulation. Both systems were *wrong* on many levels. Today, both allopaths and osteopaths have embraced scientific, evidence-based medicine and manipulation has been relegated to what it's actually useful for (some musculoskeletal disorders).

I realize this subject has been discussed ad nauseum, and although your opinion is allowed I disagree with the "extremist" views you seem to espouse and I hope that if an osteopathic education doesn't broaden your medical horizon that at least you don't become a "militant" osteopath that thinks that cancer can be cured by adjusting vertebrae.

See, I have several gay friends of both genders, and I'm pretty sure the male ones would agree there is something one man can give another that's an even better gift than that.

In seriousness, I will just say that I don't find "my assertions are obviously true" to be a very compelling or effective argument. If I have the opinion that what you say is not obviously true, we have nowhere to take the discussion. Which is unfortunate, because depending on how the discussion were to go, we might find areas of agreement, or at least places where I could concede what you say is not obviously untrue. And we could build from there.

My general attitude is, just about anything should be within the realm of ongoing discussion and investigation, with the ultimate goal of getting at a really good, consistent, helpful understanding. And as it happens, that is also the point of view of the Scientific Method, which allo and osteo medicine embrace... so while I do wish you good health, I suppose we have to agree to disagree on the best way to achieve that goal.

And that, in a nutshell, is how I view the schism between Chiro and Medicine.

Shinken said:

I believe that manipulation (chiropractic, osteopathic or whatever) has a very valuable place in medical therapy but only in musculoskeletal disorders and sometimes it's limited by underlying pathology (you can alleviate some pain and increase range of motion on a patient with joint disease, but the disease won't go away with the manipulation). However, to think that modern medicine, allopathic or osteopathic, should take second place to some sort of "innate God-like power" is ludicrous.

For the record, I'm a first-year osteopathic student and very proud of my chosen profession.

Click to expand...

Osteopaths do visceral manipulation too. FYI. Although yes, OMM is largely musculoskeletal.
BTW, i havent found ANY DOs touting OMM for anything besides somatic dysfunction. Ive never heard of any DO claiming to cure cancer by these means.

skiiboy said:

Unfortunately, for most students osteopathic school has become an easier way to become a "doctor". This is not my opinion its fact. Clearly a determined student who wants to further the true cause of osteopathy can make it happen, but for most this is not the case. This is not a bash against the profession of osteopathy, its just an accurate reflection of the current situation.

Click to expand...

A very black and white assessment about the students of osteopathy for a person who is so colorful with your answers about chiropractic. I won't bother to criticize the academic admission standards of chiropractic schools simply because I understand that grades have never defined anybody with respect to intelligence or ability. As you explore the extreme inner core of chiropractic philosophical think tank, it may someday occur to you that this very thread that you have started is the same old rhetoric that has always come from the chiropractic community. My point! The way in which each community retorts are very conditioned answers by each "establishment", medical and chiropractic. With the way that you have positioned yourself about universal and innate intelligence, it's not something that can be argued because it is largely a hypothesis that isn't easily measured. Further, you will always be disappointed by discussion on these forums when you ask rhetorical questions that you will later answer in another post. , L.

skiiboy, no offense but please try to use the Return button more often (it's kind of on the right side of the keyboard, usually about twice the width of a regular letter key).

I wanted to read your reply but my eyes hurt too much (it's an age thing...).

I am man's greatest gift to man. I know this because it has recently been revealed to me that I am the Supreme Being, the Source of Universal Intelligence.

It is laughable to challenge me on my assertion of Universal Intelligence, to deny it is tantamount to statements of the earth being flat and denying the existance of gravity, and to claim to fry eggs on the teat of a witch.

Nobody can argue that the world came from nothing and therefore my concept of Universal Intelligence is simply undeniable.

This is not opinion, that is simple fact.

Now that I have made my irrefutable statement of my supremacy, you must all begin to give me the love, adulation and money that I deserve. Paypal accepted.

All hail bemused, who -like the OP- has proven irrefutably that he's the holder of the one and only universal Truth.

A la Sir Karl Popper

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Skiiboy, you probably read my first post with disgust. While playful, it was meant to point out to you what psisci picked up on - your logic is circuitous. I simply made an assertion, and then cut-and-paste your "proof" to "prove" my assertion. It doesn't seem to have worked, aside from one adulation, because my Paypal account is not growing

The classic example from science history is Freud's defense of psychotherapy. If a pt got better, then it was proof that his theories were correct. If the pt did not get better, then it was because the pt was repressed, also proving his theory correct. By making his theory unfalsifiable, he made it unempirical. You have done the same thing - you say that the roots of chiropractic are unfalsifiable, therefore you say they are unempirical. See the link to Popper in my post above for details.

Don't overlook the value of research. If it is your goal to convince allopathy of the value of chiropractic then you will need evidence that backs up your assertions, not just something you read in a book. And you will need to start with a hypothesis that can be disproved in order to prove it is correct. EBM is the current weathervane of medicine, and it has shown its worthiness by revealing that what is intuitive is not always true. Only when chiropractic has survived the rigors of EBM will it be accepted (and then rightly so).

I find it brash and naive of you to state that you have no medical education, and then go on to tell those who have earned their education (and who are practicing their art) that they are uninformed. Your assertions, at least according to your posts, are what you have read in a book but have not practiced. I don't mean to criticize you. Youthful idealism is a refreshing counterpoint to cynical old-fartyness. It is the young idealists who drive the progression of science. However, you will speak from a more qualified position when you have your DO and your DC and have practiced your art.

Again, I am only commenting on your delivery, not your message.

Paragraphs, use them.

skiiboy said:

More importantly though, I started this thread because everytime the concepts of universal or innate intelligence are mentioned, they are dismissed as religious, cultish or even fanatical. The truth is quit the opposite. Innate intelligence is very real in all organisms and can be easily seen. I find the innate intelligence of organisms to be one of the great marvels of the world. I could write thousands and thousands of pages just on the most obvious specific innate behaviors demonstrated by all of the different species. How this relates to chiropractic can be seen in the following example. When a chiropractor detects an arithmia in a patient, they recognize that this patient is not sick because their body is running low on some prescription drug. Rather the chiropractor recognizes that at some point this patient's innate intelligence was running the body at a more optimal setting, and furthmore that something at some point in timed occured to alter this. Chiropractors seek to find the cause of this dis-ease, ie why and how the proper intelligence of the body is getting disrupted. Chiropractors know that health does not come from the outside (in the form of pills) but rather from the inside. Again I will quote B.J. Palmer here, as his understanding and genius far surpasses mine.

"Living under the same environmental conditions, one member of a family has heart trouble, another bronchial, a third liver, and a fourth stomach trouble; while a fifth may suffer from nervousness, a sixth from sciatica, etc..
Like causes produce like results. If this be true, if this be natural how can one who affirms that the cause of dis-ease lies in enironment reconcile the facts to this theory? Chiropractic teaches this unknown factor is found within and that the resistance or the susceptibility of the individual must be measured in terms of vitality or mental impulses. While other professions are concerned with changing enrionment to suit the weakend body, Chiropractic is concerned with strenghtening the body to "suit" the environment. This is an explanation of the fundamental differeces in theory and practice between Chiropractic and other professions, and an explanation of why Chiropractic succeeds where other methods fail" B.J. Palmer, D.C., Ph.C.

Click to expand...

This kind of diatribe is another example of why chiropractic is it's own worst enemy. No physician in their right mind thinks that arrythmias is caused by a deficiency of "pills" or external substances. I mean, c'mon... even in chiro school I learned about action potentials, ion channels, the cardiac conduction system, etc. Heck, in chiro school, I was taught that if you find an arrythmia, you'd better send the person to a physician. And to suggest that MD's and DO's aren't taught to look at patients in a biopsychosocial context or to find and correct the cause of a disease is ludicrous. Besides, I often find that these types of arguments from DC's stems from lack of a solid foundation and understanding of physiology and pharmacology. Its understandable, if you don't understand something it's easy to have misconceptions and fears of the unknown.

Fact is, you haven't attended chiro school nor med school (MD/DO). Once you do, I think you will find your opinions change quite a bit... and I don't think it will even matter whether it's med school or chiro school. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that manipulation has no benefit outside of NMS conditions. It's just that there is currently a lack of good evidence to the efficacy of manipulation for anything other than certain musculoskeletal conditions. Bemused also pointed out that it is through research that we sometimes find that what may be intuitive is not always the true.

Another thing I want to convey to you is that even if "innate intelligence" is real. The question becomes, does manipulating innate intelligence produce any significant and PREDICTABLE health benefits? And remember that anecdotal evidence is no evidence. Okay, enough said for now.

skiiboy, please stay in the osteopath profession, chiropractic has enough quacks already.

BackTalk said:

skiiboy, please stay in the osteopath profession, chiropractic has enough quacks already.

Click to expand...

Doh!

Honestly backtalk, I find it quit laughable even ironic that you are considered the "resident expert" on chiropractic in this forum.

Click to expand...

Why, because you hold a DC degree?

Click to expand...

Uhhhhh.....yeah! Am I to believe you, a person who has never been to chiropractic school, who preaches quackery from the "green books" and worships DD and BJ Palmer, and seems to think he knows everything about chiropractic, yet is going to go to osteopath school? Whatever.

Why don't you take a look at what AWDC had to say?

Alot of your posts I've read seem to demean everything which makes chiropractic unique, what makes chiropractors... chiropractors.

Click to expand...

No, it's what turns chiropractor's into quacks and leads them to be gangsters of healthcare.

Chiropractic was never about back pain, neck pain or headaches but was always about removing interference to the nervous system so that innate intelligence could flourish. Without that belief you might as well be a physical therapist. I hate to lecture you on what chiropractic is about, being as you hold a DC degree and yet I hold nothing other than a bachelors degree, but what I am saying is truth and you know it. 😴

Click to expand...

Listen, I don't need the history lesson as I've heard it all before. Why don't you provide some valid proof that what you say and what you believe is true?

skiiboy said:

When a chiropractor detects an arithmia in a patient, they recognize that this patient is not sick because their body is running low on some prescription drug. Rather the chiropractor recognizes that at some point this patient's innate intelligence was running the body at a more optimal setting, and furthmore that something at some point in timed occured to alter this. Chiropractors seek to find the cause of this dis-ease, ie why and how the proper intelligence of the body is getting disrupted. Chiropractors know that health does not come from the outside (in the form of pills) but rather from the inside. Again I will quote B.J. Palmer here, as his understanding and genius far surpasses mine.

Click to expand...

Skiiboy, could you explain yourself further with respect to how the innate intelligence of the body is evaluated by the chiropractor (in your example: an arrhythmia)? Could you give us some specific insight into what problem might exist with respect to the body's innate intelligence a chiropractor might have identified as the cause? How do chiropractors visually see some of the very, very small innate processes, such as biochemical reactions, physiology, electrical impulses? Do the gross anatomical structures of the body serve as a microscope to the chiropractor so that they can “see” and identify the disruption or problem that exists with a persons innate intelligence?

You suggest that when the body is not running at its optimal level, it is not because they are running low on some prescription drug, but somewhere the balance is off. How do you view genetics and its influence on disease? How does this play into the balance into one's innate system.

You mentioned somewhere in one of your posts that chiropractors think of healthcare as a maintenance program, not a get sick and treat system. I guess some providers might call this prevention and I suspect that this bumper sticker phrase is nothing new to any provider. Do you believe that chiropractic manipulation and care provides a person/patient with the best means of prevention from illness, disease, and overall well being? Do you believe that it is better than regular exercise, massage, herbal treatment, aromatherapy, reflexology, Tai Chi, regular physical evaluations by a physician, dental maintenance (cleaning, x-rays), and counseling?

How do we know that regular maintenance, manipulations, and care by a chiropractor doesn't adversely affect our body's innate intelligence and ability to heal? L.
😉

I think it time for a chiropractic exorcism, where is Father Foughtfyr when you need him??

I don't want to sound too rude, but I think the bottom line of this thread is: some of us are obviously born with more "innate intelligence" than others.

😀

Shinken said:

I don't want to sound too rude, but I think the bottom line of this thread is: some of us are obviously born with more "innate intelligence" than others.

😀

Click to expand...

You are proof of that! How come you never answered any of the questions you were asked? Oh I forget, you can't answer any of them.

skiiboy said:

I find it all very interesting how many of you seem to believe that the problems of chiropractic lie at its roots or original beliefs. The foundations for chiropractic are based on some of the most self evident truths of this universe. Universal intelligence clearly exists.

Click to expand...

O.k., I was staying out of this. BUT - when BackTalk starts asking for my input something is WAAYYY off. Now, no one is arguing against the existence of a supreme being. Nor are we suggesting that faith doesn't play a role in health. What I do take issue with is the role of D.D. Palmer as high priest.

I quote from his 1910 book "The Chiropractor's Adjuster" -

and


Besides the obvious factual error (Palmer did not "create" SMT, it has existed in some form since before the time of Socrates), he claims to be the "fountainhead" of knowledge and to be able to answer to the question "what is life?". There are others who have made similar claims over the years, including, but not limited to David Koresh, Rev. Jones, and General Idi Amin Dada.

The second issue, how does a grocer (Palmer's career in 1895) instantly become so well versed in "Osteology, Neurology, and the Fuctions of bones, nerves, and the manifestations of impulses" to found anything?

Third, how does Palmer so glibbly dismiss the thousands of years of evolution in medical knowledge that came before him? Peracles, Hippocrates, Socrates, Virchow, and Lister mean nothing? Of course leaving out the very young science of accupuncture. Yep, Palmer was smarter than the thousands of healers who came before him. He alone is the "Fountainhead". Please.

Lastly, look at Palmer's motivation (again from his book):

Actually, we now have the answer to this worrisome question, and it isn't chiropractic. Our modern understanding of the immune system, down to the protien sythesis level, has specifically determined the answers in a very provable manner.

skiiboy said:

This theory was discovered and understood by the Palmer's at a time when medical doctors were still practicing blood letting and awful horrendous medical treatments with virtually no healing value.

Click to expand...

WOW, what a statement. Palmer performed this miracle in 1895. Let's see, the Mayo Brothers began the group practice now known as the Mayo Clinic in 1892. The hospital in which they taught, St. Mary's (which is still standing today), was built with their father's cooperation in 1889. Funny, I've taken the tour many times. I've never seen the "bloodletting" room.

Hmm. I'd venture to bet that far more people attribute their health to the Mayo Clinic than to all Chiropractors combined, especially given that there are now greater than 1 million unique patients treated in the clinic each year.

skiiboy said:

Today, more and more research continues to prove that the nervous system does indeed control virtually every single action in the body.

Click to expand...

Except for those functions carried out under endocrine control. Or exocrine control. How about the neuro-hormonal axis? How exactly does spinal manipulation effect intercerbral signaling?

skiiboy said:

Chiropractic holds that even the slightest alteration in nervous integrity can alter a message or messages from the brain and spinal chord to the rest of the body. No doctor, physician or phd would ever dispute this fact.

Click to expand...

I don't dispute that Chiropractic holds this. As for if it is true, I would, and do dispute it.

skiiboy said:

There may never be a diagnostic tool which is sensitive enough to detect the slight change in “tone” to even one axon, which is all that it may take, in the spinal common caused by misaligned or hypomobile spinal joints.

Click to expand...

Ahh, we can't prove it, just trust us!

skiiboy said:

Is it true that most back and neck pain do not include the compromise of neural integrity? probably.... but chiropractic adjustments obviously help either way.

Click to expand...

Maybe for neck or back pain. As for the rest of the body, infections, cancer, infertility, this is just bovine scatology.

skiiboy said:

I would venture to guess that many of you making these comments, even the chiropractors, unfortunately haven't had the opportunity to read the insightful thoughts and words of the Palmers.

Click to expand...

Read them, hell, I count on them! And I too can quote them in posts (see above). Given Palmer's view of himself as the high priest (oops, "fountainhead") of all health with the secret to life itself, he is so easy to discredit! I love a debate where the opponent sinks themself.

skiiboy said:

These detectable areas of disfunction may only contain a musculo-skeletal component but it MAY just MAY contain a neuro-musculo-skeletal component. And if it does, then chiropractic can help perform
astounding “miracles”.

Click to expand...

And if not? I like to practice on something a bit more solid than "it MAY, just MAY".

skiiboy said:

If this did not occur, why else would D.D. and then B.J. Palmer be so astounded as to devote there entire lifes to furthering the cause of chiropractic.

Click to expand...

By this logic, L. Ron Hubbard or Dr. Lorrie Day are right because they too dedicated their lives to their questionable beliefs.

skiiboy said:

Btw, I am not a chiropractor, in fact I will be attending osteopathic school in New York this fall.

Click to expand...

That is a shame. Palmer College needs a few more "straights" to fill their quota.

I don't have as much time as I'd like to take you apart point by point on all your posts. (Un)Fortuately, I'm currently on a busy service, trying to learn and teach as much as I can. But as I have time, I'll check in.

Good luck in school. I hope you find what you are looking for.

- H

BackTalk said:

You are proof of that! How come you never answered any of the questions you were asked? Oh I forget, you can't answer any of them.

Click to expand...

Yeah...I don't have much "innate intelligence" (that's why I went to DO school... 😉 )

Now, could someone repeat the question? (slowly, please).

skiiboy said:

Honestly backtalk, I find it quit laughable even ironic that you are considered the "resident expert" on chiropractic in this forum. Why, because you hold a DC degree? Alot of your posts I've read seem to demean everything which makes chiropractic unique, what makes chiropractors... chiropractors. The concepts of universal and innate intelligence and subluxation ARE CHIROPRACTIC. If you do not believe in them, or think they are "quackery" it is fine, but then dont call yourself a chiropractor. The NMS stuff which you preach, while I certainly agree is important, is not what chiropractic is about. Chiropractic was never about back pain, neck pain or headaches but was always about removing interference to the nervous system so that innate intelligence could flourish. Without that belief you might as well be a physical therapist. I hate to lecture you on what chiropractic is about, being as you hold a DC degree and yet I hold nothing other than a bachelors degree, but what I am saying is truth and you know it.
I recognize the extreme subjective nature of detecting so called subluxations and the horrid reliability of both intra and inter examiner reliability with regards to finding subluxations. I also understand that there are a myriad of different theories of how to analyze and adjust subluxations, many of which are contradictory. Do not think that I am unaware of these issues as I am very well aware. But you know as well as I do that even the most "scientific" and "mainstream" chiropractic colleges such as western states, national and nycc all still maintain the premise of chiropractic which I've stated above. Relieving NMS pain is secondary to the correction of nervous integrity.
Thank you AWDC for actually raising a valid question. Rather than attacking the concepts of innate and universal which we all SHOULD know are absolutes, your question regarding how an adjustment can actually restore nervous integrity is a good one. In fact it is the million dollar question. I recognize the same problem you do,,, how do we know an adjustment actually helps increase nervous integrity and the bodys overall health. Well, I will be the first one to admit we do not know for sure. However, almost all studies which have been done with this regard,, yes i know they are few in number, have yielded positive results.
Some of the most recent studies included one that showed that children of chiropractors were overall healthier than those of medical doctors. In addition, the very latest study showed something like 14 out of 15 woman who were diagnosed as "infertile" underwent chiropractic care and then conceived. Those are some very impressive numbers and this story was aired on almost all major news networks across the country. Yes I know that these are not the highest level studies, but still that does not mean they should be discounted. There are numerous other studies but I am too tired at this moment to go research them. Not to mention the numerous positive nms studies that continue to be released. And by the way, your comment that annectodal evidence = no evidence is silly. A HUGE portion of allopathic treatment is based on anectodal evidence, especially psychiatric drugs. Need I even begin to mention the latest news about anti-depressant medication and their effectiveness. Chiropractic for a long time was not able, thanks to the allopathic boycott, to produce alot of research monies, but now thanks to ever growing recognition of chiropractic and its awesome status as the number 1 alternative health care provider in the country, this is changing. And we will continue to see more and more positive studies come forth. The amount of anectodal evidence for chiropractic is insurmountable and is what kept the profession going, but if its double blinded random crossover studies you want, just be patient there coming. For those of you who have never read or even heard of the green books, do yourself a favor and attempt to give them a read... they just might change your life. As usual I will leave you with some words from the man who gave the world chiropractic. These were some of B.J. Palmers last words to his students before his passing.

"Time always has and always will perpetuate those motheds which better serve mankind. Chiropractic is no exception.

My illustrious father placed this trust in my keeping, to keep it pure and unsullied or defamed. I pass it on to you unstained, to protect as he would have you do. As he pased on, so will I. We admonish you to keep this principle and pracice unadulterated and unmixed. Humanity needed then what he gave us.

You need now what I give you.

Out there in those great open spaces are multitudes seeking what you possess. The burdens are heavy; responsibilities are many; obligations are providential; but the satisfaction of traveling the populated highways and byways, relieving suffering and adding millions of years to lives of millions of people, will bring forth satisfaction and glories with greater blessings then you think.

Time is of the essence.

May god flow from above down His bounteous strengths, courage and understanding to carry on; and may your innates receive and act on that free flow of widsom from above down, inside out... for you have in your possession a sacred trust.

Guard it well.

BJ PALMER, DC. Ph.C.

Click to expand...

Paragraphs are your friend - you make them by using the RETURN button or by indenting. It's a common tool, usually learned in grade school.

And what the hell is a Ph.C ???

jwk said:

Paragraphs are your friend - you make them by using the RETURN button or by indenting. It's a common tool, usually learned in grade school.

And what the hell is a Ph.C ???

Click to expand...

Who cares if he doesn't "indent" his paragraphs? Just read what he is trying to say and lay off of his typing format. Are you having trouble reading?? Comment on his points, not the manner in which those points are placed upon the screen. Pointing out silly errors such as those just perpetuates anger and frustartion, thus they are not needed.
Thank you.

jwk said:

Paragraphs are your friend - you make them by using the RETURN button or by indenting. It's a common tool, usually learned in grade school.

And what the hell is a Ph.C ???

Click to expand...

Apparently it means "Philosopher of Chiropractic"...more amazing to me are the degrees of Bachelor of Chiropractic (B.C.) and Masters of Chiropractic (M.C.), posted on this website:

http://www.fnun.edu/mecca.html

Now...who wants to take on the million dollar question....can a B.C. do what a M.C. does, and why the need for the Ph.C. degree...isn't the DC representative enough of the profession???? Another interesting quote from another article:

"In a move unprecedented in academia, the CCE (Council on Chiropractic Education) ostensibly stripped the once prestigious Ph.C. degree from those holding this credential! No new Ph.C.s were conferred, and the credibility of the degree, and those holding it, was severely damaged."

When was this "Ph.C." degree prestigious?? I have never, ever heard of this in my medical academic circles....it would appear to be needless degree proliferation.

Science_Guy said:

Apparently it means "Philosopher of Chiropractic"...more amazing to me are the degrees of Bachelor of Chiropractic (B.C.) and Masters of Chiropractic (M.C.), posted on this website:

http://www.fnun.edu/mecca.html

Now...who wants to take on the million dollar question....can a B.C. do what a M.C. does, and why the need for the Ph.C. degree...isn't the DC representative enough of the profession???? Another interesting quote from another article:

"In a move unprecedented in academia, the CCE (Council on Chiropractic Education) ostensibly stripped the once prestigious Ph.C. degree from those holding this credential! No new Ph.C.s were conferred, and the credibility of the degree, and those holding it, was severely damaged."

When was this "Ph.C." degree prestigious?? I have never, ever heard of this in my medical academic circles....it would appear to be needless degree proliferation.

Click to expand...

Actually, this move was not really driven by Chiropractic. Until a few years ago, most Chiropractic Colleges were not accredited by any National Committees or Institutes of Higher Education (e.g., Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools http://www.ncacihe.org/ ). Now most are. This came after the CCE got approval by what was then the US Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. Such approval was critical to allowing chiropractic students access to federal student loans. Part of the approval process included examination of cirricula, faculty, and standardization in education (with other, non-chiropractic, institutions; i.e., did a bachelor's degree issued at a chiropractic college equate to a bachelor's degree issued elsewhere?). At that time the Ph.C. was touted as analagous to the Ph.D. by Chiropractic Colleges. When various examiners from the DHEW met with the CCE, it was determined that the Ph.C. in fact fell far short of the Ph.D. It was then discontinued as the cost to develop the necessary cirrrula was felt to outweigh the merits of doing so.

- H

jesse14 said:

Who cares if he doesn't "indent" his paragraphs? Just read what he is trying to say and lay off of his typing format. Are you having trouble reading?? Comment on his points, not the manner in which those points are placed upon the screen. Pointing out silly errors such as those just perpetuates anger and frustartion, thus they are not needed.
Thank you.

Click to expand...

It is called netiquette.

Core rules of netiquette - be sure to see rule #5 - "You won't be judged by the color of your skin, eyes, or hair, your weight, your age, or your clothing.
You will, however, be judged by the quality of your writing. For most people who choose to communicate online, this is an advantage; if they didn't enjoy using the written word, they wouldn't be there. So spelling and grammar do count. "



Learn it. Use it.

skiiboy said:

"WOW, what a statement. Palmer performed this miracle in 1895. Let's see, the Mayo Brothers began the group practice now known as the Mayo Clinic in 1892. The hospital in which they taught, St. Mary's (which is still standing today), was built with their father's cooperation in 1889. Funny, I've taken the tour many times. I've never seen the "bloodletting" room.

Hmm. I'd venture to bet that far more people attribute their health to the Mayo Clinic than to all Chiropractors combined, especially given that there are now greater than 1 million unique patients treated in the clinic each year."

First of all, I find it interesting that you use this example. Are you aware of the fact that when Mayo's wife was sick and could not be helped via traditional methods they immediately brought her to B.J. Palmers clinic where she was healed. This is not conjecture or folktail, this is a known fact and I invite you to do the research into it.

Click to expand...

Just so you are aware, there are two Mayo Brothers (Will and Charlie) who founded the clinic. Their father (affectionately referred to as "Father" in Rochester as he was "William" as well) founded the hospital now joined to the practice. So when you say "Mayo's wife was sick", you should generally state which Mayo. A bit of history for you here: http://www.mayoclinic.org/about/history.html

And unlike you I actually post sources. While Mayo historians take issue with this account, it is the only one I could find on the 'net:

http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/18/13/07.html

And it is a "folktale" if you read it - "Dr. P.L. Poulsen of the BJPCC staff informed me that..." I had this friend who knew this guy that one time at band camp...

By even this, "pro-chiro" account, Mrs. Mayo had "osteochondromatosis of the knee joint" - an NMS complaint. Also by this account, "Dr. Mayo stated it was impossible for her to get well with what Palmer did, yet he also admitted she was well."

According to conversations with Mayo historians (not a citable source), this account is pure bunk (I had previously inquired after a relative of mine related the same myth). They stated that there are no records of Edith Mayo (or anyone else in the family) ever being treated at Palmer's Clinic, nor of her having this condition at all. Mayowood, the home shared by Dr. Charlie and Mrs. Edith Mayo, was designed by her and Charlie, and included huge garden paths with many stone staircases (see a picture here: http://olmstedhistory.com/mayowood.htm, the story of the home here: http://www.mayowoodlands.com/past.html, and a bit more here: http://www.postbulletin.com/magazine/2002/10/touring3.shtml). The Mayos were noted to have enjoyed these gardens tremendously, and keeping them was a source of personal pride. If she had suffered from knee pain requiring "doctors in Europe, all distinguished diagnosticians and specialists" to see her as the account describes (BTW - this goes against your statement that he "immediately brought her" to Palmer), some mention of this disability would have been noted. By hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story?

And even though Mr. Frigard, the author of that account claims it, I know of no Mayo physicians who refer to Chiropractors.

And notice, you still can't answer back the challenge to your assertion that medicine was only involved in "blood letting and awful horrendous medical treatments with virtually no healing value".

skiiboy said:

Also, you wouldnt possibly be challenging chiropractic on the amount of people who attribute their health to the profession? cause that would just be silly.

Click to expand...

Umm, yes I would. Call me silly.

skiiboy said:

It was specifically the insurmountable number of people who found relief and health through chiropractic that has kept the profession alive and thriving, even through the allopathic boycott. Even now, chiropractic still maintains the highest patient satisfaction of any health provider, hands down. Again this is not opinion, this is info from the very latest studies done.

Click to expand...

Post a source. You seem to have access to a great number of "studies". Let's see them. I am especially interested in the infertility study you quoted in a previous post. Us medical doctor types (DOs too) actually base our practices on what is demonstrable and proven, not on what a pre-med thinks is so. If you have sources, post them, so they may be analyzed and discussed.

skiiboy said:

"Except for those functions carried out under endocrine control. Or exocrine control. How about the neuro-hormonal axis? How exactly does spinal manipulation effect intercerbral signaling?"

These are all secondary mechanisms that remain primarily under nervous control. I refer you to the latest edition of Grays Anatomy which states the nervous system controls every process in the entire body. Or this not a reliable source???

Click to expand...

Gray's anatomy? As a medical text? You have to be kidding. Try Netter, Grant or Yokochi. Additionally, you are quoting an anatomy text on a physiology question. Oops.

And again, cite the source. The "latest edition" of Gray's Anatomy is a reprint of the 1908 edition. It is fun to look at but not exactly scientific. Now, if your edition is, in fact, the 30th edition printing, then please include page numbers and publisher information.

And I agree, that intercerebral signaling is "under" nervous control - it is nervous control. What I do not understand is how adjusting the spinal column, at any level, improves the communication between two axons in the skull. If it can't - and let's face it, it can't - then it can not hope to effect the neuro-hormonal axis. So, while this area of exocrine/endocrine function is under nervous control, that control is completely housed inside the skull, out of reach for chiropractors.

skiiboy said:

Once again I will quote B.J. Palmer, perhaps he can help better explain chiropractic to all of you CHIROPRACTORS.

"We chiropractors work with the subtle substance of the soul. We release the prisoned impulses, a tiny rivulet of force, that emanates from the mind and flows over the nerves to the cells and stirs them to life. We deal with the magic power that transforms common food into living, loving, thinking clay; that robes the earth with beauty, and hues and scents the flowers with the glory of the air.

In the dim, dark distant long ago, when the sun first bowed to the morning star this power spoke and there was life. It quickened the slime of the sea and the dust of the earth and drove the cell to union with its fellows in countless living forms. Through eons of time it finned the fish and winged the bird and fanged the beast. Endlessly it worked, evolving its forms until it produced the crowning glory of them all. With tireless energy it blows the bubble of each individual life and then silently, relentlessly dissolves the form and absorbes the spirit into itself again.

And yet you ask can chiropractic cure appendicitis or the flu? Have you more faith in a knife or a spoonful of medicine than inthe power that animates the living world?

Click to expand...

Umm, thanks. I couldn't have said it better myself. Read your quote again and then ask yourself why other professions see chiropractic as roughly akin to a religion.

And BTW, even if I accept the premise of this "power that animates the living world" as the key to understanding health, why am I to believe that D.D. Palmer understands this force so well? Certainly Indian texts describing Ayurveda far pre-date Palmer and speak of a similar force. There are many more practitioners (worldwide) of Ayurveda than Chiropractic, and given the length of time it has existed it has certainly helped more people. Why do you keep asserting that this one mortal man, working alone, in 1895, managed to decode the secrets of the universe that alluded all others before him.

According to the source you posted (http://www.brucelipton.com/chiro2.php)
Who was behind this dastardly deed? B.J. Palmer. So which of them is right?

- H

bemused said:

It is called netiquette.

Core rules of netiquette - be sure to see rule #5 - "You won't be judged by the color of your skin, eyes, or hair, your weight, your age, or your clothing.
You will, however, be judged by the quality of your writing. For most people who choose to communicate online, this is an advantage; if they didn't enjoy using the written word, they wouldn't be there. So spelling and grammar do count. "



Learn it. Use it.

Click to expand...

Thank you. 😀

skiiboy said:

While I recognize that my knowledge couldnt possibly equate to your D.C. degree Backtalk, I am sick of hearing you tell me that my information comes from a book I read yesterday. I was inspired by chiropractic from a young age and have done everything I could to learn more about the profession. I have attended numerous seminars ranging from philosophy to extremity adjusting, shadowed several practices including md,do's and dcs. The last seminar I attended was titled "chiropractic and allopathic integration" and it was held at Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan. The audience was composed of DC'S, MD'S AND DO'S. In case you are not aware, Beth Israel Medical Center is one of the top hospitals in Manhattan, possibly the country. As far as shadowing is concerned, the last two doctors were exceptionally notable. The first was a double board certified cardiologist and internist on the north shore of Long Island. But even more engaging was my shadowing experience with a chiropractor who has had hospital priviledges for over seven years at north hospital on Long Island. And not in some obscure CAM dept but rather the renouned orthopedic division. His participation in this department has created such success that they recently sent out a newsletter to over 100,000 people on long island demonstrating how successful they have been with treating a myriad of conditions using chiropractic in there department. Remember this is North Shore Hospital we are talking about here. Btw, this doctor believes in the concepts of universal intelligence, innate intelligence and the subluxation complex. Is he a quack also backtalk?

Click to expand...

At the risk of having to read through another pseudo-spiritual Palmer tome in your answer I will make the same challenge to you that I have made to BackTalk in the past. I could give you at least half a dozen cases off the top of my head where chiropractors delayed care in high morbidity or mortality settings, from personal experience. In each case MD/DOs correctly diagnosed and treated the patient to resolution. I challenge you to find ONE documented case where a chiropractor evaluated a patient with significant morbidity or high risk for mortality, found a condition missed by an MD/DO, and treated the patient to resolution for that condition. And by "documented" I mean smething a bit more verifiable than your Mayo fable.

- H

bemused said:

It is called netiquette.

Core rules of netiquette - be sure to see rule #5 - "You won't be judged by the color of your skin, eyes, or hair, your weight, your age, or your clothing.
You will, however, be judged by the quality of your writing. For most people who choose to communicate online, this is an advantage; if they didn't enjoy using the written word, they wouldn't be there. So spelling and grammar do count. "



Learn it. Use it.

Click to expand...

Will the facts/opinions of any writer on this forum be less true if a word is misspelled? Will you immediatley throw away facts on the basis of spelling?
Just curious!

jesse14 said:

Will the facts/opinions of any writer on this forum be less true if a word is misspelled? Will you immediatley throw away facts on the basis of spelling?
Just curious!

Click to expand...

I refuse to read large blocks of text that are size 10 on a message board. I assume that if you can't format your post, then your point isn't very important. Small misspellings are ok, but if its every third word, then the same applies as above.

skiiboy said:

I dont have enough time to respond at this very moment to all of the comments in everyones posts. But for starters take a look at these three studies, one is a video recently aired on cbs news regarding chiropractic and fertilitity. Another is from the Annals of internal medicine regarding the effectiveness of chiropractic with regard to a whole host of issues. Finally the third was recently posted on webmd and discusses how chiropractic reduces x-rays(despite what many believe), surgeries and costs. While getting patients healthier, faster.

There are alot more studies just like these, but I thought I'd post these few right now as they quickly came to mind.


http://cbsnewyork.com/siteSearch/local_story_056143502.html

Click to expand...

Now THERE'S a respectable news organization. From the same people that brought you Dan Rather and the CBS news.......

skiiboy said:

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/1/52

Click to expand...

Interesting observation - no science at all.

skiiboy said:

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/95/103236.htm

Click to expand...

And last, one of the few things that chiropractic might be good for - back pain - until they pith someone and sever the spinal cord. That's really cost effective.

jwk said:

Now THERE'S a respectable news organization. From the same people that brought you Dan Rather and the CBS news.......

Interesting observation - no science at all.


And last, one of the few things that chiropractic might be good for - back pain - until they pith someone and sever the spinal cord. That's really cost effective.

Click to expand...

Dude, you're a friggin Anethesiologist Assistant. Big whoop. Why are you so quick to criticize an entire profession when you have little knowledge about it? Get a hold of yourself.

Integrative healthcare is the future: http://www.chiroeco.com/news/jointconf-integhealth.html

PublicHealth said:

Dude, you're a friggin Anethesiologist Assistant. Big whoop. Why are you so quick to criticize an entire profession when you have little knowledge about it? Get a hold of yourself.

Integrative healthcare is the future: http://www.chiroeco.com/news/jointconf-integhealth.html

Click to expand...

Congrats - you can read a profile. I'd be glad to read yours, but its empty. Go figure.

Dude, you're a friggin Anethesiologist Assistant. Big whoop. Why are you so quick to criticize an entire profession when you have little knowledge about it? Get a hold of yourself.

Click to expand...

I could give you at least half a dozen cases off the top of my head where chiropractors delayed care in high morbidity or mortality settings, from personal experience. In each case MD/DOs correctly diagnosed and treated the patient to resolution. I challenge you to find ONE documented case where a chiropractor evaluated a patient with significant morbidity or high risk for mortality, found a condition missed by an MD/DO, and treated the patient to resolution for that condition.

Click to expand...

Not to drift away from the topic at hand but I would like to comment here. I think it would be impossible to find any chiropractor where they evaluated a patient with significant morbidity or high risk for mortality, found a condition missed by an MD/DO, and treated the patient to resolution for that condition” Conditions that carry significant morbidity or high risk for mortality usually do not wander into a chiropractor’s office. If they did the treatment would more than likely fall outside the DC’s scope of practice and they wouldn’t be able to treat the patient anyway. So I doubt anyone is going to find any documented cases.

Let's not forget that you have also mentioned in the past that you have seen patients that were misdiagnosed by their primary care provider.

If we were going to play fair, then I would like to mention an interesting article I read in today’s local newspaper. The article was on ways the medical profession is trying to prevent mistakes. It mentioned that the Institute of Medicine reported that medical errors kill between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans annually (study was done 5 years ago). An endocrinologist of the American College of Endocrinology, said that an estimated 50% of people with a chronic condition at some time experience a medical error in their care or that of a family member. This article doesn’t make it right for chiropractors to misdiagnose patients or make mistakes either. These numbers probably represent misdiagnosis, drug interactions and other mistakes all lumped together. Even so, with numbers this high, and even if misdiagnosis were a small portion, its still a big number. Show me a statistic that shows chiropractors are equally responsible for medical mistakes. I suppose you do have an argument that chiropractic errors aren’t generally reported do to self-regulation and it would be hard to actually come up with a valid statistic. Even if you could find a statistic it still doesn’t negate the fact that your profession is responsible for many deaths each year. The issue can’t be ignored.

jesse14 said:

Will the facts/opinions of any writer on this forum be less true if a word is misspelled? Will you immediatley throw away facts on the basis of spelling?
Just curious!

Click to expand...

Nope, not at all. But I also don't think it is unreasonable to ask for coherent sentences strung together according to the rules of grammar that we all learned as children. It's hard to get your point across when there is no clarity or organization in your writing.

There was recently a study done which showed something like 80% of medical residents failed a basic musculoskeletal competence test.

I'm aware of the study that you mention, but can't locate it at the moment. The study examined interns on their first day of internship. Interns, of course, do not practice independently the way new Chiro grads can. Second, Chiro grads were not involved in the study, so we have no way of knowing whether or not recent Chiro grads would do any better.

I was able to take that test online about a year or two ago. I passed by a wide margin, but I was a year or two out of residency at that time. I don't know if I would have passed that exam right after med school, though it didn't seem that hard.

Moral of the story: I'm willing to bet that most of us who have any involvement in the practice of MSK medicine after residency (at which point we can practice independently) would pass that test. Your point is meaningless.


Also, there was a study done within the last couple years which tested the radiological skills of chiropractors versus those of the average medical resident. Chiropractors proved to be better by an order of magnitude. Also when chiropractic radiologists were tested against medical radiologists, the tests showed equal diagnostic ability for both groups. Again, I will have to do some research to find the reference but rest assure this study does exist.

Those studies do exist and have been critiqued ad nauseum in recent threads. An 'equal diagnostic ability' is a sweeping statement, don't you think. The studies that I've seen have looked at x-rays of the lumbar spine, that's all.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=167735&page=5

Would you expect medical (non-Radiology) residents to do well on exams assessing skills in Radiology, skiiboy? They aren't highly trained in Radiology and don't need to be. That's what Radiologists are for. Again, you're making an unimportant point.



This should come as no suprise to anyone, as a simple review of their respective curriculums shows a large gap between the hours of radiology studied in chiropractic versus medical school.

And why is this important, chief? Chiropractors in practice need to be able to imterpret films accurately. Non-Radiologist MDs generally don't need to have anything beyond the most basic skills, as the films they request are interpreted by Radiologists.

Yet again, you make a meaningless point.


This very year, a smattering of info includes the fact that Back surgeries have revealed to be less than 1% successful

I'm not a big fan of back surgery myself, but please do show us your references.

the entire group of cough syrups have just been shown to be no more effective than placebo, most psychiatric drugs have an unknown mechanism and antibiotics are continually prescribed for viral infections, having absolute zero value. In fact this is at the heart of the growing epidemic of resistant strains of bacteria. Need I even mention the last three MAJOR drugs which were just taken off the market for adverse even fatal health risks. And the list could go on and on and on and on.

That's science in action, chief. Practice changes as new evidence becomes available. No one ever said that medicine is perfect.

You are failing miserably to make a point. ANY point.

And we will continue to see more and more positive studies come forth. The amount of anectodal evidence for chiropractic is insurmountable and is what kept the profession going, but if its double blinded random crossover studies you want, just be patient they are coming.

And we will also see more and more negative studies. Will the profession halt practices which fail when researched adequately? If so, then it will no doubt be accepted as evidence based.

And the anecdotal evidence is quite surmountable. Perhaps not in your opinion, but you seem less than objective in your assessment.

There have been numerous, in fact uncountable occasions in which a patient visits a chiropractor and the chiropractor detects some pathology completely unrelated to the original complaint. In fact the last chiropractor I shadowed dealt primarily with serious cases and is constantly reffered patients from the orthopedic division of north shore hospital. He also lectures at the hospital and has been credentialed there for several years. He told me that he has caught several cases of cancer and other visceral diseases. In fact, he has saved many lives due to his diagnostic skills. Now, do I know for a fact that this persons primary doc missed this diagnosis.. no I dont. But logic tells me that it is more likely than not that he/she had a routine physical that year. And if thats so, then yes clearly the MD/DO missed something

Gosh, that's convincing.

Mind you, I'm sure it's correct that there are Chiropractors who are good diagnosticians and have helped save lives due to their diagnostic acumen.

"The philosophic view of bacteria is to consider them necessary to life as the minute chemists of the air, the water and the soil" Charles H. Mayo, M.D.

The notion of context is evidently foreign to you.


"Orthodox or conventional medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the major infectious diseases of the last centruy came with the invention of immunizations. In fact, cholera, typhoid fever, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, and the others were in decline before vaccines for them became available-the result of better methods of distribution of food and water."

Oh, great. Quote Andrew Weil. He's quite a renowned medical expert............Just kidding. He's just a guru, not an expert at all. He happily critices conventional medicine while making all sorts to fanciful claims. He writes some nice books and is good at getting himself interviewed by Larry King, but don't ever confuse Andrew Weil for a real medical scientist.

russellb said:

I'm aware of the study that you mention, but can't locate it at the moment. The study examined interns on their first day of internship. Interns, of course, do not practice independently the way new Chiro grads can. Second, Chiro grads were not involved in the study, so we have no way of knowing whether or not recent Chiro grads would do any better.

Would you expect medical (non-Radiology) residents to do well on exams assessing skills in Radiology, skiiboy? They aren't highly trained in Radiology and don't need to be. That's what Radiologists are for. Again, you're making an unimportant point.

Click to expand...

Your "awareness" of these studies should have taken you to www.pubmed.com. There were no "interns on their first day of internship" in either of these studies, and both studies included "Chiro grads." Get the facts straight, then make your derisive comments. Otherwise, you look like a fool.

Spine. 1995 May 15;20(10):1147-53.

Interpretation of abnormal lumbosacral spine radiographs. A test comparing students, clinicians, radiology residents, and radiologists in medicine and chiropractic.

Taylor JA, Clopton P, Bosch E, Miller KA, Marcelis S.

Department of Radiology, University of California, Medical Center, San Diego, USA.

STUDY DESIGN. Controlled comparison of radiographic interpretive performance based on training and experience. OBJECTIVES. This study compared each of these groups in medicine and chiropractic by testing abilities to interpret abnormal plain film radiographs of the lumbosacral spine and pelvis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Low back pain is a common and costly problem that is evaluated and treated primarily by medical physicians, orthopedists, and chiropractors. Although radiology is used extensively in patients with low back pain, the radiographic interpretations of students, clinicians, radiology residents, and radiologists have never been compared. METHODS. Four hundred ninety-six eligible volunteers from nine target groups completed a test of radiographic interpretation consisting of nineteen cases with clinically important radiographic findings. The nine groups included 22 medical students, 183 chiropractic students, 27 medical radiology residents, 13 chiropractic radiology residents, 66 medical clinicians (including 12 general practice physicians, 25 orthopedic surgeons, 21 orthopedic residents, and 8 rheumatologists), 46 chiropractic clinicians, 48 general medical radiologists, 55 chiropractic radiologists, and 36 skeletal radiologists and fellows. RESULTS. The test established a high level of internal consistency reliability (0.880) and revealed that, in the interpretation of abnormal plain film radiographs of the lumbosacral spine and pelvis, significant differences were found among professional groups (P < 0.0001). Post hoc tests (P < 0.05) revealed that skeletal radiologists achieved significantly higher test results than did all other medical groups; that the test results of general medical radiologists and medical radiology residents was significantly higher than those of medical clinicians; that test results of medical students was significantly poorer than that of all other medical groups; that the performance of chiropractic radiologists and chiropractic radiology residents was significantly higher than that of chiropractic clinicians and chiropractic students; that no significant differences was revealed in the mean values of performance of chiropractic clinicians and chiropractic students; that the test results of chiropractic radiologists, chiropractic radiology residents, and chiropractic students was significantly higher than that of the corresponding medical categories (general medical radiologists, medical radiology residents, and medical students, respectively); that no significant difference in test results was identified between chiropractic radiologists and skeletal radiologists or between chiropractic and medical clinicians; and that the length of time in practice for clinicians and radiologists was not a significant factor in the test results. CONCLUSIONS. These data demonstrate a substantial increase in test results of all radiologists and radiology residents when compared to students and clinicians in both medicine and chiropractic related to the interpretation of abnormal radiographs of the lumbosacral spine and pelvis. Furthermore, the study reinforces the need for radiologic specialists to reduce missed diagnoses, misdiagnoses, and medicolegal complications.

--------------------------------

Spine. 2002 Sep 1;27(17):1926-33.

Reliability and validity of lumbosacral spine radiograph reading by chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists.

de Zoete A, Assendelft WJ, Algra PR, Oberman WR, Vanderschueren GM, Bezemer PD.

Department of Radiology, Medical Center Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional diagnostic study was conducted in two sessions. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the reliability and validity of contraindications to chiropractic treatment (infections, malignancies, inflammatory spondylitis, and spondylolysis-listhesis) detected by chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists on plain lumbosacral radiographs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Plain radiography of the spine is an established part of chiropractic practice. Few studies have assessed the ability of chiropractors to read plain radiographs. METHODS: Five chiropractors, three chiropractic radiologists and five medical radiologists read a set of 300 blinded lumbosacral radiographs, 50 of which showed an abnormality (prevalence, 16.7%), in two sessions. The results were expressed in terms of reliability (percentage and kappa) and validity (sensitivity and specificity). RESULTS: The interobserver agreement in the first session showed generalized kappas of 0.44 for the chiropractors, 0.55 for the chiropractic radiologists, and 0.60 for the medical radiologists. The intraobserver agreement showed mean kappas of 0.58, 0.68, and 0.72, respectively. The difference between the chiropractic radiologists and medical radiologists was not significant. However, there was a difference between the chiropractors and the other professional groups. The mean sensitivity and specificity of the first round, respectively was 0.86 and 0.88 for the chiropractors, 0.90 and 0.84 for the chiropractic radiologists, and 0.84 and 0.92 for the medical radiologists. No differences in the sensitivities were found between the professional groups. The medical radiologists were more specific than the others. CONCLUSIONS: Small differences with little clinical relevance were found. All the professional groups could adequately detect contraindications to chiropractic treatment on radiographs. For this indication, there is no reason to restrict interpretation of radiographs to medical radiologists. Good professional relationships between the professions are recommended to facilitate interprofessional consultation in case of doubt by the chiropractors.

skiiboy said:

I dont have enough time to respond at this very moment to all of the comments in everyones posts. But for starters take a look at these three studies, one is a video recently aired on cbs news regarding chiropractic and fertilitity. Another is from the Annals of internal medicine regarding the effectiveness of chiropractic with regard to a whole host of issues. Finally the third was recently posted on webmd and discusses how chiropractic reduces x-rays(despite what many believe), surgeries and costs. While getting patients healthier, faster.

There are alot more studies just like these, but I thought I'd post these few right now as they quickly came to mind.


http://cbsnewyork.com/siteSearch/local_story_056143502.html

Click to expand...

Well, the "study" referenced in this report is not even indexed, so it is difficult to state with any certainty what it actually showed. Were these even female-factored infertility couples? What protocols were used to determine infertility? What was the study design? Even if all of these questions were answered, it has been often demonstrated that cessation of infertility treatments, especially when more than one treatment protocol is used, can lead to pregnancy. So, it may well be that the chiropractic treatments "helped" by keeping the women away from their usual regieme.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7782429

But, as someone who has done a rotation through reproductive endocrinology, I can tell you these couples are often quite desperate. So what is the number one factor convincing me this study is not reproducable? The lack of grassroots outcry for more chiropractic infertility clinics. I mean if anyone came up with an infertility treatment that demonstrated success in 14 out of 15 couples consistently, their practice would be instantly overrun by infertile couples. And these folks do not care what allopaths say. In my experience they have, and will, try anything to get pregnant.

skiiboy said:

Another is from the Annals of internal medicine regarding the effectiveness of chiropractic with regard to a whole host of issues. http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/1/52

Click to expand...

Umm, that is not what this study says at all. Did you even read it? This review (not a study itself) looked at research on specialists versus generalists in the treatment of various NMS conditions. Chiropractors were included in two types of these studies, those of low back pain, and those looking at workingmans' compensation costs. see: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/127/1/52/T2 Their findings were hardly supportive of chiropractic.
In other words, chiropractic care was no more effective and costs more, but the patients were happier. Well, given the classes on salemanship in Chiropractic College, this is not surprising. It is also not surprising given that the practice patterns of chiropractors allow them to spend more time with their patients. But I do not regard increased costs without improved effectiveness as a positive.

skiiboy said:

Finally the third was recently posted on webmd and discusses how chiropractic reduces x-rays(despite what many believe), surgeries and costs. While getting patients healthier, faster. http://my.webmd.com/content/article/95/103236.htm

Click to expand...

Again, please read the studies before you post, and generally a link to the study itself is far more well regarded than a WebMD article. The study abstract is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15477432. While the study is interesting for it's size, there are serious design problems. I quote from the journal editor's comments in the same issue.

- H

skiiboy said:

I would also like to point out an important point here. Medical doctors as a whole generally misdiagnose musculoskeletal pain, especially back pain. The diagnosis of "sprained back" seems to be the one of choice, and most musculoskeletal specialists will tell you this is usually not the case. There was recently a study done which showed something like 80% of medical residents failed a basic musculoskeletal competence test. I know I'll get nailed for not being specific as to the study, but if anybody here keeps up with Spine or any other journals you were bound to have seen this one within the last six months.

Click to expand...

Let me help you Sparky. The study is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9801210 with a follow-up study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11940622. Now there are two problems with this as far as your argument is concerned. First, this test was not given to first year out chiropractic graduates, so it doesn't say that chiropractors would do any better. Second, it was administered to interns, who still had an average of three to five years of training remaining. The test itself was validated by administration to eight senior orthopedic surgery residents, all of whom passed. So what have we proven? MD/DOs do a residency for a reason. It is an integral part of our training. Big deal. I'd have granted you that without a study.

skiiboy said:

Also the Texas Back Institute, a leading authority, has reported to use chiropractors not only for treatment of patients but also as front line docs to rule out underlying pathologies. Thats right! Chiropractors used first to identify pathology.

Click to expand...

The "Texas Back Institute" is a chiropractic organization - and hardly a "leading authority". I do not dispute that chiropractors believe they can rule out pathology outside the muscloskeletal system. I dispute that they do so well enough to be safe.

From: http://www.texasback.com/index.html

skiiboy said:

Also, there was a study done within the last couple years which tested the radiological skills of chiropractors versus those of the average medical resident. Chiropractors proved to be better by an order of magnitude. Also when chiropractic radiologists were tested against medical radiologists, the tests showed equal diagnostic ability for both groups.

Click to expand...

Once again, do you even read the studies you describe, or do you just guess at what they say? You are nowhere close on these two either (yep - there are two of them!). Here are links to the abstracts: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12221360 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7638657.

Dealing with them in order, the first shows that of thirteen people, five MDs and 8 DCs, interrater agreement for DCs was a low as 0.44 (among the five chiropractors not identified as chiropractic radiologists). Now a kappa of 1.0 means complete agreement, and they scored a 0.44 (meaning they agreed on the findings in only 44% of the films). Second, look at the study design itself, 13 people looked at 300 x-rays to detect an abnormality (present in 50 films). So what! I have said that I do not doubt, necessarily, a DCs skill in NMS, but in non-NMS conditions. Besides, with thirteen participants, I really question the power of the study.

And lastly, lets look at some conclusions here.

The second, demonstrated that,
and concluded

I will grant that chiropractic students did do better than medical students, and that chiropractic radiology residents (who are by definition already practicing chiropractors) did better than radiology residents (not yet licensed). But this study was limited to the reading of lumbar and sacral spine films, hardly the first and last line of diagnostics.

skiiboy said:

This should come as no suprise to anyone, as a simple review of their respective curriculums shows a large gap between the hours of radiology studied in chiropractic versus medical school.

Click to expand...

Show us the review. There was an extended discussion regarding training hours MD vs. DC on this forum: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=2120101&postcount=47.

It had references and everything!

skiiboy said:

Also, to all of you who who continue to ridicule any post just because it doesnt have a double blind random cross over study "proving it", try and be a little more enlighted to the following fact. The vast majority of medical treatment is not based on double blind studies.

Click to expand...

Finally, he says something accurate. But this is why the profession has steadily moved to evidence based medicine (EBM), and EBM is required of any new procedure.

skiiboy said:

the entire group of cough syrups have just been shown to be no more effective than placebo,

Click to expand...

True, and never claimed different by anyone other than the maker of the syrup.

skiiboy said:

most psychiatric drugs have an unknown mechanism

Click to expand...

But there are double blinded studies as to efficacy.

skiiboy said:

antibiotics are continually prescribed for viral infections, having absolute zero value. In fact this is at the heart of the growing epidemic of resistant strains of bacteria.

Click to expand...

Well, that is a bit of spin. Antibiotics are never prescribed for viral infections, they are prescribed for bacterial infections. The question is "is the diagnosis of bacterial infection accurate?" Usually not. Thanks to EBM, this practice is stopping.

skiiboy said:

And we will continue to see more and more positive studies come forth. The amount of anectodal evidence for chiropractic is insurmountable and is what kept the profession going, but if its double blinded random crossover studies you want, just be patient they are coming.

Click to expand...

Gosh, you can tell what the outcomes will be before the studies are done. Dang, you are good. One little problem though, a review of all of the studies to date only reveals that chiropractic is "as effective", but not more so, than traditional medical therapy. See: http://nccam.nih.gov/health/chiropractic/index.htm#app2

skiiboy said:

In fact the last chiropractor I shadowed {snip} He told me that he has caught several cases of cancer and other visceral diseases. In fact, he has saved many lives due to his diagnostic skills.

Click to expand...

I do not doubt that there exist individual cases of good diagnosticians who are DCs. The problem is that 1. they are the exception to the rule, 2. they can not effectively treat what they find, and 3. there are chiropractors who believe they can treat any medical condition and proceed to do so to the patient's detrement.

skiiboy said:

Now, do I know for a fact that this persons primary doc missed this diagnosis.. no I dont. But logic tells me that it is more likely than not that he/she had a routine physical that year.

Click to expand...

Not if the DC was advertising as a PCP. And the percentage of people who get yearly physicials is abyssmally low.

skiiboy said:

Rather then quote from B.J. again, I'll leave you guys with some words from Charles H. Mayo M.D. and Andrew Weil, M.D.

"The philosophic view of bacteria is to consider them necessary to life as the minute chemists of the air, the water and the soil" Charles H. Mayo, M.D.

Click to expand...

Yep, they are. Try and live without your gut flora, or the protection of your skin flora!

And a quote from Weil doesn't even warrant a response.

- H

BackTalk said:

Not to drift away from the topic at hand but I would like to comment here. I think it would be impossible to find any chiropractor where they evaluated a patient with significant morbidity or high risk for mortality, found a condition missed by an MD/DO, and treated the patient to resolution for that condition" Conditions that carry significant morbidity or high risk for mortality usually do not wander into a chiropractor's office. If they did the treatment would more than likely fall outside the DC's scope of practice and they wouldn't be able to treat the patient anyway. So I doubt anyone is going to find any documented cases.

Click to expand...

True, but given Skiiboy's "straight" aproach, he seems to feel that a chiropractor could treat any condition found. I was merely offering him the opporitunity to follow-up with proof (something he has failed to do at every point in this thread).

BackTalk said:

If we were going to play fair, then I would like to mention an interesting article I read in today's local newspaper. The article was on ways the medical profession is trying to prevent mistakes. It mentioned that the Institute of Medicine reported that medical errors kill between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans annually (study was done 5 years ago). An endocrinologist of the American College of Endocrinology, said that an estimated 50% of people with a chronic condition at some time experience a medical error in their care or that of a family member. This article doesn't make it right for chiropractors to misdiagnose patients or make mistakes either. These numbers probably represent misdiagnosis, drug interactions and other mistakes all lumped together. Even so, with numbers this high, and even if misdiagnosis were a small portion, its still a big number. Show me a statistic that shows chiropractors are equally responsible for medical mistakes. I suppose you do have an argument that chiropractic errors aren't generally reported do to self-regulation and it would be hard to actually come up with a valid statistic. Even if you could find a statistic it still doesn't negate the fact that your profession is responsible for many deaths each year. The issue can't be ignored.

Click to expand...

True, it can't. But you need to look at what the errors are. The most common error in the IOM report is "failure to diagnose" or "misdiagnosis" - in other words, failure to rescue. Now, I am not making any excuses here, ideally this would never happen. But, a large portion of the deaths described are people with fatal conditions we (medicine) fail to detect. True iatrogenic (i.e., caused by specific actions of healthcare workers) cases are extremely rare.

BTW - "Demon be gone"... Unless this guy starts actually posting something credible and thought provoking, I am out of here. Rehashing and reposting old analyses (and having to post the abstract links to boot) just isn't useful. Skiiboy has failed to answer any of the substansive questions asked of him. When he does respond, it is with the accuracy of "This guy I know, had a brother, who dated this girl, who one time at band camp..."

- H

Funny how just two weeks ago, FoughtFyr posted the following (guess he has yet to be "enlightened" 😉 Welcome back, buddy!):

"Guys,

With all due respect, I am bowing out of these arguments. None of us is going to convince the others of anything, and I question the utility of continued discussion. My point is that while SMT may work for LBP and other NMS conditions, it is not the panacea envisioned by Palmer. While many (most?) chiropractors realize this, some do not. The general public has no easy way to discern the beliefs or practices of a given chiropractor, because they are not generally well educated enough regarding chiropractic to ask. When they are educated, it is usually by the provider from whom they are seeking care (hardly an unbiased source). In most states, the chiropractic practice acts are written so broadly as to empower chiropractors who choose to do so to guide their patients to questionable decisions regarding their healthcare without repercussion.

I also have little question, based on significant personal experience, that chiropractors (in general) are poor at diagnosing non-NMS conditions. While this poses little problem for the patient of a competant "mixer" chiropractor, it can be (and has been) deadly to patients of straights or pseudo-mixers, whose patients may wait to seek medical therapy until their conditions are so advanced that reasonable hope is lost. Why? Because their chiropractor told them he/she was helping. I also realize that advising against immunizations is a fringe practice, but as an ED physician in an area currently hit by an epidemic of a pertussis, it is hard to ignore those "fringe" providers. And I do realize that the overwhelming majority of the pertussis cases we are seeing are from waned immunity after immunization, the very sick young unimmunized children are just a senseless reminder that the issue is very alive and real.

But I am not going to change your minds, nor you mine. So, thanks for the discussion, it has been enlightening.

- H"

Source: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=2139420#post2139420

Your "awareness" of these studies should have taken you to www.pubmed.com. There were no "interns on their first day of internship" in either of these studies, and both studies included "Chiro grads." Get the facts straight, then make your derisive comments. Otherwise, you look like a fool.

Ah, PubicHealth............I guess you didn't read what I was saying very carefully, did you? I'll remind you:


skiiboy said:

There was recently a study done which showed something like 80% of medical residents failed a basic musculoskeletal competence test

I said:

I'm aware of the study that you mention, but can't locate it at the moment

Pretty clear, don't you think?

Not to you, I gather. You linked the two radiographic studies, which you and FF have already discussed. I provided a link to that discussion in the second part of my response. I suppose I should clarify that one of the radiographic studies also included plain pelvic radiographs.

My first paragraph was not a discussion of the two radiographic studies.

The MSK competency test study was tricky to find and took a little while, but here it is (referenced previously by FF):

The adequacy of medical school education in musculoskeletal medicine.

Freedman KB, Bernstein J.

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA.

A basic familiarity with musculoskeletal disorders is essential for all medical school graduates. The purpose of the current study was to test a group of recent medical school graduates on basic topics in musculoskeletal medicine in order to assess the adequacy of their preparation in this area. A basic-competency examination in musculoskeletal medicine was developed and validated. The examination was sent to all 157 chairpersons of orthopaedic residency programs in the United States, who were asked to rate each question for importance and to suggest a passing score. To assess the criterion validity, the examination was administered to eight chief residents in orthopaedic surgery. The study population comprised all eighty-five residents who were in their first postgraduate year at our institution; the examination was administered on their first day of residency. One hundred and twenty-four (81 per cent) of the 154 orthopaedic residency-program chairpersons who received the survey responded to it. The chairpersons rated twenty-four of the twenty-five questions as at least important. The mean passing score (and standard deviation) that they recommended for the assessment of basic competency was 73.1 +/- 6.8 per cent. The mean score for the eight orthopaedic chief residents was 98.5 +/- 1.07 per cent, and that for the eighty-five residents in their first postgraduate year was 59.6 +/- 12 per cent. Seventy (82 per cent) of the eighty-five residents failed to demonstrate basic competency on the examination according to the chairpersons' criterion. The residents who had taken an elective course in orthopaedic surgery in medical school scored higher on the examination (mean score, 68.4 per cent) than did those who had taken only a required course in orthopaedic surgery (mean score, 57.9 per cent) and those who had taken no rotation in orthopaedic surgery (mean score, 55.9 per cent) (p = 0.005 and p = 0.001, respectively). In summary, seventy (82 per cent) of eighty-five medical school graduates failed a valid musculoskeletal competency examination. We therefore believe that medical school preparation in musculoskeletal medicine is inadequate.



"The study population comprised all eighty-five residents who were in their first postgraduate year at our institution; the examination was administered on their first day of residency. "

First postgraduate year (PGY-1) at thier institution, first day. I interpret that to mean first day of internship.

There you go , PH. Learn to read carefully before you make derisive comments. Otherwise, you look like a fool 😉

In all honesty, PH, I hope you're not this cocky and smug in real life. If you are, then my advice to you is to buy a large package of lubricant to ease the pain of having your ass stretched on a daily basis during clerkship. Residents and attendings have this fondness for putting the overly cocky med students in their place.


FF said:

Well, the "study" referenced in this report is not even indexed, so it is difficult to state with any certainty what it actually showed. Were these even female-factored infertility couples? What protocols were used to determine infertility? What was the study design? Even if all of these questions were answered, it has been often demonstrated that cessation of infertility treatments, especially when more than one treatment protocol is used, can lead to pregnancy. So, it may well be that the chiropractic treatments "helped" by keeping the women away from their usual regieme.

I think that this is it:

http://www.jvsr.com/access/abstracts.asp?catalogid=161

It's from JVSR. Not the world's premier scientific journal.........

Abstract - Objective:
Infertility is distinct from sterility, implying potential, and therefore raises questions as to what insult or interference influences this sluggish outcome. Interference in physiological function, as viewed by the application of chiropractic principles, suggests a neurological etiology and is approached through the mechanism of detection of vertebral subluxation and subsequent appropriate and specific adjustments to promote potential and function. Parental health and wellness prior to conception influences reproductive success and sustainability, begging efficient, effective consideration and interpretation of overall state and any distortion. A discussion of diverse articles is presented, describing the response to chiropractic care among subluxated infertile women.

Clinical Features:

Fourteen retrospective articles are referenced, their diversity includes: all 15 subjects are female, ages 22-65; prior pregnancy history revealed 11 none, 2 successful unassisted, 1 assisted, 1 history of miscarriage. 9 had previous treatment for infertility, 4 were undergoing infertility treatment when starting chiropractic care. Presenting concerns included: severe low back pain, neck pain, colitis, diabetes, and female dysfunction such as absent or irregular menstrual cycle, blocked fallopian tubes, endometriosis, infertility, perimenopause and the fertility window within a religiousbased lifestyle, and a poor responder undergoing multiple cycles of IVF.

Chiropractic Care and Outcome:

Outcomes of chiropractic
care include but are not limited to benefits regarding neuromuscular concerns, as both historical and modern research describe associations with possible increased physiological functions, in this instance reproductive function. Chiropractic care and outcome are discussed, based on protocols of a variety of arts, including Applied Kinesiology (A.K.), Diversified, Directional Non-Force Technique (D.N.F.T.), Gonstead, Network Spinal Analysis (N.S.A.), Torque Release Technique (T.R.T.), Sacro Occipital Technique (S.O.T.) and Stucky-Thompson Terminal Point Technique. Care is described over a time frame of 1 to 20 months.

Conclusion:

The application of chiropractic care and subsequent successful outcomes on reproductive integrity, regardless of factors including age, history and medical intervention, are described through a diversity of chiropractic arts. Future studies that may evaluate more formally and on a larger scale, the effectiveness, safety and cost benefits of chiropractic care on both well-being and physiological function are suggested, as well as pursuit of appropriate funding.