Is Chiropractic education equivalent to MD?

I was just wondering if chiropractic education was equivalent to that of a medical doctor. Many chiros claim that their education is equivalent, but somehow I find it hard to believe.

Can anyone elaborate with statistics and their thoughts?

Thanks.

seanjohn said:

I was just wondering if chiropractic education was equivalent to that of a medical doctor. Many chiros claim that their education is equivalent, but somehow I find it hard to believe.

Can anyone elaborate with statistics and their thoughts?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. Do a search through this forum and I'm sure most of your questions will be answered.

(I really hope you're not a troll)

Jambi said:

No, it's not. Do a search through this forum and I'm sure most of your questions will be answered.

(I really hope you're not a troll)

Click to expand...

Of course the curriculum differs in some ways, since chiros learn manipulation, and MD's don't... but my question was meant more in terms of competency in diagnosis, and if indeed chiropractors can legitimately refer to themselves as 'doctors.'

I've been on this site longer than you have, Chet.

My family and I use a chiropractor for our primary care doctor.

I remember when my wife went into premature labor, our chiro made the diagnosis immediately just by the malposition of her spine. From the information he got from her x-rays and manipulations, he knew to start her on antibiotics to prevent chorioamnionitis.

But his medical expertise did not stop there, since my son was born at 35 weeks, our family chiro had the presence of mind to notice the retractions and grunting of his breathing and proceded to intubate him there on the spot. After a few manipulations he was able to diagnose my little boy with Respiratory Distress Syndrome. He immediately treated him with surfactant and was weened off the vent in a matter of days. In addition to this, he was very adept at placing umbilical arterial and venous lines.

I also have a friend who developed a symptomatic basilar artery aneurysm. He was hell bent on going to a neurosurgeon but changed his mind after I told him about my chiro. Since then, he has had percutaneous coiling done at the chiro's office on an outpatient basis.

Of late, while I was performing anethesia for a right lung transplant, I had to do a quick phone consult with my chiro since I don't trust the medical training either I or my attending had. Since I had floated a Swan-Ganz catheter in my patient, I wanted my friendly family chiro to explain the determinants of mixed venous oxygenation and the elements of the Fick equation. He had a little trouble dumbing it down for someone like me to understand. He really saved the day when I had to clamp off the right lung and rely on one lung ventilation. He explained the basics of one lung ventilation under anesthesia to me as well as why my Pulmonary Artery pressures were so high. Although the patient thanked me for a perfect anesthetic, I know my family chiro was the real hero. If I only knew manipulations instead of all this worthless damn clinical medicine...

I won't even go into my Aunt's vaginitis, he cured that too!

I hope this helps! 😀

The training for chiropractors is nowhere close to that which physicians get. The closest physician, in terms of practice, to a chiropractor is a physiatrist. The physiatrist is required to have four years of medical school, 1 year of internship, and three years of residency training. Now, chiropractors will try and tell you that they somehow cram 5 years of training into 3 years. This is because they use the federal financial aid rules to define a year (1 year = 2 semesters). By this math, a physiatrist has 11 1/2 "years" of training.

Understand that, while they are properly referred to as "doctors" in practice, the DC is not generally recognized as an academic degree. There are many teaching hospitals where a DC would not be referred to as "doctor" (there are policies stipulating who can and can't be called "doctor" to prevent confusing patients and staff). There are no institutions of higher education, other than chiropractic colleges, where a DC is an acceptable degree for admission to academic faculty. (And before everyone starts screaming about T. Yochum at Colorado, he lectures there, he is not a professor, he is not on tenure track, and he does not hold academic rank. Nurses, paramedics, PTs and RTs hold similar positions at many schools. That doesn't make them faculty).

Additionally, chiropractic is not supported by the current literature for any condition other than idiopathic LBP. For that condition, studies have demonstrated that chiropractic is "as good as" but not better than traditional medical treatment. You should keep in mind that both chiropractic and traditional medicine are statistically only slightly better than placebo in those cases, so there is not a strong arguement for either. Read this for a bit more skeptical take on chiropractic education: http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/02/why-i-left-chiropractic.html

There are several papers out that demonstrate how ineffectively chiropractors are prepared for practice in primary care, the best of which is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15965408&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

What they did was give a test to on basic primary care to three groups of chiropractic students in their final terms in chiropractic college (groups 1, 2 and 3) and one group of recent medical school graduates who had yet to start residency. The test was created by "2 DCs who also hold bachelor's degrees, 1 DC with a diplomate in radiology, a DC enrolled in the final year of a radiology residency program, and 2 MDs". It was a 100 question test broken into two 50 question sections and some description of attempts to validate the instrument for use on chiropractic students is offered by the authors. So here is what they found...

Group 1: 21 students, raw scores 32.7, % scores 65.4, SD 4.6
Group 2: 22 students, raw scores 28, % scores 56, SD 5
Group 3: 79 students, raw scores 32.1, % scores 64.2, SD 4.4
Groups 1 to 3 (combined): 122 students, raw scores 31.4, % scores 62.8, SD 4.7
Group 4: 20 students, raw scores 36.7, % scores 73.4, SD 3.3

Now, while the medical student sample size is low, the performance of the chiropractic students is abyssmally low. 68% of all of the chiropractic students (who are very soon to enter practice) taking the test, a test designed and validated by DCs, scored between 58.1% and 67.5%?!? This is noteworthy? Yes, it is! It succinctly proves the point that DCs are very ill prepared to serve as primary care physicians. As for the medical students, 68% scored between 70.1% and 76.7%. While I would normally bristle at these data as the sample size is so small, it should be noted that the SD was the narrowest, by a considerable amount, in this group. This leads me to question the need to validate the instrument not only with chiropractic students (as was done) but also with medical students (not done in this study). These results seem to indicate a very tight "clumping" of scores in the medical student group, which may suggest that areas of the test represented material outside their scope of instruction.

Other results:
Percentage scores of all students on 5 major categories of primary care tasks
Primary care activities (% correct)
Information gathering Group 1 - 60.12, 2 - 57.04, 3 - 64.72, 4 - 76.64
Screening and prevention Group 1 - 35.72, 2 - 27.09, 3 - 38.93, 4 - 63.10
Other diagnostic procedures Group 1 - 66.94, 2 - 57.64, 3 - 65.83, 4 - 74.34
Counseling and education Group 1 - 69.05, 2 - 75.00, 3 - 87.74, 4 - 95.24
Management of acute/chronic conditions Group 1 - 65.71, 2 - 57.04, 3 - 64.69, 4 - 73.01

By these data, chiropractic does not perform information gathering or screening and prevention well at all.

I'm not going to post the data on all individual "subcategories of management of acute and chronic conditions". Suffice it to say that group four handily out performed all of the other groups in every area except one:
Musculoskeletal (% correct) Group 1 - 71.04, 2 - 56.95, 3 - 54.75, 4 - 48.02
(but group four did outperform the others in neuro!:
Neurological (% correct) Group 1 - 78.1, 2 - 61.67, 3 - 78.99, 4 - 82.86)

My most significant concern on their methodology is this - the test was given to medical students about to enter residency training and to final term chiropractic students about to enter practice (presumably). Now, the article acknowledges a gap, but that gap should only grow as the medical students have at least three years of training remaining. Also, no attempt was made to identify what area of medicine the MD students were entering. I would argue that given the latitude to self direct fourth year cirricula to a certain degree, students heading into primary care would likely outperform a random sample from all medical students on this examination as they would have more training in this area than the "average" medical student.

Lastly, the conclusions (from the abstract) do not match the data. It is not "noteworthy", in a positive sense, that chiropractic students about to enter the workforce score abyssmally low on a test of basic primary care skills. Comparing them to MD graduates with at least three years of training remaining is comparing apples and oranges. And even given the disparity in time remaining in training, the MD students quite significantly outperformed the chiropractors. This paper completely demonstrates what I have been saying since I started coming to this forum. Chiropractors are not equipped to act as primary care physicians.

Now chiropractors love to quote this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=9801210&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum and it's follow-up http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15687152&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum as "proof" that MDs are not adequately trained in NMS complaints, and that chiropractors are. Before you buy into this realize the following - chiropractors were not given the test in either study! We have no idea how badly they would have bombed it. But we do know from the article above: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005 Jun;28(5):336-44. Assessment of knowledge of primary care activities in a sample of medical and chiropractic students. Sandefur R, Febbo TA, and Rupert RL. that three groups of chiropractic third year students, when given a test on musculosketal pathology, scored 71.04%, 56.95%, and 54.75% respectively. So much for the greater musculoskeletal training.

And, the arguement is spurrious on its face. The articles on allopathic musculosketal pathology training were studies designed specifically to call for additional training for all physicians in musculosketal pathology. There is no question that the current medical school cirriculum is overloaded. The call for extended training in many subjects has been going on for years. Unlike in chiropractic where all of medicine AND all of chiropractic can be learned in three calendar years.

Given the collaborative medical model (remember that unlike chiropractors, MD/DOs do not believe we know everything nor do we believe we can treat everything) a properly treated patient presenting to a primary care physician for treatment of a musculosketal issue will be referred to another physician. Patients are best served by receiving care from a health care provider with more musculoskeletal training - an orthopedic surgeon or a medical PM&R physician.

BTW - the practicing orthopods ALL passed the test and were used as controls!

The last problem is that you need to remember that there are, within chiropractic, at least three distinct groups, each of whom have a very different vision of chiropractic - especially in regard to it's scope. There are "straight" chiropractors who hold dear the principles of Palmer and the belief that nervous system dysfunction holds the key to most health problems. Then there are the "mixers" who agree that there is little scientific basis for most of Palmer's theories, but who feel chiropractic is a useful modality for treatment neuro/muscular/skeletal problems. Then there are the "psuedo-mixers" who hold on to Palmer's theories and try and expand them through "new" and decidedly non-medical practices. These folks are often very "anti-medicine" and truly believe that the "Rosetta Stone" to all of health lay within their grasp. Each of these groups is "entrenched" in the profession and have resist standardizing the profession in any vision but their own. These groups infight so much that it is impossible to even define chiropractic care anymore because the care you will recieve will vary so greatly based on which "camp" your practitioner comes from.

- H

Chiropractors have no prescriptive authority as well.

nitecap said:

Chiropractors have no prescriptive authority as well.

Click to expand...

Correct - TofuBalls was being sarcastic.

- H

"Understand that, while they are properly referred to as "doctors" in practice, the DC is not generally recognized as an academic degree." Neither is an M.D. or D.O. degree! These all are clinical/professional doctorates and not meant to be research oriented.

As far as specific knowledge Phd's will always rule the roost. Practical application is a different story and requires a different broad based education...clinical/professional doctorate.

So is a chiropractor a doctor? Of course. Is he a physician (as the public sees and understands the term) NO. I do not believe we are trained, educated or held to the same standards as physicians.

I think the problem lies in the fact that graduate degrees are meaning less and less now. REAL Masters degrees earned with butt time on campus are equated w/internet accelerated (life experience credit) masters degrees now. Every single profession out there thinks they need a doctorate...pharmacists, physical therapists etc. So the term "Doctor" needs to be differentiated from "physician" and I think that's what states are doing now. Everyone one who earns an accredited terminal doctorate degree can be called doctor of their specific specialty.

Everything FoughtFyr said is pretty true but telling someone who's put in 8 years of college, thousands of hours of class time at a cost over $100K that they can't even be called the title they earned is petty. 👎

It's mincing words and titles...if your intent was to question whether D.C.'s are competent to diagnose anything but musculoskeletal disorders I'd say...no. Some could be pretty good at it I'm sure but there is no consistency whatsoever and the level of student is not on par with any of the other health professions. The continuing education requirement is a joke and the lack of research in the field demonstrates it's extrememly narrow application.

And yes, I practice.

chirodoc said:

foughtfyr said:

"Understand that, while they are properly referred to as "doctors" in practice, the DC is not generally recognized as an academic degree."

Click to expand...

Neither is an M.D. or D.O. degree! These all are clinical/professional doctorates and not meant to be research oriented.

Click to expand...

Here is where I'll disagree with you. MDs can be, and are, hired to teach at Universities on topics other than medicine. Most faculty hiring standards (such as Harvard's "purple book") include the MD/DO as meeting the basic educational requirement to be faculty. The DC generally does not. While there has been one case, oft quoted, of a DC acting as a clinical instructor, to my knowledge there are no professors hired on the strength of a DC alone (although DC, PhDs have been, that is as a result of the PhD, not the DC).

chirodoc said:

Everything FoughtFyr said is pretty true but telling someone who's put in 8 years of college, thousands of hours of class time at a cost over $100K that they can't even be called the title they earned is petty. 👎

Click to expand...

I agree you've earned the title. I would expect you to introduce yourself that way in professional conversation. But, much like the PharmD, DNP, or PhD researcher, when in an academic medical center and in patient care areas I would expect that you wouldn't be called "doctor" to avoid staff and patient confusion. This is not the case in every medical center, but with the proliferation of doctoral degrees (as you point out) more and more centers are addressing this with specific policies.

I am not trying to take away what you have earned, I do respect the work you've done. For me you are like a cleric in a religion I do not practice. I respect the work you do and the effort it took to get there, but I don't subscribe to the basis behind it. Please do not interpret my post otherwise. 👍

- H

http://dms.dartmouth.edu/faculty/facultydb/view.php?uid=1888
Here's something interesting. This faculty member's first degree is that of a D.C. yet Dartmouth does not mention it! 🙄

611 said:

http://dms.dartmouth.edu/faculty/facultydb/view.php?uid=1888
Here's something interesting. This faculty member's first degree is that of a D.C. yet Dartmouth does not mention it! 🙄

Click to expand...

I do not disagree that DCs who have gone on for other degrees have been named to faculty positions. My assertion is that, but for his MD and/or PhD, he would not have been appointed to the position.

BTW - Most faculty are allowed to select how their names appear (a faculty appointment is kind of a big deal) but if Dartmouth did tell him he couldn't list the degree that would 1. be very, very wrong - he did earn it and 2. prove my point that the DC is not generally recognized as an academic degree.

- H

http://www.c3r.org/accrac05/Bios/Scott-Haldeman.htm
I guess the moral to the story is go get the MD/PhD

611 said:

http://www.theamericanchiropractor.com/articledetail.asp?articleid=279&category=9

Click to expand...

An interesting quote (that echoes what I've often said here):

- H

FoughtFyr said:

Here is where I'll disagree with you. MDs can be, and are, hired to teach at Universities on topics other than medicine. Most faculty hiring standards (such as Harvard's "purple book") include the MD/DO as meeting the basic educational requirement to be faculty. The DC does generally does not. While there has been one case, oft quoted, of a DC acting as a clinical instructor, to my knowledge there are no professors hired on the strength of a DC alone (although DC, PhDs have been, that is as a result of the PhD, not the DC).
- H

Click to expand...

FoughtFyr, I just reviewed the "purple book" (quickly), and I can't find where it says anything about MD/DO meeting the basic educational requirements to be faculty outside of HMS or HSDM. The "purple book" essentially breaks down the procedures for appointment of faculty within HMS/HSDM.

What other topics are they hired to teach in the role of a full time assistant/associate/professor type position other than medicine? I've never heard of an associate professor of biology who had an MD.

lawguil said:

FoughtFyr, I just reviewed the "purple book" (quickly), and I can't find where it says anything about MD/DO meeting the basic educational requirements to be faculty outside of HMS or HSDM. The "purple book" essentially breaks down the procedures for appointment of faculty within HMS/HSDM.

What other topics are they hired to teach in the role of a full time assistant/associate/professor type position other than medicine? I've never heard of an associate professor of biology who had an MD.

Click to expand...

my physiology instructor at the university of ca was an md.

TofuBalls said:

My family and I use a chiropractor for our primary care doctor.

I remember when my wife went into premature labor, our chiro made the diagnosis immediately just by the malposition of her spine. From the information he got from her x-rays and manipulations, he knew to start her on antibiotics to prevent chorioamnionitis.

But his medical expertise did not stop there, since my son was born at 35 weeks, our family chiro had the presence of mind to notice the retractions and grunting of his breathing and proceded to intubate him there on the spot. After a few manipulations he was able to diagnose my little boy with Respiratory Distress Syndrome. He immediately treated him with surfactant and was weened off the vent in a matter of days. In addition to this, he was very adept at placing umbilical arterial and venous lines.

I also have a friend who developed a symptomatic basilar artery aneurysm. He was hell bent on going to a neurosurgeon but changed his mind after I told him about my chiro. Since then, he has had percutaneous coiling done at the chiro's office on an outpatient basis.

Of late, while I was performing anethesia for a right lung transplant, I had to do a quick phone consult with my chiro since I don't trust the medical training either I or my attending had. Since I had floated a Swan-Ganz catheter in my patient, I wanted my friendly family chiro to explain the determinants of mixed venous oxygenation and the elements of the Fick equation. He had a little trouble dumbing it down for someone like me to understand. He really saved the day when I had to clamp off the right lung and rely on one lung ventilation. He explained the basics of one lung ventilation under anesthesia to me as well as why my Pulmonary Artery pressures were so high. Although the patient thanked me for a perfect anesthetic, I know my family chiro was the real hero. If I only knew manipulations instead of all this worthless damn clinical medicine...

I won't even go into my Aunt's vaginitis, he cured that too!

I hope this helps! 😀

Click to expand...

That is perhaps the funniest post I have read on this site.

emedpa said:

my physiology instructor at the university of ca was an md.

Click to expand...

Question? Were they an instructor/adjunct or faculty member (professor, associate professor, assistant professor)?
As an example, I took an Anatomy course from an RN who also had a master’s degree in education. She wasn't faculty! She taught 6 credits/year. Many schools do this to avoid hiring full-time faculty, save money, and there are many non-PhD's who can do a fine job of teaching undergrads/professional students.

I think we've established that Chiropractic education is not on par with Medical education and training, since medical training is all-encompassing, whereas chiropractic training is focused more on neuromusculoskeletal treatment and diagnosis.

I still have some further questioning, however. Are chiropractors more competent and well-trained in treating and diagnosing NMS disorders compared to an MD in general/family practice, are they equivalent, or are MD's more competent?

seanjohn said:

I think we've established that Chiropractic education is not on par with Medical education and training, since medical training is all-encompassing, whereas chiropractic training is focused more on neuromusculoskeletal treatment and diagnosis.

I still have some further questioning, however. Are chiropractors more competent and well-trained in treating and diagnosing NMS disorders compared to an MD in general/family practice, are they equivalent, or are MD's more competent?

Click to expand...

Read the paper above. No, chiropractors are not even close to MDs, even in NMS complaints - especially since they are very limited in diagnosis and treatment modalities.

- H

***SNIFF, SNIFF - beginning to smell like the underside of a bridge around here...***

lawguil said:

FoughtFyr, I just reviewed the "purple book" (quickly), and I can't find where it says anything about MD/DO meeting the basic educational requirements to be faculty outside of HMS or HSDM. The "purple book" essentially breaks down the procedures for appointment of faculty within HMS/HSDM.

What other topics are they hired to teach in the role of a full time assistant/associate/professor type position other than medicine? I've never heard of an associate professor of biology who had an MD.

Click to expand...

http://grad.uchc.edu/cell_bio/cellbio_faculty.html

http://molecool.wustl.edu/gordon.htm

http://www.physiology.uiowa.edu/faculty/faculty/welsh.htm

http://naturejobs.nature.com/texis/jobsearch/details.html?id=437211014a0eb0&lookid=nature

http://healtheconomics.org/jobs/2005/12/30/tenure-track-assistant-as.html

http://www.coph.ouhsc.edu/coph/hap/faculty-tulsa-nov05.htm

http://www.asbh.org/news/jobs.htm

Let's see, cell biology at U. Conn (for the Ph.D. program) is run by an MD, Wash U. has a named professorship in molecular bio held by an MD, the University of Iowa department of physiology has an MD as named faculty and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health is looking for a few good MDs. To say nothing of the health policy folks at Oklahoma U. and the genome ethics folks at Duke. Hmm, don't see the DC mentioned in any of these ads. Nor do I see ANY faculty profiles of "DC only" professors outside of chiropractic colleges.

Come on Lawguil, are you just looking for an argument or did you really believe that MDs weren't professors in various health related (but not medicine) or life science subjects? Remember that an MD/DO is required to do human research and lots of human biology calls for that.

- H

FoughtFyr said:

Read the paper above. No, chiropractors are not even close to MDs, even in NMS complaints - especially since they are very limited in diagnosis and treatment modalities.

- H

***SNIFF, SNIFF - beginning to smell like the underside of a bridge around here...***

Click to expand...

Well if that's true, then that's a pretty frightening thought, since there is a segment of the population that uses chiropractors as their primary contact, and primary care health practitioner.

If an individual has back pain, and they presented to a physician, the physician doesn't have a wide array of treatment modalities. Certainly if the patient has a severe condition that needs a referral, then there are treatment modalities such as surgery... but a general practitioner really has only one treatment modality for pain, which is Tylenol 3, or some other pain killer. Chiropractors claim to have many treatment modalities, such as manipulation, mobilization etc.

For a patient with anklyosing spondylitis, spondylolysthesis, cauda equina syndrome, spinal stenosis, or even scoliosis, there is little that a chiropractor can do. In fact, I'd say a chiropractor should immediately refer a patient out to a physician when a patient presents with such ailments, and not even attempt to treat such problems on their own. However, for minor mechanical irritations such as joint stiffness or even for loss of range of motion it wouldn't hurt a patient to try a chiropractor out. It's important that chiropractors adhere to their scope of practice, and don't mislead the public into thinking they're physicians, because they really aren't... they're much closer to physical therapists, who use additional treatment modalities such as manipulation.

FoughtFyr said:

Read the paper above. No, chiropractors are not even close to MDs, even in NMS complaints - especially since they are very limited in diagnosis and treatment modalities.

Click to expand...

You base your conclusion on one article? Please show me data to support your second assertion.

Funny how spine surgeons, physiatrists, and sports medicine physicians are working collaboratively with "quack" chiropractors in treating NMS conditions: http://www.texasback.com/doctors.htm
http://www.manhattanspine.com/meet.html

This is a list of conditions that chiropractors commonly and successfully treat: http://www.nespineinstitute.com/conditions.htm

More info: http://www.nespineinstitute.com/Documents/Indications for manipulation 2003.pdf
http://www.nespineinstitute.com/FAQMD.htm

lawguil said:

I've never heard of an associate professor of biology who had an MD.

Click to expand...

Except at UCSF:

http://biochemistry.ucsf.edu/fac_jobs.html

- H

FoughtFyr said:

http://grad.uchc.edu/cell_bio/cellbio_faculty.html

http://molecool.wustl.edu/gordon.htm

http://www.physiology.uiowa.edu/faculty/faculty/welsh.htm

http://naturejobs.nature.com/texis/jobsearch/details.html?id=437211014a0eb0&lookid=nature

http://healtheconomics.org/jobs/2005/12/30/tenure-track-assistant-as.html

http://www.coph.ouhsc.edu/coph/hap/faculty-tulsa-nov05.htm

http://www.asbh.org/news/jobs.htm

Let's see, cell biology at U. Conn (for the Ph.D. program) is run by an MD, Wash U. has a named professorship in molecular bio held by an MD, the University of Iowa department of physiology has an MD as named faculty and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health is looking for a few good MDs. To say nothing of the health policy folks at Oklahoma U. and the genome ethics folks at Duke. Hmm, don't see the DC mentioned in any of these ads. Nor do I see ANY faculty profiles of "DC only" professors outside of chiropractic colleges.

Come on Lawguil, are you just looking for an argument or did you really believe that MDs weren't professors in various health related (but not medicine) or life science subjects? Remember that an MD/DO is required to do human research and lots of human biology calls for that.

- H

Click to expand...

Every link you provided supports what I stated in my previous post. These are positions within the departments of medicine/health science. I suspect we are saying the same thing! Further, I agree that a DC is unqualified for any position outside of chiropractic education!

lawguil said:

Every link you provided supports what I stated in my previous post. These are positions within the departments of medicine/health science. I suspect we are saying the same thing! Further, I agree that a DC is unqualified for any position outside of chiropractic education!

Click to expand...

Public Health and Health Policy are separate from medicine. The Iowa faculty is a joint appointment (sorry I read it quickly), but the UCSF ads are not medical, they are biology. There are jobs for MDs looking to teach outside of medical school (usually at the graduate level), not so for a DC looking to teach outside of chiropractic college.

In other words, yes, we agree.

- H

PublicHealth said:

You base your conclusion on one article? Please show me data to support your second assertion.

Click to expand...

If you have a patient outcomes based study to show that primary care medical doctors do not have a "strong handle" on the treatment of musculoskeletal complaints, post it. This study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12779297&query_hl=4 and a Cochrane review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12779297&query_hl=4 both show that your highly regarded chiropractors are no more effective (in terms of outcome) than those dreaded primary care medical doctors, who have never been to shown to have a strong handle on the diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal complaints.

From: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/11/I-33 "What did the researchers find? Spinal manipulation was more effective than sham therapy and therapies already known to be unhelpful. However, it was no more or less effective than general practitioner care, pain killers, physical therapy, exercise, or back school." {emphasis added} Hmm, why hasn't chiropractic been proven to be more effective if they are so great at NMS treatment and primary care medical doctors so poor?

PublicHealth said:

Funny how spine surgeons, physiatrists, and sports medicine physicians are working collaboratively with "quack" chiropractors in treating NMS conditions: http://www.texasback.com/doctors.htm
http://www.manhattanspine.com/meet.html

Click to expand...

Hmm, from the TBI website "Texas Back Institute is the largest freestanding spine specialty clinic in the United States. We have world-renowned surgeons and conservative care specialists, state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment services and customized patient care that encourage non-surgical alternatives." {emphasis added} Sounds more than a bit like chiropractic to me.

And do you really want to push Manhattan Spine? A "VAX-D" clinic. LMFAO!

PublicHealth said:

This is a list of conditions that chiropractors commonly and successfully treat: http://www.nespineinstitute.com/conditions.htm

Click to expand...

WOW! REALLY! Gee, that settles it for me. I mean if a chiropractor says he can treat it, he must be able to. I mean all that research out there that shows chiropractors are not effective takes time to absorb and analyze. It is so much easier to just go to a chiropractor's marketing website.

- H

FoughtFyr said:

If you have a patient outcomes based study to show that primary care medical doctors do not have a "strong handle" on the treatment of musculoskeletal complaints, post it. This study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12779297&query_hl=4 and a Cochrane review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12779297&query_hl=4 both show that your highly regarded chiropractors are no more effective (in terms of outcome) than those dreaded primary care medical doctors, who have never been to shown to have a strong handle on the diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal complaints.

From: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/11/I-33 "What did the researchers find? Spinal manipulation was more effective than sham therapy and therapies already known to be unhelpful. However, it was no more or less effective than general practitioner care, pain killers, physical therapy, exercise, or back school." {emphasis added} Hmm, why hasn't chiropractic been proven to be more effective if they are so great at NMS treatment and primary care medical doctors so poor?



Hmm, from the TBI website "Texas Back Institute is the largest freestanding spine specialty clinic in the United States. We have world-renowned surgeons and conservative care specialists, state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment services and customized patient care that encourage non-surgical alternatives." {emphasis added} Sounds more than a bit like chiropractic to me.

And do you really want to push Manhattan Spine? A "VAX-D" clinic. LMFAO!



WOW! REALLY! Gee, that settles it for me. I mean if a chiropractor says he can treat it, he must be able to. I mean all that research out there that shows chiropractors are not effective takes time to absorb and analyze. It is so much easier to just go to a chiropractor's marketing website.

- H

Click to expand...

You cited the same reference above. I said it before and I'll say it again, chiropractic research is just beginning to take shape (http://nccam.nih.gov/health/chiropractic/#11a. From the NCCAM: "Research studies on chiropractic are ongoing. The results are expected to expand scientific understanding of chiropractic. A key area of research is the basic science of what happens in the body (including its cells and nerves) when specific chiropractic treatments are given." Here is a list of NCCAM-sponsored clinical trials: http://clinicaltrials.gov/search/te...practic+therapy)+[TREATMENT]?recruiting=false

Clinically, most chiropractors provide much more than spinal manipulation (e.g., rehabilitation exercise, clinical nutrition and homeopathy, acupuncture, ultrasound, muscle stimulation, massage, etc), so more research is needed to understand if "mixer" chiropractic is more efficacious than "straight" chiropractic in treating NMS conditions.

Chiropractors have fought off pressure from medicine for decades. Only recently, with the development of NCCAM, have there been any national research efforts in chiropractic.

PublicHealth said:

Chiropractors have fought off pressure from medicine for decades. Only recently, with the development of NCCAM, have there been any national research efforts in chiropractic.

Click to expand...

Yes, and you and others would like us to believe that it is already completed and in fact chiropractic is a treatment modality that has been validated. It hasn't. And as study after study shows that it doesn't work any better than placebo, when will you admit it doesn't work? Or have you moved on to napthropathic? There isn't a substitute for medical school...

- H

FoughtFyr said:

Yes, and you and others would like us to believe that it is already completed and in fact chiropractic as a treatment modality has been validated. It hasn't. And as study after study shows that it doesn't work any better than placebo, when will you admit it doesn't work? Or have you moved on to napthropathic? There isn't a substitute for medical school...

- H

Click to expand...

I agree. However, I am willing to consider all the evidence before drawing premature conclusions about an entire healthcare profession. Most of the research on chiropractic that has been conducted to date is crap. You said it yourself in countless posts. Drawing a conclusion based on meta-analyses of crappy studies with small sample sizes is also crap.

I am a second-year medical student. I am not looking for a "substitute for medical school," but simply trying to keep an open mind and learn more about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), which despite all the Cochrane reviews of crappy studies that you cite, is an accepted and integrated part of mainstream medicine in this and many other countries around the world.

The literature on chiropractic and CAM in general is in its infancy. Drawing conclusions based on these data and claiming that chiropractic and related therapeutic modalities are inefficacious and dangerous is simply bad science.

FoughtFyr said:

PublicHealth said:

This is a list of conditions that chiropractors commonly and successfully treat: http://www.nespineinstitute.com/conditions.htm

Click to expand...

WOW! REALLY! Gee, that settles it for me. I mean if a chiropractor says he can treat it, he must be able to. I mean all that research out there that shows chiropractors are not effective takes time to absorb and analyze. It is so much easier to just go to a chiropractor's marketing website.

Click to expand...

FoughtFyr,

When a chiropractor treats these conditions, most of what they do is what physical therapists do. Mobilizations, exercises, physical modalities, etc. Only difference is that a chiropractor will most likely add spinal manipulation in the mix and probably overstate it's efficacy/role in the treatment. Remember, "chiropractic" must be distinguished between treatment delivered by a chiropractor (who employs a variety of treatment methods) versus the chiropractic adjustment/manipulation.

So is a chiropractor able treat at least most of the listed conditions? I would say yes, but I would have to add that it's probably because chiropractors are using a lot of methods more commonly associated with physical therapy. That's how we were taught at my chiro school, can't say if it applies to Palmer or Life graduates.

awdc said:

FoughtFyr,

When a chiropractor treats these conditions, most of what they do is what physical therapists do. Mobilizations, exercises, physical modalities, etc. Only difference is that a chiropractor will most likely add spinal manipulation in the mix and probably overstate it's efficacy/role in the treatment. Remember, "chiropractic" must be distinguished between treatment delivered by a chiropractor (who employs a variety of treatment methods) versus the chiropractic adjustment/manipulation.

So is a chiropractor able treat at least most of the listed conditions? I would say yes, but I would have to add that it's probably because chiropractors are using a lot of methods more commonly associated with physical therapy. That's how we were taught at my chiro school, can't say if it applies to Palmer or Life graduates.

Click to expand...

Right. Unfortunately, there is little data on whether "mixer" approaches are more efficacious than "straight" approaches in chiropractic. Most, if not all of the RCTs on chiropractic have examined the efficacy of spinal manipulation, not the more comprehensive "mixer" chiropractic. Many of the DCs in my area are also licensed to practice acupuncture, clinical nutrition, and rehab. Some work with DOs in treating sports-related injuries.

Patients seeking chiropractic care should be made aware of the DC's approach to treatment.

PublicHealth said:

I agree. However, I am willing to consider all the evidence before drawing premature conclusions about an entire healthcare profession.

Click to expand...

What about palmistry, or phrenology? Hey, high colonics sound good, or how about Kevin Trudeau? Just because people have bought into an idea don't mean it is a good one.

PublicHealth said:

Most of the research on chiropractic that has been conducted to date is crap. You said it yourself in countless posts. Drawing a conclusion based on meta-analyses of crappy studies with small sample sizes is also crap.

Click to expand...

No, actually there are several good studies that show chiropractic is "as effective" but not more so than "traditional medicine" for LBP. The same studies also demonstrate that patients are generally more satisfied with chiropractic care, and that chiropractic care costs more. The reasons for these findings have not been adequately studied.

But in the bigger picture, listen to what you are saying. Suppose I come out with a new drug, an caffiene-like substance that I claim has none of the drawbacks of caffiene. Now several small studies show that it is "as effective" for weight loss and wakefulness but not more so than available treatments. It costs more, but people do report that they "like" the drug. Now there are some untoward events, but they are very rare, and some people are pushing the drug as a panacea for everything. Before you quickly argue the drug would be approved - realize that I am describing ephedrine, which has been pulled from the market. So should chiropractic be. I am all for government sponsored RCTs, but until they are completed, medicaid/medicare and health insurers should only pay for the less expensive, less risky, and "as effective" traditional medical treatments. {Our freedoms allow that if someone wants to waste their own money, they should be able do to so.}

PublicHealth said:

I am a second-year medical student. I am not looking for a "substitute for medical school," but simply trying to keep an open mind and learn more about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), which despite all the Cochrane reviews of crappy studies that you cite, is an accepted and integrated part of mainstream medicine in this and many other countries around the world.

Click to expand...

Name one country where chiropractic is "an accepted and integrated part of mainstream medicine". Chiropractic is almost uniquely American. Only we would waste resources on this bunk.

PublicHealth said:

The literature on chiropractic and CAM in general is in its infancy. Drawing conclusions based on these data and claiming that chiropractic and related therapeutic modalities are inefficacious and dangerous is simply bad science.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is good science. Something is considered to not work until its efficacy is proven. Your methodology of "well I'm sure we will eventually prove it works, so let's use it now" is bad science. Again, if we were talking about pharmacotherapy, instead of chiropractic, alternative health providers would be losing their minds - "Oh my god, they are using an 'unproven' drug. One with risks and little, if any, benefit. And several small studies have shown it doesn't even work. What will the pill pushers do next! Come to my healthy clinic and we will get those toxins right out of you!" 🙄

- H

awdc said:

FoughtFyr,

When a chiropractor treats these conditions, most of what they do is what physical therapists do. Mobilizations, exercises, physical modalities, etc. Only difference is that a chiropractor will most likely add spinal manipulation in the mix and probably overstate it's efficacy/role in the treatment. Remember, "chiropractic" must be distinguished between treatment delivered by a chiropractor (who employs a variety of treatment methods) versus the chiropractic adjustment/manipulation.

So is a chiropractor able treat at least most of the listed conditions? I would say yes, but I would have to add that it's probably because chiropractors are using a lot of methods more commonly associated with physical therapy. That's how we were taught at my chiro school, can't say if it applies to Palmer or Life graduates.

Click to expand...

Cool. So why have them? We already have PTs. I mean if all they are doing is PT, why should they be regulated by separate broads and be under their own statutory regulation? Why the need to call themselves "physicians"? Are PTs "physical therapy physicians"? And where are the studies to prove that chiropractic is more effective (in terms of either cost or efficacy) than PT? Where are the controls in terms of QI/QA? And where are the limits on scope - I don't see PTs claiming to treat otitis media, ADHD, or allergies. Nor do I see PT claiming they can serve as primary care physicians...

- H

PublicHealth said:

I am a second-year medical student. I am not looking for a "substitute for medical school," but simply trying to keep an open mind and learn more about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

Click to expand...

I am going to PM you my e-mail address. I want you to write back to me after your intern year and let's see, if after literally thousands of hours of patient care on thousands of patients, when you begin to realize that it will be darn near impossible to master just the little area of medicine you have chosen to specialize in, you still believe that CAM providers are adequately trained to do what they claim to be able to do...

- H

seanjohn said:

Well if that's true, then that's a pretty frightening thought, since there is a segment of the population that uses chiropractors as their primary contact, and primary care health practitioner.

Click to expand...

Yes. It is. And the literature is rife with care reports and series of iatrogenic injuries caused by chiropractic care.

seanjohn said:

If an individual has back pain, and they presented to a physician, the physician doesn't have a wide array of treatment modalities. Certainly if the patient has a severe condition that needs a referral, then there are treatment modalities such as surgery... but a general practitioner really has only one treatment modality for pain, which is Tylenol 3, or some other pain killer. Chiropractors claim to have many treatment modalities, such as manipulation, mobilization etc.

Click to expand...

Well, not so much. As an MD I can and do write PT orders to "evaluate and treat" for LBP after I've ruled out significant pathology. That accesses all of these same treatment modalities. The second key to this is that the studies that have looked at chiropractic versus traditional medical care for LBP have not only concluded that chiropractic and traditional medicine were statistically equal in efficacy but that each was only slightly better than placebo. So, when chiropractors are as effective as the allopathic care teams it is on a condition likely to self-resolve anyway.

seanjohn said:

For a patient with anklyosing spondylitis, spondylolysthesis, cauda equina syndrome, spinal stenosis, or even scoliosis, there is little that a chiropractor can do. In fact, I'd say a chiropractor should immediately refer a patient out to a physician when a patient presents with such ailments, and not even attempt to treat such problems on their own. However, for minor mechanical irritations such as joint stiffness or even for loss of range of motion it wouldn't hurt a patient to try a chiropractor out. It's important that chiropractors adhere to their scope of practice, and don't mislead the public into thinking they're physicians, because they really aren't... they're much closer to physical therapists, who use additional treatment modalities such as manipulation.

Click to expand...

The problem is that there are chiropractors who wouldn't recognize those conditions, and others who would be able to but would feel capable to treat them. To be fair, there are responsible chiropractors who would recognize these problems and appropriately refer these patients to a physician, but the problem is that there is no oversight, nor any QI/QA to assure that they do. Nor is there any way for an individual patient to know which type of chiropractor they are seeing. So, there is risk and really no benefit. Hence my concerns regarding chiropractic.

- H

Foughtfyr, as always, you raise some good points. As much as I'd like to exchange forehands and backhands (yet again!), I'm curious to know what others browsing these forums have to say on the matter.

We've been down this road before..... 😀

By the way, chiropractic is alive and well in several countries besides the US:

84 countries, to be exact: http://www.wfc.org/english/contact.asp

Here are some additional links for your perusal:

http://www.ccachiro.org/client/cca/cca.nsf/web/Home?OpenDocument

http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/default.aspx?m=1&mi=1

http://www.chiropractic.org.nz/chiropracticcare.html

http://www.chiropractors.asn.au/

http://www.quiropractica-aeq.com/index2.html


By no means am I arguing that chiropractors are equal to MDs/DOs in their training. However, I do believe that their training prepares them well to be primary providers of NMS care. I also think that "mixer" chiropractic is much better in terms of clinical outcomes compared to "straight" chiropractic, although this has not yet been tested empirically.

Gracefully, I bow out.

"Nor do I see ANY faculty profiles of "DC only" professors outside of chiropractic colleges."

http://209.209.34.25/webdocs/Anatomy/anatindex.htm

Look, this is getting 'stupid'. Just b/c a MD/DO is an MD/DO is not a qualifier as an expert=professor. It is a broad based degree. Do you think you actually know pharmacology, anatomy, chemistry, physiology better than someone with a Phd or even a M.S. in that field? Of course you 'think' you do but you don't and you are NOT QUALIFIED TO INSTRUCT based on your degree alone. Experience and specific knowledge qualifies someone. To assert that 'all' physicians are inherently bestowed the holy grail of all science is ludicrous. 🙄

I have a second hand story that proves the point, if believed. A friend of mine, a D.C. with two undergrad degrees in biology and anatomy, wanted to teach biology 101 at a local community college. He was kindly rejected and thought, as you assert, it was b/c he was discriminated against due to his undervalued D.C. degree. He managed to get the Dean and President of our chiropractic college to call the dean of the community college to explain (if misunderstood) that a D.C. degree is a 'terminal degree just like an M.D. degree and fully accredited. Didn't matter, the community college understands that 'both' degrees, while terminal, are broad based and not academic in nature but clinical/professional degrees and would not accept either an M.D. or D.C. as sufficient. The minimal degree needed would be a Masters degree in the same field to be taught with experience. 😉

Put this one to rest. M.D.=Pearly Gates and D.C.=Cauldrons of Hell...right?

Does anyone know if the treatment modality of electrotherapy along your back is mainly chiropractic, or is it also common among physical therapy and orthopedics?

I'm trying to figure it out because my aunt and uncle had been going to a "doctor" who does this and I think gives them dietary supplements of glucosamine and chondroitin for it, but never mention other traditional medicines. They're not sure what kind of doctor he is. Their health insurance covered the visits.

I'm concerned because my aunt recently hurt her neck due to a manipulation by this "doctor" and it really made her feel worse -- she couldn't even turn her neck for a few days! I made her go see a physician who prescribed for her a muscle relaxant and NSAID which is the traditional pharmacotherapy, and it's worked for her moreso than the previous doctor's treatment.

In case anyone was wondering, I'm a fourth year Bachelor of Science student at the University of Toronto. I've considered becoming an MD and a DC at one point, but as I do more and more research it's become increasingly clear which path I should take.

It seems as though chiropractors are only considered 'doctors' by themselves and their patients, but are not considered doctors by any other health care profession, or 90% of the population that does not utilize chiropractic services. If I'm going to slave away learning all the insertions, origins, innervations and functions of every muscle in the body, I might as well learn it in an environment that is conducive to legitimate scientific backing, and not a faith based environment where views of 'subluxation' run rampant. Chiropractors are simply Physiotherapists with a few extra modalities, mainly manipulation, they're not doctors.

If a patient has cellulitis, what would be best for the patient to see an MD or a DC? If a patient is having a myocardial infarction, who should that patient see? If a patient has cauda equina syndrome, who should that patient see? The answer is obvious, in all cases the MD would be the best option, as they are physicians, and trained in those areas of treatment and diagnoses, whereas DC's are not.

Furthermore, on this site every single health care occupation has a section of the forum dedicated to them, except for one, which is... you guessed it... chiropractic. That alone elucidates how legitimate the profession of chiropractic really is, and how it is not recognized by the majority of society.

chirodoc said:

"Nor do I see ANY faculty profiles of "DC only" professors outside of chiropractic colleges."

http://209.209.34.25/webdocs/Anatomy/anatindex.htm

Look, this is getting 'stupid'. Just b/c a MD/DO is an MD/DO is not a qualifier as an expert=professor. It is a broad based degree. Do you think you actually know pharmacology, anatomy, chemistry, physiology better than someone with a Phd or even a M.S. in that field? Of course you 'think' you do but you don't and you are NOT QUALIFIED TO INSTRUCT based on your degree alone. Experience and specific knowledge qualifies someone. To assert that 'all' physicians are inherently bestowed the holy grail of all science is ludicrous. 🙄

Click to expand...

Nope, here's is your sign:
http://209.209.34.25/webdocs/Anatomy/Andrues.htm

Look across the top - he is a lecturer not a faculty member. He is not in the faculty directory (here: http://www.touro.edu/general/directory/fdirectory.asp?type=abc&tofind=A). And if I am wrong, o.k. there is one case, maybe even 10 in the U.S. (for the sake of argument). That does not expand into broad acceptance of the DC as an academic degree.

Do I think that an MD alone qualifies anyone to teach, no. Nor do I think that a Ph.D. alone does. Both degrees would require that a person carries actual experience and research in a given area to teach. What I do assert is that if an MD does research in an area, for instance public health policy or cell and molecular biology then they do not generally need to "go back" for a Ph.D. to be hired to teach. A DC, in general, would. The OPs question was toward the equality or inequality of the degrees. In addition to , I believe, a marked difference in abilities, the MD is usually acceptable for faculty admission (with relevant research and experience) and the DC is not (even if they have completed relevant research). It is a simple fact - get over it. It is not "M.D.=Pearly Gates and D.C.=Cauldrons of Hell", it is an answer to the OP's question and a reality in today's academia.

chirodoc said:

Didn't matter, the community college understands that 'both' degrees, while terminal, are broad based and not academic in nature but clinical/professional degrees and would not accept either an M.D. or D.C. as sufficient. The minimal degree needed would be a Masters degree in the same field to be taught with experience. 😉

Click to expand...

Yep, but Johns Hopkins would hire the MD to teach Public Health Policy and UCSF would hire them to teach molecular biology - both at the professor level. I can't answer for what a particular community college would do - nor do I assert that any and every institution of higher education will hire an MD. I can only provide examples of advertisements that demonstrate some well regarded institutions do and that this is an avenue available to MDs that is not open to DCs.

- H

PublicHealth said:

Foughtfyr, as always, you raise some good points. As much as I'd like to exchange forehands and backhands (yet again!), I'm curious to know what others browsing these forums have to say on the matter.

By the way, chiropractic is alive and well in several countries besides the US:

Gracefully, I bow out.

Click to expand...

But in these "84 countries" is it "an accepted and integrated part of mainstream medicine". Generally not.

It has been good to "spar" with you again. I really wish you well.

See Ya!

- H

foughtfyr,

The more i read this thread the more i learn about you. Yes, you do have SOME good points but it seems to me that you have found something that you enjoy arguing about instead of learning about. I am yet to see you write a reply saying "yes that is true, or i didn't know that" (please correct me if you have). You seem to have the answer to everything which is not only wrong, but ignorint to boot. I could state studies such as the magna report, NFL and its use of chiropractic ETC but i wont. You are not going to listen to anyone that contradicts your asserstions that chiropractic is "bunk". This is not what i come here for. I listen to what you say and i read the links you post and sometimes they seem like crap and sometimes not, but non the less, i achknowledge your input in these discussions....more than i can say for you doctor. You have a tact for using studies (the same 4 or 5 mind you) and you defend them vigerously but you always find something wrong with other people's citation of studies or articles (most recently----the natioanlity that chiropractic has/doesn't have). I believe you know why i defend this profession so much ( I am not a DC or a DC student). I defend it for what it's done for me. I'm just a 3rd year Kinesiology and Health Sciencce Major in Toronto... no credentials behind my name (yet 😉
Please, foughtfyr... i'd hate to see a student who knows nothing of chiropractic to come on this site and only see your one-sides assertions. I respect you very much and apolagize if this address has disrespectful undertones, but i believe this needs to be said. I know this will be taken, sentence by sentence, by you and you'll rip me up and that's ok.. Just know that i won't sit back and drink my "kool-aid" as you stated in another post towards me......by the way, what the hell does that even mean?

Regards,
Jesse

FoughtFyr said:

Nope, here's is your sign:
http://209.209.34.25/webdocs/Anatomy/Andrues.htm

Look across the top - he is a lecturer not a faculty member. He is not in the faculty directory (here: http://www.touro.edu/general/directory/fdirectory.asp?type=abc&tofind=A). And if I am wrong, o.k. there is one case, maybe even 10 in the U.S. (for the sake of argument). That does not expand into broad acceptance of the DC as an academic degree.

Do I think that an MD alone qualifies anyone to teach, no. Nor do I think that a Ph.D. alone does. Both degrees would require that a person carries actual experience and research in a given area to teach. What I do assert is that if an MD does research in an area, for instance public health policy or cell and molecular biology then they do not generally need to "go back" for a Ph.D. to be hired to teach. A DC, in general, would. The OPs question was toward the equality or inequality of the degrees. In addition to , I believe, a marked difference in abilities, the MD is usually acceptable for faculty admission (with relevant research and experience) and the DC is not (even if they have completed relevant research). It is a simple fact - get over it. It is not "M.D.=Pearly Gates and D.C.=Cauldrons of Hell", it is an answer to the OP's question and a reality in today's academia.



Yep, but Johns Hopkins would hire the MD to teach Public Health Policy and UCSF would hire them to teach molecular biology - both at the professor level. I can't answer for what a particular community college would do - nor do I assert that any and every institution of higher education will hire an MD. I can only provide examples of advertisements that demonstrate some well regarded institutions do and that this is an avenue available to MDs that is not open to DCs.

- H

Click to expand...

I would have to agree that an MD/DO who has specialized and published significant research is qualified to teach alongside the PhD within a specific content area. However, it isn't a reflection of the MD training, it's the specialized training and contribution to the literature.

jesse14 said:

foughtfyr,

The more i read this thread the more i learn about you. Yes, you do have SOME good points but it seems to me that you have found something that you enjoy arguing about instead of learning about. I am yet to see you write a reply saying "yes that is true, or i didn't know that" (please correct me if you have). You seem to have the answer to everything which is not only wrong, but ignorint to boot. I could state studies such as the magna report, NFL and its use of chiropractic ETC but i wont. You are not going to listen to anyone that contradicts your asserstions that chiropractic is "bunk". This is not what i come here for. I listen to what you say and i read the links you post and sometimes they seem like crap and sometimes not, but non the less, i achknowledge your input in these discussions....more than i can say for you doctor. You have a tact for using studies (the same 4 or 5 mind you) and you defend them vigerously but you always find something wrong with other people's citation of studies or articles (most recently----the natioanlity that chiropractic has/doesn't have). I believe you know why i defend this profession so much ( I am not a DC or a DC student). I defend it for what it's done for me. I'm just a 3rd year Kinesiology and Health Sciencce Major in Toronto... no credentials behind my name (yet 😉
Please, foughtfyr... i'd hate to see a student who knows nothing of chiropractic to come on this site and only see your one-sides assertions. I respect you very much and apolagize if this address has disrespectful undertones, but i believe this needs to be said. I know this will be taken, sentence by sentence, by you and you'll rip me up and that's ok.. Just know that i won't sit back and drink my "kool-aid" as you stated in another post towards me......by the way, what the hell does that even mean?

Regards,
Jesse

Click to expand...

Actually Jesse, if you look here, http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=2691854&postcount=62 someone else has already accused me of recycling the same 4 or 5 studies. At that time the actual count was 23. And I'm not sure if the study referenced above (in regards to chiropractor's primary care training) was included. So, it is not 4 or 5, but at least 23 or 24 citations - there may well be more. And you are right, there are very few times in this argument that I state "I didn't know that" or "I was wrong" because I have yet to see a cohesive argument in favor of chiropractic. That said, I am not inflexible. I have, in the recent past, come full circle in my views regarding acupuncture. I now see it as a limited, but viable, therapy, with decent efficacy, both anecdotally and in research, for appetite stimulation. I have referred for it and even prescribed it for a patient in an intensive care unit.

The reason you (and others) have accused me of trotting out the same four or five articles is that you trot out the same four or five arguments as to why you think chiropractic works. But the answer is simple. IT DOESN'T. It has extremely limited proven efficacy, and does carry risk. I'm sorry, but those are the facts. If there were this much data against any other therapy or pharmacologic agent all studies would be stopped by IRBs. And I don't even argue for that, I think we could continue to study it, but the risks should be shared with participants. I also do not think that we (in the U.S.) through medicare/medicaid should collectively be spending money on unproven therapies, chiropractic or otherwise. Now, I've said this quite often here - I am for the NIH's CAM efforts, I am for further study of chiropractic or any other modality that offers promise. But I am adamantly and ardently against the presumption that chiropractic works when there is no research that demonstrates it does. And the same as "(you would) hate to see a student who knows nothing of chiropractic to come on this site and only see your one-sides assertions." I would hate for one to come onto this site and be led to believe chiropractic is a proven healthcare modality and a viable option for a career as a physician.

The "Kool-aid" comment is a reference to blind faith in something. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-aid#Drinking_the_Kool-Aid or http://www.wordspy.com/words/drinktheKool-Aid.asp. It is how you and others come off when discussing chiropractic. As for me, my fervor started as I cared for a 10 year old boy who died of H. Flu meningitis. He could've been vaccinated but his father's chiropractor recommended against it years before. His death and other iatrogenic chiropractic injuries I have witnessed have led me to yes, be zealous, in my critique of chiropractic.

And no, polite discourse is never disrespectful. And I hope you've noticed I do cut-off anyone who attempts ad hominum attacks in these discussions. Debate is one thing, calling names is quite another.

- H

lawguil said:

I would have to agree that an MD/DO who has specialized and published significant research is qualified to teach alongside the PhD within a specific content area. However, it isn't a reflection of the MD training, it's the specialized training and contribution to the literature.

Click to expand...

True, absolutely. My point (in response to the OP's query about the differences between the MD and DC degrees) is that if an MD does this research, the degree is sufficient to allow their hire. A DC performing the same research would likely have to go back and get a Ph.D. (or equivalent) in order to be appointed to a faculty post.

- H

"As for me, my fervor started as I cared for a 10 year old boy who died of H. Flu meningitis. He could've been vaccinated but his father's chiropractor recommended against it years before. His death and other iatrogenic chiropractic injuries I have witnessed have led me to yes, be zealous, in my critique of chiropractic."

It is absolutely disgusting and immoral that some chiropractors recommend against immunizations. I never understood their reasoning for it, can someone explain this to me?

Chiropractors apparently preach about prevention and the body's innate ability to heal itself...but getting an immunization is the ultimate form of prevention, and your body builds up an immunity towards a disease by being injected with an inactive strain of the virus. It is extremely dangerous for one not to get immunized for common deadly ailments, such as meningitis, and I don't believe chiropractors are qualified practitioners that have the right to recommend against immunizations, since they're not physicians. I believe any chiropractor who does this should have their license taken away, and they should be disciplined and even be convicted of a criminal offense since they are causing harm to humanity by lobbying against the efficacy of immunizations.

A balanced and sensible review of chiropractic: http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/368023.html?d=dmtContent

seanjohn said:

"As for me, my fervor started as I cared for a 10 year old boy who died of H. Flu meningitis. He could've been vaccinated but his father's chiropractor recommended against it years before. His death and other iatrogenic chiropractic injuries I have witnessed have led me to yes, be zealous, in my critique of chiropractic."

It is absolutely disgusting and immoral that some chiropractors recommend against immunizations. I never understood their reasoning for it, can someone explain this to me?

Chiropractors apparently preach about prevention and the body's innate ability to heal itself...but getting an immunization is the ultimate form of prevention, and your body builds up an immunity towards a disease by being injected with an inactive strain of the virus. It is extremely dangerous for one not to get immunized for common deadly ailments, such as meningitis, and I don't believe chiropractors are qualified practitioners that have the right to recommend against immunizations, since they're not physicians. I believe any chiropractor who does this should have their license taken away, and they should be disciplined and even be convicted of a criminal offense since they are causing harm to humanity by lobbying against the efficacy of immunizations.

Click to expand...

Here is a full-text overview published in Pediatrics: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/105/4/e43.pdf (make that at least 24 or 25 Jesse). But in short, BJ Palmer said (in Palmer BJ. The Science of Chiropractic: Its Principles and Philosophies, I. Davenport, IA: Palmer School of Chiropractic; 1906) “Vaccine virus, or other poisons which create disease conditions will not permanently affect the patient when the Chiropractor keeps the vertebra in proper position. We have checked the fun of doctors and saved children from being poisoned, by adjusting the vertebra that the pus poisoning was displacing.”

In this case the chiropractor could not be prosecuted or even sued for malpractice (according to the family's lawyer) for two reasons. First, what he did was in line with chiropractic standards, second, he only offered advice, he did not personally act to stop the immunization nor was he in a position to administer it. "Bad advice is not actionable" - unless of course you are an MD/DO (that whole "standard of care" thing).

- H