skiiboy said:
Foughtfyr
. The latest studies show that atleast 16,500 people die per year from nsaid us. However most experts believe it may be as high as 40,000 deaths per year. Im not going to post the links to all of the sites which show this statistic, you can just do a simple search for this well established data.
Actually I have done the search. What I find is a bunch of chiropractic office homepages claiming this. No actual science. GI problems yes, 16,500 deaths directly attributable - no.
skiiboy said:
While I agree that there have not been enough double blind random cross over trials regarding the efficacy of chiropractic, make no mistake about it
.
So now we are back to "just trust us, it works"?
skiiboy said:
There has been tons of research about spinal manipulation. Regardless of quality, some very poor some excellent, almost all studies show chiropractic treatment to have significant efficacy. In fact outspoken critics of chiropractic quickly jumped on one of the more recent studies that showed chiropractic being no more effective than traditional treatment for back pain! The much bigger point about the results of this study is that it is AS effective as the traditional model of treatment BUT without the side effects!
Once again, post the research! And I do agree, it has been shown to be
as effective but not more so. My point in the original post is that it seems to me that chiropractic (we agree CMCC is a chiropractic institution - right?) is waking up to the fact that there
ARE side effects to chiropractic!
skiiboy said:
Chiropractors realignment of joints is actually a pro-physiological treatment and has no side effects.
Except those described in the article as well as the articles it references?
skiiboy said:
Also, brand new research results are showing that cox techniques used by chiropractors (developed by an osteopath) not only ****** the leaking of the disc nucleus in patients with herniated discs, but that it also reverses the herniation by sucking the nucleus pulposus back into the joint. My how protocols for back pain patients are changing. Non-invasive techniques are now urged not only by chiropractors but also orthopedists. Back surgeries as a whole are extremely unsuccessful, while study after study shows chiropractic to get patients healthier, faster with less recurrence of episodes. In addition, chiropractic treatment keeps costs down, has higher patient satisfaction and gets better results.
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/95/103236.htm
Chiropractics management of back pain saves countless surgeries and brings life back to thousands of people every year.
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/24/1728_57561.htm
O.k., we are halfway there. You are posting articles. Now post links to real scientific studies and we will be there.
skiiboy said:
Your contention that physical therapists are trained better than chiropractors is perhaps wishful thinking on your part because its not even close to being true.
Not only do you not read studies, you don't read the posts you respond to. What I very plainly said was that
without direct access, a patient being seen by a PT has to have been seen by an MD or a DO. In that case, more serious pathology will have been assessed for. Non-NMS conditions will be able to have been addressed in a meaningful way, basically, the needs of the patient will have been met.
Now skiiboy, you can't have it two ways. Either I am an evil allopath who only "throws NSAIDs" at my patients with back pain, or I evaluate them, rule out significant pathology, and properly refer them to PT for treatment, the very treatment that you are argueing WORKS! Since you have yet to post a "protocol" or even a text reference stating that NSAID use alone is the standard of care, I think you realize that proper assessment and referral is, in fact, the standard. So
my patients get the benefits of a complete assessment followed by treatment that is
as effective as what you offer, by your own admission.
skiiboy said:
If you really want to know the truth take a look at any chiropractic curriculum and any physical therapy curriculum. In fact I challenge you to look at what you would call the most philosophical chiropractic school and compare their curriculum to the most scientific-best physical therapy curriculum in the country you can find. In fact please post them up on this board so that everyone can see. The differences are still staggering.
I've said it before and I'll say it again for the record - if chiropractors did not have direct access, I would have no problem with them. So, I challenge you to find any combination of medical school AND PT school that is less training than that of a chiropractor, because that is the training my patients are exposed to. They see me first (with nine years of training - 3x that of a chiropractor, even if we assume each year is "equal", a point I am unwilling to concede) AND then seen by a PT with their training. To say nothing of the radiologist who over-reads my assessment, the nursing staff who advocate for the patient through the process, and the physiatrist who oversees the PT's office. But yep - the patient gets the benefit of more training under your model
{SARCASM - for the cheap seats}
skiiboy said:
Chiropractors are trained to be direct primary care doctors in our healthcare system.
This is the most ignorant statement you have made to date on SDN. A chiropractor, who to start with has, on average, far less academic acumen than the average physician, somehow in three years learns not only all of chiropractic assessment and manipulation, but also takes in an amount of medical knowledge that equals that which it takes MD/DOs a minimum of seven years to aquire? What did the Palmers invent a time/space distortion machine no one is telling us about?
And please, don't point to some "cirriculum" on the web. If you do, I'll post the syllabus from the EMT-Basic class I teach - we cover almost every topic covered in medical school too! What you title courses matters far less than what the course entails! Face facts, even if we grant (and again, I don't) that each year of medical school and chiropractic school are "equal" - chiropractors set up shop after three years! That is less than half of what is needed to become a physician! To say nothing of the fact that a great deal of their clinical experience has been on their classmates, friends, relatives and others recruited to be "patients" instead of real patients with real pathology! How is it that so much information (all that is needed to be a "primary care physician" and well as all of chiropractic) is shoved into those three years? Having actually gone to medical school, I can positively tell you there was absolutely no room to add more information into our courseload. M1 and M2 were roughly equal to trying to drink from a firehose and it damn near destroyed many in my class. Remember that, without question, we started with stronger academians than the average chiropractic college class...
skiiboy said:
Unlike podiatrists and dentists, chiropractors are not limited by region (instead limited by prescription). What does this mean? Well this means that chiropractors are still required to make a differential diagnosis on all patients for all conditions. Chiropractors are trained to do full body, extensive evaluations (neurological, systemic, orthopedic and chiropractic. In addition chiropractors are extensively trained in the interpretation of radiographs. Much more so than a medical doctor(non radiologist).
Bovine Scatology. You seem to hold this study so dear to your heart. Except that for your statement to be true, residents must equate chiropractors. They don't. A resident is, by definition, still in training. The studies on this subject did not include non-radiologists finished with training in comparison to chiropractors.
skiiboy said:
Chiropractics training is actually 5 years but most programs have managed to squeeze them into 4 years.
So there is a time machine! And most chiropractic colleges finish in THREE calendar years.
(from:
http://admissions.palmer.edu/DC/DCProgram.htm)
"1) How long is the Doctor of Chiropractic program?
Most students attend classes throughout the year and complete their studies in three and one-third years. (If studies are completed during a typical academic calendar year, it would take five academic years to complete the program.) The Palmer College program in Davenport, Iowa, is 10 trimesters. The Palmer West program in San Jose, Calif., and Palmer Florida program in Port Orange, Fla., are 13 quarters."
The "trick" of this math is the federal government's definition of an academic year as "two semesters". By the federal loan program, medical school is actually five or six "typical academic calendar years" - depending on the institution. How is it that you think Chiropractic College is so much more rigorous than medical school?
skiiboy said:
Chiropractic schools offer diplomats in a range of fields, including family medicine, pedatrics and radiology. Even the new dr. title being given to some recently graduated physical therapists is not even a clinical doctorate. Its more like a teaching doctorate. In essence it is more of a political move and it creates confusion amongst the public.
And chiropractors holding themselves out as "primary care physicians" doesn't confuse the public?
The rest of your post was so ridiculous, I'll deal with it in a separate replies!
- H
That statement is so ridiculous as to be asinine. But I'll answer it anyway. 
