- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 506
- Reaction score
- 22
I read a comment by Michael Moore that the UK media has better analysis than US newspapers which are dumbed down. Perhaps this more objective analytical ability crosses over to affect the tolerance to alt-med quackery. Both the UK and USA have scopes of practice for chiropractors that are based totally on quackery. Recently a scandal where the British Chiropractic association tried to silence a critic led to a huge public backlash and the disbanding of chiropractic in the UK is being talked about. This is pretty big.
http://chirotalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=summaries&thread=4474&page=1
"Panicking chiropractors order slash-and-burn of their own websites"
Here in the USA MDs have been cowed into submission after losing the Wilk v. AMA lawsuit despite the fact that state scope of practice for chiropractors are likewise based on 100 year old subluxation dogma that has no relation to evidence based health care.
One thing I haven't seen discussed here is the observation by Chirotalk that chiropractic biomechanics is bogus and they can't restore spinal stabilization because they have no way to strengthen ligament laxity. Read FAQs 1 & 2 for an interesting summary (especially considering how lightly musculoskeletal treatment is covered in med school ).
FAQ 1
FAQ 2
Can anyone see a scenario where the american public "gets it" and demands delicensing like what is happening in the UK? Given that chiropractic is pretty hopeless is there anything MDs can do to better inform patients without being on the receiving end of another anti-trust lawsuit?
Has anyone seen the endemic corruption of these guys? False advertising by colleges, feeding fake information to career summaries, brainwashing. Anything goes. The nutjobs you see on the forum aren't the exception, they are the norm.
I am really getting tired of chiropractors crowing about how great they are at primary care diagnosis and then reading that more patients were stroked out due to unnecessary cervical manipulations or that another kid went deaf because a DC thought manipulation was a fine treatment for otitis media and delayed the referral. It has to stop. Don't MDs have a responsibility to clarify the problems and make an objective recommendation? Just because there are insurance parity laws doesn't mean people have to refer to quacks when evidence based providers are available.
http://chirotalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=summaries&thread=4474&page=1
"Panicking chiropractors order slash-and-burn of their own websites"
Here in the USA MDs have been cowed into submission after losing the Wilk v. AMA lawsuit despite the fact that state scope of practice for chiropractors are likewise based on 100 year old subluxation dogma that has no relation to evidence based health care.
One thing I haven't seen discussed here is the observation by Chirotalk that chiropractic biomechanics is bogus and they can't restore spinal stabilization because they have no way to strengthen ligament laxity. Read FAQs 1 & 2 for an interesting summary (especially considering how lightly musculoskeletal treatment is covered in med school ).
FAQ 1
FAQ 2
Can anyone see a scenario where the american public "gets it" and demands delicensing like what is happening in the UK? Given that chiropractic is pretty hopeless is there anything MDs can do to better inform patients without being on the receiving end of another anti-trust lawsuit?
Has anyone seen the endemic corruption of these guys? False advertising by colleges, feeding fake information to career summaries, brainwashing. Anything goes. The nutjobs you see on the forum aren't the exception, they are the norm.
I am really getting tired of chiropractors crowing about how great they are at primary care diagnosis and then reading that more patients were stroked out due to unnecessary cervical manipulations or that another kid went deaf because a DC thought manipulation was a fine treatment for otitis media and delayed the referral. It has to stop. Don't MDs have a responsibility to clarify the problems and make an objective recommendation? Just because there are insurance parity laws doesn't mean people have to refer to quacks when evidence based providers are available.
Last edited: