rooster said:
You then change the topic to vaccination issues. Well I find that those opposed to chiropractic pursue this topic "ad nauseum". As for myself, I have no concern with it personally or professionally. Others can deliberate this to death. My interests are elsewhere.
Can't win so I won't play, that's constructive. Well currently, in Western Wisconsin there is a
significant pertussis outbreak. Many of the pediatric patients being brought to us have never been vaccinated, on advice of their chiropractors. From the same area we have had two cases of HiB meningitis in children, one of whom (10 years old) died, also not vaccinated on the advice of their chiropractors. I don't care if your interests lie elsewhere, this is a current and real topic today.
If you bothered to read the previous posts and threads, you will see that there are, likely many, responsible chiropractors, who on an individual basis, I agree with in terms of practice patterns. There is not however, any mechanism to distinguish these folks from the more fringe providers. There are no professional guidelines to discern a research proven "safe" scope of chiropractic care. And there is absolutely no means to protect against a chiropractor who preaches against immunization, believes they can cure cancer, etc. Just because you are not "interested" in it does not make it disappear as a professional issue.
BTW- the disturbing part of this study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10768681&dopt=Abstract is not the immunization issue. It is the fact that of chiropractors identifying themselves as "pediatric chiropractors" "presented with a hypothetical 2-week-old neonate with a fever, 17% would treat the patient themselves rather than immediately refer the patient to a doctor of medicine, doctor of osteopathy, or an emergency facility." Oops. Way scary! But hey, your interests lie elsewhere, mine involve protecting my patients.
Rooster said:
>>The often quoted NIH studies "in favor" of chiropractic, detailed in other threads, indicate that chiropractic is only "as effective" as traditional therapy. Given the risks demonstrated above, why is it that medicine should "accept" chiropractic? No real improvements and lots of risks...<<
Another indicator of your misinformation, or more likely, your bias. I look forward to addressing this issue in the future. My schedule today will not allow for it.
Cool, I look forward to it. If you have some study that demonstrates that chiropractic care is significantly more effective than medical treatment for any condition with significant morbidity or mortality, I'm all ears. If you can provde some mechanism of QI/QA that even remotely assures chiropractors are diagnosing their patients accurately, I'll listen. But if you are going to show that chiropractic is "as effective" (but no more so) as medicine for treating low back pain, then I will continue to have concerns regarding the benefits as measured against some significant and demonstrable risks.
Rooster said:
>>Or are you a straight who believes that Palmer was some sort of health deity devinely inspired to "discover" innate?<<
Another cheapshot
How so? Your background, practice pattern, and beliefs are unknown to me. I have close friends and family members who are straights, and believe, unfalterringly, in Palmer's "theology". Including one who will not immunize his newborn child, nor take them to a medical doctor for care. If that is you as well, then I'll not have this discussion. For them Chiropractic is as much religion as science and I don't suppose to be able to "prove" anything against faith. If you are more of a mixer, then I am curious to know from where you draw your theory of practice, as Chiropractic's are clearly laid out by Palmer.
I can't help it if you don't like the fact the Chiropractic theory is largely based in Palmer's biotheology of "innate".
- H