Current Views of Chiropractic; What Do You See?

[SpecterGT260]

Well the point isn't simple ridicule so much as promotion of meaningful discussion.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[facetguy]

Pub med will cross reference nearly anything. Being published doesn't really mean anything in and of itself. You could publish in "The Journal of Thisiscrapandimadeitallup Weekly" and pubmed will still index it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Ok I clicked the link and, facet..... I just wanna rub your nose in it like a piddle spot

I applaud your efforts to back claims with research but you have not fared well in doing so as long as I've been here.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Oh, there's nothing wrong with that paper. It's a description of anatomy. Fascial science is young; you've got to start somewhere. Stecco happens to be a respected researcher in the world of fascia (actually, there's more than one Stecco...it's like a family thing).

But I'm sure you're about to tell us that you know more about this stuff than they do?

 

[facetguy]

"Did I just get b*tch slapped by a med student?" -facetguy thought bubble

I'm still waiting for a couple of answers from you. Let's forget the first one, the one about Chirotalk...I'm pretty sure we all know what's going on there.

But what about the other question: Are there any good chiropractors? CDM only please. No "phone a friend".

 

[SpecterGT260]

Oh, there's nothing wrong with that paper. It's a description of anatomy. Fascial science is young; you've got to start somewhere. Stecco happens to be a respected researcher in the world of fascia (actually, there's more than one Stecco...it's like a family thing).

But I'm sure you're about to tell us that you know more about this stuff than they do?

I dunno. Maybe. I dont claim to know more about middle earth than tolkein. Usually the writer of fiction understands their creation more than the reader. The issue here is supporting evidence and a compelling argument based on evidence. This paper lacks it. You call this a new science and label someone as a respected researcher. Have you learned nothing from these discussions? THIS is the issue here. We criticize chiro for blindly adhering to unproven or even disproven ideas and here you are.....

The paper is simply poor. It would not have been given a passing grade for a first year grad student. I don't know if the science is good because it just isn't there. It's easy to defend it when you already believe it to be true. You are more forgiving. But these claims need legitimate evidence. Not just an official looking paper in an obscure journal and your word.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[cdmguy]

Well the point isn't simple ridicule so much as promotion of meaningful discussion.

I think you'd have better luck teaching dolphins to talk but whatever floats your boat spec.

 

[facetguy]

I dunno. Maybe. I dont claim to know more about middle earth than tolkein. Usually the writer of fiction understands their creation more than the reader. The issue here is supporting evidence and a compelling argument based on evidence. This paper lacks it. You call this a new science and label someone as a respected researcher. Have you learned nothing from these discussions? THIS is the issue here. We criticize chiro for blindly adhering to unproven or even disproven ideas and here you are.....

The paper is simply poor. It would not have been given a passing grade for a first year grad student. I don't know if the science is good because it just isn't there. It's easy to defend it when you already believe it to be true. You are more forgiving. But these claims need legitimate evidence. Not just an official looking paper in an obscure journal and your word.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

So where does one start? This evidence doesn't materialize from nowhere. As I said earlier, you've got to start somewhere. That paper is actually interesting (and I chose it with a 10 second Pubmed search).

 

[SpecterGT260]

So where does one start? This evidence doesn't materialize from nowhere. As I said earlier, you've got to start somewhere. That paper is actually interesting (and I chose it with a 10 second Pubmed search).

Start?

You're right. It doesn't come from nowhere. It takes doing the work to prove your hypothesis. Not setting up some loose correlations based on unreported stats and wildly speculating from there.

Do you know what a null hypothesis is and what to do with it? I don't think I've ever seen you provide a link that does this.

Also, shorter searches aren't better searches. This is just an example of you being green when it comes to looking at literature.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[facetguy]

Start?

You're right. It doesn't come from nowhere. It takes doing the work to prove your hypothesis. Not setting up some loose correlations based on unreported stats and wildly speculating from there.

Do you know what a null hypothesis is and what to do with it? I don't think I've ever seen you provide a link that does this.

Also, shorter searches aren't better searches. This is just an example of you being green when it comes to looking at literature.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

What is it about that article that you don't like?

 

[facetguy]

I think you'd have better luck teaching dolphins to talk but whatever floats your boat spec.

Yet another dodge. Do you know why you keep dodging that question? Because you have taken such a bizarre stance on the chiropractic profession that you now cannot admit that ANY chiropractors may be out there doing some good. If you were to admit that, your whole argument...or at this point it would seem your whole reason for being...crumbles. So you keep sticking with your conspiracy theories, extrapolations, distortions, exaggerations etc because you have to. I've said this before: you are blinded by bias and bitterness to the point of being incapable of admitting that there are plenty of chiros that actually do some good for their patients without ripping them off or trying to kill them. You're stuck with your argument now, and it makes you look ridiculous.

 

[cdmguy]

I'm not dodging, I just think you're incapable of intelligent discussion and choose not to bother with you, like a kid that keeps kicking at your leg to give him attention. You're like that except you're evil.

 

[facetguy]

I'm not dodging, I just think you're incapable of intelligent discussion and choose not to bother with you.

It's a simple question.

 

[SpecterGT260]

What is it about that article that you don't like?

No actual info is actually given. It is hard to explain because it is just so lacking. This "paper" took a few MRIs, states a difference without giving specifics, and then goes "see? We was right!"

That isn't how science is done.

Since you are harping in cdm for not answering questions.... you have one from me in here and a couple in the flu thread that are of equal unanswered status.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[facetguy]

No actual info is actually given. It is hard to explain because it is just so lacking. This "paper" took a few MRIs, states a difference without giving specifics, and then goes "see? We was right!"

That isn't how science is done.

Since you are harping in cdm for not answering questions.... you have one from me in here and a couple in the flu thread that are of equal unanswered status.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

"Dissection, histological and immunohistochemical analysis of 27 legs", in addition to MRI.

re: Q's, I'll have to go back and check. Even I could have mistakenly overlooked something.

 

[SpecterGT260]

"Dissection, histological and immunohistochemical analysis of 27 legs", in addition to MRI.
.

So? What makes cutting them open more significant? They establish largely nothing, ESPECIALLY a causal relationship.

The mistake you are making is thinking it is appropriate in the beginning of a study to only set prelim findings. They are drawing conclusions from such minimal findings. This will lead them down the proverbial rabbit hole. They need to seriously investigate to the point that their findings can't be attributed to incidentals. They don't need to publish everything there is to be known, but they need robust statistics, proper controls, and they need to be careful to not say anything that isn't supported by the findings.

The paper states "people with sprained ankles show thickening of ankle fascia, therefore this ankle fascia is proprioceptive" well since sprains result in an inflammatory process and their experimental design did nothing to address this.... . And no, it is not ok to assume they did due to omission. You assume they didn't unless explicitly stated.

So to answer your earlier question... no. I probably don't know as much as this author thinks he knows. But I know more than he actually does. This is the problem with these obscure low impact journals and quick pubmed searches. CTO will take basically anything. There are many crap journals out there that will and pubmed indexes them all.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[cdmguy]

Yet another dodge. Do you know why you keep dodging that question? Because you have taken such a bizarre stance on the chiropractic profession that you now cannot admit that ANY chiropractors may be out there doing some good. If you were to admit that, your whole argument...or at this point it would seem your whole reason for being...crumbles. So you keep sticking with your conspiracy theories, extrapolations, distortions, exaggerations etc because you have to. I've said this before: you are blinded by bias and bitterness to the point of being incapable of admitting that there are plenty of chiros that actually do some good for their patients without ripping them off or trying to kill them. You're stuck with your argument now, and it makes you look ridiculous.

This is the lamest argument I've heard out of you in a long time and considering your history that says a lot. Chiropractic is based on quackery and trains people to be quacks which is proven in curricula however according to you the presence of a few maverick DCs who pretend to be 1980s style PTs and can't even analyze research is supposed to excuse the whole field and support the idea that the field wants to reform itself. Sorry but this is so stupid it's good.

Where is that bozo the clown emoticon when you need it?

Remember the fake superman who got everything wrong and backwards...Bizarro!

 

[facetguy]

So? What makes cutting them open more significant? They establish largely nothing, ESPECIALLY a causal relationship.

The mistake you are making is thinking it is appropriate in the beginning of a study to only set prelim findings. They are drawing conclusions from such minimal findings. This will lead them down the proverbial rabbit hole. They need to seriously investigate to the point that their findings can't be attributed to incidentals. They don't need to publish everything there is to be known, but they need robust statistics, proper controls, and they need to be careful to not say anything that isn't supported by the findings.

The paper states "people with sprained ankles show thickening of ankle fascia, therefore this ankle fascia is proprioceptive" well since sprains result in an inflammatory process and their experimental design did nothing to address this.... . And no, it is not ok to assume they did due to omission. You assume they didn't unless explicitly stated.

You are assuming these authors came up with this stuff out of thin air. There's a long history of published literature on various receptors within various tissues. Heck, I was taught 20 years ago about mechanoreceptors in the lateral ankle. This isn't new. These authors are just furthering the investigation along these lines. They aren't leaping to their conclusions out of whole cloth, so to speak.

And I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Are you saying that they are just completly wrong about the structure and histology? Do you feel as though they are ascribing too much causality?

So to answer your earlier question... no. I probably don't know as much as this author thinks he knows. But I know more than he actually does. This is the problem with these obscure low impact journals and quick pubmed searches. CTO will take basically anything. There are many crap journals out there that will and pubmed indexes them all.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Staying humble, I see.

 

[facetguy]

This is the lamest argument I've heard out of you in a long time and considering your history that says a lot. Chiropractic is based on quackery and trains people to be quacks which is proven in curricula however according to you the presence of a few maverick DCs who pretend to be 1980s style PTs and can't even analyze research is supposed to excuse the whole field and support the idea that the field wants to reform itself. Sorry but this is so stupid it's good.

Where is that bozo the clown emoticon when you need it?

So then according to you there are no good chiropractors out there. You completely dismiss the entire profession. Do I have that right?

 

[SpecterGT260]

You are assuming these authors came up with this stuff out of thin air. There's a long history of published literature on various receptors within various tissues. Heck, I was taught 20 years ago about mechanoreceptors in the lateral ankle. This isn't new. These authors are just furthering the investigation along these lines. They aren't leaping to their conclusions out of whole cloth, so to speak.

And I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Are you saying that they are just completly wrong about the structure and histology? Do you feel as though they are ascribing too much causality?




Staying humble, I see.

I'm saying they are making a casual and mundane observation and drawing wild conclusions from it. There is also not a long history of lit here.... impact factor matters. Nostradamus has a long history too. Does that mean its real?

I'm also saying you are siding with the ones who fit your pre conceived beliefs in spite of the shoddiness of the work. I sent that paper to my gf, a PhD candidate who handles the grant proposals for her lab, under the guise that I actually was interested in it. She got really uncomfortable and wasn't sure how to tell me the paper is utter garbage

Your problem is you never (ever) think critically of the papers you cite. You never ask "does this experiment show what they conclude?", "can I explain the findings in another way?" (I.e. did they exclude all other options). Instead you have an idea in your head, you set out to find a paper that supports it, and inevitably find papers by "scientists" who are guilty of the same. The result is poor controls and propagation of misinformation. I also think you may lack the basic physio knowledge to really be critical here as you seem to just throw your lot in with these people because they have white coats like the actors in a toothpaste commercial. Remember, this started with you saying they looked at the proprioceptive function and they simply did no such thing.

But here is what is comes down to.

Yes, ankle connective tissue has proprioceptors. Everyone knows this.

Ankle connective tissue will enlarge in sprains. This is also common knowledge.

These authors attempt to connect these two things which is nonsense. My earlier statement wasn't arrogant. Its just that these people are dealing with things that are elementary at best. Knowing more than them here constitutes knowing about 4 things. They are just too far down the rabbit hole to see how meaningless this is and that is why they land in such an obscure journal.

I can't even identify why they are looking at this. Their intro material was in their results and the background lacked anything resembling significance.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[cdmguy]

So then according to you there are no good chiropractors out there. You completely dismiss the entire profession. Do I have that right?

Yes, I would never advocate that a patient see a chiropractor. All the programs should be removed from financial aid eligibility and mandatory informed consent should be instituted to discourage patients from care.

 

[DCtoMD2018]

Yes, I would never advocate that a patient see a chiropractor. All the programs should be removed from financial aid eligibility and mandatory informed consent should be instituted to discourage patients from care.

We do use informed consent, just to clarify.

 

[cdmguy]

Informed consent for stroke risks from cervical manipulation. May as well throw in a statement that manipulation doesn't help spinal osteoarthritis, joint alignment and range of motion long term.

 

[DCtoMD2018]

Informed consent for stroke risks from cervical manipulation. May as well throw in a statement that manipulation doesn't help spinal osteoarthritis, joint alignment and range of motion longer term.

It begs the question: why are MDs prescribing pain relievers or anti-inflammatories for OA, then? Should their informed consents contain the same disclaimer? I mean, if you're going to hold one profession to a certain standard, you must hold them all to the same.

 

[SpecterGT260]

It begs the question: why are MDs prescribing pain relievers or anti-inflammatories for OA, then? Should their informed consents contain the same disclaimer? I mean, if you're going to hold one profession to a certain standard, you must hold them all to the same.

They usually do. The side effects are pretty well documented.

The difference arises when chiropractors sell their product (don't think cash exchange. Think car salesman)
I don't know many physicians advertising on the local TV box telling me to come get some opioids.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[cdmguy]

We do use informed consent, just to clarify.

Post your form.

 

[DCtoMD2018]

Why? So I can get picked apart? I'd rather not.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Why? So I can get picked apart? I'd rather not.

Post your form.

Yeah, I doubt his form has what you want but at the same time I doubt it needs it.

I would be content if DCs were liable for any instances where patients missed the standard of care for legitimate illness. If a DC can be sued for manipulating a slipped disc and making it worse when the patient needed an NSurg Im happy


Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[facetguy]

Yeah, I doubt his form has what you want but at the same time I doubt it needs it.

I would be content if DCs were liable for any instances where patients missed the standard of care for legitimate illness. If a DC can be sued for manipulating a slipped disc and making it worse when the patient needed an NSurg Im happy


Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

What makes you think that DCs aren't open to liability? If you hadn't noticed, there are attorneys everywhere waiting to pounce.

Manipulation of a "slipped disc" is a bad example because patients with "slipped discs" undergo manipulation all the time. Not all "slipped discs" require surgery, and such surgery isn't automatically the standard of care (although there are some surgeons who would be more than happy to talk you into a surgery whether you need it or not).

 

[SpecterGT260]

What makes you think that DCs aren't open to liability? If you hadn't noticed, there are attorneys everywhere waiting to pounce.

Manipulation of a "slipped disc" is a bad example because patients with "slipped discs" undergo manipulation all the time. Not all "slipped discs" require surgery, and such surgery isn't automatically the standard of care (although there are some surgeons who would be more than happy to talk you into a surgery whether you need it or not).

You can nitpick if you'd like. My point is valid, I'm just not interesting in writing a thesis on the subject. If you don't think so it is more an issue of your understanding than mine. I'm tired from traveling for 2 weeks. Not interested in playing the rest of the night.

 

[facetguy]

You can nitpick if you'd like. My point is valid, I'm just not interesting in writing a thesis on the subject. If you don't think so it is more an issue of your understanding than mine. I'm tired from traveling for 2 weeks. Not interested in playing the rest of the night.

Go anywhere interesting?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Island off Florida in the gulf and then Phoenix. Wasn't too bad. Airports can suck it though.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[Ferocity]

Chiropractors have amazing jobs. Here's an example of a chiropractor that specializes in cheerleaders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mkvVFBmSRk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrlYqxEg75w

 

[DocVapor]

Chiropractors have amazing jobs. Here's an example of a chiropractor that specializes in cheerleaders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mkvVFBmSRk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrlYqxEg75w

Are you a pedophile?

 

[Ferocity]

Are you a pedophile?

I am not. Why would you ask me such an inappropriate question?

 

[DocVapor]

I made the post because you said chiropractors have amazing jobs, and then used the example of specializing in cheerleaders, and posted two links to videos of such a chiropractor. That heavily implies to me that the only reason you thought being a chiropractor was awesome was because you would get to put your hands all over teenage girls.

Excuse me if I misunderstood your point, but it was offensive to me that an adult would use ONLY that example. In the future if you are going to make the assertion you originally made, you need to expand on it instead of leaving it where you did.

A simple "Cheerleaders often suffer characteristic mal-alignments, and chiropractors can help relieve them of their pain and keep them active and cheering at their maximum potential" would have alleviated any suspicion I had of your motives. It would have been even better if you posted a video of male cheerleaders or gymnasts as well.

 

[cdmguy]

I made the post because you said chiropractors have amazing jobs, and then used the example of specializing in cheerleaders, and posted two links to videos of such a chiropractor. That heavily implies to me that the only reason you thought being a chiropractor was awesome was because you would get to put your hands all over teenage girls.

Excuse me if I misunderstood your point, but it was offensive to me that an adult would use ONLY that example. In the future if you are going to make the assertion you originally made, you need to expand on it instead of leaving it where you did.

A simple "Cheerleaders often suffer characteristic mal-alignments, and chiropractors can help relieve them of their pain and keep them active and cheering at their maximum potential" would have alleviated any suspicion I had of your motives. It would have been even better if you posted a video of male cheerleaders or gymnasts as well.

It would also be a load of nonsense since the only thing chiros keep at maximum potential is their ability to lie to patients. Granted the girls were very attractive (his point) and youngish but calling Fer a pedophile is way over the top. By the way, grabbing buttocks or leaning one's leg against a female is all perfectly acceptable behavior for a DC. Perhaps this is why it is so easy for them to cross that line.

 

[Ferocity]

I made the post because you said chiropractors have amazing jobs, and then used the example of specializing in cheerleaders, and posted two links to videos of such a chiropractor. That heavily implies to me that the only reason you thought being a chiropractor was awesome was because you would get to put your hands all over teenage girls.

Excuse me if I misunderstood your point, but it was offensive to me that an adult would use ONLY that example. In the future if you are going to make the assertion you originally made, you need to expand on it instead of leaving it where you did.

A simple "Cheerleaders often suffer characteristic mal-alignments, and chiropractors can help relieve them of their pain and keep them active and cheering at their maximum potential" would have alleviated any suspicion I had of your motives. It would have been even better if you posted a video of male cheerleaders or gymnasts as well.

Yet another garbage post from you. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[DocVapor]

It would also be a load of nonsense since the only thing chiros keep at maximum potential is their ability to lie to patients. Granted the girls were very attractive (his point) and youngish but calling Fer a pedophile is way over the top. By the way, grabbing buttocks or leaning one's leg against a female is all perfectly acceptable behavior for a DC. Perhaps this is why it is so easy for them to cross that line.

I do admit what I said was over the top. I was attempting to shock him into realizing how bad his post sounded to me.

My true point:

As a DO student I know of all of these potentially compromising techniques, plus more (I've had my arm between people's legs and my hand under their sacrum before - now THAT's a compromising technique). These techniques do have utility if applied appropriately on the proper patient, and certainly dealing with teens in and of itself is not a red flag. Also, if he had been younger; i.e. a pre-med, I would have ignored it. But his status says he's in podiatry school, which means an adult and a future professional. An adult joking about or insinuating using professional credentials to prey on the trust of their patients for their own sexual desires in any manner is completely unacceptable, and I have no problem with going over the top to put a stop to it.

 

[cdmguy]

Chiropractic boards are known for protecting chiropractors. Here the Wisconsin board allowed a DC to continue practicing for four years despite six patient complaints.

In 2006, chiropractor Peter Baehr confessed to touching three patients' bare breasts without their consent. When sexual assault charges against him hit the news, 16 more women came forward, alleging he'd treated them the same way.

Police notified state regulators at the Department of Safety and Professional Services and at least six patients filed complaints about Baehr, department records show. He was convicted of disorderly conduct and spent 40 days in jail, according to court records.

But regulators didn't stop him from practicing for even a day.

Four years earlier, in 2002, Madison-area massage therapist Larry Palmer repeatedly left a client's breasts exposed instead of draping her with a sheet as state law requires. Department records also indicate he asked to see her naked when she was nine months pregnant.

The client filed a formal complaint. But regulators didn't discipline Palmer for more than four years - and only after he kept massaging another client's bare breasts even when she asked him to stop. Like Baehr, Palmer kept his license.
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/wa...ce-despite-allegations-7l61b3s-161700605.html

Soundtrack

DC: "OMG m'aam you have the worst case of subluxated breasts I've ever seen. I'll have to manipulate them right away."

Patient: "Thank goodness I came to you doctor. Is there any hope for me?"

DC: "You're extremely lucky you came to me. Normally misaligned breasts fall off after three years but a new treatment I developed can realign them to effect a cure in only 10 office visits. Why don't you take your bra off and lie face up on the table. Now this is going to feel a little cool while I put the lotion on you."

 

[facetguy]

It would also be a load of nonsense since the only thing chiros keep at maximum potential is their ability to lie to patients. Granted the girls were very attractive (his point) and youngish but calling Fer a pedophile is way over the top. By the way, grabbing buttocks or leaning one's leg against a female is all perfectly acceptable behavior for a DC. Perhaps this is why it is so easy for them to cross that line.

Even you don't believe this. Why do you say such goofy things?

 

[cdmguy]

Go find someone else's mind to read Santini.

 

[MSKMed]

Sadly, the majority of posts and comments in regard to chiropractic have been negative with similar stories of likening chiropractors to con-men, salesmen, pseudo-doctors, quacks etc...

Perhaps the links below will shed some light on some of the good work being done by chiropractors, and those who are duly trained and licensed as chiropractors-physicians:

http://www.uhnresearch.ca/researchers/profile.php?lookup=1690

http://www.uhnresearch.ca/researchers/profile.php?lookup=1225

http://www.uhnresearch.ca/researchers/profile.php?lookup=833

http://www.mountsinai.on.ca/care/rmcad/staff/dr-carlo-ammendolia-dc-phd

http://thesteadmanclinic.com/dr-donald-corenman.asp

http://www.wfc.org/website/index2.p...article&id=171:bio-of-scott-haldeman&catid=72

http://michaelnbrownmd.com/michaelnbrownmd/about-bottom/item/79-dr-brown-biography

http://faubelmd.com/bio_drfaubel/ - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chris-faubel/38/99b/87

http://www.stmichaelshospital.com/programs/chiropractic/index.php

http://www.winchesterhospitalchiro.com/

 

[SpecterGT260]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is.... "good work" usually requires something more than a series of canadian chiropractors who are described as doing research.

http://thesteadmanclinic.com/dr-donald-corenman.asp This one is interesting, that he opted out of chiropractic and into medicine could be very telling. Without his autobiography it is a moot point.

The point I have made in this thread is that there are aspects of chiropractic training that are in direct contradiction to modern medical science and 1 of 2 things is required in order to reconcile this fact.
1) the provider has an inaccurate and insufficient understanding of the human body
2) the provider intentionally defrauds the patient by supporting a known falsehood

One of these must be true, and neither is a good thing. Now, some DCs go out and practice their craft in a more or less responsible way through valuable patient counseling of issues and symptom relief. Others concoct an "us vs. them" situation and advertise themselves as knowing something that doctors do not and being able to provide superior care because of this. Still others seek to validate their beliefs in a near religious sense and produce crap research with so much bias you nearly need to wring it out of the paper like grease in a gas station pizza slice prior to reading. These things aren't good. We have crazies in the MD world as well, and the more clout the degree has, the more unfortunate it is when someone goes off their rocker and starts backing ideas that will mislead and potentially harm the public.

 

[MSKMed]

Actually, the purpose of my post was merely to highlight the good work that chiropractors do, as the majority of this thread seems to focus on the practices of poor examples of the chiropractic profession. "Good" in this context would be considered the values supposedly acknowledged and appreciated by members of this forum such as: significant academic research and providing evidence-based and patient-centered care without the need for sales pitches or talks revolving around chiropractic philosophy and antiquated theories.

I may be reading your post incorrectly, but I sense a dismissive tone which may indicate an inherent bias against the profession of chiropractic. Forgive me if this is incorrect. Could you please clarify what is the "something more" you are looking for?

This individual http://www.uhnresearch.ca/researchers/profile.php?lookup=1690 for example has a laboratory that focuses on restorative/regenerative medicine principally concerning interactions between cells within the intervertebral disc. He is also an assistant professor in the departments of orthopaedic and neurological surgery at the University of Toronto. I would say he's doing very well for a "quack".

Also, the majority of my examples are of Canadian chiropractors because I am Canadian and feel compelled to recognize the efforts of my colleagues who are doing significant work for both the chiropractic and medical professions.

Furthermore, I must say that your postulation regarding chiropractic education is flawed. I have been in chiropractic practice for 10 years and am currently studying medicine. I can tell you from first-hand experience that the courses taken in the first year of medical school (my current stage) and the courses I took in chiropractic school are the same. The only exception being the clinical slant with the treatment of diseases and disorders pharmacologically in med school.

I will agree with you that some chiropractors practice unethically and do not employ much of the medical sciences taught to them in chiropractic school, but you cannot paint the entire profession with the same brush with complete certainty.

With respect to Dr. Corenman, http://thesteadmanclinic.com/dr-donald-corenman.asp, if you contact him directly you will learn that he did not "opt out" of chiropractic. He continued his education so as to expand his scope of practice, as is the reason why many other DCs go back to school to study medicine.

In closing, my post was not meant to agitate anyone or to debate with anyone. It was meant to highlight the good/favourable/whatever adjective you want to use work that chiropractors do, as opposed to focusing on the negative experiences/stories told, and in turn condemning an entire profession for the practices of a few rotten apples.

 

[facetguy]

I like this guy already.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Ironically, labeling something as "biased" as just as dismissive. If what I am saying is wrong and is motivated by an agenda then yes, the label of bias is fitting. If, however, you label me as biased simply because we have differing viewpoints and write off anything I have said because of your label this becomes ad hominem (the correct use of the term, as opposed to SDN's common usage of "zomg u called me a bad name lulz"). And... do you have any information on this MD.DC personally? Or are you just assuming I am not going to email him directly to ask why he left DC?

You have missed my point entirely. Simply being a "researcher" is by no means equivalent to "doing good work". There are in fact quacks within the DC world

(be sure to watch through 20 minutes, p.s. strong language, and it's showtime so I am pretty sure it is the clean version but there is always a chance a random naked person may appear)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyxaGk75Mjo&t=16m38s

I have said upfront (within this thread and others) that I think there ARE benefits to chiropractors and there are good chiropractors. I have maintained that our good dear friend facetguy here has a chronic case of hypocrititis in that he consistently plays towards some notion of moderatism while constantly debating and combating the ideas formed by the best medical science society has to offer. Swinging wildly in defense of quacks like the guy in the video or downplaying their existence.

Now, I am just as hard on quack physicians. Mercola is quite possibly the antichrist. Sherri Tenpenny may have a trisomy of some sort. There are idiot MDs as well but I haven't had my coffee yet so none are coming to mind (only because I recently looked into Tenpenny and Mercola is just a gimme. Not trying to target DOs by any means). Quackery is quackery and it is dangerous to patients either directly or indirectly by subverting real care. There just happens to be an increase in quackery in a profession which is built upon false or fallacious assumptions and extends itself based on the rationale that "we don't know everything" and some hazy shroud of the mind-body-spirit haze allowing them to embrace casual correlation and for it to feed on itself.

Now, admittedly, I wish all chiropractors were at least like our buddy facet here. Because while he doesn't exactly have the raw scientific understanding to interpret the literature (good and bad) that comes out surrounding both chiropractic, he also doesn't seem to have completely finished his kool-aid either. i.e. I don't see him arguing for the notions that some chiropractors do (and those that are still actively taught in many of the chiropractic schools according to their websites) which are not only in the realm of "we don't know everything yet" but actually in direct contradiction to proven scientific fact. And for that, good on you facet
But again, just to reiterate, my level of ax grinding is directly proportional to the prevalence of the problem within any field. Medicine is not immune and in fact I have made the point that medicine self-regulates in this regard. A physician who comes up with some bonehead idea is much more likely to be eaten alive by his colleagues than a DC who does.

 

[MSKMed]

I fully appreciate and understand what you are saying, however I think that your emotions got the better of you after reading my post, which as I stated earlier was not my intention at all.

By making the statement "Simply being a "researcher" is by no means equivalent to "doing good work".", you are dismissing the efforts of researchers who are the ones that provide us clinicians with the information necessary to practice evidence-based care.

I am not sure if you are a student or practicing physician but perhaps a tempered approach to discussing such issues may serve you better in future interactions with others.

 

[facetguy]

And... do you have any information on this MD.DC personally? Or are you just assuming I am not going to email him directly to ask why he left DC?

Is it really that hard to believe that someone might wish to go to medical school after chiro school so that they may practice medicine or surgery? Why is that so difficult to grasp? If this MD,DC you're hung up on really left chiro because he hated chiro, would he continue to use "MD,DC" after his name and mention chiro in his bio?

I have said upfront (within this thread and others) that I think there ARE benefits to chiropractors and there are good chiropractors. I have maintained that our good dear friend facetguy here has a chronic case of hypocrititis in that he consistently plays towards some notion of moderatism while constantly debating and combating the ideas formed by the best medical science society has to offer. Swinging wildly in defense of quacks like the guy in the video or downplaying their existence.

Are you referring to the flu vaccine thing? Let's not forget that I arrived here at SDN way back when because I was applying to medical school at the time; I'm not anti-medicine, clearly.

Now, I am just as hard on quack physicians. Mercola is quite possibly the antichrist. Sherri Tenpenny may have a trisomy of some sort. There are idiot MDs as well but I haven't had my coffee yet so none are coming to mind (only because I recently looked into Tenpenny and Mercola is just a gimme. Not trying to target DOs by any means). Quackery is quackery and it is dangerous to patients either directly or indirectly by subverting real care. There just happens to be an increase in quackery in a profession which is built upon false or fallacious assumptions and extends itself based on the rationale that "we don't know everything" and some hazy shroud of the mind-body-spirit haze allowing them to embrace casual correlation and for it to feed on itself.

This is where you fail to acknowledge that there is actually some scientific rationale to what chiros do (or at least let's say spinal manipulation for the time being).

Now, admittedly, I wish all chiropractors were at least like our buddy facet here. Because while he doesn't exactly have the raw scientific understanding to interpret the literature (good and bad) that comes out surrounding both chiropractic, he also doesn't seem to have completely finished his kool-aid either. i.e. I don't see him arguing for the notions that some chiropractors do (and those that are still actively taught in many of the chiropractic schools according to their websites) which are not only in the realm of "we don't know everything yet" but actually in direct contradiction to proven scientific fact. And for that, good on you facet
But again, just to reiterate, my level of ax grinding is directly proportional to the prevalence of the problem within any field. Medicine is not immune and in fact I have made the point that medicine self-regulates in this regard. A physician who comes up with some bonehead idea is much more likely to be eaten alive by his colleagues than a DC who does.

I'll agree with the last line. But, again, you dismiss in across-the-board fashion any scientific publication relating to chiropractic and proclaim all of chiropractic non-scientific. I disagree.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Is it really that hard to believe that someone might wish to go to medical school after chiro school so that they may practice medicine or surgery? Why is that so difficult to grasp? If this MD,DC you're hung up on really left chiro because he hated chiro, would he continue to use "MD,DC" after his name and mention chiro in his bio?

No, but had you been properly tracking the conversation you would have noticed that he presented this doctor as evidence of the fact and I simply noted twice (once originally and once after he reiterated) that the provided evidence simply does not suggest his conclusion. MY point was that it was wide open and can't be used to say anything other than "this guy has both degrees" based on the info provided. I never once said that he DID leave chiro because he was disenfranchised with it. I said that it couldnt be concluded (technically I said it "COULD be quite telling") that he reconciles both schools of thought. Again, because he was presented as supporting evidence for the point that other poster was making. And also again, because it doesn't support his point as he wishes it does.

This is precisely where you demonstrate that wild swinging in defense of your own biases.

Are you referring to the flu vaccine thing? Let's not forget that I arrived here at SDN way back when because I was applying to medical school at the time; I'm not anti-medicine, clearly.

The flu vaccine thing is one instance in a long line of similar interactions that we have had.

This is where you fail to acknowledge that there is actually some scientific rationale to what chiros do (or at least let's say spinal manipulation for the time being).

Yes, there is some. Which is why there is also some benefit to their work. And because there is only some scientific rationale, there are also those instances which I have cited where the rationale contradicts and flies in the face of science (but only those some parts that weren't included in the original rationale for the practice in the first part)

I'll agree with the last line. But, again, you dismiss in across-the-board fashion any scientific publication relating to chiropractic and proclaim all of chiropractic non-scientific. I disagree.

No, I dismiss in a broad fashion any scientific publication that was done expressly to validate the pre-conceived (and often blatantly false and contradictory) notions that chiropractic still clings to. Unfortunately this is most of the work they do (or at least that I become aware of) because they are preoccupied with validating 100% of their belief rather than adapting it. You have yourself linked some of these works which I had the pleasure of dissecting and highlighting the various biases, statistical shortcomings, experimental design flaws, and unsupported conclusions within. All of these papers are bunk and should be stricken from the scientific record for the junk they are. Ironically it is the integrity of the scientific community which dictates the survival of works good and bad (even if retracted or countered) which keeps this from happening. Not all scientists are physicians, but all widely accepted science rejects many claims of chiropractic. It isnt a turf battle here, it is simple scientific reasoning. How well would these pubs do if you needed standardized critical review before being included in databases such as pubmed? Pubmed (which you have argued in the past validated your links) includes anything from anyone available to them with no regard for the impact factor or review processes of the journal. You can get impact 0.1 papers on gerbil telepathy on there.....

Now, if they want to unbiased work that isn't aimed at proving their already disproved points, I would gladly accept and even propagate the papers. I have just as of yet not seen any that I am impressed by. This doesn't say they don't exists... it mostly says that you only link those that attempt to prove the already disproven.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I fully appreciate and understand what you are saying, however I think that your emotions got the better of you after reading my post, which as I stated earlier was not my intention at all.

By making the statement "Simply being a "researcher" is by no means equivalent to "doing good work".", you are dismissing the efforts of researchers who are the ones that provide us clinicians with the information necessary to practice evidence-based care.

I am not sure if you are a student or practicing physician but perhaps a tempered approach to discussing such issues may serve you better in future interactions with others.

I disagree. Actually on all counts. Being thorough is not being emotionally charged . The point of these forums is to discuss, so if you want everything to end abruptly in "well agree to disagree" or "you're entitled to your opinion" as soon as a disagreement is aired you'd do better at canadaforums.com

I'm not discounting the researchers who provide clinicians with information. Far far from it. I actually tend to show well more respect for the PhD crowd than the average medical student does. But this doesn't preclude the fact that people can be researchers and put out crap research. So you simply linking to pages demonstrating nothing except the existence of people having both DC degrees and doing research is entirely moot. That was my point. There are people who do "research" about how vaccines are super dangerous and "immune training" is the safest way to get resistance to disease. Is this good research? Is calling it not good an insult to those who do research and provide that knowledge to clinicians? Absolutely not. IMO it's a compliment to differentiate between such work and efforts of bias put out by other people claiming equivalency.

I haven't looked through the pubs by anyone you have linked to yet (mostly because of the effort involved in looking up their work). Maybe they are doing unbiased research that adds to our knowledge in a meaningful way. Maybe they are not. But to present them as "they are researchers therefore they help" is simply invalid and to go further and link this unproven measure of "good work" to their degree is equally as invalid.

 

[MSKMed]

My friend, we cannot engage in an educational debate on this topic when you have not even collected or researched the information provided to you. Had you reviewed the links I posted and did a pub search there would be no need for such verbose posts amounting to nothing in the end

It's better to read first, gather the information and then formulate an opinion as opposed to shooting from the hip and "go back to do some research".

By way of your post I feel confident in saying we can agree to disagree Thanks for directing me to canadaforums.com