Quacks

[facetguy]

Well to be fair, I think about 490 of them are by the same poster...

480, tops.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Depakote]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=580554

 

[Cp22kjer]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=580554

Ha, thanks for clearing that up!

 

[AUGGIE]

http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2007/20070314-atlas.html

 

[KeyzerSoze]

http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2007/20070314-atlas.html

"A larger trial involving multiple practitioners is being planned."

It's been two and a half years; are there any results from this?

 

[AUGGIE]

"A larger trial involving multiple practitioners is being planned."

It's been two and a half years; are there any results from this?

Still looking for $$$.

...but it will happen eventually.

That being said is it meritless for a chiropractor to claim an adjustment can help some patients with hypertension?

 

[KeyzerSoze]

Still looking for $$$.

...but it will happen eventually.

That being said is it meritless for a chiropractor to claim an adjustment can help some patients with hypertension?

Fascinating. Yes.

 

[AUGGIE]

Fascinating. Yes.

I won't disagree with you.

But if the larger study is done and the results are the same what then?

 

[geogil]

I won't disagree with you.

But if the larger study is done and the results are the same what then?

Thank you for resurrecting a dead thread AUGGIE. Check out the date before you start posting again.

 

[facetguy]

Thank you for resurrecting a dead thread AUGGIE. Check out the date before you start posting again.

It's an oldie but a goodie. Don't take it so personally.

 

[ACSurgeon]

Still looking for $$$.

...but it will happen eventually.

That being said is it meritless for a chiropractor to claim an adjustment can help some patients with hypertension?

IF a well-done, randomized, placebo-controlled, double blinded study was preformed with a large sample size that can be generalizable to the public, then sure. However, that's a HUGE if!!!

 

[AUGGIE]

IF a well-done, randomized, placebo-controlled, double blinded study was preformed with a large sample size that can be generalizable to the public, then sure. However, that's a HUGE if!!!

So then we would be able to say that chiropractic is good for reducing hypertension as well as dual drug therapy but all the rest of it is quackery?

 

[KeyzerSoze]

So then we would be able to say that chiropractic is good for reducing hypertension as well as dual drug therapy but all the rest of it is quackery?

Yes, of course. If we don't know anything about the mechanism of action, how could we extrapolate to any other alleged benefits without testing each one individually?

 

[ACSurgeon]

So then we would be able to say that chiropractic is good for reducing hypertension as well as dual drug therapy but all the rest of it is quackery?

Many medications are plant based (but were proven to be effective and safe, just to compare to herbals). It's been proven that diet and exercise can control HTN equal to or better than dual drug therapy, thus first line treatment is diet/exercise. Whenever anything is proven in RCT or other good observational studies, we as physicians are obligated to use it for our patients' benefit. However, we are not to extrapolate results to other conditions. For example, you cannot suggest that diet and exercise will cure cancer.

In conclusion: if something is proven safe and effective, and we have reason to think its benefits out-way its harms, then we accept it. If no such proof/reason exists, then yes, it is quackery until proven otherwise.

 

[RySerr21]

Many medications are plant based (but were proven to be effective and safe, just to compare to herbals). It's been proven that diet and exercise can control HTN equal to or better than dual drug therapy, thus first line treatment is diet/exercise. Whenever anything is proven in RCT or other good observational studies, we as physicians are obligated to use it for our patients' benefit. However, we are not to extrapolate results to other conditions. For example, you cannot suggest that diet and exercise will cure cancer.

In conclusion: if something is proven safe and effective, and we have reason to think its benefits out-way its harms, then we accept it. If no such proof/reason exists, then yes, it is quackery until proven otherwise.

but it certainly plays a role in its development and progression!

 

[KeyzerSoze]

but it certainly plays a role in its development and progression!

A relatively minimal role.

 

[facetguy]

A relatively minimal role.

Then what's the major factor?

 

[KeyzerSoze]

Then what's the major factor?

Nothing anyone can do a darn thing about, unless they're dumb enough to be a smoker, in which case they should quit. Mostly random genetic mutations, AFAIK. Exposure, including via diet, to various environmental mutagens/carcinogens can increase the rate and likelihood of mutations, but it's going to happen randomly no matter what. To the best of my knowledge most cancer isn't caused by lack of diet and exercise, despite the modern notion that anyone can live to 100 by subsisting on organic granola and riding a bicycle.

 

[facetguy]

Nothing anyone can do a darn thing about, unless they're dumb enough to be a smoker, in which case they should quit. Mostly random genetic mutations, AFAIK. Exposure, including via diet, to various environmental mutagens/carcinogens can increase the rate and likelihood of mutations, but it's going to happen randomly no matter what. To the best of my knowledge most cancer isn't caused by lack of diet and exercise, despite the modern notion that anyone can live to 100 by subsisting on organic granola and riding a bicycle.

Sure genetics plays a role. But the thought now is that it's the intersection of our DNA with our diet, environmental exposures, the exercise we do, and other lifestyle factors that determines our risk. It may not be so random. If you think smoking is the only risk factor for cancer, you're missing the boat.

I think this also speaks to a broader issue in healthcare today. Physicians (at least many of the voices here on SDN) feel as though, for one reason or another, that diet, nutrition, and lifestyle issues in general aren't worth the physician's time in dealing with. As such, they are seen as unimportant, as KeyzerSoze states above. Consequently, the health of
Americans plummets while healthcare costs skyrocket. Sure, our current model is good for business, but it's not good for health promotion and clearly isn't sustainable.

 

[Bones DO]

Sure genetics plays a role. But the thought now is that it's the intersection of our DNA with our diet, environmental exposures, the exercise we do, and other lifestyle factors that determines our risk. It may not be so random. If you think smoking is the only risk factor for cancer, you're missing the boat.

I think this also speaks to a broader issue in healthcare today. Physicians (at least many of the voices here on SDN) feel as though, for one reason or another, that diet, nutrition, and lifestyle issues in general aren't worth the physician's time in dealing with. As such, they are seen as unimportant, as KeyzerSoze states above. Consequently, the health of
Americans plummets while healthcare costs skyrocket. Sure, our current model is good for business, but it's not good for health promotion and clearly isn't sustainable.

One of the projects at the research institute I'm currently employed at is of this impression as well, but in my personal experience of shadowing, 100% of the primary care docs harped on diet, lifestyle exercise etc. with all of their patients. Whether this is because they were just on their best behavior because they had a follower that day or if it is their every-day practice, I am not sure.

I can imagine that it would get tiresome if you are giving the same advice over and over again and it's just being ignored. As American people, we have a responsibility to give a hoot about our health, and the increasing trend is that we just don't. Sad in general, and I'm sure frustrating for doc's to say the least. Let me quote one exchange that I witnessed that comes to mind of a patient who was coming in for a 3 month follow up: a 50 yr old obese male with diabetes:

Doc: Well Mr. Smith, your % body fat hasn't changed since last visit and your blood sugar is still not where we'd like it to be, how have you been doing with the new diet and exercise program we talked about?

Mr. Smith: Uhh pretty good, I want more prednisone.

Doc: OK, have you been able to get out for a 15 minute walk around your apartment building like we talked about?

Mr. Smith: Sometimes... once a week, no, maybe once every 2 weeks, the prednisone makes me feel good

Doc: how about cutting down the saturated fat intake? How are we on that front?

Mr. Smith: Oh, very good, I have lettuce on my burgers now and I only go to Wendy's because they have the freshest lettuce!

This doc has the patience of a saint, and went on to explain that while eating veggies on fast food is better than eating fast food alone, that it would have a much better impact if this person cut down on the fast food in general. . . . .

I weep for our country.