which DC school?

[jesse14]

hello all you DC's. I am very close to the application due dates of chio school and i would just like to know which one's you guys deem as being better that others. I live in toronto so my first choice is the CMCC but, i have heard that it is very very tough to gain admission there. My next choice would be Logan in St.Louis. I just want some feedback from anyone who has been to any chiro school (please tell me which one) or anyone who has any info on the CMCC or Logan.

Thank's a lot!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PublicHealth]

I've heard good things about Logan and New York Chiropractic College. BackTalk, who is lurking around here somewhere graduated from Logan. He would be a good person to talk to about it.

 

[skiiboy]

I would strongly advise you to look into NYCC. NYCC is for alot of reasons one of the best chiropractic schools to attend. They do teach philosophy but also graduate very skilled diagnosticians and prepare you to be competent primary contact chiropractic physicians. They now even have affiliations with Beth Israel medical center as well as others in which chiropractic students can now actually rotate through the hospital much like a medical student. This is invaluable experience and will give you exposure that many other chiropractic students do not have. Also, the president of the school is constantly heading up new initiatives to help increase the exposure, training and success of their students and chiropractic. The only situation in which I would not recommend NYCC is if you are looking for a "straight" or "very philosophical" school. Sherman school of straight chiropractic or possibly Palmer schools might be better for this. NYCC produces very competent students who consistantly perform the highest on national board exams. The only other school who scores higher is western states, but western states is a very unique school. They actually teach obstetrics and minor surgery as part of their curriculum. They also very much de-emphasize philosophy. Western states chiropractic school is basically a medical scool that teaches manipulation. Hope this helps.

 

[delicatefade]

Western states chiropractic school is basically a medical scool that teaches manipulation. Hope this helps.

sorry

 

[50960]

Once again...med school is not the gold standard. Get off the horse!

🙂

 

[delicatefade]

Unfortunately, I think that when it comes to medicine, medical school is the gold standard.

 

[jesse14]

Unfortunately, I think that when it comes to medicine, medical school is the gold standard.

Thank's for all your replys thus far but please, let's not deiviate from the question at hand. I really don't want or need anymore DC vs MD debates or anything like that. All i want are people's PERSPECTIVES and OPINIONS on different DC schools. If someone states what they believe to be true and one of you doesn't agree, please use the private message option instead of making your objections public, thus starting another terrible and anoyong debate that does nothing to answer the question put forth.

Thank you all very much!!!

 

[FoughtFyr]

Thank's for all your replys thus far but please, let's not deiviate from the question at hand. I really don't want or need anymore DC vs MD debates or anything like that. All i want are people's PERSPECTIVES and OPINIONS on different DC schools. If someone states what they believe to be true and one of you doesn't agree, please use the private message option instead of making your objections public, thus starting another terrible and anoyong debate that does nothing to answer the question put forth.

Thank you all very much!!!

I would think that the DC forums (such as these: http://www.amerchiro.org/, http://www.chiropractic.org/, http://www.chiro.org/, http://www.chiroweb.com/, http://www.chiroweb.com/dynamic/, http://www.chiroeco.com/, http://www.chiroweb.com/cgi-bin/ubb/students/Ultimate.cgi) would provide a better answer to your question. There are very few DCs here, and very few "pro-chiro" folks (you know who they are from your previous threads). So why ask this question in this setting? PM them for their opinions to your question. But putting this out to the general forum at large and asking everyone's opinion is unlikely to engender the response you seek. Very few people here have any experience with DC schools...

It boggles my mind as to why you and skiiboy keep posting this stuff here. There are plenty of web resources available that are far better suited to your needs.

- H

 

[skiiboy]

Although I am not an expert on all of the different chiropractic schools, I can give you a little bit more info about a couple other schools. Bridgeport Chiropractic College in CT was the 1st university based chiropractic school. It is a non-profit school which is basically funded by the university. Because it is a non-profit college, they do not recruit very much and actually do not accept much more than 20-25 students per semester. This school was basically started because NYCC used to be located right next to NYCOM in Old Westbury. In fact NYCC students used to share many of the same professors and classrooms as NYCOM. About 15 years ago NYCC moved up to Seneca falls, and even though it is a great school, there are those students who would prefer not to live that far upstate New York. Bridgeport chiropractic school was basically created for those students. I will not lie though, the facilities are not all that nice and the buildings seem to be a bit run down. The program does not have very many students and I guess overall I would not recommend the program. I truly believe NYCC still remains the best chiropractic college in the country.

Also, although they are just getting their accreditation back, I would definitely tell you to look into Life University. Life University has quit an interesting history. This school used to be headed by Dr. Sid Williams, if you are not familiar with him I advise you definitely do some research for he was quit a unique character. Dr. Williams was a very principled, outspoken chiropractic zealot. But for just as much good as he did for the profession he also was detrimental. Life University because of its location - Atlanta and because of their abismilly low acceptance standards, had by far the largest # of students of any chiropractic school in the country. And when I say large, I mean like triple the size of the next biggest school. Dr. Williams constantly fought with the CCE as the CCE continued to increase the mandatory standards for students to enter chiropractic school. Most recently he fought extremely hard against the change of a mandatory 60 undergrad credits to 90 undergrad credits in order to legaly enter chiropractic school. He fought against this because he thought it might decrease the number of students in his school. He used to spend alot of time recruiting at 2 year universities and trying to get students to enter his dc/bs program. In addition he was very against the mixing of chiropractic into a medical subspecialty. He believes very strongly that chiropractic is a separate and distinct discipline whose foundation and paradigm is radically different from that of allopathy. He sought to always keep this distinction and fought hard against anything which sought to change this. But anyway, life university lost there accreditation two years ago. The reason I would highly recommend the school now is because of there new leader. Dr. Guy Riekeman. When chiropractic colleges realized that he was willing to enter academia he was quickly recruited. He was announced as Palmer's President last year, but because he disagreed with alot of issues at the school he stepped down from this position just a couple months after having been appointed. This created a large outcry amongst palmer students as many of the new incoming class based there decision on the presence of this one man. He is one of the greatest, most intelligent visionaries chiropractic has ever had. If you have never heard him speak I strongly advise you see the next time he is lecturing in your area. Life has now received it's accreditation back and Dr. Riekeman has layed out a large, specific plan to make Life University the top chiropractic school. Initiatives include... having one of the top 5 phd's in each field teaching at life chiropractic school within the new few years. There are many more fabulous initiatives....unfortunately I can not remember them. I also love life university because they have an awesome blend of philosophy and now a strong evidence based approach to delivering chiropractic care. Anywayz hope that helps and I'll continue to post any more info I learn/remember. Good luck with everything. Your future profession requires compassion, a love for human beings and the awesome ability to heal the sick with just your mind and hands, you have an incredible and unique journey ahead of you!

 

[lawguil]

They now even have affiliations with Beth Israel medical center as well as others in which chiropractic students can now actually rotate through the hospital much like a medical student.

Western states chiropractic school is basically a medical scool that teaches manipulation. Hope this helps.

Why do you insist on being so ill-informed and then spreading your own version of what you might have read somewhere? I know, everybody else is poorly informed-right. It's not that I don't believe that chiropractic students are doing some rotations at Beth Israel medical center, it's that you position it to say "like a medical student." Further you say Western States Chiropractic school is "basically a medical school" and that couldn't be any further from the truth. Obviously you enjoy positioning your views the way you do to aggrevate everybody. I'm sure you always get the last laugh though! Your ammusing at best skiboy, thanks again, L.

 

[jesse14]

I would think that the DC forums (such as these: http://www.amerchiro.org/, http://www.chiropractic.org/, http://www.chiro.org/, http://www.chiroweb.com/, http://www.chiroweb.com/dynamic/, http://www.chiroeco.com/, http://www.chiroweb.com/cgi-bin/ubb/students/Ultimate.cgi) would provide a better answer to your question. There are very few DCs here, and very few "pro-chiro" folks (you know who they are from your previous threads). So why ask this question in this setting? PM them for their opinions to your question. But putting this out to the general forum at large and asking everyone's opinion is unlikely to engender the response you seek. Very few people here have any experience with DC schools...

It boggles my mind as to why you and skiiboy keep posting this stuff here. There are plenty of web resources available that are far better suited to your needs.

- H

What makes you so sure I always seek DC replys to my posts? I would love allopathic thoughts on chiropractic too. But i would like CONSTRUCTIVE thoughts, not personal bias that (no offence) are more wrong than are right when conveyd by MD's. I'm sorry that "it boggles your mind" that Skiiboy and I keep posting here, but i do post here because i want to learn and be well versed in all issues. Many people say how DC's are quacks and not informed in many medical issues, well I seek to change this. I do this by keeping as up to date as I can on what medical/dental/nursing students feel on any given topic. My interest lies in chiropracic FoughtFyr, and I find it mildely offence that you would turn me away from this forum just because you feel that the topic is not worthy of SDN conversation. I have learned invaluable pieces of information from this site and i'll be damed to let you detract me from learning more. My needs, as you point out, are not to just talk with chiropractors. My needs are to take in all I can, but I do get fedup with a lot of the imature B/S i read about chiropractic on this forum. Once again, to reiderate: please pass along any valuable,factual, and informative information you have on any question that I, or anyone else askes. Don't tell me to leave because my questions "boggle your mind" and might I add.....If my simple question boggles your mind than i imagine that your mind must get boggled quite often.

Bye for now

 

[FoughtFyr]

What makes you so sure I always seek DC replys to my posts? I would love allopathic thoughts on chiropractic too.

Hmm, the original post was...

hello all you DC's. I am very close to the application due dates of chio school and i would just like to know which one's you guys deem as being better that others.

So, "hello all you DC's" didn't mean you were seeking DC replys?

But i would like CONSTRUCTIVE thoughts, not personal bias that (no offence) are more wrong than are right when conveyd by MD's.

So, you want our opinions but you are convinced that we are "more wrong than are right" (sic). Make up your mind.

And from your previous post...

let's not deiviate from the question at hand. I really don't want or need anymore DC vs MD debates or anything like that. All i want are people's PERSPECTIVES and OPINIONS on different DC schools.

How much experience do you expect that non-chiropractors will have with the differences between training programs in chiropractic. Even skiiboy acknowledges that there are wide differences in content and philosophy between chiropractic colleges - yet you want the advice of allopaths on this one?!?!

I'm sorry that "it boggles your mind" that Skiiboy and I keep posting here, but i do post here because i want to learn and be well versed in all issues. Many people say how DC's are quacks and not informed in many medical issues, well I seek to change this. I do this by keeping as up to date as I can on what medical/dental/nursing students feel on any given topic.

Which chiropractic college is "the best" is not a medical issue.

My interest lies in chiropracic FoughtFyr, and I find it mildely offence that you would turn me away from this forum just because you feel that the topic is not worthy of SDN conversation. I have learned invaluable pieces of information from this site and i'll be damed to let you detract me from learning more. My needs, as you point out, are not to just talk with chiropractors. My needs are to take in all I can, but I do get fedup with a lot of the imature B/S i read about chiropractic on this forum. Once again, to reiderate: please pass along any valuable,factual, and informative information you have on any question that I, or anyone else askes. Don't tell me to leave because my questions "boggle your mind" and might I add.....If my simple question boggles your mind than i imagine that your mind must get boggled quite often.

Bye for now

When dealing with DCs and Palmer's Minions, yes, my mind gets boggled quite often!

- H

 

[truthseeker]

What makes you so sure I always seek DC replys to my posts? I would love allopathic thoughts on chiropractic too. But i would like CONSTRUCTIVE thoughts, not personal bias that (no offence) are more wrong than are right when conveyd by MD's. I'm sorry that "it boggles your mind" that Skiiboy and I keep posting here, but i do post here because i want to learn and be well versed in all issues. Many people say how DC's are quacks and not informed in many medical issues, well I seek to change this. I do this by keeping as up to date as I can on what medical/dental/nursing students feel on any given topic. My interest lies in chiropracic FoughtFyr, and I find it mildely offence that you would turn me away from this forum just because you feel that the topic is not worthy of SDN conversation. I have learned invaluable pieces of information from this site and i'll be damed to let you detract me from learning more. My needs, as you point out, are not to just talk with chiropractors. My needs are to take in all I can, but I do get fedup with a lot of the imature B/S i read about chiropractic on this forum. Once again, to reiderate: please pass along any valuable,factual, and informative information you have on any question that I, or anyone else askes. Don't tell me to leave because my questions "boggle your mind" and might I add.....If my simple question boggles your mind than i imagine that your mind must get boggled quite often.

Bye for now

Its funny how you say that you come here to learn, yet whenever someone points out the fallacious science of chiropractic subluxation theory, you cry foul and conspiracy. Maybe if you actually paid attention to the arguements against chiropractic, you could do something to affect change in the profession.

It seems to me (and probably many more of us) that you only respect those opinions that agree with you. That is Dogma, not science.

Perhaps you simply don't see that. manipulation is helpful for NMS but has NEVER been shown by a reputable scientific study to change visceral systemic function.

 

[rooster]

........ manipulation is helpful for NMS but has NEVER been shown by a reputable scientific study to change visceral systemic function.

Actually, there is quite a bit, but not nearly enough. It is an area that needs a lot more research, however, studies, such as the recent one below, exist, and demonstrate the error of your above statement :


JAOA • Vol 105 • No 1 • January 2005 • 7-12

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

Effects of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment on Pediatric Patients With Asthma: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Peter A. Guiney, DO; Rick Chou, DO; Andrea Vianna, MD; Jay Lovenheim, DO
Address correspondence to Peter A. Guiney, DO, Director, Family Practice Residency Program, Department of Family Practice, Peninsula Hospital Center, 51-15 Beach Channel Dr, Far Rockaway, NY 11691-1042.E-mail: [email protected]

Asthma is a common chronic condition that has long plagued the pediatric patient population. Asthma in children can cause excessive school absenteeism, hospitalizations, and even death. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is an underutilized noninvasive treatment method for patients with asthma. The use of OMT may help decrease mortality and morbidity rates among this patient group. The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial attempting to demonstrate the therapeutic relevance of OMT in the pediatric asthma population. With a confidence level of 95%, results for the OMT group showed a statistically significant improvement of 7 L per minute to 9 L per minute for peak expiratory flow rates. These results suggest that OMT has a therapeutic effect among this patient population. The authors suggest that more clinical trials are required to better demonstrate the effectiveness of OMT in patients with asthma.

 

[truthseeker]

Actually, there is quite a bit, but not nearly enough. It is an area that needs a lot more research, however, studies, such as the recent one below, exist, and demonstrate the error of your above statement :


JAOA • Vol 105 • No 1 • January 2005 • 7-12

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

Effects of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment on Pediatric Patients With Asthma: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Peter A. Guiney, DO; Rick Chou, DO; Andrea Vianna, MD; Jay Lovenheim, DO
Address correspondence to Peter A. Guiney, DO, Director, Family Practice Residency Program, Department of Family Practice, Peninsula Hospital Center, 51-15 Beach Channel Dr, Far Rockaway, NY 11691-1042.E-mail: [email protected]

Asthma is a common chronic condition that has long plagued the pediatric patient population. Asthma in children can cause excessive school absenteeism, hospitalizations, and even death. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is an underutilized noninvasive treatment method for patients with asthma. The use of OMT may help decrease mortality and morbidity rates among this patient group. The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial attempting to demonstrate the therapeutic relevance of OMT in the pediatric asthma population. With a confidence level of 95%, results for the OMT group showed a statistically significant improvement of 7 L per minute to 9 L per minute for peak expiratory flow rates. These results suggest that OMT has a therapeutic effect among this patient population. The authors suggest that more clinical trials are required to better demonstrate the effectiveness of OMT in patients with asthma.

I stand corrected. I am not a statistician, but it seems that this paper is on the level. Why is it that there are not hundreds more of these to substantiate manipulation and its effects on other systems given all of the claims made? Thanks Rooster. I would be anxious for those of you who are statisticians out there to review the article and look at its design. I am not a researcher but it seemed ok to me.

 

[FoughtFyr]

Actually, there is quite a bit, but not nearly enough. It is an area that needs a lot more research, however, studies, such as the recent one below, exist, and demonstrate the error of your above statement :


JAOA • Vol 105 • No 1 • January 2005 • 7-12

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

Effects of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment on Pediatric Patients With Asthma: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Peter A. Guiney, DO; Rick Chou, DO; Andrea Vianna, MD; Jay Lovenheim, DO
Address correspondence to Peter A. Guiney, DO, Director, Family Practice Residency Program, Department of Family Practice, Peninsula Hospital Center, 51-15 Beach Channel Dr, Far Rockaway, NY 11691-1042.E-mail: [email protected]

Yeah rooster, not so much if you read the entire article, the authors were a bit "creative" in the conclusion section of the abstract. The conclusions (in the text) were as follows: "a 95% probability that OMT will increase peak expiratory flow rates between 2.7% to 6.9%" and "a 95% probability that an allopathic physician placing his or her hands on a patient without providing osteopathic manipulative treatment will change the patient's peak expiratory flow rates between –1.8% and 4.5%". If you notice there exists a significant overlap between the two confidence intervals (the range from +2.7% and +4.5%). When this occurs, there is not considered to be a statistically significant difference between the groups. (Note: this one is not even close. The failure to reach statistical significance occurs if the 95% confidence intervals overlap at all; these overlap quite a bit!) The authors were correct in their summation in the abstract of "With a confidence level of 95%, results for the OMT group showed a statistically significant improvement of 7 L per minute to 9 L (note added: this figure is actually 19L in the text) per minute for peak expiratory flow rates." What they fail to mention in that the 95% confidence in the control group was -10L to +10L per minute; again, note the overlap. The analysis is further weakened when the more clinically relevant measure of percent change is measured - as described above.

And this paper is OMT by osteopaths. To quote the article "In a previous study, chiropractors delivered multiple chiropractic treatments to children with asthma and measured their response to treatment. However, that study failed to show a statistically significant rise in PEFs." In that study (see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9761802), the findings were "In children with mild or moderate asthma, the addition of chiropractic spinal manipulation to usual medical care provided no benefit." The statistical measures in this study were a great deal less ambiguous and the results were not creatively reported as they were in the first paper.

My summation of these two papers: While OMT may produce symtomatic improvement in pediatric asthma, it does not do so statistically more often than a "sham" procedure performed by an allopath. Chiropractic care does not produce a statistically demonstrable benefit when added to standard medical care in pediatric asthma.

From my favorite (Cochrane reviews 😀) on "Manual Therapy for Asthma":

"From 393 unique citations, 59 full text articles were retrieved and evaluated, which resulted in nine citations to five RCTs (290 patients) suitable for inclusion. Trials could not be pooled statistically because studies that addressed similar interventions used disparate patient groups or outcomes. The methodological quality of one of two trials examining chiropractic manipulation was good and neither trial found significant differences between chiropractic spinal manipulation and a sham manoeuvre on any of the outcomes measured. Quality of the remaining three trials was poor. One small trial compared massage therapy with a relaxation control group and found significant differences in many of the lung function measures obtained. However, this trial had poor reporting characteristics and the data have yet to be confirmed. One small trial compared chest physiotherapy to placebo and one small trial compared footzone therapy to a no treatment control. Neither trial found differences in lung function between groups." {emphasis added}​

- H

 

[rooster]

Yeah rooster, not so much if you read the entire article, the authors were a bit "creative" in the conclusion section of the abstract. The conclusions (in the text) were as follows: "a 95% probability that OMT will increase peak expiratory flow rates between 2.7% to 6.9%" and "a 95% probability that an allopathic physician placing his or her hands on a patient without providing osteopathic manipulative treatment will change the patient's peak expiratory flow rates between –1.8% and 4.5%". If you notice there exists a significant overlap between the two confidence intervals (the range from +2.7% and +4.5%). When this occurs, there is not considered to be a statistically significant difference between the groups. (Note: this one is not even close. The failure to reach statistical significance occurs if the 95% confidence intervals overlap at all; these overlap quite a bit!) The authors were correct in their summation in the abstract of "With a confidence level of 95%, results for the OMT group showed a statistically significant improvement of 7 L per minute to 9 L (note added: this figure is actually 19L in the text) per minute for peak expiratory flow rates." What they fail to mention in that the 95% confidence in the control group was -10L to +10L per minute; again, note the overlap. The analysis is further weakened when the more clinically relevant measure of percent change is measured - as described above.

And this paper is OMT by osteopaths. To quote the article "In a previous study, chiropractors delivered multiple chiropractic treatments to children with asthma and measured their response to treatment. However, that study failed to show a statistically significant rise in PEFs." In that study (see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15710659), the findings were "In children with mild or moderate asthma, the addition of chiropractic spinal manipulation to usual medical care provided no benefit." The statistical measures in this study were a great deal less ambiguous and the results were not creatively reported as they were in the first paper.

My summation of these two papers: While OMT may produce symtomatic improvement in pediatric asthma, it does not do so statistically more often than a "sham" procedure performed by an allopath. Chiropractic care does not produce a statistically demonstrable benefit when added to standard medical care in pediatric asthma.

- H

manipulation is manipulation is manipulation-----------the body does not care what the initialed degree is of the provider.

 

[FoughtFyr]

manipulation is manipulation is manipulation-----------the body does not care what the initialed degree is of the provider.

Yes, but the chiropractic paper was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and was conducted at CMCC! Yep, by chiropractors! Their methodology was sound and their results published accurately. The other paper (the one you posted) showed no statistically significant difference between manipulation and sham therapy. How does that prove your case?

And yes PH, before you say it, I did agree to start letting this stuff go... Oh well, I guess I'm back in the fray!

- H

 

[ResIpsa]

I am an allopathic pre-med student, a lawyer, and am a supporter of chiropractic. In fact, when I am an allo MD, I plan to use some of chiros' philosophy in my practice, such as the excellent philosophy of the patient healing themselves, instead of always turning to drugs or surgery as the first plan of attack.

I, myself, have been to a chiropractor a number of times, once for a shoulder problem and another time for a knee problem. Maybe it was because I researched the field extensively before I made my first appointment, and maybe because I went to a professor in a clinic associated with a chiro school, that I got such excellent care. In fact, my experiences with this DC have made me now a better patient in general--I don't turn to quick fixes and instead look deeper into the problem to see if nutrition/ stress management, etc. can take care of it first. For both of my problems, the DC completely fixed them, and interestingly, I went to an orthopedic surgeon before the DC who did nothing for me. I personally don't go for routine maintenance, but respect those who do.

I guess I really don't understand why people on this forum have such low opinions of DCs. I can say firsthand that a DC helped me in a way that a board-certified ortho surgeon couldn't. The ortho surgeon spent about 10 minutes with me, looked at the x-ray, said there wasn't a problem he could see so too bad for me. The DC, on the other hand, spent over an hour diagnosing the problem, actually moved my affected body part and felt the muscles around it, and started a short treatment program (3 weeks each time) that made sense to me and got rid of the problem permanently. If it were not for this DC, and my initiatve to try something that so many people on here see as "out there," I'd probably still be living with horrific knee and shoulder pain.

When I'm an allo MD, I plan to suggest to patients that drugs aren't always the answer. I don't think taking a pain pill for a headache is such a great idea when you can address the underlying cause of the headache--muscle tighness, an emotional problem, poor posture, etc. and try to take a non-pharmacologic approach first. Why do MDs have such a myopic view of medicine that they can't or won't look to more holistic approaches first?

I, myself, have not taken a pill of any sort in about 15 years. I got my wisdom teeth out last year and I was in a lot of pain, but I focused on massage and heat to get rid of it instead of taking pills. I felt these non-drug therapies worked just as well. Plus, why not let patients have the responsibility for preventing disease and taking care of their own disease themselves? I realize, of course, that drugs do have an important role to play--in some cases, such as antibiotics, etc. But I personally see them as the easy way out in certain cases, such as headaches, etc.

Thanks.

 

[Freeeedom!]

No you aren't...you are a plant.
Who in the world says "alloMD"?
Why not go to osteopathic medical school if that is your true philosophy.
Lastly, faker, you haven't taken any "pill" for 15 years...including having your wisdom teeth taken out...and I am supposed to think you are 1. intelligent and 2. legitimate?
I congratulate you on your love of chiropractic, but don't lead us to believe your false intentions.

 

[ResIpsa]

Sorry to confuse anyone by saying allo MD. I of course meant just MD. Second, I don't want to go to DO school because derm is my number one choice for a specialty, and also I want to be in academic medicine, so I feel that an MD is really the only way for me to go.

Anyhow, I'm not a "plant," I find that quite insulting, I'm just new to this forum as a pre-med student, and I have seen several times people bashing DC's, and I just don't think that's warranted. However, although I myself don't want to be a DC, I would certainly go to one in the future if I had another musculoskeletal problem, (though only a DC affiliated with a chiro school).

Third, it is very easy to not take any pills in 15 years. I never get sick enough to warrant them. I've only had the flu once in my life, besides that it's just maybe two small colds per year, and I've never needed to go to the doctor because of an illness, thank God. I don't know if that's unusual or not, but I do try to take very good care of myself. Plus, I am very tolerant of pain in general, so I felt that when I got my wisdom teeth out (under just local anesthetic, as well--not general) that I didn't need to take any pain pills because I could manage the pain by massage, heat, and positive thinking. I believe that people rely waaaay too much on pills in general, popping them left and right for things as minor as a headache or muscle ache here and there. Plus, I'm a woman, and I've never once in my life taken a pill to relieve menstrual cramps.

Why are MD's always so suspicious of alternative therapies? That's what I just don't get. Why when you present with a disease do they immediately look for quick cures, in the form of medications and what have you, instead of taking the time to think about what in the patient's lifestyle may be contributing to the disease, and instead try to fix that? For instance, I'm not saying that if I present with the flu to an MD, that that MD should try and look deep into my lifestyle to see what could have prevented the flu. But instead, if I present with something such as chronic fatigue syndrome, instead of perhaps prescribing a drug, I think a good MD should look deeper into environmental causes (perhaps chronic exposure to chemicals, poor diet, etc.) instead of just prescribing some drug as a panacea. Or, if I present with a shoulder injury (as I did to an ortho surgeon) why rely on a quick 5-minute exam and an x-ray to tell me nothing is wrong, when I have unrelenting pain that's lasted for months after a weight-lifting injury? Instead, I appreciated the DC's thorough and lengthy exam, his looking at the x-ray, and also his discussion of muscle weakness in that shoulder that could additionally benefit from specific exercises? This DC worked on breaking up some scar tissue I had in my shoulder, through manually stripping the muscle, and this made all the difference in the world. After three weeks of this, (which was also covered by my insurance), I was pain-free and have been for years.

All I'm saying is that as an MD, I will try to as much as possible, keep an open mind and try to look at underlying, more subtle causes, as well as overt disease when diagnosing. I'm not sure how much this will apply to my chosen field, derm, but I will try my best, and this is a trend I would like to see the MD community adopt in general.

 

[FoughtFyr]

Anyhow, I'm not a "plant," I find that quite insulting, I'm just new to this forum as a pre-med student, and I have seen several times people bashing DC's, and I just don't think that's warranted.

O.k., but you might want to keep in mind that in medical school or in medical practice (especially in academia), questioning the scientific basis behind any treatment or therapy is par for the course, not "bashing". The same critical eye that many of the "alloMDs" here turn toward the evideniary basis (or lack thereof) behind chiropractic is used to analyze the evidence behind any and all of "our" treatment modalities. It is called "evidence based medicine" and is now the standard of care. Unfortuately, there have been very few (if any) high quality studies to support chiropractic care for conditions other than low back pain. While there are certainly opporitunities for further study the current state of evidence does not support chiropractic.

Third, it is very easy to not take any pills in 15 years. I never get sick enough to warrant them. I've only had the flu once in my life, besides that it's just maybe two small colds per year, and I've never needed to go to the doctor because of an illness, thank God. I don't know if that's unusual or not, but I do try to take very good care of myself. Plus, I am very tolerant of pain in general, so I felt that when I got my wisdom teeth out (under just local anesthetic, as well--not general) that I didn't need to take any pain pills because I could manage the pain by massage, heat, and positive thinking. I believe that people rely waaaay too much on pills in general, popping them left and right for things as minor as a headache or muscle ache here and there. Plus, I'm a woman, and I've never once in my life taken a pill to relieve menstrual cramps.

A wonderful anecdote. However, your future patients are unlikely to have had similar experiences.

Why are MD's always so suspicious of alternative therapies? That's what I just don't get.

We aren't. We are suspicious of all therapies until they are of proven benefit to our patients when balanced against the risks.

Why when you present with a disease do they immediately look for quick cures, in the form of medications and what have you, instead of taking the time to think about what in the patient's lifestyle may be contributing to the disease, and instead try to fix that?

We do. Look, for example, at the guidelines for treating hypertension. 6 months to 1 year of diet and exercise is the first line therapy. Failing this, the patient is at risk for catastrophic complications (CVA, AMI) so the benefits of pharmacologically controlling the BP far outweigh the risks.

For instance, I'm not saying that if I present with the flu to an MD, that that MD should try and look deep into my lifestyle to see what could have prevented the flu. But instead, if I present with something such as chronic fatigue syndrome, instead of perhaps prescribing a drug, I think a good MD should look deeper into environmental causes (perhaps chronic exposure to chemicals, poor diet, etc.) instead of just prescribing some drug as a panacea.

A good one will.

Or, if I present with a shoulder injury (as I did to an ortho surgeon) why rely on a quick 5-minute exam and an x-ray to tell me nothing is wrong, when I have unrelenting pain that's lasted for months after a weight-lifting injury?

Find me one source that suggests the care you describe in either of the two stories above represents the standard of care for a medical physician. You can't, because it is not.

Instead, I appreciated the DC's thorough and lengthy exam, his looking at the x-ray, and also his discussion of muscle weakness in that shoulder that could additionally benefit from specific exercises? This DC worked on breaking up some scar tissue I had in my shoulder, through manually stripping the muscle, and this made all the difference in the world. After three weeks of this, (which was also covered by my insurance), I was pain-free and have been for years.

And what would a proper MD/DO evaluation and course of PT done for you?

All I'm saying is that as an MD, I will try to as much as possible, keep an open mind and try to look at underlying, more subtle causes, as well as overt disease when diagnosing. I'm not sure how much this will apply to my chosen field, derm, but I will try my best, and this is a trend I would like to see the MD community adopt in general.

It has been (adopted). Unfortunately, EBM does not, at the present time, support Palmer's theories.

- H

 

[Freeeedom!]

Wow you actually had the patience to answer him...very nice.
Me, well, I still think he is a plant.

I also think anyone who has not taken a pill (including tylenol or advil) in 15years is just a weirdo...ya know, pills AREN'T bad.