A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > drs and the such
drs and the such  [message #32710] Fri, 09 June 2006 16:28 Go to next message
thirdfencepost is currently offline  thirdfencepost

Really getting into it
Location: NJ
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 724



What the hell is up with drs, and other people you pay treating you like shit. It's so funny, when my mom goes to the chiropractor shes so nice and reasnoble and friendly, as soon as I get there all I get is yelled at and chewed out.

WTF I just got yelled at for being negative she asked me if I had a migraine today, my response was that I've only been awake an hour so give it time. And she chewed me out for another ten minutes about how i shouldnt be negative because she has a hard job blah blah blah. Guess what I have a migraine now! I always do after dealing with that woman.

To think she gets like 60 dollars for 10 minutes of work, what a nice job that must be.



Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
Re: drs and the such  [message #32714 is a reply to message #32710] Fri, 09 June 2006 17:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brian1407a is currently offline  Brian1407a

On fire!
Location: USA
Registered: December 2005
Messages: 1104



Shes not the only Chiropractor in the world.



I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........

Affirmation........Savage Garden
Re: drs and the such  [message #32717 is a reply to message #32710] Fri, 09 June 2006 18:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Hi Andy,

>What the hell is up with drs

Well, of course, a chiropractor is not actually a doctor. Chiropractic is not proper medicine -- it's "alternative medicine" which actually means "we have no idea why this works, or even if it does work".

If you value chiropractic as an "alternative medicine", then the least you can do is find someone who you like and who is professional and knows what s/he is doing... assuming that those people actually exist.

David
Re: drs and the such  [message #32719 is a reply to message #32717] Fri, 09 June 2006 19:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thirdfencepost is currently offline  thirdfencepost

Really getting into it
Location: NJ
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 724



Ha! I don't believe in that crap at all. My mom is making me go so thats what I am doing all summer. it's pretty lame I think and the women is a jerk but for some reason my mom likes her.

I was at my regular dr today and he let me know that while im at it I can try acupuncture and any of that other stuff as well. I was like er no I'll pass.



Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
Re: drs and the such  [message #32720 is a reply to message #32719] Fri, 09 June 2006 21:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Hmm.

It's odd that you're doing it (though I appreciate you don't have a lot of choice) if you don't believe in it. With most alternative medicines, the healing force is in believing that it is going to help you (the placebo effect). I wonder if your mother's aware of that?

I hope either you can get out of it or you manage to find some benefit in it, though I'm not quite sure what that would be.

Best wishes,

David
Re: drs and the such  [message #32721 is a reply to message #32720] Fri, 09 June 2006 22:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13759



Chiropractic is a discipline that awards the title Doctor of Chiropractic. Thus they are doctors, but not of medicine.

They deal with skeletal alignment, usually correcting misalignment after trauma. In general they deal with it better than physiotherapists because they understand how to correct misalignments. Thus there is no placebo effect with this therapy.

The training, certainly in the UK, is lengthy: four years, I think. It tends to include X-ray interpretation as well, though not to the level of a radiologist who looks for other elements in addition to misalignments.

None of this is to say that Andy's chiropractor is any good, not yhat she is professional.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Chiropractic  [message #32725 is a reply to message #32721] Fri, 09 June 2006 22:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



I don't object to people going to properly-trained, professional, and above all, safe chiropractors, if that's what they really want to do. However, I have read too much about the dangers and complications that can arise from those people who are not experienced enough to know what they are doing on a proper medical level: I think it is reckless to go unless you are absolutely sure they will be able to help you.

Regardless of whether chiropractors are (or can be) qualified or not, I am highly suspicious of any sort of "alternative medicine" that has little basis in science. I am not talking about using chiropractic to correct misalignments after trauma, because many, if not most, people who use them do not have skeletal misalignments of that kind. I deeply disapprove of the use of such "medicine" (a) to "mend" things that aren't broken, and (b) to try to fix ailments that are not directly related to the spine or the skeleton. At best, they will work because the patient believes him or herself to be cured; at worst, they could cause serious damage to the skeleto-muscular system or the spinal cord.

The fact that chiropractors are not proper medical doctors should tell you something. You can also train for years, if you wish, to learn about astrology and mysticism, or just about any religion you choose, but that does not mean that it is all true. On a practical level, these people may have some understanding of how the body works; on a theoretical and medical level, I don't think they do.

As always, you are welcome to provide evidence to try to convince me otherwise.

David
A bit harsh, Deeej!  [message #32731 is a reply to message #32725] Sat, 10 June 2006 02:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cossie is currently offline  cossie

On fire!
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699



I've got no personal experience of Chiropractors, but in the UK, at least, they are rigidly controlled. Qualification is by University degree courses (though only two institutions currently provide these courses), embracing many other aspects of medicine. The degrees rank as BSc or MSc - but then most medical doctors do not hold academic doctorates - 'Doctor' is a courtesy title reflecting a formal medical qualification.

I accept your implicit distrust of anything not scientifically demonstrable, but in the field of alternative medicine chiropractors, at least, are not mere charlatans.

Googling 'Chiropractic' will lead to all the background information you could desire!



For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
Re: A bit harsh, Deeej!  [message #32732 is a reply to message #32731] Sat, 10 June 2006 05:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brian1407a is currently offline  Brian1407a

On fire!
Location: USA
Registered: December 2005
Messages: 1104



I look at it like this. My mom may make me go, and I have to, but it dont mean I have to co=operate. If I didnt like it I can be a true pain in the ass. Id make that doctor tell my mom never to bring me back. I refuse to take off my shirt pants or anything else, I would refuse to lay daownand if she got nast I would kick her in the twat. You can lead a horse to water but you cnat make him drink. My mom would be pissed at me but hey she will just have to get over it.



I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........

Affirmation........Savage Garden
Re: Chiropractic  [message #32735 is a reply to message #32725] Sat, 10 June 2006 08:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13759



All UK Chiropractors are correctl professionallg qualified and regualted. It is not like Osteopathy used to be where any fool could hang out a shingle sayig "I am an osteopath". That changed about 30 years ago and osteopathy has come into the regulated area.

There are good and bad doctors of medicine. There are good and bad chiropractors.

A good chiropractor, such as the one I have used, will know when his skills are not appropriate and will make appropriate referral to a medical or surgical specialist.

Chiropractic is not intended nor expected to do anything other than handle alignment problems. Nor is it the universal aspirin. It is simply a skill in 3 dimensional geometry that is not invasive and seems not to be taught in today's classical medical syllabus. But today's classicla medical syllabus used not to include the use of leeches, too. Until they came back into fashion for the right application!

Interestingly my family doctor when I was a child also pactised Chiropractic, though never declared it as such.

It's just a specialism. I doubt it is "alternative medicine", and it happens to work scientifically. The evidence is clear. Physically, I mean, not as a placebo or intellectually.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
I am still not convinced, and I won't be without proper data  [message #32741 is a reply to message #32735] Sat, 10 June 2006 11:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Timmy,

>It's just a specialism. I doubt it is "alternative medicine", and it happens to work scientifically. The evidence is clear. Physically, I mean, not as a placebo or intellectually.

What evidence?

It most certainly is "alternative medicine" because it is not carried out by properly trained and licensed medical doctors. As for working scientifically, I have no doubt that there is some scientific basis, in some cases, when it is used to address specific problems with the spine or the skeleton.

However, I am not convinced that many chiropractors have any idea where the boundaries of their field start and the boundaries end -- largely because there are very few clinical trials that provide evidence for what symptoms can be aleviated by it. If they want to promote it as science and not just a lot of poppycock, then they should be prepared to have their claimed rigorously and scientifically tested.

An interesting quotation from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Science_and_chiropractic

>University of Saskatchewan sociologist Leslie Biggs interviewed 600 Canadian chiropractors in 1997, and found that 74.3% of them did not believe that controlled clinical trials were the best way to evaluate chiropractic, and 68.1% believed that most diseases are caused by spinal malalignment. [29]

I think those statistics speak for themselves. How can it be scientific if they reject testing it scientifically? And "most diseases are caused by spinal malalignment", if true, is beyond a joke.

David
Re: A bit harsh, Deeej!  [message #32742 is a reply to message #32732] Sat, 10 June 2006 11:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



No need to go as far as that. You could just phone up and cancel the appointment beforehand.

If they try and force you in, threaten to call the police.

Hmm.

David
Harsh, maybe, but, as you know, I'm a confirmed sceptic  [message #32743 is a reply to message #32731] Sat, 10 June 2006 11:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Cossie said,
>I accept your implicit distrust of anything not scientifically demonstrable, but in the field of alternative medicine chiropractors, at least, are not mere charlatans.

Not mere charlatans on the level of homeopaths or acupuncturists, no.

However, I do not accept that just because the field is regulated to a certain extent, it is based upon good science. I, for one, would never go to a chiropractor. I would find a qualified medical doctor. At least you can be sure that a (well-recommended) medical doctor understands the limitations of his or her field and has good scientific training in how the body works, even outside his or her specalism.

David
Re: I am still not convinced, and I won't be without proper  [message #32745 is a reply to message #32741] Sat, 10 June 2006 12:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13759



You are using rehtoric, not logic.

A controlled clinical trial involves double blind methods. There is no way such a trial can be used with a physical therapy precisley because the therapist knows what is taking place and thus the trial cannot be correctly controlled.

Try very hard not to sneer at things where you have no real knowledge. Argue a case by all means, but do not sneer. Also understand that wikipedia, good as it is, is no substitute for an authoritative review. The articles are written by joe public and tend to work well, but that is all they are.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Harsh, maybe, but, as you know, I'm a confirmed sceptic  [message #32746 is a reply to message #32743] Sat, 10 June 2006 12:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13759



Deej, you are ranting. I imagine the rant comes form the medical background in your family.

Deeej wrote:
>I would find a qualified medical doctor. At least you can be sure that a (well-recommended) medical doctor understands the limitations of his or her field and has good scientific training in how the body works, even outside his or her specalism.

Now, as for medical doctors, You have been mistreated by them yourself and incarcerated by them. It seems that some of them do not understad the limitation of their fields.

I have been mistreated by them, too. And I have watched one of the "gentlemen" who mistreated me mistreat another patient in a surgical ward. I also made sure he lost his job over it.

All a qualified doctor is, is a perosn who has taken certain qualifying examinations and been supervised in a particular form or practice. That is no different from a qualified chiropractor.

It is probably worth realising that none of us know everything. A few years ago you would have been treated for the ailment "Homosexuality" and people would have sought to cure you of it by deeply disturbing methods which have no scientific validity, such as electro convulsive therapy - a "therapy" which has no provable benefits, but which must be good because it uses electricity. At the time the people who were well qualified to judge decided we were psychiatric cases and unwell. That view has changed with education



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
????  [message #32747 is a reply to message #32746] Sat, 10 June 2006 12:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



I don't think telling me I am ranting is likely to prevent

So medical doctors can be wrong. I know that. I would probably have been put off them for life if it were not for the fact that I had two doctors as parents, whom I respect enormously.

This does not make it any less true that experienced, professional doctors not only have many years of medical training, vocational training, a proper clinical infrastructure, supervision by senior members of their department (until they are experienced enough to become consultants), and thereafter accountability to colleagues and other staff.

On the other hand, there is chiropractic, which has only a practical basis and there is no requirement that adherents have a full understanding of the way the human body works. A four year degree is not equivalent to a proper medical degree at an accredited medical school.

I would say that by accusing me of ranting you are sidestepping the lack of evidence of chiropractic and trying to make it equivalent to conventional medicine. I understand that it is another alternative discipline that may help some people, but there is a hell of a lot more rigorous research done into conventional medicine than there is into chiropractic.

David
Re: I am still not convinced, and I won't be without proper  [message #32748 is a reply to message #32745] Sat, 10 June 2006 12:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Timmy,

>A controlled clinical trial involves double blind methods. There is no way such a trial can be used with a physical therapy precisley because the therapist knows what is taking place and thus the trial cannot be correctly controlled.

It does not have to involve double blind methods if they are clearly inappropriate to the trial. There are other types of clinical trial and I see no reason why they cannot be employed instead.

>Try very hard not to sneer at things where you have no real knowledge. Argue a case by all means, but do not sneer. Also understand that wikipedia, good as it is, is no substitute for an authoritative review.

Fine. In that case, provide me with an authoritative review and I will be happy to read it.

David
Re: ????  [message #32749 is a reply to message #32747] Sat, 10 June 2006 12:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Sorry -- I'm not sure how that first sentence got there, but it isn't supposed to be.
Re: ????  [message #32750 is a reply to message #32747] Sat, 10 June 2006 12:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13759



I am going to consolidate both the diverging threads here.

No individual discipline can possibly be equivalent to the whole of a topic. But nor is a medical degree. This is why doctors of medicine specialise, even if that specialism is as a general practitioner. And specialism is as narrow a field as chiropractic.

You are still using rhetoric. I am not going to provide you with the research data you request because you are perfectly capable of finding it for yourself. I suggest you start with the UK education establishments and determine the syllabus.

At present you are making sweeping generalistic statements. They work well in oratory, but they do not work well in print. Apply rigorous analysis and see what happens then.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
For goodness's sake  [message #32751 is a reply to message #32750] Sat, 10 June 2006 15:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Timmy,

>No individual discipline can possibly be equivalent to the whole of a topic. But nor is a medical degree. This is why doctors of medicine specialise, even if that specialism is as a general practitioner. And specialism is as narrow a field as chiropractic.

Most specialist doctors are interested in only a certain field, yes. I am not denying that. However, I am saying that medicine is a much broader discipline and that those who have trained in it from the outset are likely to have a greater understanding of the human body than those who do not hold a medical degree, regardless of what they have learnt in a shorter degree in a practical subject such as chiropractic. That's a generalisation, of course it is, but you can't be denying that, surely?

I am also saying that chiropractic does not have a lot of proper scientific evidence in its favour. It's all very well to claim that it's well-regulated and it does no harm (potentially questionable, but I'll let that pass), but unless it actually helps people then there's not a lot of point in the disclipline existing. You say that it's difficult to test. This is not a proper answer -- there are always methods of testing treatments, even if it isn't as simple as a double-blind trial with pills.

I'm not saying it's rubbish in all circumstances -- I am, however, saying I am very suspicious of it, because it wasn't formulated on scientific grounds and proponents still don't have any proper evidence for why it "works". Until there is, I think I am perfectly well justified. At the moment you're simply contradicting me and accusing me of using rhetoric. Well, what is your position? Why are you against me on this? If you dislike rhetoric, use some proper evidence of your own to prove why I am wrong!

>You are still using rhetoric. I am not going to provide you with the research data you request because you are perfectly capable of finding it for yourself. I suggest you start with the UK education establishments and determine the syllabus.

Okay, let me think about this. You're denying what I'm saying... I'm making generalistic statements... but you still won't provide any data to back yourself up. At best, this is stalemate. At worst, you're being as dogmatic as I am.

I am not looking for syllabuses -- I am looking for scientific evidence to explain what chiropractors are doing. Just because they learn about something doesn't make it true.

David
Re: For goodness's sake  [message #32752 is a reply to message #32751] Sat, 10 June 2006 15:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13759



Since chiropractors manipulate joints, usually of the spine, to put them back into alignment, the sole evidence you need is before and after X Ray plates.

There is no lack of scientific formality in recreating correct alignment.

If a nerve is being interfered with and that interference is removed mechanically, then whatever the interfered with nerve caused to go awry is now able to heal.

We're not talking of healing with crystals, here, or "laying on of hands". We're simply talking of mechanical realignment. The only scinece required is an intimate knowledge of the relevant anatomy both to avoid harm and to seek to heal.

I have not claimed it does no harm. Any therapy incorrectly administered will harm.

A syllabus is a good place to start. If the syllabus has significant portions of the topics you believe to be relevant, then it follows that the syllabus is correct. The next point to look at is the education standards within that syllabus. Then the standards of knowledge of thise who finish the course with qualifications. Then the re-education programmes to keep up to date.

I'm not providing this data because I am not seeking to prove things one way or the other. I'm simply approaching it with logic. You have a point you are wanting to prove. Prove it dispassionately and find unbiased evidence to prove it.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: For goodness's sake  [message #32753 is a reply to message #32752] Sat, 10 June 2006 15:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Timmy,

I think I can see where the problem is here.

You said,
>Since chiropractors manipulate joints, usually of the spine, to put them back into alignment, the sole evidence you need is before and after X Ray plates.

Well, that is the point I wish to contest. Yes, if the spine is out of alignment, and all they do is move it back into the right position -- then, great! they've caused relief and fixed the problem.

The thing is that -- whatever you believe -- there is more to chiropractic than that, and it extends from that end (practical science) right into the realm of pseudo-science.

I would suggest you look at:
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=chiropractic.php
http://skepdic.com/chiro.html
http://www.cancerhelp.co.uk/trials/understanding/default.asp?page=19427

I'm not expecting these to be definitive, or even, necessarily, to convince you. However, I would urge you to look at them so at least you can see where I am coming from. I would point out that none of them label it a science on the level of medicine.

I will ask my mother, a radiologist, for her opinion and post again later.

David
Re: For goodness's sake  [message #32754 is a reply to message #32753] Sat, 10 June 2006 16:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13759



I found each of the three articles interesting. Of the three the cancer one presented the most neutral point of view.

That something was founded on 1895 by an unqualified person ought to be immaterial. After all the doctors of the time were not qualified by today's standards either. I think ut is fair to assume that things have moved on with better science inviolved in medicine and in chiropractic care

Looking at the sample of articles all I can say is that this proves the case not at all in either direction. I am minded, intellectually, to pay less heed to a site entitled "Sceptics" than one that appears to present a neutral anaalysis point, but none of these three sites actually provide an analysis that holds water.

It is likely that an unimpeded nervous system allows the body to function better than one which is impeded. But it is by no means certain. I would be nervous of any practitioner who presented their therapy as the universal aspirin. Were it so we would have no diseases in the world. I have not had it represented thus to me by any practitioner that I have met. They deal only with misalignments and nerve paths impaired by those misalignments.

I'm sure any good radiologist would comment unfavourably on the over use of X rays. Odd, therefore, that every time one visits an orthopaedic outpatient clinic one is sent for x ray, pretty much as a matter of course.

What does amaze me is that the medical profession seems to refuse to realign joints, even when it is obvious that it is required. This has always seemed to me to be a "not invented here" mentality rather than a valid standpoint.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: For goodness's sake  [message #32755 is a reply to message #32754] Sat, 10 June 2006 16:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13759



Developing the "Healthy nervous system" element a little:

Were I sufering from a serious disease I would want to give my body the best chance of combatting it. So I would take steps to treat it like an electro/chemico-mechanical system and seek to remove operational flaws.

While this appraoch may do nothing positive, it is likely, applied by a competent practitioner, to do no harm. But I am certainlhy not suggesting that it is a cure for the world's ills. That would be against logic.

However, I do agree that this element could be considered to be a doubtful therapy.

If chiropractors claim that their therapy cures ills because of the health of the nervous system I doubt their claims and would be unlikely to use their services. If they claim simply that their role is to adjust the skeleton and deal with alignments and impairments, allowing the body to do what it will with the result, then I have no quarrel.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: For goodness's sake  [message #32760 is a reply to message #32754] Sat, 10 June 2006 23:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Look, Timmy -- this is getting ridiculous, as you are refusing to concede a single point. I am sure you can do that without destroying the integrity of your argument as you see it. If you can't, then it must be a terribly flimsy one.

All I can say is that I see the world somewhat in black and white, and if an effect is claimed without good evidence for it, I run a mile. That is not to say it is definitely false -- it is "not proven" and I don't like things that are "not proven", except where there is so much evidence to support the theory that it can for practical purposes said to be true.

I remember that in the case of evolution, you were absolutely determined that it ran the way you thought it did, even to the point that started correcting other people incorrectly because your own facts were not straight. In this case, I'm not sure why you're so determined to give chiropractic the benefit of the doubt. I am sure there is middle ground here, but I'm damned if I can find it.

As for neutral/non-neutral points of view -- would you expect a naturally sceptical person to view faith healing or homeopathy as good science, in the absence of evidence for it? I am not saying that chiropractic lacks evidence in the same way that those do, only that it does seem to share some of the same traits. Hence sceptic sites would be inclined to dismiss it to some extent. However, if evidence exists then there should be no problem finding it and agreeing on it. I'm afraid to say that the burden of proof is on those who claim chiropractic works, not those who state they are unsure.

Incidentally, thank you for your scientific and intelligent dismissal of those links that I gave. "None of these three sites actually provide an analysis that holds water." I would appreciate it if you could explain why none of them hold water. I would point out that those are the sort of links you find if you google for "chiropractic evidence". If there is plenty of evidence then I'm sure you can find some yourself that you can use to support your own position, instead of simply dismissing anything I say. You claim I'm using rhetoric instead of hard science -- well, I hardly think that contradicting someone again and again without trying to find common ground even counts as rhetoric.

David
Re: For goodness's sake  [message #32761 is a reply to message #32760] Sat, 10 June 2006 23:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13759



Having experienced "cTimoney Chiropractic" I can say that it appears to be quackery. Will that do? The practitioner barely touches the patient and actually nothing except a soothing massage happens. The other form seems technicaly valid

I have conceded perfectly happily that this therapy is not the universal aspirin. It is not a panacea. However it is explicable, which homoeopathy is not by current science at least, and nor is acupuncture (availabel on the NHS in pain clinics, interestingly). It withstands logic. It cannot cure cancer. Those who would make such claims are charlatans.

What it can do when administered well is to realign misalignments. Those allow nerve oathways to function as designed. That is all I ever expecte dit could do and all I ever will expect it can do. All else would be illogical.

But I don't care enough to find evidence. I don't care enough to take sides. I see, simply, that mechanical readjustment is a problem in 3 dimensional geometry. Thus I see both that it works and how it works, provided the affected part is "after" the nerve interference. If it if "before" it then I can't see that it could or should work. Neither can the chiropractor I use.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: For goodness's sake  [message #32762 is a reply to message #32760] Sat, 10 June 2006 23:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Reading my response again -- if you're prepared to accept chiropractic on the somewhat sketchy evidence that exists for it, then we might as well not have this conversation. I'm not looking for an "it sounds fair enough when compared to ordinary medicine" type argument. The problem seems to be that you're prepared to accept that practitioners are likely on the right lines simply because it appears true, not because there's any reliable evidence, beyond anecdotal evidence, to show it to be true. I would not go so far as to do that, even if it appears the obvious course of action, because it's not a hard-line scientific course of action.

What official accreditation does is simply ensure that the practice is safe and practical within the confines of the subject. It does not mean it is official that it works.

A sceptic, incidentally, is not one who tries to fault every position, but one who faults a position if there is no convincing evidence for it. Until then, it's in a grey position somewhere between "it may happen, but we can't tell" to "this sounds preposterous". Note that something in either of those categories can move to "this appears true" if evidence then emerges -- a scientific sceptic would not discount the possibility merely because it seems very unlikely. (An unscientific sceptic might, but that would be unscientific and I would never agree with that.)

I'm sorry if the parent seemed unduly harsh. I'm fed up with this argument, really, because I never wanted to end up taking such a polarised position. I personally have no problem with people using "alternative medicine" if they genuinely believe it will help them. I, however, would not touch it unless I could understand what it tried to do and have evidence that it actually worked. I don't think there is that in the case of chiropractic.

David
Re: For goodness's sake  [message #32763 is a reply to message #32761] Sat, 10 June 2006 23:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Timmy,

Thank you for clarifying the position. It seems we're at odds largely because I also include those charlatans in my definition of chiropractor, and you don't. I'm happy to meet somewhere in the middle, and say that those who are serious about it and are totally aware of the limitations may be able to help back pain and skeletal problems (though I say "may", not "can", because not all problems of that types will be able to be solved through manipulation); those who pretend it'll cure cancer and AIDS and all that are quacks.

Sorry for sounding overly dogmatic or rude -- I've had a tiring day, and I'll have to get up very early tomorrow morning because of a film location recce.

Acupuncture on the NHS? Jesus Christ, what is the world coming to?

David
Re: For goodness's sake  [message #32764 is a reply to message #32763] Sun, 11 June 2006 00:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13759



A good chiropractor knows when the ailment is not soluble by chiropractic and refers correctly and competently. Mobne will not treat certain things for me whcih are beyond his scope, and will treat others. He has referred me to a neurosurgeon for that which he cannot handle.

To me that is professional and right.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: For goodness's sake  [message #32765 is a reply to message #32763] Sun, 11 June 2006 00:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13759



Acupuncture on the NHS is available and the Wolfson Institute im th epain clinic run by Tom Hollway. He cares only THAT it works, not why it works, and acknowledges that it does not work for everyone. But he is a pain specialist. And I imagine he will use anything his patients report gives relief. After all, "Why not?"



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Chiropractic  [message #32766 is a reply to message #32725] Sun, 11 June 2006 01:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thirdfencepost is currently offline  thirdfencepost

Really getting into it
Location: NJ
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 724



I don't doubt her abilities, or her credentials, and she is in fact trying to fix trauma induced damage to the spine. My problem is that I dont feel very sure due to what orthopedic drs have told me about my injury that it is capable of being fixed through the use of the chiropractor.

However I won't debate that it does help people, but I think they are over ambitious at what they say they can fix.

After three years or physical therepy, medicine, x-rays, mri's blood tests and all the other crap that they have run on me that a chiropractor will be able to fix that.



Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
Re: A bit harsh, Deeej!  [message #32767 is a reply to message #32732] Sun, 11 June 2006 01:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thirdfencepost is currently offline  thirdfencepost

Really getting into it
Location: NJ
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 724



hey brian,

my mom can certaintly tell you that i HAVE been a royal pain in the ass the last week. I may or may not continue with this chiro or switch to another, only time will tell.



Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
Re: Harsh, maybe, but, as you know, I'm a confirmed sceptic  [message #32768 is a reply to message #32743] Sun, 11 June 2006 01:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thirdfencepost is currently offline  thirdfencepost

Really getting into it
Location: NJ
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 724



I beg to differ on all levels of "qualified dr's" knowing there limits. I have certaintly been to enough of them in my life to know that most don't know there limits and practise iiffy at best medicine based on speculation and not true knowledge of medicine or the body.



Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
Re: For goodness's sake  [message #32770 is a reply to message #32754] Sun, 11 June 2006 01:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thirdfencepost is currently offline  thirdfencepost

Really getting into it
Location: NJ
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 724



i know that the chiropractor I am going to does scans of your back which tells them how "twistted" or out of place each vertebre is in your back and neck and to which direction it is misalligned. I will give them that when they showed me what the nerves in each vertebre that were out of place controlled that it was in fact things I was having trouble with. So they don't just use the x rays anymore.

yes drs did know that i had joints that weren't right but they had nothign they could do about it. The Phys therepy people however did know how to adjust my hip bones into a more proper alignement.



Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
Doctors are not god  [message #32773 is a reply to message #32768] Sun, 11 June 2006 08:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13759



Now that I will agree with. My doctor gave me drugs which suppress orgasm while I was consulting with him over erectile dysfunction, caused by drugs that had been prescribed during surgery to suppress erections!

He had "Not known that SSRIs suppress orgasm" despite it being clearly stated in all the effects leaflets.

I have a low opinion of all practitioners until they prove themselves or if I need them in emergency, when it is "any port in a storm"



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Harsh, maybe, but, as you know, I'm a confirmed sceptic  [message #32774 is a reply to message #32768] Sun, 11 June 2006 12:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brian1407a is currently offline  Brian1407a

On fire!
Location: USA
Registered: December 2005
Messages: 1104



Andy

Im anemic, when I first started having problems the Dr. I was seeing dropped the ball by misdiagnosing the problem. I was in pretty bad shape by the time one of my uncles realized how bad it was getting and called the University Hospital here. He was told to take me to the emergency room there. He made my mom take me. When I got there they checked me in and immediately sent me to the childrens hospital which is part of the University. I dont know how old you are, but I assume you are a minor. The doctors and nurses at the Childrens hospital were a world apart from other docs. I dont know of Doctors and staff have to be nice under penalty of death or what, but your treated like a real person and with respect. They talk to you not at you. Im sure they have a childrens hospital there and if your insurance will pay for the chiropractor they will pay there. It took them 24 hours to figure out waht was wrong and start treatment. Ive been going there since and can untill Im 18.



I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........

Affirmation........Savage Garden
Re: Doctors are not god  [message #32776 is a reply to message #32773] Mon, 12 June 2006 10:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



On the subject of SSRIs supressing orgasm, does anyone know if these have long-term effects?

'Cos I have never had an orgasm, but I was on SSRIs once.

One particular doctor decided that the best way to get me out of bed in the morning was to give me a medically huge dose of valium (a dose that was ten times the amount that my father, a cardiologist, considered suitable) -- a drug which, of course, puts you straight back to sleep again. Then he accused me of being uncooperative and wasting his time.

I don't like psychiatrists very much -- though I have met competent ones. And I particularly don't like clinical psychologists, because they don't seem to have any conception that what they are doing does not have any basis in verifiable science. (It's a "keep going until it works" sort of approach, which can be very distressing for the patient, as obviously it won't always work.)

That said, shrinks know less about what they are doing than most other doctors, because no-one understands how the brain works properly. Most other organs are considerably better understood. Where there's a clear illness or a clear problem, they can test for it. Sexual problems, unfortunately, are not always as simple as that.

David
Re: For goodness's sake - acupuncture  [message #32777 is a reply to message #32765] Mon, 12 June 2006 10:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1560



Acupuncture is an established part of the management of chronic pain, and I would be deeply suspicious of any NHS pain management clinic that did not consider it as part of the range of options to be considered.

I attend the Pain Clinic at Hammersmith Hospital (I have crumbling bones in my lower spine, resulting in trapped nerves and other kinds of disabling shit). I certainly had discussions on the suitability of both acupuncture and spinal manipulation with my consultant (the department routinely uses both these techniques). However, I have ended up with a TENS unit which I am very happy with. Like acupuncture, it gives good results with a reasonable proportion of patients in controlled trials and, like acupuncture, it is not entirely clear exactly how it works - merely because it works on electrical impulses doesn't make it "scientific". I'm just grateful that it does work for me, and my quality of life has improved enormously in the year I've been using it!



"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
Re: Doctors are not god  [message #32778 is a reply to message #32776] Mon, 12 June 2006 11:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1560



Deeej wrote:
> On the subject of SSRIs supressing orgasm, does anyone know if these have long-term effects?
>
> 'Cos I have never had an orgasm, but I was on SSRIs once.
>

In at least some people, waking orgasms are to some extent a "learned response" - this is one of the reasons why some people become attached to particular stimuli (fetishes), although probably not the only one.

I have a schoolfriend who was never able to achieve a waking orgasm through masturbation or otherwise, although he did have the occasional wet dream. He married in his 20s, and says he's quite successful in reaching orgasm when having sex with with his wife, although I didn't press him for details!

I think it unlikely that SSRIs would have a long-term physiological effect, but I'm no expert. I know that when I briefly took them for a fortnight, it took me around six weeks after I'd stopped using them to re-establish my normal patterns ... it did feel as though it was partly because I'd got out of the habit of jerking off (erections re-appeared after about ten days).



"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
Re: Doctors are not god  [message #32783 is a reply to message #32778] Mon, 12 June 2006 12:38 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



NW,

>I have a schoolfriend who was never able to achieve a waking orgasm through masturbation or otherwise, although he did have the occasional wet dream. He married in his 20s, and says he's quite successful in reaching orgasm when having sex with with his wife, although I didn't press him for details!

You don't know how happy that makes me! Does this mean I need to find myself a wife, though? Smile

David
Previous Topic: Come back Deeej, all is forgiven ...
Next Topic: This is now the new server
Goto Forum: