Chiropractors, etc.

[Vanquisher]

I have to say that I am really, very surprised at the number of spouses on this board that go to chiropractors.

I will admit that in my household, we typically refer to them as "quackopractors". I feel like they do not practice real, evidence-based medicine and often claim to do things that will benefit all sorts of conditions that have no basis in reality. The last I knew or checked, the only thing that chiropractic medicine could claim was that they were of some minimal to moderate help for low back pain, but that was it.

I cannot tell you the number of patients that dh sees who have been going to chiropractors for months or years even for things that chiropractors have no business touching. Upon further investigation, dh will often ask the patients, "Do you feel any better," or, "Is it helping?" To which the answer is a resounding, "No."

In my opinion, and it is my opinion only chiropractors are taking advantage of people and are largely quacks.

On a similar note, I should also disclose the following:

I only think chripractors are a tiny bit more sound than the following faux practitioners: homeopathy, naturapathy, astrologers, gypsies, fortune tellers, psychics, and wtich doctors. I think homeopathy and astrology are so out there, it's laughable.

I think optometrists and podiatrists are real practitioners, but often practice and stretch their scope of practice beyond what they should. Podiatrists should focus on corns, warts, and diabetic feet, but should not ever be operating on bones. Optometrists should stick to glaucoma screening, glasses, and contacts.

I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but I am trying to understand the reasoning behind it with what our spouses do.

[weeniegeniewife]

Naturopathy is very much a real medical discipline, and my PCP is a naturopath. She's fabulous and I wouldn't give her up for the world.

DH and I also have a chiropractor that we absolutely love. Yes, a surgeon goes to a chiropractor, and he has for 20 years. Our chiropractor is the only practitioner who has helped my TMJ. After years and years of malocclusion, pain and grinding, he adjusted my jaw and I had instant relief. He adjusts my jaw 2x month and I am so grateful for his care and skill.

I very much believe in holistic and Eastern medicine, as does DH. My belief is those disciplines have their place in medicine and can be very helpful for people.

Oh, and I popped out a rib after labor with DD, and had horrible sciatic pain (which I later found out was piriformis syndrome). My chiro helped with both.

Both DH and I feel like a million bucks after our adjustments. This reminds me, I need to make an appointment for next week!

[alison]

They all fill a niche, but need to stop calling themselves doctors. It's scary that many people I know think their optometrist is a doctor, but an anesthesiologist is some kind of tech.

[weeniegeniewife]

Naturopaths and chiropractors share similar rigor, medical schooling and training as MD's. You can research the chiropractor and naturopathic schools in Oregon, and they compare their classes to the med school classes at OHSU. I agree, optometrists are not doctors, but I can understand how the general public without medical knowledge would get confused. Over the years I've had many clients initially address me as doctor, and I gently explain that I am a masters level clinician and therefore not a doctor. A lot of people in the general public just don't know the differences in degrees, training, etc.

[diggitydot]

I'm not a huge fan of chiropractors, but for different reasons. As a DO, DH does adjustments and some are similar to what chiros perform. However, chiros have far less anatomy education and training and lack fundamental experience gleaned from residency programs. They are not physicians. However, if they are good at adjustments and don't attempt to expand their care beyond that scope, I'm cool with them. Unfortch, that isn't the case in some states. Their scopes of practice vary WILDLY from one state to another. For example, in Oregon they're allowed to perform some small procedures.

BTW - having a rib out fucking sucks. It happens to women more than men (thank you, boobs) and can make it impossible to take a normal breath. I'm thankful EVERY DAY that DH is a DO who can put my wonky shit back where it belongs. It makes an enormous difference.

[ladymoreta]

I've never been to one, but until a few years ago I just thought of them as more intense masseurs. But then I read that it can increase the risk of strokes, so it seems less benign. I agree they shouldn't be presenting themselves as doctors. People often don't do their own research, and might assume their chiropractor has had a higher level of education.

[Deebs]

I have to respectfully completely disagree. My BIL is a chiropractor, and was with my family through school, etc. Many of his classmates had no hope of getting into med school, but that was their dream. Their education is FAR less than an MD or DO. DH has also seen a great number of emergency complications from chiro care, the most notable being strokes, but also many missed cancers and other very delayed diagnoses. If you have lower back pain and don't want to do PT, fine, but don't mistake them for MDs or DOs. If you read through their course material, it is VERY anti medicine, and they are taught hat adjustments will keep your body in "innate" - well then why does anyone under chiro care from birth ever get sick? Hospitals that have large complimentary and alternative med depts don't include chiropractic. It's simply not scientifically based.

[Thirteen]

I've had chiro care at various times in my life. I also have utilized homeopathic remedies occasionally. Would I shun the use of abx or ibuprofen? No way. At the same time, would I advise someone to solely treat a serious medical condition with adjustments and herbs? Nope.

I think there can be benefits to alternative forms of medicine. DH is not a subscriber to chiro care, but will take zinc with a cold or L-Lysine for canker sores.
I guess it's a case by case thing in our house.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weeniegeniewife]

I agree, Cassy. The MD who did my hyst/ooph slapped an estrogen patch on and called it good, and refused to help me figure out the right HRT. It was my women's health naturopath who helped me and put me on the right track. I am so grateful for her expertise.

[Pollyanna]

I'm with Deebs and Heidi and honestly think a good physical therapist will provide far better care than a chiro.

[weeniegeniewife]

I'm with Deebs and Heidi and honestly think a good physical therapist will provide far better care than a chiro.

I agree that a good physical therapist is worth their weight in gold. My physical therapist is a really amazing healer.

DH and I both use a mix of Eastern/Western medicine for our healthcare. Along with chiropractic and naturopathic medicine, we also regularly get acupuncture. Utilizing many different types of healthcare professionals works well for us.

[SoonerTexan]

I'm with Cassy and WGW. I believe chiropractors have their place and have helped me quite a bit. I was relatively comfortable my entire pregnancy and I do feel I owe that to chiropractic care. Sure, placebo effect maybe, but I don't think that applies to babies! Our lactation consultant recommended craniosacral therapy for N when she wouldn't latch. My chiropractor did it...it looked like a little baby massage. N was completely calm and you could tell she enjoyed it. And she latched for the first time without the nipple shield the next day. We did one more round of the therapy and her latch improved after that as well. Maybe it was a total fluke, but it was quite a coincidence if it was. We also could have seen a local DO for the therapy, but did not because the chiro I went to treated N for free when I went in to get a final adjustment. (After 2 weeks of hunched over nursing, I was in a lot of pain!)

I think many chiropractors overstep, but not all. I also think co-opting the "Dr" title solely for MD/DOs is a little harsh.

Finally, I would suspect that if you are going to see an orthopedic surgeon for pain that a chiro couldn't help you with, that is a bit of a self-selecting group. You don't normally go to an ortho if the chiropractic or other care worked.

ETA:

I guess for the most part, I don't necessarily see alternative practitioners as "better" just "different." It's the same reason I chose to go with a CNM for birth vs. an OB. Now I truly do believe there are some quacks out there--I have a hypochrondriac aunt that I think has found every one in the greater Phoenix area. I just don't think they ALL are.

[SuzySunshine]

Interesting I have a cousin who is a chiro but I rarely see him so I haven't talked to him about his education, etc. With that said DH agrees with Heidi. Neither of us will ever see one, he has seen WAY to many SERIOUS complications because of quack chiros. Maybe there are good ones, I can't say but we won't go to one.

[weeniegeniewife]

I really think calling a healthcare professional who is not an MD a "quack" is unfair. MD's aren't the only practitioners who can help and heal people. That point of view is why some MD's appear arrogant. When DH has a patient who tells him they see a naturopath or chiropractor as well, he is very supportive and will coordinate care with them.

[Vanquisher]

I agree with the following article.

An article written by 3 chiropractors and a PhD in physical education and published on December 2, 2009 in the journal Chiropractic and Osteopathy may have sounded the death knell for chiropractic.
The chiropractic subluxation is the essential basis of chiropractic theory. A true subluxation is a partial dislocation: chiropractors originally believed bones were actually out of place. When x-rays proved this was not true, they were forced to re-define the chiropractic subluxation as “a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health.” Yet most chiropractors are still telling patients their spine is out of alignment and they are going to fix it. Early chiropractors believed that 100% of disease was caused by subluxation. Today most chiropractors still claim that subluxations cause interference with the nervous system, leading to suboptimal health and causing disease.
What’s the evidence? In the 114 years since chiropractic began, the existence of chiropractic subluxations has never been objectively demonstrated. They have never been shown to cause interference with the nervous system. They have never been shown to cause disease. Critics of chiropractic have been pointing this out for decades, but now chiropractors themselves have come to the same conclusion.
In “An epidemiological examination of the subluxation construct using Hill’s criteria of causation” Timothy A. Mirtz, Lon Morgan, Lawrence H. Wyatt, and Leon Greene analyze the peer-reviewed chiropractic literature in the light of Hill’s criteria, the most commonly used model for evaluating whether a suspected cause is a real cause. They ask whether the evidence shows that chiropractic subluxations cause interference with the nervous system and whether they cause disease. The evidence fails to fulfill even a single one of Hill’s nine criteria of causation. They conclude:

There is a significant lack of evidence in the literature to fulfill Hill’s criteria of causation as regards chiropractic subluxation. No supportive evidence is found for the chiropractic subluxation being associated with any disease process or of creating suboptimal health conditions requiring intervention. Regardless of popular appeal this leaves the subluxation construct in the realm of unsupported speculation. This lack of supportive evidence suggests the subluxation construct has no valid clinical applicability. [emphasis added]

While some chiropractors have rejected the subluxation paradigm, it is supported by the major chiropractic organizations and schools and is considered essential by the great majority of practicing chiropractors. In two recent studies cited in the Mirtz et al. article, 98% of chiropractors believed that “most” or “many” diseases were caused by spinal misalignments and over 75% of chiropractors believed that subluxation was a significant contributing factor to 50% or more of visceral disorders (such as asthma and colic), an implausible idea that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Simon Singh was sued for saying so when he correctly referred to “wacky ideas” and “bogus treatments.”
When chiropractors use spinal manipulation therapy for symptomatic relief of mechanical low back pain, they are employing an evidence-based method also used by physical therapists, doctors of osteopathy, and others. When they do “chiropractic adjustments” to correct a “subluxation” for other conditions, especially for non-musculoskeletal conditions or “health maintenance,” they are employing a non-scientific belief system that is no longer viable.
As the authors of this paper indicate, the subluxation construct must go. And without the subluxation, the whole rationale for chiropractic collapses, leaving chiropractors no justifiable place in modern medical care except as competitors of physical therapists in providing treatment of certain musculoskeletal conditions.
The absence of publicity is astounding. This study has not even been noticed by the media. Where are the sensationalist journalists who usually exaggerate the news and make up provocative headlines? They could be trumpeting “Chiropractic Is Dead!” “Chiropractors Admit They Were Deluded by False Beliefs” “Simon Singh Vindicated: Chiropractic Really Is Bogus” and so on. Chiropractors demolishing the basis for chiropractic ought to be big news.
When the news finally gets out, I predict contorted efforts at damage control. Chiropractors will claim that it is not appropriate to apply the Hill criteria in this way, and that the criteria are not a valid test of causality. That’s a straw man: not even Hill suggested that the criteria were a definitive test. They are more of a guide to thinking about causality. Edzard Ernst, the world’s first professor of complementary and alternative medicine, finds them useful. He has recently applied Hill’s criteria to neck manipulation as a cause of stroke: he found that it fulfilled all but one of the criteria for causation. (Article pending publication). Chiropractors won’t like that either.
I predict the authors of this paper will be attacked as traitors by their colleagues. And I predict my own comments will be misinterpreted as some kind of personal vendetta and I will be called ugly names. I also predict that no one will dispassionately offer acceptable scientific evidence to contradict the findings of the paper (They can’t, because there isn’t any!). The first comment (and so far the only comment) on the Chiropractic and Osteopathy website offers no counter-evidence but rather calls for not letting evidence-based protocols overshadow clinical experience.(!) The Weekly Waluation of the Weasel Words of Woo could have a lot of fun translating that statement.
If chiropractors reject the conclusions of the Mirtz et al. paper, the burden of proof falls on them to show

1. that the subluxation can be objectively demonstrated,
2. that it does cause interference with the nervous system, and
3. that it does cause disease.

They have failed to do so for 114 years.
Most chiropractic research falls under the category of Tooth Fairy Science. Instead of doing good basic research to examine the subluxation construct as a falsifiable hypothesis, they blindly forged ahead, implemented it for diagnosis and treatment, and studied various aspects of its clinical use.
The chiropractic emperor has no clothes, and now even some chiropractors have realized that. This study should mark the beginning of the end for chiropractic, but it won’t. Superstition never dies, particularly when it is essential to livelihood.