next »

[hegemony]

Someone asked if anyone had any bad stories about chiropractors.  I would guess that most bad stories would be about people merely spending their money on treatment for something that would have improved anyway.  But I do know one thing that would make me cautious if nothing else did.  I had a female friend who had a stroke at a fairly young age (50s).  She's so healthy and fit normally that even her doctor said,"You had a stroke?"  What she had been doing shortly before the stroke was having her neck "adjusted" by a chiropractor.  Now, there's no way of telling whether the adjustment was related to the stroke.  But she has decided just as I would, and just as her physician opined: that going back to the chiropractor isn't something she wants to risk.

[debwilkes]

I've never been to a chiropractor but I'm sure I could benefit. I know my father started going to a chiropractor in his late thirties and while he noticed improvement, he also would go back regularly for adjustments. I question whether the chiropractor creates a recurring problem or if the results are so great, that people realize when they are out of whack and need to go back. Also, does health insurance help cover chiropractor visits or do you have to pay out of your pocket?

[voxprincipalis]

I've never been to a chiropractor but I'm sure I could benefit. I know my father started going to a chiropractor in his late thirties and while he noticed improvement, he also would go back regularly for adjustments. I question whether the chiropractor creates a recurring problem or if the results are so great, that people realize when they are out of whack and need to go back. Also, does health insurance help cover chiropractor visits or do you have to pay out of your pocket?

The bolded sentence just seems silly. Do you also wonder whether your dentist secretly plants bacteria in your mouth so that you'll come back for another regular cleaning?

As for insurance, you would need to check with your company. Mine covers 80%, up to a certain number of visits per plan year.

VP

[infopri]

I've never been to a chiropractor but I'm sure I could benefit. I know my father started going to a chiropractor in his late thirties and while he noticed improvement, he also would go back regularly for adjustments. I question whether the chiropractor creates a recurring problem or if the results are so great, that people realize when they are out of whack and need to go back. Also, does health insurance help cover chiropractor visits or do you have to pay out of your pocket?

The bolded sentence just seems silly. Do you also wonder whether your dentist secretly plants bacteria in your mouth so that you'll come back for another regular cleaning?

As for insurance, you would need to check with your company. Mine covers 80%, up to a certain number of visits per plan year.

VP

+1 on both points.

In my case, when I have a good chiropractor (as I do now, although I'm currently on hiatus from treatment), I feel wonderful after treatment.  Because of my chronic problems, however, the adjustments don't last, and I absolutely can feel when something's out of whack.  I can't tell you what's out of whack or what particular adjustment I need (figuring that out is the chiropractor's job), but I know I need a session (or a few) with him.

My insurance covers a certain number of treatments (determined by diagnosis, policy, etc.), with a $25 co-pay for each treatment.  (This year, for example, my insurance has approved a course of 12 visits, and I might or might not be able to get more when those run out.)  YMMV.

[kaysixteen]

Problem with the analogy to the dentist is that dentistry is based on valid, objective scientific principles clearly taught to dentists.  Quack dentists could abuse patients but dentistry itself is a valid scientific practice.  The orthodox chiro, on the other hand, may well be working his ministrations on your spine, trying to fix your 'subluxations', etc., and fully convinced this effort might well be the answer to curing all manner of internal ills, the fact that none of which practices or theories having any relationship to any known serious science notwithstanding.

[infopri]

Problem with the analogy to the dentist is that dentistry is based on valid, objective scientific principles clearly taught to dentists.  Quack dentists could abuse patients but dentistry itself is a valid scientific practice.  The orthodox chiro, on the other hand, may well be working his ministrations on your spine, trying to fix your 'subluxations', etc., and fully convinced this effort might well be the answer to curing all manner of internal ills, the fact that none of which practices or theories having any relationship to any known serious science notwithstanding.

Kaysixteen, you've already made this point at every conceivable opportunity on this thread.  We understand your concern and agree that there are quacks chiropractors out there--just as there are quack MDs (and quack dentists, for that matter).  However, debwilkes was asking a very different question, and VP (if I may speak for her) was simply expressing her belief that debwilkes's fear (about a legitimate chiropractor creating the very problem for which the patient is seeking treatment) is unfounded.

[kaysixteen]

You do not seem to appreciate the depth of my opposition to chiropractic-- Of course there are quack MDs and DMDs, etc., but chiropractic *itself* is based on quack pseudoscience.  Some chiros may also employ legitimate massage techniques to do some good, but masseurs could use these as well.  I do not feel comfortable, on the other hand, even visiting individuals whose entire basis for their 'practice' is quackery.

[infopri]

You do not seem to appreciate the depth of my opposition to chiropractic-- Of course there are quack MDs and DMDs, etc., but chiropractic *itself* is based on quack pseudoscience.  Some chiros may also employ legitimate massage techniques to do some good, but masseurs could use these as well.  I do not feel comfortable, on the other hand, even visiting individuals whose entire basis for their 'practice' is quackery.

Well, as so often happens, kaysixteen, I agree with your position, only to find you going further with it than I can go with you.  I disagree strongly that chiropractic is itself based on quack pseudoscience.  On this, we will just have to disagree.  But I do completely agree with you, as I said more than once upthread, that some practitioners go way beyond the (real) science and make completely unjustified, untrue, and therefore dangerous claims about their ability to cure disease, rather than simply to make musculoskeletal adjustments and thereby relieve (or at least reduce) pain.

[marigolds]

You do not seem to appreciate the depth of my opposition to chiropractic-- Of course there are quack MDs and DMDs, etc., but chiropractic *itself* is based on quack pseudoscience.  Some chiros may also employ legitimate massage techniques to do some good, but masseurs could use these as well.  I do not feel comfortable, on the other hand, even visiting individuals whose entire basis for their 'practice' is quackery.

That's fine, Kay, and I agree with you on some of these points.  However, if you are just fundamentally opposed to the whole idea of chiropractic, why hang around on this thread?  It seems sort of like torturing yourself.  I mean, you don't hang out on the astrology thread and keep saying monotonously "but it's not based on empirical science!"  Why do it here?  It doesn't add much to the discussion.

[biomancer]

You have point, bio, but say what you think you have is some sort of musculoskeletal distress, so you go to your chiro for his ministrations, but what you really have is something internal and far more serious, requiring serious MD treatment.  Will your chiro notice this?  Will he refer you to an MD?  Or will he simply do his thing, irrespective of whatever harm he is really doing to you by not seeing to it that you get to an MD for effective treatment pronto?

...

Sorry to be late to the party, but if I was having any problem that wasn't musculoskeletal, I wouldn't take it to a chiropractor.  I'd take it straight to my PCP, a specialist, or the emergency room of the local hospital, depending on the severity.  That said, my DC does recognize the limits of what he can do, as does my PCP.  (To illustrate the point:  when I developed carpal tunnel syndrome years ago,  my DC said that I probably needed surgery, and suggested three different orthopedic surgeons - one of which was also recommended by my PCP.  That OS did my surgery, and I am able to type because of him.)  This is part of why I continue to employ them as my health care providers.  I don't want anybody working for me who doesn't know the realistic limits of their own abilities and knowledge. 

[spyzowin]

You do not seem to appreciate the depth of my opposition to chiropractic-- Of course there are quack MDs and DMDs, etc., but chiropractic *itself* is based on quack pseudoscience.  Some chiros may also employ legitimate massage techniques to do some good, but masseurs could use these as well.  I do not feel comfortable, on the other hand, even visiting individuals whose entire basis for their 'practice' is quackery.

That's fine, Kay, and I agree with you on some of these points.  However, if you are just fundamentally opposed to the whole idea of chiropractic, why hang around on this thread?  It seems sort of like torturing yourself.  I mean, you don't hang out on the astrology thread and keep saying monotonously "but it's not based on empirical science!"  Why do it here?  It doesn't add much to the discussion.

Every so often someone has to point out that chiropractic is quackery or gullible morons will start taking it seriously.

Frankly, I wouldn't care, but when one of you gets paralyzed, society is going to have to look after you and that simply isn't fair.

[double_bogey]

I would agree with Kay that the "science" underlying chiropractic is quackery.  See, for example, the fine articles at www.chirobase.org or www.chirowatch.com.  However, chiropractic manipulations do provide relief to many people, even if the science is not yet understood.  So I wouldn't rule it out, especially if conventional approaches prove ineffective.  Just don't let them touch your neck!

[spork]

Someone asked if anyone had any bad stories about chiropractors.  I would guess that most bad stories would be about people merely spending their money on treatment for something that would have improved anyway.  But I do know one thing that would make me cautious if nothing else did.  I had a female friend who had a stroke at a fairly young age (50s).  She's so healthy and fit normally that even her doctor said,"You had a stroke?"  What she had been doing shortly before the stroke was having her neck "adjusted" by a chiropractor.  Now, there's no way of telling whether the adjustment was related to the stroke.  But she has decided just as I would, and just as her physician opined: that going back to the chiropractor isn't something she wants to risk.

This unscientific logic can equally lead to the conclusion that that chiropractic manipulation prevents strokes in the vast majority of people who see chiropractors.

[prof_gnu]

Someone asked if anyone had any bad stories about chiropractors.  I would guess that most bad stories would be about people merely spending their money on treatment for something that would have improved anyway.  But I do know one thing that would make me cautious if nothing else did.  I had a female friend who had a stroke at a fairly young age (50s).  She's so healthy and fit normally that even her doctor said,"You had a stroke?"  What she had been doing shortly before the stroke was having her neck "adjusted" by a chiropractor.  Now, there's no way of telling whether the adjustment was related to the stroke.  But she has decided just as I would, and just as her physician opined: that going back to the chiropractor isn't something she wants to risk.

This unscientific logic can equally lead to the conclusion that that chiropractic manipulation prevents strokes in the vast majority of people who see chiropractors.

Well, it looks like there is at least correlation between neck adjustment and increased stroke risk.  Here's the top hit from google: http://www.webmd.com/stroke/news/20030512/neck-cracking-raises-stroke-risk

[infopri]

Someone asked if anyone had any bad stories about chiropractors.  I would guess that most bad stories would be about people merely spending their money on treatment for something that would have improved anyway.  But I do know one thing that would make me cautious if nothing else did.  I had a female friend who had a stroke at a fairly young age (50s).  She's so healthy and fit normally that even her doctor said,"You had a stroke?"  What she had been doing shortly before the stroke was having her neck "adjusted" by a chiropractor.  Now, there's no way of telling whether the adjustment was related to the stroke.  But she has decided just as I would, and just as her physician opined: that going back to the chiropractor isn't something she wants to risk.

This unscientific logic can equally lead to the conclusion that that chiropractic manipulation prevents strokes in the vast majority of people who see chiropractors.

Well, it looks like there is at least correlation between neck adjustment and increased stroke risk.  Here's the top hit from google: http://www.webmd.com/stroke/news/20030512/neck-cracking-raises-stroke-risk

FWIW:  I don't need a chiropracter to crack my neck, as I've been cracking my own neck for some 40 years.  Not to tempt fate, but, so far, no stroke and lots of relief from pain.