Thread: Thoughts on Chiropractry.

When I was young I had a few sessions of chiropractry (for asthma of all things). From what I can remember, I lay on my front on the couch and the American trained chiropracter cracked a few bones in my spine and then twisted my neck both ways. An expensive 5-10 minutes.
I now realise that the same movements can easily be performed on one's own with spinal twists, neck movements and back bends, with a little practice in how to crack the vertebrae.
Can anyone say something in support of this alternative therapy, or is it all a bit of a hoax?
PS I never got any relief from asthma.

I have only my own personal bias (which you don't need to know) but can I add osteopathy to the question?

Has any one any thing to say about that one (not sure if it is considered as "alternative" as chiropody) , if you don't mind me asking that that as well ox....?

EDIT: Chiropody describes the routine areas of foot care, including treatment for corns.I should have said "Chiropractic"

Also I think "chiropractry" maybe be the wrong term and it should be "chiropractic" -although ,if it is mainly just a swizz then any name would do as well.....

For sure geordief. I was also thinking about osteopathy but I have no personal experience of this. The thoughts came to me after I was doing some exercises from a book written by a chiropractor, but the exercises are from the Tibetan Bon tradition of Kum Nye and reputed to be thousands of years old. It was while doing these that the memory came back that I had experienced the same sort of sensation.

Training and Education for Chiropractors:
Chiropractors typically graduate from an accredited chiropractic school. They do not have an MD or DO degree from a medical school; instead they earn a D.C. (Doctor of Chiropractic) degree. Currently, chiropractic candidates are not required to have a bachelor's degree before entering chiropractic school. However, many students do complete a bachelor's program, and a minimum of 90 semester hours of undergraduate coursework is required for acceptance into a chiropractic program.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...sSXMUhZOVByKBw

But what happens if you get no benefit from the chiropractor? Can you get your money back?
This is what I think: People who use these alternative therapies and pay good money should be allowed a guarantee in law with all money refunded if not happy. Then I think you would see a big decline in alternative therapies such as chiropractry.

People keep going back to the chiropractor, even though they never cure anything. My wife is one of those people. She also takes an assortment of useless over the counter medicines whenever she catches a cold or something.

Chiropractors are generally covered under health insurance, though I think they are quacks.

I think chiropractic in general involves both real medicine and quackery.

I have suffered from sciatica, and I developed my own method to relieve it , and I *know* it works. I also know how to avoid it, and I haven't had an episode for many years. However, a friend of mine who's a very successful chiropractor absolutely insists that how I treat myself is impossible. On the other hand, I see some of his treatments as unsubstantiated from a scientific perspective.

More importantly, I think what people see as hokey is that some patients visit chiropractors regularly because they have some sort of defect or they easily get out of alignment. I can see fixing a patient the first few times, but chiropractors seem unwilling to prevent the condition from recurring. That is, they seem not to send the patient home with instructions on how to prevent their condition from recurring. Some people have kudos for chiropractors, and they seem the ones who *must* go back to them regularly.

I have a slanted point of view because my wife is a physical therapist. She has a doctorate. I (and I assume she) consider her a "real medicine" kind of person. Chiropractors have been fighting long and hard in our area to deny PTs the right to see patients without doctor referral (as a chiropractor can) because they don't want to lose their business to people who can ACTUALLY help people mend.

Now, having said this, I have a relative who is a chiropractor so I have to keep my opinion a little subdued. I do enjoy the look on my wife's face when she talks about a medical treatment she administers and he compares his bone cracking and "kinesthetic medicine" to what she does. I'll put my trust in her seven years of education, two degrees, and required continued learning over someone who knows how to pop my joints...

As a Doctor of Osteopathy (DO), I've been trained in doing manipulation and was at one time steeped in the 'philosophy' that somatic dysfunction (the osteopathic term for a musculoskeletal dysfunction that can be treated with manipulation) is a major cause of illness. This is similar to the Chiropractic notion that 'subluxation' causes disease. It's hogwash. Manipulation can be useful in musculoskeletal pain syndromes, and can help tension headaches and migraines. But it doesn't cure or prevent disease. Physical therapy, on the other hand, is strongly evidence-based, and such therapists are well trained, having a great deal more education than a chiropractor.

Clarissa

Originally Posted by DogLady

As a Doctor of Osteopathy (DO), I've been trained in doing manipulation and was at one time steeped in the 'philosophy' that somatic dysfunction (the osteopathic term for a musculoskeletal dysfunction that can be treated with manipulation) is a major cause of illness. This is similar to the Chiropractic notion that 'subluxation' causes disease. It's hogwash. Manipulation can be useful in musculoskeletal pain syndromes, and can help tension headaches and migraines. But it doesn't cure or prevent disease. Physical therapy, on the other hand, is strongly evidence-based, and such therapists are well trained, having a great deal more education than a chiropractor.

Clarissa

Yea!
Also Consumers Reports has done a through investigation of chiropracty. It is a dangerous practice. I will be the first to admit that some of the techniques work, but the underlying theory is hogwash. It has no basis in the known anatomy of the human body. A physical therapist can do anything a chiropractor can do and will actually have the goal of curing the patient instead of chiropracty's goal of providing temporary relief and making the client dependent on the practitioner for pain relief.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

A physical therapist can do anything a chiropractor can do and will actually have the goal of curing the patient instead of chiropracty's goal of providing temporary relief and making the client dependent on the practitioner for pain relief.

Placebo effect?

Originally Posted by ox

When I was young I had a few sessions of chiropractry (for asthma of all things). From what I can remember, I lay on my front on the couch and the American trained chiropracter cracked a few bones in my spine and then twisted my neck both ways. An expensive 5-10 minutes.
I now realise that the same movements can easily be performed on one's own with spinal twists, neck movements and back bends, with a little practice in how to crack the vertebrae.
Can anyone say something in support of this alternative therapy, or is it all a bit of a hoax?
PS I never got any relief from asthma.

A summary of the efficacy studies, showing support for its claims are either nonexistent or small. Another takeaway is it rarely causes or aggravate other medical problems.
NYU Langone Medical Center

That report seemed fairly conclusive. Chiropractry does not work for asthma. I was only 12 when I had the 'treatment' and my Dad paid, in desperation that something would work for me. They even sent me to Davos, Switzerland for a year where the air had been known to cure all respiratory disease, but no, that failed also. Then I was introduced to an inhaler called Intal. That worked! Now ain't that funny. Very small, and I suspect inexpensive!

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

Also Consumers Reports has done a through investigation of chiropracty. It is a dangerous practice. I will be the first to admit that some of the techniques work, but the underlying theory is hogwash. It has no basis in the known anatomy of the human body. A physical therapist can do anything a chiropractor can do and will actually have the goal of curing the patient instead of chiropracty's goal of providing temporary relief and making the client dependent on the practitioner for pain relief.

I can honestly say sometimes when you really need some relief, do to muscle spasms, a chiropractor can seem like a real life saver. The relief is very real and it's immediate. I've had back aches where any movement was just excruciating and without out chiropractic treatment would last like that for days and sometimes longer than a week. I've read that what gives the relief is when your bones (joints) crack or pop through manipulation is that it causes endorphins to be released which are the bodies natural pain relief. But whatever the reason, when you get that relief you never forget it.

However that doesn't mean I believe all the outlandish claims being made about other things that chiropracty can cure.

I asked an orthopedic surgeon once about chiropracty. His reply is that it is OK to provide temporary symptomatic relief for the most common kind of back ache, but is useless for anything else. I also know a doctor who took up chiropracty as an adjunct to his practise by doing a cross over training course. He did chiropracty for a few years, but realised after a while that any 'benefits' gained by manipulation could be gained by any manipulation. A condition 'cured' by manipulating the shoulder was just as readily 'cured' by manipulating the lower back. In other words, this doctor woke up to the fact that chiropracty is just a placebo for psychosomatic illness, and he gave up doing it.

The lower back massage that gives temporary relief to back pain is the ultimate in lifetime meal ticket for a chiropractor, since the pain keeps coming back, meaning the patient has to keep going back to the chiropractor and paying him more money. There are alternatives, that do not mean paying, and paying, and paying.

Originally Posted by skeptic

I asked an orthopedic surgeon once about chiropracty. His reply is that it is OK to provide temporary symptomatic relief for the most common kind of back ache, but is useless for anything else. I also know a doctor who took up chiropracty as an adjunct to his practice by doing a cross over training course. He did chiropracty for a few years, but realized after a while that any 'benefits' gained by manipulation could be gained by any manipulation. A condition 'cured' by manipulating the shoulder was just as readily 'cured' by manipulating the lower back. In other words, this doctor woke up to the fact that chiropracty is just a placebo for psychosomatic illness, and he gave up doing it.

The lower back massage that gives temporary relief to back pain is the ultimate in lifetime meal ticket for a chiropractor, since the pain keeps coming back, meaning the patient has to keep going back to the chiropractor and paying him more money. There are alternatives, that do not mean paying, and paying, and paying.

The highlighted part of what you said is not correct. If I had to guess, I'd say you've never been to a chiropractor for a back problem have you? There is nothing psychosomatic about back pain so severe that you can hardly move without overwhelming pain that even hard narcotics can barely control. So when you can walk out of a chiropractors office with a great deal less pain it's not because of any placebo effect. Most people experience back or neck pain that stiffens you up from time to time in their lives. So I would suggest the next time it happens to you, give your local chiropractor a try for yourself. All I can say is you will be glad you did.

Bad robot

You neglected my first sentence, which acknowledges the temporary symptomatic relief from chiropracty.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Bad robot

You neglected my first sentence, which acknowledges the temporary symptomatic relief from chiropracty.

Just saying chiropractors do have constructive uses and (temporary symptomatic relief) is just not correct for the context I'm referring to. A few treatments can can get you through some very painful situations and help you heal up much faster than not getting the treatments. However, knowing the limitations of chiropracty is very good too.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

A few treatments can can get you through some very painful situations and help you heal up much faster than not getting the treatments.

Evidence?

And it should never be considered treatment.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

A few treatments can can get you through some very painful situations and help you heal up much faster than not getting the treatments.

Evidence?

And it should never be considered treatment.

Personal experience of both myself and others. I'm only referring to a type of back and neck problem, that are sometimes referred to as a stiff neck or muscle spasms in the back. For anything else I wouldn't think of going to a chiropractor. The fact that it does relieve pain and allow you to have a more normal movement does mean it can be considered a treatment for that particular problem. It works well and doesn't require taking of any drugs. So that is a real plus in my book.

I haven't had to use a chiropractor in many years and I attribute that to exercises that strengthen all your core muscles abdominal and lower back.