Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Health
 Medicine kills and chiropractors heal
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 11/15/2004 :  17:27:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
quote:
There is no evidence chiropractors do more than placebos.


I have heard that chiropractors are just as effective or a little more effective than stretching and exercising the problem area. This is much different than a placebo. I'll try to find the quote from that.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 11/15/2004 :  21:46:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
beskeptigal wrote:
quote:
Oh dear, I'm not going to make friends here. There is no evidence chiropractors do more than placebos. If you take a spine and look at it you can't even show where a nerve can be compressed unless you have disc material there. The bones themselves do not occlude the nerve passage.
No, apparently you're not going to make friends, since you seem to be ignoring what eklein is saying. Heck, even Dr. Stephen Barrett (of Quackwatch fame) recognizes that there are "rational" chirpractors who do, indeed, practice good physical therapy. Dr. Barrett's partnered chiropractor has even written "What a Rational Chiropractor Can Do for You," which includes a reference to a NEJM article which says your placebo comment is factually incorrect.

My sole problem with eklein's post is that he says that "[m]any chiropractors practice legitimate physical medicine," but my impression has been that "rational" chiropractors are actually a tiny minority of the whole group. While 'many' doesn't mean 'majority', I'd appreciate seeing some statistics on the quack-to-nonquack ratios in the field.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 11/15/2004 :  22:03:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
I think its really hard to tell a chiroquack from a chiropractor. What exactly would be the difference? Here are some statistics:

quote:

Roughly 3% to 11% of Americans visit a chiropractor every year. It has been estimated that by the end of this decade the United States will have approximately 100,000 chiropractors. The Institute for Social Research at Ohio Northern University performed a survey of North American chiropractors, which found that adjustments were believed to improve conditions such as tension headaches, migraines, otitis media, and asthma. Spinal manipulation is provided at every visit by 54.3% of chiropractors. The general perception is that spinal manipulations are believed to help visceral conditions by 62.1% of North American chiropractors. The inherent risk to providing spinal manipulation, such as stroke, paralysis, and death were not surveyed (McDonald, 2003). The therapeutic benefit of spinal manipulation compared to the risks involved remains controversial.


http://www.skepticreport.com/health/strokespinal.htm

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 11/16/2004 :  07:31:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Ricky wrote:
quote:
I think its really hard to tell a chiroquack from a chiropractor. What exactly would be the difference?
From the article I linked to in my prior post:
Tips on Choosing a Chiropractor

If you decide to consult a chiropractor, try to find one whose practice is limited to conservative treatment of musculoskeletal problems. Ask your family doctor for the names of chiropractors who fit this description and who appear to be competent and trustworthy. If your doctor cannot provide a name, ask other people and, if they recommend one, be sure to ask what conditions the chiropractor treats. If the chiropractor claims to treat infections or a wide range of other diseases, look elsewhere. But don't depend upon the Yellow Pages. You should avoid chiropractors who make extravagant claims or who advertise extensively.

When you have selected a chiropractor, go for a consultation or conduct a telephone interview to find out how he or she practices. If the chiropractor treats infants, offers spinal adjustments as a treatment for visceral disease or infection or as a method of preventing ill health, requires that every patient be x-rayed, or requires payments in advance for a long course of treatments, call another chiropractor. The Chirobase Guidelines provide additional tips about what to avoid. Chiropractors who follow these guidelines have been invited to post their names in the Chirobase Referral Directory.
And the National Council Against Health Fraud includes a description of a scientific chiropractor within their chiropractic position paper.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Renae
SFN Regular

543 Posts

Posted - 11/17/2004 :  20:21:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Renae a Private Message
Thank you all for responding. You helped a lot. I felt badly about the whole thing, because as I said, I love my job.

I wouldn't have been as annoyed, probably, had Mr. Chiropractor simply talked about chiropractic stuff without dissing traditional medicine. What he said was misleading at best and irresponsible at worst. People need to be able to trust their doctors and to believe that the medicine they are prescribed has been proven to work (generally speaking, that is.)

Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 11/18/2004 :  13:00:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

beskeptigal wrote:
quote:
Oh dear, I'm not going to make friends here. There is no evidence chiropractors do more than placebos. If you take a spine and look at it you can't even show where a nerve can be compressed unless you have disc material there. The bones themselves do not occlude the nerve passage.
No, apparently you're not going to make friends, since you seem to be ignoring what eklein is saying. Heck, even Dr. Stephen Barrett (of Quackwatch fame) recognizes that there are "rational" chiropractors who do, indeed, practice good physical therapy. Dr. Barrett's partnered chiropractor has even written "What a Rational Chiropractor Can Do for You," which includes a reference to a NEJM article which says your placebo comment is factually incorrect.

My sole problem with eklein's post is that he says that "[m]any chiropractors practice legitimate physical medicine," but my impression has been that "rational" chiropractors are actually a tiny minority of the whole group. While 'many' doesn't mean 'majority', I'd appreciate seeing some statistics on the quack-to-nonquack ratios in the field.

Dave, I did read what eklein said, including his specific practice.

In addition, I am well aware of Dr. Barrett's position on chiropractors and have had a personal e-mail exchange with him about it. Dr Barrett has yet to provide any substantial research to back up his position on the benefit of chiropractic treatment of back pain.

I will revisit the NEJM article and post a follow up as I know I looked at it before and was not impressed.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2004 :  03:56:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
Here's the main page with articles on all aspects of chiropractic 'science'. Barrett is the main author of the web site.

Here's a quote from one page
quote:
In 1973, Stephen Barrett, M.D., sent a healthy four-year-old girl to five chiropractors for a"'check up.'"The first said the child's shoulder blades were "out of place" and found "pinched nerves to her stomach and gall bladder." The second said the child's pelvis was "twisted." The third said one hip was "elevated" and that spinal misalignments could cause "headaches, nervousness, equilibrium or digestive problems" in the future. The fourth predicted "bad periods and rough childbirth" if her "shorter left leg" were not treated. The fifth not only found hip and neck problems, but also "adjusted" them without bothering to ask permission. Several years later, 11 chiropractors who examined two adult women had similarly inconsistent findings (8).


And here's Dr Barrett's kindest statement on the matter:
quote:
On the other hand, it is clear that chiropractors help people. I'm not quite sure how, and I'm not sure that you know either. But you are obviously doing something right. I am not sure who or what you should be treating. I'm not sure this is clear to you either -- and it won't be clear to me until it's clear to you. I would suggest that you make an attempt to define your scope. That won't be simple to do, but as long as your scope is undefined, you are going to be criticized for exceeding it.


When I weigh all the material presented, I have a hard time coming to the conclusion there is strong evidence supporting spinal manipulation is the best option for back pain. The risk is too high of disruption of blood supply to the spinal cord to make chiropractic treatment a better choice than safer alternatives. The evidence there is more than placebo is slim.

There may very well be some types of back manipulation, massage, exercise, nerve stimulation or other actions that have a positive impact on back pain. I think the best approach would be to dump the whole chiropractic scheme and start from scratch evaluating what specific actions are beneficial and safe. The idea you are adjusting the spine to align it is nonsense.
Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/19/2004 03:59:49
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2004 :  04:39:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

Here's the main page with articles on all aspects of chiropractic 'science'. Barrett is the main author of the web site.

Here's a quote from one page
quote:
In 1973, Stephen Barrett, M.D., sent a healthy four-year-old girl to five chiropractors for a"'check up.'"The first said the child's shoulder blades were "out of place" and found "pinched nerves to her stomach and gall bladder." The second said the child's pelvis was "twisted." The third said one hip was "elevated" and that spinal misalignments could cause "headaches, nervousness, equilibrium or digestive problems" in the future. The fourth predicted "bad periods and rough childbirth" if her "shorter left leg" were not treated. The fifth not only found hip and neck problems, but also "adjusted" them without bothering to ask permission. Several years later, 11 chiropractors who examined two adult women had similarly inconsistent findings (8).


And here's Dr Barrett's kindest statement on the matter:
quote:
On the other hand, it is clear that chiropractors help people. I'm not quite sure how, and I'm not sure that you know either. But you are obviously doing something right. I am not sure who or what you should be treating. I'm not sure this is clear to you either -- and it won't be clear to me until it's clear to you. I would suggest that you make an attempt to define your scope. That won't be simple to do, but as long as your scope is undefined, you are going to be criticized for exceeding it.


When I weigh all the material presented, I have a hard time coming to the conclusion there is strong evidence supporting spinal manipulation is the best option for back pain. The risk is too high of disruption of blood supply to the spinal cord to make chiropractic treatment a better choice than safer alternatives. The evidence there is more than placebo is slim.

There may very well be some types of back manipulation, massage, exercise, nerve stimulation or other actions that have a positive impact on back pain. I think the best approach would be to dump the whole chiropractic scheme and start from scratch evaluating what specific actions are beneficial and safe. The idea you are adjusting the spine to align it is nonsense.

Got to agree. My spine has had a couple of fusions that have now aquired bone spurs. I would not let a chiropractor, even a "good" one, be in the same room with it (and these day, even orthopedic surgeons make me nervous).

Were I to want something unofficial done to my back, I'd find a good massuse, preferably one named Phobe.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2004 :  11:37:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
beskeptigal wrote:
quote:
When I weigh all the material presented, I have a hard time coming to the conclusion there is strong evidence supporting spinal manipulation is the best option for back pain.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Who the heck said anything about chiropractic being "the best option?" You made the bold claim that "There is no evidence chiropractors do more than placebos." While I am not an expert in the chiropractic state of the art, the fact that the most-vocal, rational, anti-quackery advocate on the Web (and perhaps anywhere) states, in effect, that some chiropractors practice in an ethical and effective manner says quite a lot in opposition to your generalized (and as-yet unsupported) statement.

I am not arguing that any chiropractor anywhere is a good idea (must less "the best option" - a complete strawman!). I am only arguing that there appears to be good reason to think that at least some aspects of chiropractic practice do more than placebo.
quote:
The risk is too high of disruption of blood supply to the spinal cord to make chiropractic treatment a better choice than safer alternatives.
Where is the evidence that scientific chiropractors (as defined by the NCAHF) use methods which carry this high risk of "disruption of blood supply to the spinal cord?"
quote:
The evidence there is more than placebo is slim.
Have you doubled-checked that NEJM article yet?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2004 :  21:20:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
I first learned of the risk from chiropractors when we admitted a middle aged man to an ICU I worked in. He had fallen from a roof and subsequently went to a chiropractor. Several days later, he lost all function from the neck down and was admitted to our unit.

At the time, the doctors felt the chiropractor had merely missed the disrupted blood supply from the vertebral artery tear. The delay in treatment subsequently made this man's injury irreversible. That may be in fact what happened in his case.

Then I learned about the risk of actually tearing the artery during the manipulation. Now I'm not so sure if the chiropractor missed this man's injury or actually caused it. In either case the man is now a quadriplegic.

This article, from the quackwatch site, has a very thorough evaluation of the hazard. Read the article, read the links, decide for yourself. There is a discussion of whether proper techniques are the cause or improper techniques alone. The diagram on the first page explains the anatomical hazard. Any neck manipulation puts some patients at risk.

As to Dr. Barrett having confidence in chiropractors, we just have a professional disagreement on the evaluation of available evidence. I have read most of his site and some of the secondary links about chiropractors and I have just not come to the same conclusions as he has. Like I said, I even went so far as to discuss it with him by e-mail.

Whether chiropractic treatment is the best choice, the middle choice or the last choice was not something I meant by my statement so I did not use the best words there. I meant rather, to say should it be on the list of choices at all? My evaluation is the risks, though extremely rare, are not worth the benefit since there are equally effective alternatives.

The choice of using chiropractic treatment is essentially one which says the entire underlying premise on which the practice was built has been discredited. But perhaps by mere accident a technique has been discovered that relieves some forms of back pain. But if you examine the theory taught in chiropractic schools, you do not see a technique for relief of back pain taught. As Dr Barrett points out, the specific treatments and which types of injuries or pain is best suited for such treatments have not been defined. In essence, it's a crap shoot.

I have not gone back to the NEJM article yet and I'm off to work again. More on the placebo vs measurable improvement over controls to follow....
Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/19/2004 21:25:36
Go to Top of Page

Renae
SFN Regular

543 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2004 :  22:29:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Renae a Private Message
I think I've mentioned this before, but...

I attended a seminar by Dr. Dan Cherkin regarding his chiropractic research. If memory serves, his study compared McKenzie physical therapy, chiropractic care, and an informational self-help booklet. Cherkin et al found little difference between the results of McKenzie and chiropractic, but patients given either of those showed greater, though minimal, improvement than patients given the booklet.

Cherkin answers a lot of questions here: http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/16/26/04.html

I remember him saying that he felt that simply giving the patient some treatment and/or giving the patient a sense of control over the pain might be at work with chiropractic. He offered, at that time, no other explanation for the "whys" and "hows" of the chiropractic benefit he saw. He also stressed that this was a study regarding low back pain only.

I agree with you about the risks, though, beskeptigal. I wouldn't rule out chiropractic if I were in chronic pain that I couldn't kick with conventional treatment...but I would have to be hurting badly to take the risk.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2004 :  22:33:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
beskeptigal wrote:
quote:
This article, from the quackwatch site, has a very thorough evaluation of the hazard. Read the article, read the links, decide for yourself. There is a discussion of whether proper techniques are the cause or improper techniques alone. The diagram on the first page explains the anatomical hazard. Any neck manipulation puts some patients at risk.
And at a page on chirobase (a sister site to Quackwatch) I pointed to earlier, Dr. Barrett's chiro buddy says this:
Neck Manipulation

Manipulation may improve the mobility of a cervical spine that has been stiffened by osteoarthritis or by scar tissue from an old injury. Disc degeneration caused by wear and tear or by injury is a common cause of loss of range of motion in the cervical spine and can often benefit from manipulation. Neck manipulation or mobilization may improve range of motion and provide relief for neck pain and muscle-tension headache. But remember that benefit must be weighed against risk. Neck manipulation should not be used unless symptoms indicate a specific need for it. It should be done gently with care to avoid excessive rotation that could damage the patient's vertebral artery. Neck manipulation should not be done immediately after an injury that causes acute neck pain. When the acute pain subsides, usually after a few days, manipulation may be useful to relieve fixations and restore normal joint mobility. Once the patient is symptom-free, it should be discontinued. A small percentage of chiropractors advocate neck manipulation to "balance" or "realign" the spine no matter where the patient's problem is located. I recommend avoiding such chiropractors.

Neck manipulation is safest when neck rotation does not exceed 50 degrees. When rotation is not indicated or appropriate, special techniques can be used with the patient in a face-down position so that manipulative traction can be applied or there can be thumb contact with specific spinal segments.
So again, I'm not talking about "any ol' chiropractor," nor "any ol' manipulation."
quote:
As to Dr. Barrett having confidence in chiropractors, we just have a professional disagreement on the evaluation of available evidence. I have read most of his site and some of the secondary links about chiropractors and I have just not come to the same conclusions as he has. Like I said, I even went so far as to discuss it with him by e-mail.
Yes, I remember. And you're now painting a much different picture than "There is no evidence chiropractors do more than placebos." You are, in fact, saying that you have a different opinion of the evidence which is, indeed, available than do ten MDs and a PhD physical therapist.
quote:
The choice of using chiropractic treatment is essentially one which says the entire underlying premise on which the practice was built has been discredited. But perhaps by mere accident a technique has been discovered that relieves some forms of back pain. But if you examine the theory taught in chiropractic schools, you do not see a technique for relief of back pain taught.
I wouldn't characterize the whole thing as "mere accident." What seems clear to me is that a small sub-set of all chiropractors are actually ignoring some/much of what is taught in schools of chiropractic in favor of more rational therapies. Could this not be an example of a beneficial merging of ideas? I mean, what's taught in medical schools has changed, and what Drs. Barrett and Homola are advocating is more-or-less a wholesale overthrow of the old Palmer schools.
quote:
As Dr Barrett points out, the specific treatments and which types of injuries or pain is best suited for such treatments have not been defined. In essence, it's a crap shoot.
Oh, I very much concur on this point. But broadly dismissing the practice isn't at all constructive, as consumers will ignore you as your attitude is overly negative.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2004 :  03:44:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
First, while the web page linked from Quackwatch has a very thorough evaluation of chiropractors, I don't think everyone who evaluates all that evidence necessarily comes away with the same opinion as Dr. Barrett. So let me address his biases first. The following is from the website.

Stephen Barrett, M.D.,
quote:
a retired psychiatrist who resides in Allentown, Pennsylvania, has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate. In addition to heading Quackwatch, he is vice-president and a board member of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), a Scientific Advisor to the American Council on Science and Health,, and a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).. In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery. In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association. From 1987 through 1989, he taught health education at The Pennsylvania State University. He is listed in Marquis Who's Who in America and, in March 2001, will receive the Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education.

An expert in medical communications, Dr. Barrett operates five Web sites; edits Consumer Health Digest (a weekly electronic newsletter) writes weekly columns for Canoe.ca and Health Scout; is medical editor of Prometheus Books; and is a peer-review panelist for several top medical journals. His 47 books include The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America and five editions of the college textbook Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions. One book he edited, Vitamins and Minerals: Help or Harm?, by Charles Marshall, Ph.D., won the American Medical Writers Association award for best book of 1983 for the general public and became a special publication of Consumer Reports Books. His other classics include Dubious Cancer Treatment, published by the Florida Division of the American Cancer Society; Health Schemes, Scams, and Frauds, published by Consumer Reports Books; The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food" Industry Is Selling America a Bill of Goods, published by Prometheus Books; and Reader's Guide to "Alternative" Health Methods, published by the American Medical Association.

Dr. Barrett has been studying the chiropractic marketplace since 1968. His chiropractic source collection includes more than 200 books, several thousand journals, 200 audio and videotapes, and more than 20,000 miscellaneous documents. He has visited a chiropractor as a patient, attended classes at a chiropractic college, watched students working in the college clinic, attended the 1995 Chiropractic Centennial Celebration, and conversed with or written to thousands of chiropractors. In 1990, the ACA Journal of Chiropractic published an adaptation of his 1987 speech to the American Chiropractic Association's House of Delegates.
Clearly, Dr. Barret has impeccable credentials and has spent more than sufficient time evaluating the chiropractic field. And, I do not think his conclusions are totally out of line. Dr. Barrett comes from a psychiatric medical background and has a bias that the benefit of chiropractic care is greater than the risk. I and many others conclude the risk to be higher. The following is a further discussion of what I mean, why I think his background gives him a different bias than mine, and, what bias I have that leads me to discourage chiropractic treatments.

First, before I am misunderstood, I don't mean bias in the usual sense of something that clouds one's judgment. Rather, I mean bias that is more of a different point of view that leads to a different way of evaluating evidence. We all have these biases, and recognizing them helps us better understand each other's points of view.

The main benefit of chiropractic medicine over other treatments for back pain is patient satisfaction. Research shows outcomes such as limitation of movement, length of discomfort, and other objective measurements to be fairly equal when comparing chiropractors to other medical treatments. Dr. Barrett may value 'patient satisfaction' highly. His coming from a psychiatric background does indicate he may have a bias that patient satisfaction is a very valuable outcome measurement. I value patient satisfaction as well, but patient satisfaction does not rise above placebo as a measured outcome.

I did review three NEJM articles, and several others. Here are some excerpts and links.

Medical Care 37(2), pp. 157-164.
quote:
Carey, T.S., Garrett, J.M., Jackman, A., and Hadler, N. (1999). "Recurrence and care seeking after acute back pain: Results of a long-term follow-up study."

This study found that adults seeing different types of providers for acute back pain had similar back pain recurrence rates and functional status during recovery. This was true despite very different philosophies of care and practice patterns among primary care physicians (PCPs), chiropractors, orthopedic surgeons, and health maintenance organization PCPs. However, patients who had originally sought care from a chiropractor were two to three times more likely to seek care for modest recurrences of low back pain. Although chiropractic care was associated with excellent patient satisfaction, it did not improve functional status, and therefore, it was somewhat more expensive, according to the researchers.

Based on periodic interviews with 921 patients from their initial back pain visit until 22 months later, the researchers found that back pain recurred in over half of patients seen for low back pain. Yet despite recurrences, almost all of these patients were reasonably functional, and work disability was rare. The likelihood of any recurrence of back pain increased with the number of back pain episodes experienced prior to the current episode of pain. For instance, 15 percent of those with no previous episodes had a severe recurrence compared with 35 percent of those with more than five lifetime episodes of low back pain.


New England Journal of Medicine
quote:
Press Release Date: October 3, 1995

A study supported by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR), published in the October 5 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), concludes that outcomes of patients with acute low back pain are similar regardless of the type of practitioner initially seen.

The study, entitled "The Outcomes and Costs of Care for Acute Low Back Pain Patients Seen by Primary Care Practitioners, Chiropractors and Orthopedic Surgeons," was conducted by Timothy S. Carey, MD, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The study enrolled, and followed for up to six months, a total of 1,633 patients from the practices of 208 North Carolina practitioners. The participating practitioners were randomly selected from six strata: urban and rural primary care medical doctors, urban and rural chiropractors, orthopedic surgeons, and practitioners in a group-model health maintenance organization. Researchers found tha
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2004 :  04:11:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
Something of interest from Wikipedia:

quote:
On September 18, 1895, in Davenport, Iowa, Daniel D. Palmer, inquired about the history of a deaf janitor, named Harvey Lillard. Lillard informed Palmer that while working in a cramp area 17 years ago he felt a pop in his back and had been nearly deaf ever since. Upon examination Daniel D. Palmer found what he described as a lump that was sore to the touch. He concluded that it was possible this lump was a misalignment, that was later to be called a subluxation, was the cause of Harvey Lillards deafness. After correcting this misalignment in the janitor's spine his hearing was restored. Harvey was reported to have noted that he could now hear the wheels of the horse drawn carts in the street below. Danial D. Palmer began further investigation into the phenomena and believed to have discovered that a major source of interference to the nervous system, the vertebral subluxation, interfered with the body's regulatory mechanism, causing what he termed dis-ease or loss of ease

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_medicine#History

The article goes on to state that Mr. Palmer was a school teacher and local merchant, and did some bee-keeping. He had an interest the metaphysical, pretty much typical for his day.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 11/24/2004 :  14:17:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
Interesting, Filthy, but 1895 is a bit hard to evaluate for accuracy. The nerves for hearing are cranial nerves and do not exit the head. It certainly could be one of those inexplicable but true incidents. Or, it could have been totally made up by a practicing chiropractor. I can't tell if the reference to 'later to be called subluxation' is from the Wikapedia writer or something that was in the original article. The 'science' of Chiropractic started in 1985 coincidentally.

Side note. I looked at Skepdic and other sites on chiropractors. While most say they are legitimate providers of care for back pain, I think it is important to point out the reason cited is the equivalence of chiropractic care for back pain to other medical practices. That fact is confirmed by some research. The problem is, as the 1988 NEJM article points out, that none of the treatments seem to do more than the placebo of handing a person a booklet on back exercises.

Drugs and surgery would seem to carry the same or greater risk of hazardous side effects as would neck manipulation.

My point is, all of these treatments should be debunked rather than accepting chiropractic care as one of 3 equally effective placebo alternatives.
Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/24/2004 14:31:08
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.7 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000