Posted on 05/30/2003 7:33:55 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:09:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It is the medical world's equivalent of the Hatfields and McCoys: Neurologists vs. chiropractors, conventional vs. alternative medicine.
And the feud just got a little nastier this month, with the brain specialists using a freshly minted study by university researchers to load their slingshots with new ammunition aimed at chiropractors. That research links strokes in younger patients to chiropractic neck manipulations.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Physiotherapy is used by chiropractic heretics, the "mixers" (all of the decent local ones).
Incidentally chiropractic is originally the quack invention of an itinerant Canadian pot salesman named Palmer, seeking a more lucrative scam in defrauding gullible midwesterners a century ago or so.
Come on, Doc. When did they figure out how asprin worked as opposed to how long it enjoyed widespread acceptance.
Nobody is opposed to the wonders of modern medicine, but you guys act like something CAN'T work if you don't know how it works. Allopaths sling just as much BS as anyone else, you just need more specialized training to recognize it.
How many times have you sent someone merrily on their way with a script, and a diagnosis of "gastritis?"
I will grant you much of the "smoke and mirrors" associated with Chiropractic owes to the "one trick pony" aspect of their treatment modality, but don't act like you guys shyed away from treating muscle injuries before you knew the functional mechanism of muscle contraction; how many times through the years has an MD answered "nerve impulses" to answer that question?
If you're content to tell patients "heart attack makes your left arm hurt," you've already signed-off on the principle behind Chiropractic treatment.
Indistinguishable to whom?
Every field has it's equivalent to the "abortionist." My biggest grievance with Chiropractors is the number of them that are obviously more interested in creating financial umbilicals than healthy patients.
THere is one, major difference between the two. Medical research has expanded the frontiers of knowledge over the years, learning the functionality of aspirin and the functional aspects of muscle contraction.
Medicine has identified the areas where knowledge was deficient, and learned more about it. However Chiro is enitrely based on a sham "subluxation", and despite being around for over a hundred years, they STILL cannot properly define it or identify it. And considering that is the basis of their entire practice, it makes them look very bad. It would be as if MDs hadn't yet identified the germ theory.
What, you are going to follow the directions of someone at the top of his college class who went to school for 9 years AFTER college? You are going to ignore the neck snapping recommendations of the college moron-failure who then briefly attended a school studying the quack technique of an itinerant Canadian pot salesman named Palmer, seeking a more lucrative scam in defrauding gullible midwesterners a century ago or so?
That's my point. Medicine may have identified where knowlege was deficient, but it never let anyone else know that.
If it takes one hundred years of research to identify the function of the most popular drug in existence, it's a bit disingenuous to criticize the lack of scientific research on the part of Chiropractic...particularly when Allopaths have been trying to kill the practice for it's entire existence.
Besides, you are arguing from a contrary to fact position. MDs were treating muscular complaints with drugs long before they had any idea how muscles worked, so the difference is no where near as major as you paint it. They may not define and identify to your liking, but they seem to have done a good enough job to resist refutation.
But they haven't done ANY research on the elusive "subluxation" or any other theory of "dis-ease" they espouse. Could you point to ANY chiropractic research done in the past 100 years that verifies their paractice?
Some other points, with aspirin or any other treatment which works, yet we are not sure of the modality, we are more than happy to say, we don't know why this works but it does. And THAT is based on studies that are done. You could recommend aspirin proir to knowing why it functioned because there were studies that showed it was effective.
We are still waiting for chiropractic studies defintively demonstrating "subluxation" is the cause of systemic disease.
And your entire point is disingenuous. You are taking isolated parts of the practice of medicine and stating that our knowledge was deficient. I'm pointing out that the understanding of the ENTIRE BASIS for chiropractic is deficient. Those are monsterously different points.
Does the name Ignaz Semmelweis ring any bells for ya? Did they call MDs something besides "Doctor" before him?
And why were those studies carried out in the first place?
Yea, Hungarian physician........puerperal fever.
And why were those studies carried out in the first place?
To prove it's effectiveness.
Do the questions get any harder?
You're being purposefully obtuse.
So be it.
Perhaps, or maybe you aren't explaining yourself very well.
Let's try this. You are saying, because it took hundreds of years to develop the germ theory, or the pharmacology of certain drugs, we should excuse chiropractic. Well, my initial point still stands. Traditional medicine has evolved over the years as people studied and experimented and changed minds. In chiropractic we have just the opposite, the basic philosophy behind it hasn't changed at all since its "discovery".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.