Posted on 01/01/2005 7:13:21 AM PST by aculeus
Well said!
Patrick, thanks for the link and the laugh at the pic. :-)
The Alexander Principle is a concept that physical therapists have been using for years. It is the basis of their foundation in treating musculoskeletal problems.
In order to restore function (and help reduce musculoskeletal pain syndromes), you have to address the problematic movement dysfunction.
One of my early mentors is Shirley Sahrmann, PhD, PT , FAPTA (Washington University, St. Louis), who has devoted the last 35+ years on movement imbalances, and retraining normal movement patterns.
"So, the Chiropractor did the RIGHT thing by sending the guy to a surgeon with his torn Achilles tendon? How does that reflect badly on him? (And I am sure this was all pre-HIPPA days...)"
No, it didn't reflect poorly on the Chiropractor, it showed that most people equate a Chiropractor with a "real" doctor. That's the point, and why they have value mainly in conjunction with lawyers filing pain & suffering lawsuits.....jurors sometimes don't know the difference.
On our side (scientific medicine), we have research and clinical trials. On their side--anecdotal evidence, and a lot of very good classes the business of chiropractic (how to build a practice and push lots of--untested-- dietary suplements and vitamins).
Razor sharp accurate.
sheesh, is this thread polarized!
Yes, I agree, homeopathy works well in certain situations. I know several MDs (current and former UCSF/Stanford professors) who incorporate it in their practice.
Alternative medicine fills in the gaps where conventional medicine fails. I haven't given up the latter but it's time conventional docs realize they don't have all the answers.
Throwing useless or harmful meds at a patient or telling someone "you'll just have to learn to live with it" is unacceptable. No wonder people look elsewhere.
In other words, you suggest that legislators should rule on the laws of pathophysiology?
"Hate to burst your bubble...I was in serious pain from a pinched nerve...painful to the point where I was having trouble using a computer keyboard. A few visits to the chiropractor ELIMINATED the pain. This was several years ago, and I was NEVER pursued for additional "adjustments" once the situation was resolved. End of story. Are some crackpots? No doubt, but you'll find charlatans, crackpots, and outright thieves in EVERY field."
Sure, a massage, a heating pad often helps in those situations.......glad it did for you....
Chiropractors get their money mostly in conjunction with lawyers. If someone walks through the door with an ache or pain, sure, they'll treat you, too. But you aren't the cash cow. Pain and suffering lawsuits are.
I work in a health food store owned by a 'bush doctor'. Some customers hate doctors and just will not see them EVER. One customer had prostate cancer and refused REFUSED to get treated. There's a lot of polarization on both sides. I agree.
"Don't be so quick to label others as quacks when your own profession's history is littered with what would now acknowledged as quackery."
Is your point that real doctors are quacks, as well as chiropractors? Or is your point that engineers are quacks just like chiropractors?
A DO has the same four years of medical school like MDs.
Thank you!!
Interesting that " The Alexander Principle is a concept that physical therapists have been using for years."
But in my experience, most PTs have never heard of the Technique, which has been around since 1880.
I went to a PT as prescribed by my MD for a little problem. Perfectly nice woman, who told me it would take six months to fix my difficulty. After two sessions with her, however, during which time I would not allow her to touch me, the condition went away, 100% cured. I did not do the exercises she prescribed either.
So what happened? Well, she had excellent intentions and good information. And I have a highly sophisticated body sense after taking lessons and teaching Alexander for almost 30 years. (See my post #36 on this thread.) The head leads, the body follows, in the most subtle and powerful way.
Sadly, there is a mounting problem with untrained or poorly trained Alexander teachers today. Some noonteachrs even have excellent positions, ie in my state university, one bills herself as a professor of the Alexander Technique. Not so. She has an MFA, which entitles her to teach in the drama department, but as far as Alexander, all she does it get people to walk around with their necks extended. Very poor! Alexander is not about craning one's neck.
If you're curious about the Technque and would like to find a certified teacher, check out the American Society for the Alexander Technique site:
http://www.alexandertech.com/index.html
I think only the first of those 3 reasons is a good one. Re the 2nd, I doubt that state subsidized curricula are profit centers. The 3rd resonates with the corruption that we’re fighting against.
There are also reasons not to run university level chiropractic colleges…
1) It legitimizes a profession latent with kooks and frauds.
2) It’s not a science worthy of elevation to university status because what makes it sometimes work is still in debate (AFAIK).
3) It draws tax dollars away from proven medical majors.
Not in the least.
First of all, the push in public schools is for creationism and/or intelligent design to be taught as a discussable alternative competing with Darwinism. By contrast, a school of chiropractic medicine teaches that D. D. Palmer of Davenport Iowa was right about disease, period.
Second, scientific medicine is, one hopes, based on repeatable experiments. On the other hand, evolution is based on inferences from observation and on extrapolation into the past of experiments done today. This can never be as firm a ground for proof and thus does open up legitimate grounds for debate and discussion.
Third, there is the purely partisan point that, on most issues beyond biology, I like the creationists.
And fourth, who would you rather go to, a Darwinian chiropractor or a creationist MD? Would whether a physician believed in Darwin influence you in the slightest in who you want caring for your family? Now, I do believe Darwin was a wonderful man and probably right about most things. However, I would think my family doc a bigot if I ever learned that had he steered me away from a specialist because of a disagreement over the origins of species.
Creationism is, at worst, harmless. At best it has great moral value. It is wrong to lump creationists in the same boat with stroke-inducing quacks.
And many books and courses on the approach are taught by PT's. I agree with you, there are many PT's that haven't "heard" of the name "Alexander," but the principles are sound, and not unfamiliar nor new to physical therapy (whether or not some PT's actually put it into practice, is a whole different matter).
Much like Pilates. The basis for "spinal stabilization" comes from developing the core.
I'm all for it. Especially, in the "healthy" population (for those who want to move or play better, not just the injured ones). Like I said, we (PT's) wouldn't be doing our jobs if we ignored the principles.
You'd be welcome in my clinic any time!
Has homeopathy ever been proven in double blind studies, you know, where some doctors and patients thought that they were working with 30X dilution substances and others were working with not nearly so concentrated amounts?
What are the current educational requirements to be a doctor of chiropractic?
Educational requirements for doctors of chiropractic are among the most stringent of any of the health care professions.
The typical applicant at a chiropractic college has already acquired nearly four years of pre-medical undergraduate college education, including courses in biology, inorganic and organic chemistry, physics, psychology and related lab work. Once accepted into an accredited chiropractic college, the requirements become even more demanding — four to five academic years of professional study are the standard. Because of the hands-on nature of chiropractic, and the intricate adjusting techniques, a significant portion of time is spent in clinical training.
Doctors of chiropractic — who are licensed to practice in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and in many nations around the world — undergo a rigorous education in the healing sciences, similar to that of medical doctors. In some areas, such as anatomy, physiology, rehabilitation, nutrition and public health, they receive more intensive education than their MD counterparts.
Like other primary health care doctors, chiropractic students spend a significant portion of their curriculum studying clinical subjects related to evaluating and caring for patients. Typically, as part of their professional training, they must complete a minimum of a one-year clinical-based program dealing with actual patient care. In total, the curriculum includes a minimum of 4,200 hours of classroom, laboratory and clinical experience. The course of study is approved by an accrediting agency which is fully recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. This has been the case for more than 25 years.
This extensive education prepares doctors of chiropractic to diagnose health care problems, treat the problems when they are within their scope of practice and refer patients to other health care practitioners when appropriate.
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.