Posted on 01/01/2005 7:13:21 AM PST by aculeus
You said: "Oh, so you take your chiropractic straight? By the way, the quotation is from Thomas Edison. Einstein was from the next generation, by which time it did start to be clear that the doctor of the future would be giving some (and probably too much) medicine."
My bad-- attributed the quote to the wrong genius.
No, I'm not a straight. However, if there is a natural alternative, I'm all for it. Drugs are enormously over-prescribed and ALL come with side-effects. Drugs certainly have their place and I would take them if I saw fit too, but our society is being brainwashed by the drug companies that all you need is this pill or that pill and all your ills will go away.
Once again it all comes down to money. Talk about coruption-- its in medicine. Who are these drug companies marketing to? The consumer. They paint a rosey picture on a TV commercial so that the ignorant public go and demand these drugs from their MD/DO. Not saying symptomatic relief cannot be attained by many of these drugs, but at what cost in long term abuse? Kidney, liver, pancreatic problems can all occur with regular use of many of these drugs. And the drug companies are taking care of the other side as well. The kickbacks and other freebies that the medical profession receive from these drug companies to 'push' their products, is remarkable.
Speaking of risks involved in chiropractic. The risks of manipulation are dwarfed by the use of NSAID's alone.
(1996): "Each year, use of NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) accounts for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the United States." (NSAIDs include aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, and tiaprofenic acid.)
Source: Robyn Tamblyn, PhD; Laeora Berkson, MD, MHPE, FRCPC; W. Dale Jauphinee, MD, FRCPC; David Gayton, MD, PhD, FRCPC; Roland Grad, MD, MSc; Allen Huang, MD, FRCPC; Lisa Isaac, PhD; Peter McLeod, MD, FRCPC; and Linda Snell, MD, MHPE, FRCPC, "Unnecessary Prescribing of NSAIDs and the Management of NSAID-Related Gastropathy in Medical Practice," Annals of Internal Medicine (Washington, DC: American College of Physicians, 1997), September 15, 1997, 127:429-438, from the web at http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm, last accessed Feb. 14, 2001, citing Fries, JF, "Assessing and understanding patient risk," Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology Supplement, 1992;92:21-4.
And prescription drugs are more alarming:
(Average 1982-1998): According to Canadian researchers, approximately 32,000 hospitalized patients (and possibly as many as 106,000) in the USA die each year because of adverse reactions to their prescribed medications.
Source: Lazarou, J, Pomeranz, BH, Corey, PN, "Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies," Journal of the American Medical Association (Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1998), 1998;279:1200-1205, also letters column, "Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients," JAMA (Chicago, IL: AMA, 1998), Nov. 25, 1998, Vol. 280, No. 20, from the web at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v280n20/ffull/jlt1125-1.html, last accessed Feb. 12, 2001.
I fully believe these incidents are vastly under-reported.
These stats don't include the other iatrogenic effects from failed surgeries, doctor induced infection, patients getting the wrong meds and dying as a result, surgery on wrong structures, etc.
And I believe the quote is referring to the doctor of the future who hasn't arrived yet. Maybe not for another 50 or 100 years. I don't believe Edison meant there will be no need for medicine, but rather its use will be vastly decreased by healthy living.
The Florida State Chiropractic Licensure requirements clearly supports my statement. You commentary speaks for itself.
http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/chiro/chiro_lic_req.html
The arts and social sciences suffer from a great deal of nonsense. However, the physical & biological sciences (including modern medicine) in American universities today are truly a paragon of what universities should produce.
And that depends upon the specialty. Some residencies last up to 7 years.
So, why do physicians pay for 4 years college + 4 years med school, and live with $40,000/yr incomes for 3 to 7 years of residency when INSTEAD, they could be chiropractors and pay for just two years of schooling and spend the rest of the time making a high income?
Clearly MDs are NOT in it for the money.
Once again: You said: "Chiropractic requires a HS degree + chiropractic school."
From your link:
Information on Requirements, How to Apply & Applications
Licensure is available by Examination Only. The State of Florida does not have any Reciprocity or Grandfathering of licensees.
1. Enter Chiropractic College:
a. Before July 1, 1990:
60 Undergraduate Hours
D.C. Degree
b. After July 1, 1990:
60 Undergraduate Hours
Bachelor’s Degree (BS or BA)
D.C. Degree (Bachelor's & DC Degrees may be earned concurrently and may have shared coursework.)
c. After July 1, 2000:
90 Undergraduate Hours
Bachelor’s Degree
D.C. Degree (Bachelor's & DC Degrees must be earned separately and the DC Degree must consist of credits earned in the chiropractic program and may not include credit for courses from the Bachelor's Degree.)
2. National Board Exam, parts I, II & III
Scores must be within 10 years. Any scores not within 10 years will require the exam be retaken.
*The State of Florida does not accept Part IV of the National Exam.
-------
In both a and b, 60 hours of undergraduate study are required. In c, 90 hours are required.
Undergraduate studies are not high school.
You might have a different opinion if you'd ever experienced back or neck trouble and been treated by orthopedists, PTs and chiropractors.
Why did my post where I questioned if someone was ignorant of the facts or just lying get removed, yet comments calling me and my colleagues quacks go unpunished?
Where's the justice in that???
I had the same experience with an ophthalmologist. Almost lost an eye due to extraordinary negligence.
I was experiencing increasing pain and inflammation in my eye. I even went into her office after a week of under her care with tears streaming from my eye and complaining of agonizing stabbing pains. She sent me home with topical antibiotics.
Fortunately, a doctor in the family told me to go immediately to Mass Eye and Ear. The first question: "when was the last time you ate?" After drastic emergency surgery, my eye was saved. The doctors there said I came within hours of losing my eyesight in that eye.
It can. OTOH, if their practices deliver measurable results, then their practices merit study. Scientists shouldn't be in the habit of dismissing evidence that contradicts their theories, although they often do. Scientists are often very dogmatic.
Yes. It's inarguable. I first learned this from a chiropractor. Most doctors that have treated me have poo-pooed the risks.
Where's the justice in that???
I didn't see the post in question. Generally, the moderators respond to complaints, and I don't think they have the time to agonize about their decision. Reword your post more tactfully, resubmit, and it will probably stick.
By the way, I cannot find any post where kailbo was labeled with the Q word. People who don't agree with a particular school of medicine do use the Q word talking about it in general, but that isn't the same as an insult directed at an individual. On this board, a man's political preferences, not to mention his honesty and dedication to family, God, and country, have to count for far, far more than his medical theories.
Yes, I did, as I mentioned in the original post: "and do the same exercises as suggested by the orthoped I'd gone to."
I went to an orthopedic surgeon. There was a small bulge in a disk, too small to be worth the risk of surgery at that point in time (pre-arthroscopic times). His comment about going to a chiropractor was 'if it feels good, do it'.
The bulge is probably still there, the pain is not.
The exercises suggested by the orthopedic surgeon were painful and did not improve things until the chiropractor straightened things out. The other point I was trying to make was that the intial back-cracker chiropractors I saw did not help.
I've no doubt that there are frauds in the back-cracker style of chiropractic. My impression is that the back-cracking style is about as permanent a fix as taking vioxx or prednisone. At best, it just covers the symptoms and things get worse.
However, having back pain trouble that is not amenable to surgery is a major constraint on life. I'd rather they not throw the baby out with the bath water by labelling all chiropractors as charlatans and the entire concept as fake.
YMMV
Controversy Erupts over Proposed
Chiropractic College at Florida State University
Samuel Homola, D.C.
In 2003, the Florida State Legislature allocated $9 million to establish a chiropractic college within Florida State University (FSU). University officials have declared that the school would be science-based and have hired Alan Adams, D.C., a former vice-president of the Southern California University of Health Sciences (formerly called the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic) to organize it. But many FSU faculty members and alumni are highly skeptical and are campaigning to stop what would be the nation's first university-based chiropractic college [1].
Adams and the administrator who hired him have indicated that they intend to start from scratch and use a science-based approach, combining a chiropractic degree with a master's degree in an established health science such as nutrition or exercise. Although this sounds promising, it's important to remember that chiropractic is based upon an implausible theory that correction of "vertebral subluxations" will improve health. Chiropractic "subluxations" have never been clearly defined or anatomically demonstrated and no evidence exists that spinal adjustments improve general health [2]. Yet in 1996, the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) issued a position statement that "Chiropractic is concerned with preservation and restoration of health and focuses particular attention on the subluxation." [3] The resultant document, commonly referred to as the ACC Paradigm, was endorsed by the International Chiropractic Association and the American Chiropractic Association in 2000 and the World Federation of Chiropractic in 2001.
To be science-based, a chiropractic school must be completely free of "subluxation" theory and its associated misbeliefs and train its students in the use of manipulation and the physical treatment modalities that are used by physical therapists. If chiropractors are to be trained as "neuromusculoskeletal specialists" who function as independent practitioners in a capacity beyond that of physical therapists, it might be necessary to include training in use of prescription medication and certain invasive diagnostic procedures. Such chiropractors would work much like physiatrists (medical doctors who specialize in physical medicine and rehabilitation), with emphasis of manipulation and physical treatment methods. Either way, there would be duplication of existing medical services. However, without a fundamental change in the nature of its chiropractic teachings, FSU would graduate "alternative" practitioners who display their university degree as evidence that subluxation-based chiropractic offers a rational approach to health care.
Unanswered Questions
A science-based chiropractic college with a new approach and a new definition of chiropractic, associated with a major university, may ultimately reduce the number of subluxation-based chiropractors, which would be a change for the better. But if this means duplication of services that could be provided by physical therapists and other health-care providers, is a new chiropractic college really necessary? Would an FSU chiropractic college duplicate the subluxation-based Palmer College of Chiropractic Florida in Port Orange, Florida, which teaches chiropractic's "Big Idea" (the notion that the body heals itself when interference to the proper functioning of the nervous system is removed)? Or would it move diametrically away from the principles of Palmer, inviting confrontation in a divided camp?
Some chiropractors do a good job treating some types of back pain, offering manipulative services not readily available in medical practice, but they work more like physical therapists than subluxation-based chiropractors who adjust or manipulate the spine to restore and maintain health [4]. At present, most state laws and chiropractic organizations define chiropractic as a method of correcting subluxations, not as a method of treating back pain. Although physical therapists manipulate or mobilize the spine as a treatment for back pain and not for correction of subluxations to remove nerve interference, chiropractic associations support efforts to prevent the use of spinal manipulation by physical therapists [5]. This has the effect of restricting appropriate use of spinal manipulation. Will FSU become mired in this squabble?
Physical therapists trained in the use of spinal manipulation, sans the subluxation theory, could fill the need for manipulative therapy without encroaching upon chiropractic dogma. At the present time, the use of manipulation/mobilization by physical therapists to relieve and prevent disability is more evidence based than the belief-driven adjustment/manipulation used by chiropractors to "restore and maintain health." Properly-limited chiropractors, who use manipulation appropriately, would welcome examination of the chiropractic theory by academia and by medical scientists. And I suspect that few science-based chiropractors would object to inclusion of spinal manipulation in the treatment methods of physical therapists, physiatrists, and other practitioners who use manual medicine. But chiropractors who cling to the subluxation theory to justify their existence as independent practitioners may resist any change in the definition of chiropractic, opposing use of spinal manipulation by anyone other than a chiropractor, even if it means perpetuating inappropriate use of such treatment. Such chiropractors point to studies indicating that spinal manipulation is effective in the treatment of some types of back pain in a misguided attempt to support adjustment of subluxations in the treatment of general health problems—mixing science and pseudoscience to sell false hope. University-trained, science-based chiropractors who practice a properly defined, limited form of chiropractic would have to split away from the majority of chiropractors who practice a traditional form of chiropractic, which often embraces such dubious practices as homeopathy and applied kinesiology.
It seems obvious to me that before opening an FSU school of chiropractic, the administration should clearly delineate the treatment methods and scope of practice that it intends to teach. A subluxation-free approach would require a new and clear definition of chiropractic. If chiropractic is not redefined, maintaining a chiropractic college as part of an accredited, science-based university may not be feasible. However, a science-based definition might cause problems for FSU graduates who want to practice in states whose laws incorporate subluxation concepts. Florida law (Statute §460.403), for example, defines the practice of "chiropractic medicine" as:
a noncombative principle and practice consisting of the science of the adjustment, manipulation, and treatment of the human body in which vertebral subluxations and other malpositioned articulations and structures that are interfering with the normal generation, transmission, and expression of nerve impulses between the brain, organs and tissue cells of the body, thereby causing disease, are adjusted, manipulated, or treated, thus restoring the normal flow of nerve impulse which produces normal function and consequent health by chiropractic physicians using specific chiropractic adjustment or manipulation techniques taught in chiropractic colleges accredited by the Council on Chiropractic Education. No person other than a licensed chiropractic physician may render chiropractic services, chiropractic adjustments, or chiropractic manipulations.
In 1998, more than 4,000 chiropractors were licensed under this definition in the State of Florida, which ranks fourth in the nation in the number of chiropractors per state. Can the FSU chiropractic college teach a different kind of chiropractic—a science-based chiropractic—without a change in state law? If chiropractic is redefined at FSU, would an unchanged state law permit science-based graduates of FSU to practice a different kind of chiropractic in Florida? How would a new state law affect the thousands of chiropractors now practicing in the State of Florida? Would FSU chiropractors work more like physical therapists? Or would their training include use of prescription medication to allow them to function as independent neuromusculoskeletal specialists? Any reasonable change in the definition of chiropractic, requiring departure from the vertebral subluxation theory, would encroach upon the established practice of physical therapy or physical medicine. It seems likely that many chiropractors will oppose any change in the definition of chiropractic, since the subluxation theory is the basis for licensing chiropractors in most states. But I do not see how the fundamental definition of chiropractic could be tolerated in a science-based university.
I fear that a chiropractic school at a major university like FSU will attract well-meaning, highly qualified students who know little or nothing about chiropractic, unaware of the stigma associated with chiropractic and unprepared to compete with fundamentalist chiropractors or to endure the criticisms of those who oppose them. Some may realize too late that they have made a bad career choice.
I struggled through 43 years of practice as a "good chiropractor," but I cannot, in good conscience, recommend that anyone follow in my footsteps. A Ph.D. program in physical therapy that includes training in spinal manipulation might make more sense for qualified individuals.
Fully science-based chiropractors might need to have a new degree that will differentiate them from graduates of subluxation-based chiropractic colleges. For example, a Doctor of Chiropractic Therapy (D.C.T.) degree for a group-dependent therapist, or a Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine (D.C.M.) degree for an independent neuromusculoskeletal specialist, would indicate training different from that required for a standard Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) degree.
The Bottom Line
How chiropractic is defined and taught at FSU, and the behavior of its chiropractic school graduates, may have a profound effect on public health and reflect upon FSU's credibility as a science-based institution. Before proceeding further, all parties concerned should determine whether a chiropractic school at Florida State University is really feasible and whether graduates of such a school are needed to provide services based primarily upon use of spinal manipulation.
References
Bousquet S. FSU chiropractic school not a done deal just yet: The Legislature and Gov. Bush have approved the funds to create the school, but opponents are hoping to block it anyway. St. Petersburg Times, Dec 12, 2004.
Barrett S. Chiropractic's elusive "subluxation." Chirobase, Dec 25, 2001.
Chiropractic paradigm. Association of Chiropractic Colleges, 1996.
Homola S. What rational chiropractor can do for you. Chirobase, May 19, 1999.
Arkansas chiropractic board trying to stop physical therapists from manipulating. Chirobase, Sept 30, 2003.
This is a public health issue. I would not pay anyone to put me at risk for a stroke
It's your money and your health (see #29 & #202).
"So, why do physicians pay for 4 years college + 4 years med school, and live with $40,000/yr incomes for 3 to 7 years of residency when INSTEAD, they could be chiropractors and pay for just two years of schooling and spend the rest of the time making a high income?
Clearly MDs are NOT in it for the money."
You left out the part of a lifetime of very high income after all that. By the time they are 30 years old they are making six figure incomes. Add that to your above equation and then tell us money is not involved.
"To be science-based, a chiropractic school must be completely free of "subluxation" theory"
And to be perfectly honest, as a scientist, doctors will have to forgo their theory that only drugs and surgery can heal if they want to be taken seriously.
I go to a thoroughly orthodox family medicine MD and have never felt he was like that.
Specifics: I am 49 and have had three orthopedic-type problems in my life. First, carpal tunnel. Doc said to sleep with wrist spints. They have cured me, except that if I don't wear them, the pain is back. Second problem, back pain. He told me I could keep on taking OTC pain pills for a few days, and gave me stretching exercises to keep it from coming back. I find that if I don't do the exercises for 2-3 days, a tinge of pain comes back. But so far doing the exercises is a long-term cure. Third problem: heel pain. For this he had to send me to an MD foot specialist. The specialist gave me a damn uncomfortable foot twisting gadget to sleep with, but after a few weeks it did the job.
High blood pressure and high cholesterol? Well, doc told me to lose weight and the rest of it, and if I had done exactly what he wanted, I might not need pills for that either. But since what I am doing apparently isn't enough, he put me on pills. Can't blame him for that, can you?
So, a lot of the time, it is lack of patient compliance that results in them prescribing so many pills. Yes, there are loads of corrupt docs who take gifts from drug companies to prescribe that new $4 pain pill when over the counter is way, way cheaper, equally effective, and has better understood side effects because it is 50 or 100 years old. On the other hand, there is the kind of patient who wants doc to load them up with free samples of something seen on TV. And, and knowing that everything has risks, there are actual life-saving pills and surgeries.
I guess I getting my practice here for talking like an old man about all his illnesses.
I don't know who you are quoting, but it is not me. As far as subluxation theory goes, chiropractic can never be free of subluxation theory as a cause of illness... it would cease to be chiropractic.
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.