Go to the Source [OT]

Jesse Stay jessestay at gmail.com
Sun Sep 3 08:04:16 MDT 2006

I know this topic is getting old, so I'll keep it short.  Re:
"chiropractors don't just do backs" (yes, that was me that said it),
the chiropractor that treated me had license after license to treat me
for what she was treating me for.  Her licenses were not just
back-related.  Chiropractors have also been through the same first 2
years of medical school as most Doctors have been through.  My
chiropractor had book after book stocked in her office of science
showing proof of what she was doing - she was able to show me more
reasons of why she was doing what she was doing than any of my Doctors
were able to.

I'm not against seeing a normal Doctor, in fact, for any particular
ailment I highly suggest seeing a Doctor before seeking other forms of
treatment.  Keep the Doctor involved after that to ensure what the
Chiropractor is doing isn't harmful to anything else in your body.
However, using the 2 together can be a powerful tool towards actual
healing processes.  Again, a D.O. may be a better bet, as they have
experience in both fields.


On 9/3/06, Daniel C. <dcrookston at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hans - take a look at my earlier message, taken verbatim from
> chirobase.org, in which the author explains the things that
> chiropractic care is known to be good for.  (chirobase.org, by the
> way, is run jointly by an MD and a DC, Doctor of Chiropractic.  So if
> you want to talk about going to the source...)
> It's not that I don't like chiropractic care.  I have visited a
> chiropractor in the past, and I feel that his care was competent,
> professional, and worthwhile.  I've followed his advice and as a
> result haven't needed chiropractic care since then.  If I ever do, I
> won't hesitate to seek out another chiropractor.  (The one I saw was
> in Minnesota.)
> What I do have a problem with is people who practice things that have
> no basis in hard science.  Another word for these people is quacks.
> The sad thing is that for various reasons, most quacks honestly
> believe in the thing they're practicing and/or preaching.  Most of
> them are well educated, eloquent, honest, hard working, rational, etc.
> Nobody (well, very few people) become chiropractors or doctors because
> they want to scam people out of money.  Some may go into it because
> the earning potential is high, but my guess is that the vast majority
> of people who become chiropractors and doctors have helping people get
> better (while living comfortably) as their base motivation.
> Unfortunately, good intentions don't make what you do valid or
> scientifically sound.  A lot of chiropractors use diagnostic
> techniques and treatments that have no basis in science and no data
> showing that they work.  This has been documented extensively, and
> I'll be glad to cite references if it would make any difference.
> (Let's be honest, how likely are you to look it up if it's not
> online?)
> A lot of chiropractors also attempt to treat things that have nothing
> to do with their patient's musculo-skeletal structure, which is really
> all a chiropractor has any business messing with.  Someone said "yes,
> a chiropractor - they don't all just do backs".  They *should* all
> just do backs - it's the only thing they've been shown to have
> competence with.  And yes, there are several studies that show this
> too, and yes I will be happy to provide citations for anyone who wants
> them.
> A lot of people have posted some neat stories to this list about how
> their chiropractor healed them miraculously of ailments which medical
> doctors said couldn't be cured.  It's great that you got better, but
> your stories (while touching) are not hard data.  They are not the
> result of a double blind study with controls.  What worked for you may
> not work for someone else, which is the essence of science - including
> medical science.  Results must be reproducible.  If they're not,
> they're a fluke, no matter how heartwarming the story may be.  And the
> important thing is that *chiropractors don't seem to care*.  They keep
> on prescribing treatments that have no hard data to back them up.
> In some cases the treatments will work just fine, and those who have
> posted to the list with their happy stories are examples of that.  In
> other cases, though, they do serious harm.  Have any of you ever had
> your chiropractor say "You can try this but it's important that I
> discuss the risks with you first..."  I seriously doubt that you have,
> because chiropractors, when they start to dabble in pseudo-scientific
> treatments, are generally not even aware of the risks.
> I know a girl who used to have migraines all the time when she was a
> kid.  Her neighbor was a chiropractor and kept bugging her to let him
> adjust her neck to help with the headaches.  She never let him, which
> was fortunate because it was later discovered that she had serious
> problems with her brain stem.  Problems which, had  a chiropractor
> adjusted her, would almost certainly had led to her paralyzation.
> There's a reason why the Hippocratic oath says "First, do no harm."
> But most chiropractors are only too happy to twist and snap away
> without competently diagnosing the problems beforehand.  There are
> documented cases of chiropractors severely harming their patients,
> including paralyzation, because they lacked the ability to adequately
> diagnose the cause of the problems their patient was experiencing.
> Let me close this email (which is already too long, I apologize) by
> saying that anyone who is considering chiropractic care owes it to
> themselves to learn everything they can first.  There are good reasons
> to be skeptical of chiropractors.  I've listed some; plenty of others
> are available from reputable sources.  I urge anyone who is interested
> in this topic to examine all of the information available to them and
> consider all sides of the issue objectively.
> Dan
> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */


$^=q;@!>~|{>krw>yn{u<$$<Sn||n<|}j=<$$<Yn{u<Qjltn{ > 0gFzD gD, 00Fz,
0,,( 0hF 0g)F/=, 0> "L$/GEIFewe{,$/ 0C$~> "@=,m,|,(e 0.), 01,pnn,y{
rw} >;,$0=q,$,,($_=$^)=~y,$/ C-~><@=\n\r,-~$:-u/

More information about the PLUG mailing list