talkmagic.co.uk

Did I miss something?

Are these not still unproven alternative therapies? They now seem to have degrees and statutory boards of regulation. How does this work?

Osteopathy is a bit more respectable than chiropractic. As I understand it, osteopathy doesn't make outlandish claims, but is more geared to what you would expect back manipulation to help with, i.e. back pain.

There are "mixed" and "pure" chiropractics. Mixed tend not to believe in the fairystory on which chiropractic stands, tend to have more realistic expectations of their treatments, will take evidence on board, and will go beyond chiropractic in serving their clients. Pure chiropractics will believe in the fairy story, that pretty much any and all illness is caused by subluxation.

People advertising chiropractic can make some limited claims, chiefly helping with back pain and migraines. Anything beyond that, from sciatica to bedwetting(!) is pretty much off the cards.

But, yes, regulated nonsense is still nonsense. Part of the fall-out from the BCA vs Simon Singh case was that the GCC had to face up to the ineffectiveness of their own treatments, and the widespread breaches of their own code of conduct by their members. If such a code of conduct is properly enforced, and requires evidence-based treatment, then I'm all forit, but it's doubtful you're going to get a self-regulating body to regulate its industry out of existence. Sadly.

But anyway, here's someone doing a low impact high force head twist on a toddler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABp1OECYUqE

Chiropractic is nonsense.

It's well documented that "cracking" a joint sends a shockwave through the local nerve endings that temporarily give relief from pain. Science writer Simon Singh was sued for libel a few years ago by the British Chiropractic Association for criticising their outlandish claims. They didn't provide any evidence of the efficacy of their treatment, just a libel writ. Singh's supporters filed more than 500 claims for false advertising in response. The BCA subsequently withdrew the writ in a rather public back down.

Mr_Grue wrote:But anyway, here's someone doing a low impact high force head twist on a toddler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABp1OECYUqE" target="_blank" target="_blank

I'd be interested to know what happened in the time between the adjustment and the relaxed behaviour shown in the video. Calpol , sweets or just being left the **** alone could all be contributing factors

T.

At least one chiropractic technique might even "carry the potential for serious neurovascular complications" according to an article in the BMJ: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18356045"

Glad I am not going insane. I find the whole impression of professionalism given by regulatory boards and such quite sickening, not to mention a little bit terrifying!

Members of my family have had treatment from osteopaths, all very successfully. They were referred by the NHS GP after painkillers etc proved to be ineffective. Osteopathy isn't cheap but, based on family experience, certainly does the trick. I have no experience of Chiropractors.

The Anti-Chiropractor thing must be a UK hobby in that such are exceptionally popular and respected here in the States. I've been saved from some long term surgery as the result of Chiropractic care/treatments coupled with aspects of traditional medicine (ALL alternative treatment should be done in conjunction with one's primary care MD). Too, I'm not seeing much in this thread about how Chiropractory hasn't been the bone crushing and contorting process it was originally, for a very long time now. Granted, there are times when such techniques are required but rarely since the development of the "trigger device" and drop tables as well as home traction styled equipment that is typically prescribed in conjunction with a sports medicine professional (I know, I have one such unit for my neck).

Personally, I've found forms of deep tissue massage far more effective in certain cases just as I have with Acupressure/puncture methods and working with an herbalist. Again, all this must be done in conjunction with one's own traditional medical team. Here in the States it has become common practice even in major hospitals, to use the combination of certain alternative treatment techniques with the conventional; patients seem to respond better and heal quicker. When it comes to chronic type illnesses some amazing recovery scenarios have come about because of such dual modes of treatment; especially in the area of cancer treatment.

I'll not argue with those sporting the pronounced sense of distrust & doubt found in this thread in that I know what my own experiences have been with Chiropractors as well as those of other family members and peers within this industry. I'm also aware of numerous individuals that trusted the "wisdom" of conventional treatment that ended up paralyzed from the waist down or worse, not to mention those now living in chronic pain and limited mobility because . . . as one old country doctor pointed out to me some years back, "Surgeons only want to cut, it's the only way to treat and fix the condition in their mind. . ." Funny, how specialists in other fields of medicine tend to believe the same way when it comes to "fixing" a problem. Why, in my book, it takes a TEAM of medical professionals that can work together towards a common outcome; no one way being the dominate factor.

The ones I can't really understand are Aromatherapists. OK, nice smells make people feel good, bad smells are off putting and Black Hart's Essences successfully conjure up the scents of the grave and all things worrying, but is Aromatherapy up there on the same level as established Medical activities?

I think the problem we have with chiropractic is that it is founded on something that doesn't exist, and has no evidence for most of its claims. And as ever, we're not talking about a lack of research - in trials it delivers a nill result, as does acupressure and acupuncture beyond certain limited cases. We know that as sham acupuncture treatments become more convincing, then they approach the results of genuine acupuncture. We know that acupuncture works to the same level irrespective of where you stick the needles. I guess it comes down to whether you are for or against placebo-based treatment, and/or whether you're happy to pay out your taxes or insurance money to pay for such treatments for others. I think that's why we in the UK have a bee in our bonnet about chiropractic - it more than any other complementary medicine has a veneer of respectability. We look to how chiropractic is viewed in America and worry that it will end up being taken as seriously over here. I suspect that in part we have NHS and NICE to thank for it not being taken so seriously - if it were insurance companies deciding, rather than agencies of state, then chiro would be more commonplace, and its claims taken more seriously. And sadly, there are too many practitioners out there who go beyond young Browning's advocacy of complementary treatment, and instead believe that conventional medicine somehow blocks their herbs/needles/smell/sugar pills. People do die as a result.

I think there's a temptation to view this as a fight between conventional medicine and alternative medicine, but to me its always been about evidence-based medicine verses no- or negative-evidence-based medicine. I work in advertising clearance. In the UK broadcast advertising is an evidence-based world. I've turned down plenty of ads that have made claims for alternative therapies - I've also turned down ads for treatments being offered by GMC-staffed private clinics.

Any treatment ought to live or die by its evidence base, and that goes for surgery too. There's a famous experiment that was run regarding a widely used knee operation. Patients were randomised, and the surgeons would, essentially, be handed an envelope at the point that the patient had been prepped for surgery and anaesthetised. Inside the envelope would be instructions telling the surgeon either to carry out the procedure as normal, or to cut the patient open and then immediately sew them up again, without doing anything more. When the results were in, they clearly showed that the procedure had no effect beyond the placebo. I think there's a more recent example of this with a fairly delicate heart operation, but it escapes me at the moment.

EBM in practice has its problems - publishing bias, no interest in publication of repeat experiments even when they overturn previous findings, etc - but the goal surely is to fix EBM, rather than throw it out all together. Ben Goldacre promotes the idea of a registry of research; a commitment to publish; and a journal of null results. These measures would go a fair way to prevent problems in clinical research.

Am I missing something here? I just though chiropractors treat back pain?

Maybe I'm missing something else but I swear I heard that acupuncture has now got evidence in favour of it being better than placebo?

Maybe I'm just severely out of date....

Beardy wrote:Am I missing something here? I just though chiropractors treat back pain?

Nope - the whole BCA vs Simon Singh case sprang from a leaflet the BCA put out that promoted chiropractic for bed-wetting, colic and a whole range of illnesses and conditions. The huge skeptic effort to complain to the ASA about websites and adverts for chiropractors involved them making claims above and beyond treating back pain. This in turn led to something of a crisis of identity for the chiropractic regulatory board, the GCC, who even ended up acknowledging that subluxations, the spinal misalignments that chiropractors purport to treat, do not exist.

Beardy wrote:Maybe I'm missing something else but I swear I heard that acupuncture has now got evidence in favour of it being better than placebo?

Yes and no. NICE published controversial guidelines that allowed the provision under the NHS of acupuncture for the management of chronic lower back pain (and nothing else), but the general view on acupuncture is that it is a theatrical placebo. The more convincing the sham acupuncture is, the closer it gets to "real" acupuncture in effect.

I will cosign something that I think is being said here; the "bone crushing" version of Chiropractic work should NEVER be done on a person under 16 years of age and even that's questionable. Too, we have the other extreme and the fact that (in my opinion) only the exceptionally well trained CMD should treat those over 60 years in age. Oddly my reasoning here comes from the same reasoning; the skeleton itself. With children the bones tend to have more elasticity which means greater force and stress-pressure is required for making the adjustment. With senior citizens the opposite is true, their bones tend to be far more brittle (especially in women and treatments to their lower back & hip area).

On these two points and in instances of extreme physical ills such as Muscular Dystrophy, Polio, and general birth defects like curvature of the spine. . . I really think an honestly concerned and professionally minded Chiropractor would be hesitant and seek to work that much closer with the patients' medical team prior to treatment. . . I think this is the issue however; in the U.S. Chiropractors must first get a Medical Degree prior to certification in said field (I know such requisites were being pushed for Herbalists and Acupuncture but I don't think it's passed as of yet). I've had CMDs refuse to treat me until after MRIs or CATs plus consultation with other MDs that are better familiar with my conditions. It is only after that process that a treatment plan is carried out and personally, I think that's how it should be because of some of the reasons being brought up here. Let's face it, there are "quacks" in every walk of life and just because you passed the course with a D- and barely got accredited to do the work, doesn't mean you should be doing it. . . then too, there are those with high & positive marks that are just as dangerous because they are chasing the dollar vs. doing their job. . . we find such in ALL trades. We also find the honest and earnest and it is this type of professional this "umbrella" styled rhetoric brings harm to along with their clients. . . this is a big issue with me when it comes to the excessively skeptical; they don't accept responsibility for the harm they cause others as the result of their very narrowed perspective on things.

There are studies that prove that joint fusion in the back & neck is dangerous and causes more problems than not. . . multiple accounts of persons that end up in far worse physical condition as the result of botched surgeries of this sort -- fully sanctioned and endorsed medical techniques that are "scientifically proven" and yet, have a record of doing an amazing amount of harm vs. good.

I have to admit that I'm touchy on this issue right now; I'm having to make a decision regarding back surgery and to be honest, I'm terrified. . . I cherish the nominal sense of mobility I have presently and wouldn't handle things very well should the surgery in question, make my condition far worse than it is.

I know little about chiropractors. However I do have experience in sports massage. I know that some masseurs claim they can do so much for so many conditions. I also know some doctors who say we can do nothing. The truth falls in between. If you have a trapped nerve or a troublesome disc, I can relieve the pain. If you have irritable bowel syndrome, cancer, or in injured spine, there is damn all I can do for you.

I think the problem arises when treatments of limited (but real) effectiveness try to make themselves something more than they are.

Then of course there are the completely bogus - aromotherapy, back flower remidies, acupuncture, etc. They give all alternative treatments a bad name.