121–130 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mmmhmm. Selective data collection and interpretation can say pretty much anything you want it to, can't it.
Which is why we have the scientific method. Shame that the chiropractic "profession" refuses to use it.
Placebo is a hell of a drug, most especially when it comes to nebulous and subjective pain.
I've lived both sides of this. I once went to a chiropractor for back issues and he made me seriously worse and it took months to recover because what he thought just needed to be put in was actually a herniated disc. Fast forward more than a decade and I have an amazing chiropractor. Every time I go there, I walk away feeling better, walking straighter, and in less pain. My daughter also goes there and the chiroprac…
> Every time I go there, I walk away feeling better, walking straighter, and in less pain. So what is your chiro fixing, if you have to keep going back for ten years?
NFL/NBA uses chiropractors; that's enough testimonial for me.
NFL doesn't have a very good track record on the medical front. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/league-of-denial/ If chiro provides cheap short term care at the expense of the player, that sure does sound like a great deal for the business that is the NFL/NBA.
People will believe in anything, especially false hope for the impossible, saving a buck, or a shortcut.
FWIW, after spending a year seeing some doctors and getting not even a friggen correct diagnosis for my in-the-end-not-actually-a-"back"-issue, I saw an osteopath (of all things, and he did, in fact, come off like a quack) who suggested I had what I had originally self-diagnosed myself with before seeing the doctors who convinced me otherwise --a sacroiliac joint dysfunction--and then (after wasting some thankfully-s…
I saw two otolaryngologists. One was an arrogant prick who said I had allergies despite having an extreme left lateralization Weber test, the other found what I suspected from research: SCDS visible on a CT scan requiring forthcoming invasive brain surgery to repair it. It has nothing to do with MD, DO, or RN but the skill, wisdom, and professionalism of a specific provider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just gonna quote the last paragraph in the article (which really should have been the first for folks unwilling to read the whole thing); > I get it, you’re going to occasionally hear a friend say that chiropractic helped him de-clutter his alcove or do 87 sun salutations… but that’s an anecdote, and data is more important, and trustworthy than anecdotes. The data on chiropractic supports that the practice is not…
The problem is that that doesn't actually mean "chiropractors are useless"--as it is too focused on what they are claiming to sell rather than what they are capable of--nor certainly does it mean "doctors are effective" (and, if you actually look at the studies, most of the interventions performed by orthopedic surgeons are apparently at best no better than just getting physical therapy and at worst ridiculously horr…
Get an inversion table, a strong masseuse, sublingual CBD tincture, some shots of vodka, and a scrip for baclofen. Problem solved without snakeoil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, But I've also had some success with chiropractic. There is some wackiness to avoid out there (the ones who treat it like a spirituality), but the one I go to currently takes a disciplined approach. They only target a few specific places based on thermal scans on the spine. Their argument is that subluxations (misalignment of the vertebrae) impair nerve function, kind of like having a kink in a hose. Misaligne…
> Their argument is that subluxations (misalignment of the vertebrae) impair nerve function, kind of like having a kink in a hose. And this "theory" is--pardon the expression--complete horseshit that's unsupported by any scientific evidence. The article actually covers this topic at some length, including the fact that this "theory" regarding subluxations was discovered through the very scientific practice of seance.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’d like to see some scientific studies proving chiropractic adjustments are harmful. The burden of proof lies very much in the other direction.
No, that's not how burden of proof works. The default assumption is that a given event has zero effect. If you want to assert that it's actively harmful then the burden is on you to show that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's not how burden of proof works. The default assumption is that a given event has zero effect. If you want to assert that it's actively harmful then the burden is on you to show that.
Which is why we let people sell anything they want as medicine until someone proves it's harmful... Oh wait that's the opposite of how it works. Medical procedures have to go through a rigorous approval process to prove they are safe, or at least better than no treatment.