Doctor of Chiropractic?

Off Topic
141

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:

Your comparison of food and medicine, in my opinion, is also way off base and I think should be reconsidered.

My question about medicine was to ask how you deal with medical intervention on your own body. If you have a condition that isn’t life threatening, for example, would you take medicine to fix it immediately or run a trial of lifestyle modification first? Would you ever put your child on Prozac or Adderall?
[/quote]

Please feel free to help me reconsider. What are your objections? What should I reconsider?

Re: Non-life-threatening: For example, Wednesday night I did some boxing, bear crawls, and other things that left me VERY sore Thursday morning. My neck and shoulders hurt (muscular). When I woke up, I took some pain-killers and warmed-up, did some stretches. At night, before sleep, I took the same pain-killers again and put some icy-hot-style cream on my neck.
…is this what you are looking for? I used both medicine and exercise to limit pain. I plan to do mobility drills and other “shoulder saver” exercises today for longevity in weightlifting.

I’m not familiar with prozac (no experience or research), but I would certainly consider ADHD medication if my child were afflicted. I’ve seen other children for whom the medicine worked well. What are you getting at?[/quote]

You and I seem to just hold different opinions on medication. I typically avoid medication when not necessary and will usually just wear the discomfort or pain. To be fair, I also can usually receive some sort of Chiropractic care within a short period of time at no cost. My question was a sort of probe to see how readily you would take medication or give it to your children. Testy said something to the tune of, it is a lot different when your child is the statistic, which resonates with me.

Food and medicine serve two completely different purposes. Food in the body creates a situation in which physiological processes can continue. Pharmaceuticals, OTC or otherwise, either modify a physiological process or block a pathological process. Medicine in the body always comes with unintended consequences of varying severity. Aspirin inhibits the pathway for creation of prostaglandins to relieve pain, but it also inhibits pumps in the stomach causing ulcers. Food can also have unintended consequences, but only when abused.

I would certainly not judge those in pain for taking pain killers or muscle relaxers, but I would advise them, if at all possible, to use them sparingly. This only goes for pain medication as it would be illegal for me to tamper with dosing of prescribed medicine.

As always, feel free to let me know if I’ve caused any confusion or am talking out of my ass. Please keep in mind that I in no way represent the Chiropractic profession as a whole, but I do hope that what I’m saying represents myself accurately.

142

First, thanks for taking the time to write that. I hardly know anything about D.C. and I think I’m learning.

I’ll try to get to as much of this as I can, but then I’m off for the weekend w/o internet access, so hopefully I can puck this up next week if you (or others) still have time.

I wrote:[quote]Please explain your professional beliefs about vaccinations (not personal). Please explain why your doctoral-level schooling has left you unable to make a professional determination/recommendation (I believe you said you wanted to do more study) and please answer if you think advising about vaccinations is within or outside the scope of D.C.s. Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t know if you have answered this yet specifically.

The reason I’m asking these questions is because so many D.C.s (including the one who got me thinking about this and thus started this thread) are marketing themselves as “doctors” and not really explaining the difference in-between and MD and a DC. They ARE giving medical advice that I believe is outside of their professional purview, and doing so under the mantra of “doctor” (coughDC-not-MDcough). Vaccinations seem to cut to the heart of my concern. I don’t see a science-based defense of advising against taking vaccinations. Nor do I see a science-based rationale for highlighting the “cons” while limiting the explanation of the “pros”. [/quote]

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
http://www.acatoday.org/level2_css.cfm?ID=10&T1ID=10&T2ID=117&searchQuery=vaccination#firstSearchHit

This is the ACAs public policy for anyone who is interested.

On vaccination:
Resolved, that the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) recognize and advise the public that:
Since the scientific community acknowledges that the use of vaccines is not without risk, the American Chiropractic Association supports each individual’s right to freedom of choice in his/her own health care based on an informed awareness of the benefits and possible adverse effects of VACCINATION. The ACA is supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory VACCINATION laws thereby maintaining an individual’s right to freedom of choice in health care matters and providing an alternative elective course of action regarding VACCINATION. (Ratified by the House of Delegates, July 1993, Revised and Ratified June 1998).

Is this consistent to what I said before?[/quote]

This is consistent. However, you have not come close to answering my questions. I cannot help but note there was no attempt at a scientific explanation. My understanding is that this is a common issue with D.C.s.

Would you consider yourself to be a “mixer?”

[quote]The rhetoric of Mixers indicates that they are attempting to become accepted into the scientific mainstream, rather than replace scientifically based medicine with a philosophy based approach. They no longer openly oppose immunization, like straights do, but they do advocate the freedom to choose whether or not to be immunized. Their appeal to freedom is emotionally effective, especially in the United States, but it fails to recognize that immunization is far less effective in eliminating or containing infectious diseases when it is not given to everyone. They also advocate a role for chiropractors as a primary care portal of entry system within HealthCare, despite the fact that they lack adequate training as generalists skilled in medical diagnosis.[/quote] Chiropractic – A Brief Overview, Part I | Science-Based Medicine

143

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
You and I seem to just hold different opinions on medication. I typically avoid medication when not necessary and will usually just wear the discomfort or pain. To be fair, I also can usually receive some sort of Chiropractic care within a short period of time at no cost. My question was a sort of probe to see how readily you would take medication or give it to your children. Testy said something to the tune of, it is a lot different when your child is the statistic, which resonates with me.

Food and medicine serve two completely different purposes. Food in the body creates a situation in which physiological processes can continue. Pharmaceuticals, OTC or otherwise, either modify a physiological process or block a pathological process. Medicine in the body always comes with unintended consequences of varying severity. Aspirin inhibits the pathway for creation of prostaglandins to relieve pain, but it also inhibits pumps in the stomach causing ulcers. Food can also have unintended consequences, but only when abused.

I would certainly not judge those in pain for taking pain killers or muscle relaxers, but I would advise them, if at all possible, to use them sparingly. This only goes for pain medication as it would be illegal for me to tamper with dosing of prescribed medicine.

As always, feel free to let me know if I’ve caused any confusion or am talking out of my ass. Please keep in mind that I in no way represent the Chiropractic profession as a whole, but I do hope that what I’m saying represents myself accurately.
[/quote]

I’m certainly not qualified to discuss “what medicine is” but perhaps you could share your ideas. Where is the line you are drawing between food and medicine? Is coffee food? What about a caffeine pill? I “eat/use” whey protein every day; I consider it food. What about you? Other supplements? I often drink beer, is it a drug? Medicine? or Food?

Also, why did you bring up ADHD medication earlier? Do you feel D.C.s are qualified to offer their opinions on these drugs? THis would be another case where I would think that a D.C.s education is inadequate to offer a professional opinion.

144

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
First, thanks for taking the time to write that. I hardly know anything about D.C. and I think I’m learning.

I’ll try to get to as much of this as I can, but then I’m off for the weekend w/o internet access, so hopefully I can puck this up next week if you (or others) still have time.

I wrote:[quote]Please explain your professional beliefs about vaccinations (not personal). Please explain why your doctoral-level schooling has left you unable to make a professional determination/recommendation (I believe you said you wanted to do more study) and please answer if you think advising about vaccinations is within or outside the scope of D.C.s. Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t know if you have answered this yet specifically.

The reason I’m asking these questions is because so many D.C.s (including the one who got me thinking about this and thus started this thread) are marketing themselves as “doctors” and not really explaining the difference in-between and MD and a DC. They ARE giving medical advice that I believe is outside of their professional purview, and doing so under the mantra of “doctor” (coughDC-not-MDcough). Vaccinations seem to cut to the heart of my concern. I don’t see a science-based defense of advising against taking vaccinations. Nor do I see a science-based rationale for highlighting the “cons” while limiting the explanation of the “pros”. [/quote]

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
http://www.acatoday.org/level2_css.cfm?ID=10&T1ID=10&T2ID=117&searchQuery=vaccination#firstSearchHit

This is the ACAs public policy for anyone who is interested.

On vaccination:
Resolved, that the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) recognize and advise the public that:
Since the scientific community acknowledges that the use of vaccines is not without risk, the American Chiropractic Association supports each individual’s right to freedom of choice in his/her own health care based on an informed awareness of the benefits and possible adverse effects of VACCINATION. The ACA is supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory VACCINATION laws thereby maintaining an individual’s right to freedom of choice in health care matters and providing an alternative elective course of action regarding VACCINATION. (Ratified by the House of Delegates, July 1993, Revised and Ratified June 1998).

Is this consistent to what I said before?[/quote]

This is consistent. However, you have not come close to answering my questions. I cannot help but note there was no attempt at a scientific explanation. My understanding is that this is a common issue with D.C.s.

Would you consider yourself to be a “mixer?”

[quote]The rhetoric of Mixers indicates that they are attempting to become accepted into the scientific mainstream, rather than replace scientifically based medicine with a philosophy based approach. They no longer openly oppose immunization, like straights do, but they do advocate the freedom to choose whether or not to be immunized. Their appeal to freedom is emotionally effective, especially in the United States, but it fails to recognize that immunization is far less effective in eliminating or containing infectious diseases when it is not given to everyone. They also advocate a role for chiropractors as a primary care portal of entry system within HealthCare, despite the fact that they lack adequate training as generalists skilled in medical diagnosis.[/quote] Chiropractic – A Brief Overview, Part I | Science-Based Medicine

[/quote]

I don’t understand what you want a scientific explanation of. DC public policy on vaccinations is to advise patients they have a choice because vaccines may cause adverse reactions (which they do, which is not rebutted). Patients (almost) always have a choice of what a practitioner does to them. If DCs are influencing patients decisions on vaccinations they are acting on their own accord and, from the way I see it, outside of the public policy of the ACA and what was taught in Chiropractic curriculum. We are also taught not to claim to cure visceral ailments. Unfortunately, some do not follow the rules, which should not be a reflection on me, just as I am not upon them.

I don’t associate myself with being straight or mixer or any of that other nonsense. Labeling myself as any of those would be exactly that, a label. I will be an neuromusculoskeletal specialist dealing with conditions affecting that system using the various techniques and modalities at my disposal. Articles on the website you posted that are relevant to Chiropractic are from what I’ve seen all dismissive and insulting. Peer review can be done without sinking to that level. Posters on that site and some other posters here have tried to pigeonhole both myself and the Chiropractic profession with little to no knowledge of it.

Kelly Starrett is a DPT and coach who created mobilityWOD. The majority of his exercises focus on some sort of MFR and static stretching–two things people cry have inconclusive literature. His rebuttal is perfect, test then retest, you be the judge. Any Chiro should have objective findings that they are trying to change. If they don’t, they aren’t doing their job. “Patient feels better” isn’t a successful treatment. “Patient is able to squat without hip pain” or “Patient ROM restored to equal bilaterally” is what we look for.

“They also advocate a role for chiropractors as a primary care portal of entry system within HealthCare, despite the fact that they lack adequate training as generalists skilled in medical diagnosis.” I would be interested to know how the author came to this conclusion.

145

Bird’s 2 cents:

I studied a science based degree for 5 years and I am a keen fan of evidence based science. However I visit a osteopath(who started off by doing his chiro degree) about once a month for various back troubles I have (usually lower back). He was recommended by my girlfriend, and I was very sceptical as I had visited chiros previously before and they offered me very little relief.

I dont know what this guy exactly does but it involves me lying on my stomach while he pushes and prods my back, and does a few cracks here and there, and I am 100% convinced that whatever he does helps.

Im now without lower back pain 90% of the time, and will continue to visit this guy at least once a month

tweet

146

I only heard the terms straights and mixers one time. In a chiro history class the first semester of school. Tons of old info out there from tons of old docs. Imagine doctors performing bleedings to treat infection while antibiotics exist. There are dinosaurs in this profession too.

In the course of any education personal opinions are injected.
What is important is when tested in class, or by the certifying
body, the most widely held, evidence based position is the correct
answer. That is my experience in class, and on national chiro boards.

It is the responsibility of those entering the profession now to promote and publish the most current research as well as dismissing that which is no longer held to be true.

History of many of the pioneers of systems and schools are an entertaining read. They are fun to discuss in class when compared to techniques and educational requirements of today. Some of those old tech films are crazy violent and draw no shortage of covered eyes and cringing in history class.

People skeptical of chiropractic care are only drawing those conclusions because of the professions anemic efforts to promote the latest research, and certainly it’s lack of visibility in mainstream healthcare systems. A lot of time has been spent making excuses about suppression and monopoly. Wilk vs the AMA was long ago. Time to research and publish harder and faster.

Chiropractic is a conservative and practical approach to treat and prevent muscle and joint problems.
Sometimes a more aggressive approach like surgery is appropriate.

The currently educational system teaches just that. If you have a patient who is not being helped by conservative care, you refer them up the chain. Anyone who doesn’t do that puts the patient an their license at risk.

147

1st, thanks again for your time.
2nd, one of my posts seems to have disappeared…oh well, maybe I didn’t post it properly before leaving for the weekend.

A quick post:

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:

I don’t understand what you want a scientific explanation of. [/quote]

I’d like a scientific explanation of your claims:

Do you offer the same advice regarding chiropractic procedures? Aren’t the incidences of adverse reactions to vaccines LESS THAN those of adverse reactions to chiropractic treatment?

Are their licences being stripped? I start this thread because of a chiropractor making pubic claims that mastectomies (or at least AJ’s) are unnecessary and that vaccines are not needed. Is he in any danger of having his licence stripped from him? If he was an MD, would it be?

Can you use science-based explanations to refute their claims?

Kelly Starrett is a Doctor of Physical Therapy {DPT), not a Doctor of Chiropractic. From what I understand a DPTs do use science-based medicine. Are you arguing that your profession needs to learn from Physical Therapists?

Thanks for the link by the way, it looks like a great website.

Which conclusion? That they are advocating for a role in Primary care portal or that they lack adequate training as generalists skilled in medical diagnosis?

Are you claiming that a DC has adequate training as a generalist skilled in medical diagnosis?