All your questions about CHIROPRACTIC answered (1 Viewer)

[extensorindicis]

Assendelft WJJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG. Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 1.

Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain
Results: Spinal manipulative therapy had no statistically or clinically significant advantage over general practitioner care, analgesics, physical therapy, exercises, or back school

Chiropractic: a critical evaluation. [J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008] - PubMed Result

- With the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition. Manipulation is associated with frequent mild adverse effects and with serious complications of unknown incidence. Its cost-effectiveness has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. The concepts of chiropractic are not based on solid science and its therapeutic value has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation -- Ernst and Canter 99 (4): 192 -- JRSM

- The conclusions of these reviews were largely negative, except for back pain where spinal manipulation was considered superior to sham manipulation but not better than conventional treatments.

Manual Therapies for Pain Control: Chiropractic and Massage : The Clinical Journal of Pain

- Results: Six systematic reviews were found, 4 of chiropractic and 2 of massage therapy. Promising evidence emerged from some of these reviews but neither for chiropractic nor for massage was there fully convincing evidence for effectiveness in controlling musculoskeletal or other pain.

- Discussion: The notion that chiropractic or massage are effective interventions for pain control has not been demonstrated convincingly through rigorous clinical trials.


can you explain these articles and how it contradicts the new philosophy to which you subscribe to?

 

[extensorindicis]

Thanks for acknowledging that the hypothesis being taught at Macquarie university is scientific and feasible, I am happy I was able to clear up that common misconception.

I mean no disrespect here, but can you please elaborate on what you mean in the text that I have made bold? Just want to also explain my point of view on the issue and maybe we can come to a common and logical understanding?

K.

Kaz.n i am in no position to evaluate mac's chiro program, nor do i know that is scientific or feasible. I am just going on what you said mac's chiro program teaches it's chiro students about the modern chiro philosphy. And basically from your definition, to me and im no expert, but it sounds like the original chiro philosophy, without the use of the term subluxation.

"A more moderate hypothesis would suggest that spinal manipulation results in the optimal biomechanical function of the spine at a segmental level hence delaying the onset of degenerative disease (which is inevitable but exacerbated by poor biomechanics), decrease in pain (due to an increase in proprioceptive input) etc."

Like spinal manip would obviously be required if something is not right, so in tis defintion, in essense your trying to correct a deformity aka subluxation to obtain optimal biomech function of spine etc etc like i'm not saying this subluxation causes asthma cancer etc, you've moved away from that, but why is spinal manipulation required?

I simply agreed with your article's findings.

I'm not saying physio treatment > than chiro, i am just saying this whole philosophy, behind your treatment is not backed up with science. And i agree time is much better spent.

EDIT: Kazn with regards to physio articles, its fairly difficult as physio has not been questioned outright like chiro, all i can find is its effectivness for things such as keen osteoporosis to lymphodema, like individual illnesses...

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yapmr/article/PIIS0003999308004644/abstract

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/140408.php

 

[:kaz.n:]

Wow now that is alot of reading. If I have the time I will get to it tommorow after uni when I am more fresh (it is nearly 1.30am now) and help clarify things. But just from the parts you have copied and pasted it seems that there is not enough research for or against any one modality and that definately more research is needed.

My intention is not to tell you that chiropractic is more effective than physiotherapy or some other form of treatment. My objective is to inform people that chiropractic has a clinical effect and you can have a rewarding career as a chiropractor and really help patients functionality and aid in pain releif- make a difference in their lives for the better. The same attributes can be enjoyed by a physiotherapist, physiatrist, osteopath etc. If we work together and combine of specialisations, we can be even more effective.

Here are some studies I found interesting:

Modulation of the flexion-relaxation response by s...[J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009 Mar-Apr] - PubMed Result
[...]2.68 deaths/10,000,000 manipulations. CONCLUSION: There is no robust data concerning the incidence or prevalence of adverse reactions after chiropractic. Further investigations are urgently needed to assess definite conclusions regarding this issue.

Safety of chiropractic interventions: a systematic...[Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009] - PubMed Result
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that lumbar spine manipulation can, at least for a brief period, modulate stabilizing neuromuscular responses of the lumbar spine in a group of patients with low back pain.
Chiropractic treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: ...[J Chiropr Med. 2009] - PubMed Result
CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of evidence available with respect to chiropractic treatment of spinal stenosis. The limited evidence that is available points toward chiropractic care being potentially beneficial in the treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, but further clinical investigations are necessary.

[Relationship between irritable bowel syndrome and...[Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2009] - PubMed Result
It is a simple and effective way by manipulation on thoracolumbar vertebrae to release compression and stimulation on peripheral nerve and vascular for treating this disease.

 

[:kaz.n:]

Kaz.n i am in no position to evaluate mac's chiro program, nor do i know that is scientific or feasible. I am just going on what you said mac's chiro program teaches it's chiro students about the modern chiro philosphy. And basically from your definition, to me and im no expert, but it sounds like the original chiro philosophy, without the use of the term subluxation.

"A more moderate hypothesis would suggest that spinal manipulation results in the optimal biomechanical function of the spine at a segmental level hence delaying the onset of degenerative disease (which is inevitable but exacerbated by poor biomechanics), decrease in pain (due to an increase in proprioceptive input) etc."

Like spinal manip would obviously be required if something is not right, so in tis defintion, in essense your trying to correct a deformity aka subluxation to obtain optimal biomech function of spine etc etc like i'm not saying this subluxation causes asthma cancer etc, you've moved away from that, but why is spinal manipulation required?

I simply agreed with your article's findings.

I'm not saying physio treatment > than chiro, i am just saying this whole philosophy, behind your treatment is not backed up with science. And i agree time is much better spent.

EDIT: Kazn with regards to physio articles, its fairly difficult as physio has not been questioned outright like chiro, all i can find is its effectivness for things such as keen osteoporosis to lymphodema, like individual illnesses...

Spinal manipulation is not always required, some chiropractors choose not to manipulate the spine at all and choose only to concentrate on soft tissue manipulation.

 

[extensorindicis]

video lecture about the skeptism by an aneasthetist.

http://www.ebm-first.com/link.php?link=1608

 

[extensorindicis]

Nice articles kaz, yeah some of my articles could go either way i guess. yeah definitely the chance of having a stroke after going to a chiro is extremely extremely low, but still exists. I admit i used it as a arguments to stave of attacks from mr bored

btw you have some seriously recent articles, i just used google lol

yeah i know spinals are just one treatment provided by chiros and also you can defintly have a very rewarding career as a chiro treating patients and helping them.

The question arises where this treatment actually has results, not just placebos, articles for and against can be found but i don;t think we'll ever reach a conclusion, but rather our personal predilections will elucidate a view that benefits our own views.



good night kaz.n

 

[:kaz.n:]

Nice articles kaz, yeah some of my articles could go either way i guess. yeah definitely the chance of having a stroke after going to a chiro is extremely extremely low, but still exists. I admit i used it as a arguments to stave of attacks from mr bored

btw you have some seriously recent articles, i just used google lol

yeah i know spinals are just one treatment provided by chiros so yeah


good night kaz.n

Haha no worries mate,

Good night.

 

[BoREd^7]

Nice articles kaz, yeah some of my articles could go either way i guess. yeah definitely the chance of having a stroke after going to a chiro is extremely extremely low, but still exists. I admit i used it as a arguments to stave of attacks from mr bored

btw you have some seriously recent articles, i just used google lol

yeah i know spinals are just one treatment provided by chiros and also you can defintly have a very rewarding career as a chiro treating patients and helping them.

The question arises where this treatment actually has results, not just placebos, articles for and against can be found but i don;t think we'll ever reach a conclusion, but rather our personal predilections will elucidate a view that benefits our own views.

I got to admit, i came back to reply to an older message of yours in the same styleof manner we've been at for last coupleof days, but after (thankfully) reading further i think i weren't.

I am just thankful your looking at reality in more unbiased manner

Congratulations (no sarcasm intended)

 

[BoREd^7]

in essense your trying to correct a deformity aka subluxation to obtain optimal biomech function of spine etc etc like i'm not saying this subluxation causes asthma cancer etc, you've moved away from that, but why is spinal manipulation required?

I'm not saying physio treatment > than chiro, i am just saying this whole philosophy, behind your treatment is not backed up with science. And i agree time is much better spent.

You have to understand a couple of things here,

1. Asthma - some people gain relief (not cure) from symptoms after treatment because chiro usually focus on whole body, and once posture is improved and exercises to help better utilize the diaphragm muscles, some patients find relief in their symptoms, but no one cures asthma (not even medicine, all treatment is a management of symptoms), and no chiro will tell you to throw away that ventalin

2. Cancer - unfortunately this one stems back to primitive medical days. It would be too lengthy to explain this in its full entirety how this came to be associated with chiro.

3. I agree with you that the old philosophy is not backed up by science. But unfortunately it can not be disprove at the moment either. No profession is still able to unravel the complexity of human nervous system, and all our current knowledge is still only hypothesis and theories. Perhaps as PET scans become more sensitive we may know more.

But in the end, this is where chiro's are themselves to blame! Instead of moving on from primitive days, a proportion chose to keep that explanation/definition. And since it got so popular, and so widespread in short period of time. In addition there is still some animosity from various med doctors (usually the older ones) who will use that old description when explaining to patients what chiro does to paint a more negative view. That is why it is still circulated around to date.

 

[n8r]

Chiropractors don't raise stroke risk, study says - The Globe and Mail

No association between Chiro care and causation of stroke, there you go extensor

 

[Kwayera]

1. Asthma - some people gain relief (not cure) from symptoms after treatment because chiro usually focus on whole body, and once posture is improved and exercises to help better utilize the diaphragm muscles, some patients find relief in their symptoms, but no one cures asthma (not even medicine, all treatment is a management of symptoms), and no chiro will tell you to throw away that ventalin

That's not the case at all (and asthma has nothing to do with the diaphragm and posture). Patients find relief because they expect to. It's 100% placeboid.

 

[Kwayera]

Chiropractors don't raise stroke risk, study says - The Globe and Mail

No association between Chiro care and causation of stroke, there you go extensor

Um. The study that is quoted in the article is one that was published in the journal Spine. A single study, which contradicts others that have been previously undertaken.

 

[n8r]

That's not the case at all (and asthma has nothing to do with the diaphragm and posture). Patients find relief because they expect to. It's 100% placeboid.

Improving the muscles of respiration and similarly posture can have a positive benefit upon respiration( try crouching over or tucking your chin downto your chest it is much harder to breathe).

Manual therapy for asthma

Here is a study from the Cochrane organisation on manual therapy for the treatment of asthma. Generally most manual therapists( osteo chiros physios) treat asthma by postural and soft tissue techniques, However there is no solid evidence to support or refute its benefits or lack thereof.
So from a personal point of view I do not believe manual therapists can not CURE organic conditions such as asthma but more so co-manage the symptoms with concurrent traditional treatments (puffer etc).To understand this model of treament you must understand the physiology and anatomy behind inspiration and expiration in which several soft tissue structures elevate and depress the rib cage assisting in breathing.

 

[BoREd^7]

Um. The study that is quoted in the article is one that was published in the journal Spine. A single study, which contradicts others that have been previously undertaken.

Actually there are... just means you were too lazy, biased, etc to consider looking for information

Heres a free access one that summarises the misrepresentation of stroke in medical literature: http://www.thespineandhealthcenter.com/web/pdf/r35.pdf

 

[BoREd^7]

That's not the case at all (and asthma has nothing to do with the diaphragm and posture). Patients find relief because they expect to. It's 100% placeboid.

So what happens when patient is being seen for a different problem (where asthma was never mentioned). So how is it they expect to gain relief?

I think n8r best put it, you have no understanding of physiology or anatomy, and these types of comments are really getting tiring!