JP Fitness Forums powered by fitness insite  
Google
 
Web forums.jpfitness.com

Go Back   JP Fitness Forums > Fitness > Injuries and Rehab
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Injuries and Rehab Tell us where it hurts! Do a quick search before asking about your shoulder injury to make sure your question hasn't already been answered (about 50 times), and read the sticky post first.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-05-2003, 01:01 PM   #1 (permalink)
Bill Hartman Certified
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,177
Post

Since the topic of chiropractic has reared its head in JP's injury post, I thought it best to divert it to its own post as it is certainly a topic in itself.

Now, let me say I have nothing against chiropractic. Many people get better after treatment. I spend a great deal of time with DC's as part of my ART training and many of them are brilliant thinkers, scientists, and rehabilitators.

On the other hand, many of them are quacks (this is just as in any other profession). This unfortunately reflects on the entire profession. It seems wackos in any profession get more attention (mainly cause you can't shoot them without consequences ).

So you can understand some of the burdens of proof faced by the chiropractic profession, I've stolen this from piece on quackwatch.com. You'll see why many chiros fight the uphill battle in the medical field:

"The word chiropractic literally means "done by hand." The term was adopted by chiropractic's founder, Daniel David Palmer. Palmer was a layman with an intense interest in metaphysical health philosophies such as magnetic healing (Mesmer's "animal magnetism"), phrenology, and spiritualism. In 1895, he claimed to have restored the hearing of a nearly deaf janitor by manipulating the man's spine.

Obsessed with uncovering "the primary cause of disease," Palmer theorized that "95 percent of all disease" was caused by spinal "subluxations" (partial dislocations) and the rest by "luxated bones elsewhere in the body." Palmer speculated that subluxations impinged upon spinal nerves, impeding their function, and that this led to disease. He taught that medical diagnosis was unnecessary, that one need only correct the subluxations to liberate the body's own natural healing forces. He disdained physicians for treating only symptoms, alleging that, in contrast, his system corrected the cause of disease.

Palmer did not employ the term subluxation in its medical sense, but with a metaphysical, pantheistic meaning. He believed that the subluxations interfered with the body's expression, of the "Universal Intelligence" (God), which Palmer dubbed the "Innate Intelligence." (soul, spirit, or spark of life). [9] Palmer's notion of having discovered a way to manipulate metaphysical life force is sometimes referred to as his "biotheology."

Scientific Shortcomings
Chiropractors commonly claim that their isolation from the health science mainstream results from organized medicine's opposition. Chiropractic propagandists have made much of a 1987 court decision that found the American Medical Association and others guilty of illegally boycotting chiropractors. But the Wilk case did not uncover any secret conspiracy by doctors to destroy chiropractic. It merely examined whether or not the AMA's ethical prohibition against voluntary professional association with nonscientific healthcare providers violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. On August 27, 1987, District judge Susan Getzendanner decided that it did. She stated in her decision, however, that the AMA's ethical prohibition was not economically motivated, but was based upon the AMA's belief that chiropractic care was did not serve the best interest of patients [10]

Palmer can be forgiven for his nineteenth-century misconceptions, but his followers cannot be excused for failing to avail themselves of the scientific advances of the twentieth century to test chiropractic theory and practice. In fact, chiropractors have never defined a subluxation in measurable terms, nor shown that it even exists. Despite the ability of neurophysiologists to measure nerve impulses, chiropractors have not shown that impinging a spinal nerve alters an impulse beyond the zone of impingement, nor have they shown that disrupting a nerve impulse produces disease. Yale University anatomist Edmund Crelin, Ph.D., demonstrated that only a disabling spinal injury could produce the impingement that Palmer posited as the basis for chiropractic [11].

But laboratory failings do not daunt chiropractors. They argue that no one fully understands the mechanisms of many effective medical procedures. As clinicians they feel capable of detecting subluxations subjectively, even if objective methods for doing so are lacking. However, chiropractors have yet to pass a test of interexaminer reliability. Studies of the ability of two or more chiropractors to find the same subluxation(s) on either the same x-ray film or in the same patients have demonstrated that chiropractors cannot even agree among themselves about what specific conditions need treatment [12-16].

In the mid-1960s, an official delegation of chiropractic representatives, including a radiologist of their own choosing, failed to identify a single subluxation on a series of 20 x-ray films that had been submitted for insurance reimbursement to the National Association of Letter Carriers [14]. In 1972, the Medicare law was amended to include chiropractic care for "subluxations demonstrated by x-rays to exist." A 1986 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services revealed that many payments for chiropractors do not meet this legal requirement [17]. The fact that the federal government does not enforce the rules it has established for chiropractors raises the question of a double standard. Is there one standard for science-based medicine and another for nonscientific practitioners with political savvy?

Chiropractors not only find subluxations as elusive as the mythical unicorn, but they also disagree wildly about how to go about treating them. Some believe that each vertebral level corresponds to a specific disorder. Others believe that it is necessary to manipulate only the seven cervical vertebrae to effect a cure. "Hole-in-one" (their term) practitioners believe that it is necessary to adjust only the atlas (topmost) vertebra. Basic sacral chiropractors agree that only one vertebra needs to be adjusted, but rather than the topmost, it is the sacrum, located at the bottom of the spine. Still another group adjusts both the atlas and sacral vertebrae. Others adjust the entire spine in a shotgun approach, while another group measures leg lengths in order to level up the spine. No scientific criteria have been applied to resolve these conditions.

Anyone visiting a number of chiropractors will be confronted with a bewildering variety of pseudoscientific diagnostic procedures. In 1981 Mark Brown, a reporter for the Quad City Times, spent five months visiting chiropractors in the Davenport, Iowa, area (the birthplace of chiropractic). Diagnostic methods included placing a potato on his chest and pressing down on his arm (applied kinesiology), projecting lines on his back to read body contours (Moire contour analysis), reading the iris and comparing markings with a chart (iridology), measuring leg lengths for unevenness (one chiropractor said Brown's right leg was shorter, another said his left leg was shorter) , measuring skin surface temperature differences, and palpation [16]. Other dubious diagnostic methods used by some chiropractors include pendulum divining, electroacupuncture, reflexology, hair analysis, herbal crystallization analysis, computerized "nutritional deficiency" questionnaires, a cytotoxic food allergy test, and the Reams urine and saliva test.

Chiropractors also employ a wide variety of pseudomedical therapies. Magnetic therapy (placing magnets on the body), homeopathy, herbology, colonics, colored-light therapy, megavitamin therapy, radionics (black box devices), bilateral nasal specifics (inserting a balloon in the nose and inflating it), and cranial manipulation are but a few of the unfounded therapies employed by various chiropractors.

A 1988 trade survey found that 74% of chiropractors in the United States use nutrition supplements in their practices [18]. Many prescribe and sell these directly to patients -- a practice that is generally regarded as unethical in the medical profession.

Chiropractors promote themselves as "drugless practitioners," capitalizing on the restrictions against the use of drugs or surgery that lawmakers have placed upon them. The word drug has several definitions. Included are: articles listed in several recognized official United States pharmacopoeias; articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animals; articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body [19]. In 1987 the supreme court of Georgia ruled that because chiropractors were licensed as drugless practitioners, they could not prescribe dietary supplements for the prevention or treatment of any condition. Not long afterward, the legislature reacted to chiropractic lobbying by passing a law permitting chiropractors to recommend dietary supplements to their patients, but not to prescribe them as drugs.

The use of x-rays by chiropractors is a related issue. Chiropractors often expose the whole body trunk to x-ray radiation. Since radiation effects are cumulative, exposing patients to radiation always involves a serious benefit-risk evaluation. Chiropractors often justify their use of X-rays as a means of screening patients for serious disease, but a recent probability study by a chiropractic radiologist reveals that full-spine x-rays are twice as likely to induce cancer as to discover it in a patient [20]."

Bill Hartman, HARTMAN certified
Bill Hartman is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2003, 02:19 PM   #2 (permalink)
MudFud
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,061
Post

As a student in interventional research (as opposed to observational research), I have to say that I'm not overly concerned with _how_ something works, insofar as I need to understand the "how" in order to determine an appropriate control for an experiment. I am completely open to the fact that we really may not understand chiropractic principles, or that even the chiropractic community truly understands its own principles (i.e. perhaps manual adjustments _do_ do something, but the theories of the chiropractic community are wrong). What I'm interested in is _whether_ chiropractic works or not, and what its place in the overall care of a patient should be.

Let's face it, "Western" medicine (I really hate that term) has only recently (recent relative to hundreds of years) begun to used evidence-based approaches to its own practice. There are so many therapies that are used that have real sound grounding in evidence-based work. The vast majority of orthopaedics, for instance, is still based primarily on techniques developed, mostly ad hoc, from the two world wars. Lithium is still used as an anti-depressant, even though no one is sure how lithium works.

The difference between lithium and chiropractic, however, is that although we don't know how lithium works, we do know that lithium DOES work when compared against a placebo. And there are an increasing number of trials being conducted with surgical techniques and interventions (and yes, some of them are against placebo surgeries).

What I find most frustrating with most vocal proponents of chiropractic is a seeming complete LACK of willingness to put their practice to the test--that somehow, the "Western" _research_ paradigm (i.e. that the randomized control trial is the gold standard in interventional research) is insufficient to fully substantiate or disprove the practices that are being used on clients of chiropractic. Instead, there is still heavy heavy emphasis on case studies and longitudinal cohorts. Case studies are great for preliminary findings. You couldn't justify a full out randomized control trial if you didn't have _some_ preliminary, non-controlled studies showing that a therapy had promise. But once there's a sign of promise, there are very few reasons that researchers should produce more non-randomized, non-control studies.

For instance, in my own research area, which is the application of shockwaves to tendons to relieve tendon-related pain, no one knows why this technology works. It was discovered by accident during early kidney stone lithotripsy (where they pulsed shockwaves through water to dissolve kidney stones). Once the preliminary studies were published and a "critical" mass of case studies and group studies had been done, people started doing randomized control trials. Sure, there's the occasional cohort study still, but, in about 3-5 years, I think we'll have a good idea of whether shockwave therapy will work for "tendonitis" or not, and if it does (which it seems to), WHO should be getting it. I suspect in 3-5 years, we still won't have any really good answers as to why it works--since we understand so little about tendons in the first place, but as long as there are no significant side-effects, and it's an effective treatment, we can worry about the "why" later.

So, for me, it's not really _that_ important that we find and define a subluxation, as long as we can define the controls properly. It's time for the chiropractic community to take the heat, or get out of the kitchen.
__________________
Evidence-Based Fitness -- Critical Reviews of Fitness Research http://evidencebasedfitness.bl ogspot.com
bryanc is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2003, 03:07 PM   #3 (permalink)
sssssSuper Moderator
 
russ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Toronto,ON
Posts: 5,007
Post

Quote:
Since the topic of chiropractic has reared its head in JP's injury post, I thought it best to divert it to its own post as it is certainly a topic in itself.

Now, let me say I have nothing against chiropractic. Many people get better after treatment. I spend a great deal of time with DC's as part of my ART training and many of them are brilliant thinkers, scientists, and rehabilitators.

On the other hand, many of them are quacks (this is just as in any other profession). This unfortunately reflects on the entire profession. It seems wackos in any profession get more attention
Bill:
I have read a bit (not a lot) about DPT's in the U.S. My understanding is that their scope will be similar to that of DC's and that they will also be portal of entry practitioners. PT's have generally enjoyed a stronger relationship with mainstream health care than DC's have and aren't encumbered with philosophical baggage which accompanies Chiropractic (as discussed in your initial post). DPT's would seem to be in a position to usurp a lot of business from DC's, from my point of view. However, I'm guessing that you know an awful lot more than I do about this issue and I would appreciate hearing your opinion.
russ is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2003, 05:07 PM   #4 (permalink)
Bill Hartman Certified
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,177
Post

(I have problems with the DPT concept in general...but that's another story)

In most states, PT's have some form of direct access already (of course, I live in Indiana which happens to be one of about 4 states [i don't remember how many are left] that do not have direct access). To the best of my knowledge, that fact doesn't affect the chiropractic business in the least.

They have very strong lobbies (they're trying to keep PT's from doing manipulation) as do the medical doctors who don't want PT's to have too much autonomy (most states will allow eval without referral but require an MD's OK for treatment plan) as it takes bucks from their pockets as well.

As the DPT becomes the norm (NORM! Sorry, I digress)and depending on how they market themselves to the general, uneducated public ("Doctor" of Physical Therapy????), things may change. In my mind, the relationship with the MD or DO will always be there for PT's.

I will sleep quite well at night until the day comes that they tell me I can't practice without a DPT. Then heads will ROLL!

Bill Hartman, PT, HARTMAN certified
Bill Hartman is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2003, 09:13 PM   #5 (permalink)
sssssSuper Moderator
 
russ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Toronto,ON
Posts: 5,007
Post

Quote:
as do the medical doctors who don't want PT's to have too much autonomy (most states will allow eval without referral but require an MD's OK for treatment plan) as it takes bucks from their pockets as well.
Interesting. I guess that the rules must be different in Canada (or here in Ontario, at least) because I've never needed an MD to OK my PT's treatment plan. And with my current spate of injuries, I should be able to provide for my PT's retirement [img]tongue.gif[/img]
russ is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 09-08-2003, 10:53 AM   #6 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Iowa
Posts: 72
Post

Quote:
Interesting. I guess that the rules must be different in Canada (or here in Ontario, at least) because I've never needed an MD to OK my PT's treatment plan. And with my current spate of injuries, I should be able to provide for my PT's retirement
In the US it's dictated by the bastard sons a bitches of humanity insurance companies. If you see anything other than a general practice MD you need to be refered to them if you want the insurance to pay. I don't even go through an HMO and must deal with this BS. I go in later this month and I'm insisting on a referal to an Orthopedist(sp?) The GPMD keeps pushing PT on me. How can you push PT when you don't know what's wrong? I digress that's another issue.
wauhawk is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2003, 11:01 AM   #7 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Miami
Posts: 322
Post

Interesting...I don't need a referal anymore before going to a specialist...PPO here.
poopy pants is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2003, 11:22 AM   #8 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Iowa
Posts: 72
Post

Quote:
Interesting...I don't need a referal anymore before going to a specialist...PPO here.
Same here. But the specialists won't let you in without the referal as they are afraid of not getting paid. Also some PPO's are different that others. Sounds like yours is better than mine.

Nice thing is once you are referred that's it you can keep going back without another one.
wauhawk is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2003, 11:36 AM   #9 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Miami
Posts: 322
Post

It's through Anthem.
poopy pants is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:33 PM.

Features ...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Ad Management by RedTyger