Canadian politics

[Brad Reddekopp]

I don't hate Harper any more than I hate any of the others. It's just that he may have blown his chances of achieving his political goals.

[Dil]

What I'm saying is their work is purely mechanical and based on a thorough knowledge of anatomy.

Traditional chiropractic certainly is quackery. That some of the techniques happen to be of some benefit is nearly accidental.

Some chiropractors recognize that the theory is complete bullshit and they just focus on the mechanical work which, as I said, can be of some benefit. Many other chiropractors, though, buy into the theory and engage in really silly stuff -- and charge people plenty of money for it, of course.

If your chiropractor wants to take x-rays, run. If your chiropractor starts talking about "subluxations", run. If your chiropractor starts talking about "pinched nerves" impeding the flow of "nerve energy", run. If your chiropractor tells you that your spine is misaligned, run. If your chiropractor wants to see if your legs are both the same length, run. If your chiropractor wants to adjust your neck, run.

You should do what you want to do, obviously, but I think you owe it to yourself to look into chiropractic a little more before going to one.

Here's a site that is critical of chiropractic: http://www.chirobase.org/
Dr. Barrett's main web site also includes a lot of stuff about chiropractic: http://www.quackwatch.com/

Personally, I'd prefer to see a physiotherapist. They're trained in various techniques, including joint manipulation, and they aren't taught nearly as much pure bullshit as are chiropractors.

Well, I had x-rays last year because my idiot friend dropped me on my back. I hurt my tailbone, and I don't think it's been right since. So I saw a chiropractor today. They did some loud back crunching (I didn't realize one could crack so many joints at once). The x-ray results showed no fracture, but it did show some very interesting congenital issues with my tailbone, instead of curving in, apparently it just goes in at an 80 degree angle, which is an epic fail >.< (the chiropractor didn't make up these results, the x-ray clinic printed out the result of congenital defect).

I don't feel much different, but my healthcare covers alot of it, so it's cool. I think the fall really irritated my congenital defect. Also my chiropractor said the right part of my back was frozen causing me to walk funny. I've always walked like a friggin duck-footed robot. When I was little, I had to wear correctional shoes and it's gotten better as I've gotten older, but I still walk a little funny.

The most hilarious thing about the visit is that the Dr. said that if I gave birth my tailbone would probably straighten itself out more, which >.< Damn. Not planning on that one in the near future (if ever).

[vertigo]

Well, I had x-rays last year because my idiot friend dropped me on my back. I hurt my tailbone, and I don't think it's been right since.

Sorry to hear that Dil, I hope you get better soon. Although you say you don't think it's right, does that mean that the x-rays were just a precaution? From how you describe your visit to the chiropractor, it sounds like you were given information but not much help. Like I guess it didn't help to know why you walk differently, you still walk that way, right? And you have a congenital defect, which I assume is a problem unfortunately, but can it be fixed? Giving birth might help but what will help? Cracking joints may have been more for show than anything else, to convince you that the doctor has skills you can't find elsewhere, it may have little other benefit.

A few years ago, I hurt my back play-wrestling, although I've never seen anyone about it. But now and again, I bend down the wrong way and get an immediate, stabbing pain. Usually when that happens, I have to lie on the ground for a few minutes for the pain to die down. Although strangely, I can prevent it happening by being more careful about what I do. It only happens when my torso is at an angle, like if I put down a box to my left. Staying straight is fine, so it's pretty odd.

The reason I haven't seen anyone about it is that I know a disc gets squashed when that pain happens, sometimes it causes swelling and is very painful, but I don't want the doctors to fuse the vertebrae together which will give me less mobility. If I'm diligent, it isn't a problem, so I'm leaving it. For me that's the right decision, at the moment I can pick up heavy boxes, move furniture, etc, and I don't want to risk being unable to do that after the doctors help me.

If it gets to the point that I can't do those things, then I'll seek to have something done about it. So I'm quite lucky that I can do those things and it has made me much more careful when lifting things, etc. I hope that your problems are similar in that there is a silver lining there somewhere.

As for chiropractors, I've never been to one but like any specialist, they have a niche of problems can help with and that is what they are good for. A friend of mind saw a chiropractor and he alleged to be able to help asthma sufferers, which I don't believe. I guess one always has to be aware of what the doctor can do that is actually helpful.

I'll continue this shortly.

[vertigo]

Continuing...

On the other hand, there is also bias in the other direction. The QuackWatch article Francois linked to starts off saying that the risk of neck manipulations can't be quantified but ends with saying that "I believe patients should be warned about the risks [of neck manipulations]". What he is hinting at is the risk of straying outside of medical science, but we should not forget that medical science itself is not without risk, most notably the placebo effect.

There are also political considerations. For instance, when there is talk of medical tourism (people travelling to other countries to have operations done more cheaply, which is relatively common in the UK), local professionals are very disparaging about it. Suddenly, one can have a thrombosis on the plane, etc. What these professionals say must be interpreted against the circumstances.

My point is this, that one must be aware and must weigh the different options available, and also that one must factor in the circumstances to really understand what is true and what is spin (propaganda). One can't say that all chiropractors are quacks, just as one can't say that no doctors are quacks.

[Hierophant]

Oh, I'm no supporter of the medical establishment. But that has to be distinguished from the fact that chiropratic is quackery.

[vertigo]

Chiropractic stresses the idea that the cause of many disease processes begins with the body's inability to adapt to its environment. It looks to address these diseases not by the use of drugs and chemicals, but by locating and adjusting a musculoskeletal area of the body which is functioning improperly.

Well if any doctor started to speak like this, I'd be out of there quicker than you can say "hey presto". When I go to a doctor, I expect the following:

1. He or she must add something to what I say. I don't want a cold reading, I want medical help.
2. He or she must provide me with a method to better health. In other words, it must be something I can do. ("take this medicine" versus "lie on the couch")
3. It must be something available from other sources.
4. There must be a benefit to me over and above what not taking or undergoing the procedure will do, and the risks involved must be justifiable.
5. Change requires a medium.

I'll explain point 5. Change requires a medium because change is abstract, it supervenes over the underlying medium. So if you tell me there will be a change, there must be a medium that will change and the medium must contain the potential to change.

This is why I didn't believe my cystic fibrosis diagnosis because a special condition must be special in some way. I had no symptoms apart from being a plain asthmatic but here I was being told that I might have a lung-mucus disorder in which excess mucus causes major problems. But since I had no mucus problems till that point (phlegm had never been an issue, it was contraction of bronchial tubes that was the issue), this disorder would have to be completely latent at that point, only to show up later. But if it was completely latent then it was entirely incidental to my asthma because there are many asthmatics without such a disorder. So I must have been so unlucky as to have been both asthmatic and CF. But I only went to see the specialist because my asthma was difficult to treat. So most likely, this incidental "discovery" had nothing at all to do with my present asthma or even why I was there at all.

But why would a specialist run a test for an entirely incidental disorder when I was there to be helped with my immediate asthma problem? Either the specialist was wasting my time running tests without motivation for doing so, or he thought it wasn't incidental but rather that it was related to my current asthmatic symptoms, implausible. Or, it was incidental but only threatening to asthmatics (or else more people would be tested for this life-threatening disease), but then treating the asthma would inherently treat the CF. So I ignored it.

Point 5 also discounts that quack-talk I quoted at the top. How can the body's ailments be correlated to musculoskeletal areas? That would mean no other part of the body counted, implausible.

[Centurijohn]

How can the body's ailments be correlated to musculoskeletal areas?

You are talking about ailments that do not involve musculoskeletal areas, right?

[vertigo]

How can the body's ailments be correlated to musculoskeletal areas?

You are talking about ailments that do not involve musculoskeletal areas, right?

I meant it in the sense of "how can all the body's ailments be correlated to MS areas".

Okay, I see now that they said "many diseases", I misread it. It would need to be limited to diseases for which a musculoskeletal explanation made sense.

[Brad Reddekopp]

Chiropractors will recommend spinal "adjustments" for kidney ailments.

[vertigo]

Chiropractors will recommend spinal "adjustments" for kidney ailments.

In that case I'd need to be satisfied that there is no better explanation. Surely the kidneys can malfunction in ways not related to the MS system, so why can't it be another malfunction? Is the explanation given backed up by historical evidence, etc. I'd be especially skeptical because spinal adjustments don't seem very precise. How can one precisely adjust the spinal arrangement to, for instance, target that one specific ailment? Does the spine have that many configurations? How did it come to be out of alignment anyway? If it can easily become out of alignment by itself, this ailment must be highly prevalent, so does the medical evidence support this ease of manifestation?

Also, how do animals in the wild adjust their spines? Surely evolution would have worked against these spinal arrangements being important, so how could humans have this critical weakness?

[Brad Reddekopp]

Well, the idea that spinal "misalignment" affecting internal organs has to do with the belief that it interferes with "nerve flow" to those organs. In the context of chiropractic theory, "nerve flow" doesn't refer to what we'd normally think of as nerve impulses but is more akin to the Eastern concept of qi.

[Centurijohn]

Well, the idea that spinal "misalignment" affecting internal organs has to do with the belief that it interferes with "nerve flow" to those organs. In the context of chiropractic theory, "nerve flow" doesn't refer to what we'd normally think of as nerve impulses but is more akin to the Eastern concept of qi.

I can't recall ever reading about an attempt at a scientific explanation for qi, but I'm not really sure about completely dismissing it.

[vertigo]

Well, the idea that spinal "misalignment" affecting internal organs has to do with the belief that it interferes with "nerve flow" to those organs. In the context of chiropractic theory, "nerve flow" doesn't refer to what we'd normally think of as nerve impulses but is more akin to the Eastern concept of qi.

I can't recall ever reading about an attempt at a scientific explanation for qi, but I'm not really sure about completely dismissing it.

I am. If qi is ethereal breath flowing through our higher dimensional bodies, it is untestable.

[Centurijohn]

I am. If qi is ethereal breath flowing through our higher dimensional bodies, it is untestable.

Well, you're right there, but what I meant was that I've never read about scientific explanations for practises that are linked to "controlling qi", like acupuncture or some extreme martial arts stuff. But I admit that I haven't really been searching for that sort of information.

[Brad Reddekopp]

Regarding qi and acupuncture, experiments have shown that acupuncture can actually offer temporary pain relief (possibly due to distraction or the placebo effect) but also that the so-called meridians are meaningless -- it doesn't matter where you put the needles.