RE: hi Carolyn
>Hi Carolyn,
>
>I'm so sorry that your old boyfriend had such a bad experience
>with a chiropractor! There are definately some bad ones out
>there!
>
>My dad is a chiropractor and I realize that I'm biased for
>chiropractic of course, but honestly, I know it works big
>time!
>
>Judging by your post, you obviously have taken the time to
>educate yourself about chiropractic, so I apologize if you
>already know this...
>
>The nerves that go from the spinal cord and into your hands,
>feet, stomach, brain, etc. all have to go through small spaces
>in between vertebrae in the spine. Sometimes because of what
>we put our bodies through, the vertebrae can move ever so
>slightly, putting pressure on the nerves. This can cause
>headaches, back aches, stomach aches, etc. My dad had often
>adjusted my spine when I have had one of the above, and the
>problem is solved within several hours.
>
>A good chiropractor knows when to have his patients consult
>with an internal medicine doctor or orthopaedic physician,
>etc. The doctor your old boyfriend saw obviously wasn't a
>good one!
>
>Also, I checked out the journal article about adjusting the
>neck and stroke risk. The rate of stroke following
>manipulation of the cervical spine can be likened to the rate
>of death crossing the street or driving a car. It is
>extremely negligible. My father has treated thousands of
>people with no ill effects other than if the person wasn't
>taking proper care of themselves! But no one has ever died or
>had a stroke as a result of getting an adjustment.
>
>The other article, the FAACT article, I can't even believe
>they put stuff like that on the internet! Well, actually I
>can! People can put whatever they want on the internet and
>they don't even have to prove what they're saying. It is
>absolutely rediculous to outlaw a whole profession because a
>few people out there have been careless. The particular
>doctors need to be pursued in court, not the whole field!
>There are MD's responsible for patient deaths, but no one is
>trying to outlaw hospitals or surgery! The risk of death from
>surgery or prescription meds is very real too, but no one is
>trying to make those illegal. What a horrible website!
>
>Sorry, I know you are only a victim of the bathroom wall
>called the internet.
>
>Anyways, please realize that there is a lot of positive
>evidence for chiropractic care.
>
>Thankyou,
>Alison
>
Thanks for responding Alison! I do understand that there are some scientifically based chiros out there. Maybe I should have emphasized that more. As far as the website goes, I just wanted to bring up the point that that particular manipulation (cervical spine) is controversial and there are petitions going around to stop it. I think a person getting that done should at least know that it may carry some risks (and I do believe that people have suffered strokes after getting this manipulation, but of course they can't say definitively if it was due to the procedure or not). Of course it should be said that this procedure is not only done by chiros, but also by some physical therapists as well.
I've heard this theory about the spine being the main issue that affects all other body parts. It reminds me of a another method that believes you can solve many health problems by massaging the foot in a certain way, using a certain piece of equipment (called reflexolgy). When a person receives a spinal manipulation, endorphines are released and can give the person the impression that their pain has disappeared. Of course it usually comes back and the cycle must repeat itself. It really can be a great treatment for those in acute pain however. Also, it is worth noting that just because a person's spine doesn't look aligned, it does not mean that they are in danger of pain or even in pain at all. A recent study came out (I'll have to find it), that compared peoples x-rays. It studied those that were in pain and those that were not. Interestingly, it showed that there really wasn't a correlation between those that had signs of degeneration or abnormalites and pain. Some of those participants showed extreme signs of degeneration and had no symptoms at all. I think the medical community is learning that they need to rely less on pictures, as they don't always tell the whole truth when it comes to determining who is in pain and who isn't.
Some legal tactics that chiros use also trouble me. Their association has tried for years now to ban physical therapists from doing spinal manipulation (even though they are medically trained to do it as well). They've even gone so far as to sue individual therapists and in one case, they won. Recently (I believe in Arkansas), a law was passed that made it ILLEGAL for therapists to adjust a patient's spine. Afterwards, it was discovered that the lawmakers were receiving bribes from the Chiro's association and those lawmakers were (I believe) fired, although the law still remains in effect. I find those tactics and the idea that only they can do the procedure, very unethical. It especially bothers me when I see chiro's offering 'Physical Therapy' for their patients, even though they clearly are not physical therapists. Here's some info about that:
http://www.quackwatch.org/ (you must scroll down on this website to find the chiro section)
http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2004/11/ica-files-major-brief-in-landmark.html
http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/chirolinks.html
All of this is not to say that there aren't some good chiros out there. I just think there are also a LOT of not so good ones either.
Carolyn
