Benefits and risks of chiropractic

[Soapy Sam]

Split from: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121214

Out of idle curiosity.
Does anyone have any comparative statistics for iatrogenic deaths attributable to chiropractic per case treated as compared to "mainstream" medicine?

While chiro may well have hazards inadequately reported by its adherents, it is also pretty clear that real medicine kills people with regrettable frequency too. Medicine is inherently hazardous.

If the evidence says chiropractic is dangerous bunk , then dump it- but let's not pretend that chiropractic has killed more people than Eli Lilly, Hoffman La Roche or Glaxo Smith Klein.
Because that would probably be bogus.

In the desert, babies are cheap , but bathwater is a valuable resource. Sometimes we have to decide which to throw away.

[rjh01]

If you want to look at risks then you need to look at benefits as well.
Benefits from chiropractic - very little
Benefits from mainstream medicine - Enormous.

In short there must be very little risk from chiropractic or it needs to be thrown out.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Out of idle curiosity.
Does anyone have any comparative statistics for iatrogenic deaths attributable to chiropractic per case treated as compared to "mainstream" medicine?

I'm pretty sure the statistic you want to look at is iatrogenic deaths versus lives saved, not the raw number of iatrogenic deaths.

[BillyJoe]

Does anyone have any comparative statistics for iatrogenic deaths attributable to chiropractic per case treated as compared to "mainstream" medicine?
That would be an irrelevant statisitic

While chiro may well have hazards inadequately reported by its adherents, it is also pretty clear that real medicine kills people with regrettable frequency too. Medicine is inherently hazardous. That would be a "tu quoque" fallacy

If the evidence says chiropractic is dangerous bunk , then dump it- but let's not pretend that chiropractic has killed more people than Eli Lilly, Hoffman La Roche or Glaxo Smith Klein.Are people actually saying that or are they just pretending and how would you know.

Because that would probably be bogus.Hmmm.

In the desert, babies are cheap , but bathwater is a valuable resource. Sometimes we have to decide which to throw away.Well, you drink the bathwater, and I'll se what I can do for the baby. ;)

[steenkh]

Out of idle curiosity.
Does anyone have any comparative statistics for iatrogenic deaths attributable to chiropractic per case treated as compared to "mainstream" medicine?

While chiro may well have hazards inadequately reported by its adherents, it is also pretty clear that real medicine kills people with regrettable frequency too. Medicine is inherently hazardous.
Medicine is indeed hazardous, and that is why you have to weigh the odds all the time. The only sensible comparison between deaths attributable to chiropractic practices and mainstream medicine is when they are treating the same conditions, and we should not compare absolute numbers, but the number of deaths per treatment.

Otherwise it would be like comparing deaths involving parachutes to all conventional transport activities.

[Ocelot]

Out of idle curiosity.
Does anyone have any comparative statistics for iatrogenic deaths attributable to chiropractic per case treated as compared to "mainstream" medicine?

While chiro may well have hazards inadequately reported by its adherents, it is also pretty clear that real medicine kills people with regrettable frequency too. Medicine is inherently hazardous.

Last I checked the net effect of modern medicine was positive. So lets say that Chiropractive only killed one person every ten years (which with it's anti-vax anti medicine anti science rhetoric is an understatement but lets restict ourselves to severly underestimating deaths causes by cervical arterial dissection from chiropractic neck adjustments) then to stand a hope of being comparable to evidence based medicine it needs to be shown that chiropractic saves at least as many lives. Any lives saved by chiropractic?

Fact is if I had a magic wand that killed 10% of people having a heart attack but saved the rest then if these people would otherwise have a 50% chance of dying from their heart attack I'd wave that wand.

In the case of chiropractic we've got a magic wand that kills a fraction of a percent of the people you wave it at but it cures, erm... well, the juries still out on that. It might be slightly better than placebo with back and joint pain. I don't think anyone is claiming it saves lives.

If the evidence says chiropractic is dangerous bunk , then dump it- but let's not pretend that chiropractic has killed more people than Eli Lilly, Hoffman La Roche or Glaxo Smith Klein.
Because that would probably be bogus.

ooioh phear the beeg Pharma, because out of the billions of lives they save (yes vacines save billions of lives chacl out the population explosion) sometimes they mess it up and people, many of whom would have quickly died of their disease anyway without intervention are killed instead by malpractice.

In the desert, babies are cheap , but bathwater is a valuable resource. Sometimes we have to decide which to throw away.

Have I just been Poe'd?

[Dragon]

...

Have I just been Poe'd?'Fraid so - check out Sam's posting history.

I'm sure this benefit v. risk issue has been mentioned before here wrt chiropractic - anyway the is what Prof. Ernst has to say about it in the context of the NICE guidelines - Nice's recommendation of chiropractors for back pain overestimates the benefits and underestimates the risks
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/27/health-nice-chiropractic)

[BillyJoe]

Here is a newspaper article about the strange case of a doctor convicted of negligence for referring a patient with neck pain to a chiropractor, who was also convicted - for administering chiropractic negligently:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/13/1029113929586.html

"[The doctor's] negligence generated the risk of injury by referring [to the chiropractor] for inappropriate treatment. It is no answer that the treatment was administered negligently," the court held.


Edit: oops, sorry, I didn't notice the date of this report 2002

[Soapy Sam]

That would be an irrelevant statisitic
Why irrelevant? To whom? There are people in this world who have spreadsheets of cricket scores you know. Some of them are Australians!

That would be a "tu quoque" fallacy
No. I'll buy "tu quoque", but not the fallacy part. Of course if the relative numbers of people on drugs and on chiro were swapped, there would be a load of dead people on tables. My query is simply "Would there be more than are killed by real medicine?"
You don't have to be a paranoid Big Pharma Hater to know prescription drugs can be lethal. That's why they come with warnings and instructions. The only drugs without side effects are homoeopathics- though as Dara O'Briain observes, "You can drown".

Imagine for a moment that there was no "real" medicine. ALL medical treatment is either acupuncture, chiropractic, homoeopathy or hairdressing; Ignoring (as trivially unimportant) the fact a lot of patients would die of measles, baldness, diabetes and such- would more die due to side effects of ACHH etc than currently die of side effects of "real" medical treatment?
That's the question I'd like an answer to.

Ocelot- I'm not sure what "Poe'd" means. If you mean did you just spend time rationally answering a just mildly tongue in cheek question, then ... yep. But don't worry, practice is always good.:D

[Ocelot]

Ocelot- I'm not sure what "Poe'd" means. If you mean did you just spend time rationally answering a just mildly tongue in cheek question, then ... yep. But don't worry, practice is always good.:D

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law ;)

[shuttlt]

Imagine for a moment that there was no "real" medicine. ALL medical treatment is either acupuncture, chiropractic, homoeopathy or hairdressing; Ignoring (as trivially unimportant) the fact a lot of patients would die of measles, baldness, diabetes and such- would more die due to side effects of ACHH etc than currently die of side effects of "real" medical treatment?
That's the question I'd like an answer to.
I suspect this is a much easier question to ask than to answer. One thought occurs to me though. How many very sick people die due to the side effects of medicine who would have died without the medicine? Under your measure this counts the same as a toddler dying from mumps. Wouldn't a better measure be how many years of life (?quality adjusted?) are saved by conventional medicine.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

Imagine for a moment that there was no "real" medicine. ALL medical treatment is either acupuncture, chiropractic, homoeopathy or hairdressing; Ignoring (as trivially unimportant) the fact a lot of patients would die of measles, baldness, diabetes and such- would more die due to side effects of ACHH etc than currently die of side effects of "real" medical treatment?
That's the question I'd like an answer to.

<snip>



If you define "side effect" as including not working so that the medical problem is not fixed / cured / mitigated and death results, then I suggest you look at history for the past hundred years or so. ;)

[BenBurch]

If you want to look at risks then you need to look at benefits as well.
Benefits from chiropractic - very little
Benefits from mainstream medicine - Enormous.

In short there must be very little risk from chiropractic or it needs to be thrown out.

I believe we have not shown them to be nonzero.

[BillyJoe]

Why irrelevant? To whom? There are people in this world who have spreadsheets of cricket scores you know. Some of them are Australians!
...spreadsheets of cricket scores...and what, exactly, is wrong with that? :confused:

No. I'll buy "tu quoque", but not the fallacy part.It's a phallacy so big I can see it from here, soapy head and all Sam.

Of course if the relative numbers of people on drugs and on chiro were swapped, there would be a load of dead people on tables. My query is simply "Would there be more than are killed by real medicine?"
You don't have to be a paranoid Big Pharma Hater to know prescription drugs can be lethal. That's why they come with warnings and instructions. The only drugs without side effects are homoeopathics- though as Dara O'Briain observes, "You can drown".Well, it would be sad to die a homoeopathetic death, when you could have rested safe and warm in the loving arms of Big Mharma.

Imagine for a moment that there was no "real" medicine. ALL medical treatment is either acupuncture, chiropractic, homoeopathy or hairdressing; Ignoring (as trivially unimportant) the fact a lot of patients would die of measles, baldness, diabetes and such- would more die due to side effects of ACHH etc than currently die of side effects of "real" medical treatment?
That's the question I'd like an answer to.So far, I've had my tonsils pulled out for no good reason at an age where I had no say, been treated for a sexually transmitted disease whilst I was still pure as white snow, and...well, okay, they got it right the third time, but still.
And now they can't even compensate me with a cure for baldness!
(hey, I'm not there yet)
In short, you are asking the wrong person.

Ocelot- I'm not sure what "Poe'd" means. If you mean did you just spend time rationally answering a just mildly tongue in cheek question, then ... yep. But don't worry, practice is always good.:DHey?

[Tomblvd]

Split from: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121214

Out of idle curiosity.
Does anyone have any comparative statistics for iatrogenic deaths attributable to chiropractic per case treated as compared to "mainstream" medicine?


Almost no people go to a chiro with acute medical conditions, they go for back pain and "wellness" treatments. If your clientele is already self-selected as relatively healthy, you've got a pretty big head start.

Considering "iatrogenic" deaths, apart from the issue with cervical maipulation, there really isn't anything a chiro can do to harm a patient. If you compare that with all the thing mainstream medicine does (like cutting people open), there is absolutlely no comparison.

[Perpetual Student]

Imagine for a moment that there was no "real" medicine. ALL medical treatment is either acupuncture, chiropractic, homoeopathy or hairdressing; Ignoring (as trivially unimportant) the fact a lot of patients would die of measles, baldness, diabetes and such- would more die due to side effects of ACHH etc than currently die of side effects of "real" medical treatment?
That's the question I'd like an answer to.



That is an impossibly complex question to answer as stated. Looking at one drug at a time is the only rational way to gain any insight. The lives saved vs. deaths caused by the use of antibiotics (for example) is well documented. The positive results of anti-hypertensive medication is another good example. Drugs are prescribed when the benefits are perceived to outweigh the risks. Are mistakes made? Of course -- the methods of evaluating risk vs. benefit are quite imperfect. Take a look at life expectancy data by country: Medicine is clearly one of a number of significant contributors (nutrition, sanitation, etc.) for the differences seen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

[Raze]

I'm not too familiar with this debate, but I will say that the chiropractor my brother goes to has an MD. Whatever that is worth, I'll let you guys figure out. :P

[BillyJoe]

the chiropractor my brother goes to has an MD. Whatever that is worth

That goes to prove that an MD is not a guaranteed protection against foolishness.
That goes for your brother as well.
Would your brother allow someone to put a noose around his neck?

[Tomblvd]

I'm not too familiar with this debate, but I will say that the chiropractor my brother goes to has an MD. Whatever that is worth, I'll let you guys figure out. :P


I know of a chiro that claims an MD also, but it is actually a PhD in something or other unrelated to the field. I'd ask to see his credentials, unless, of course, he isn't using the MD for anything other than window dressing.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Of course all Chiroquacks have an MD. Who would they go to to get cured when they are sick? :confused:

(Or have I read the post incorrectly?) :(

[steenkh]

Considering "iatrogenic" deaths, apart from the issue with cervical maipulation, there really isn't anything a chiro can do to harm a patient. If you compare that with all the thing mainstream medicine does (like cutting people open), there is absolutlely no comparison.
Does mainstream medicine really do anything more dangerous than cervical manipulation for the same ailments that chiropractic treatment is known to work for?

[Tomblvd]

Does mainstream medicine really do anything more dangerous than cervical manipulation for the same ailments that chiropractic treatment is known to work for?

I don't know, what chiropractic treatments are known to work?

[BillyJoe]

Does mainstream medicine really do anything more dangerous than cervical manipulation for the same ailments that chiropractic treatment is known to work for?

Mainstream treatments include NSAIDS and corticosteroids. Both of these medications can cause gastric ulcers, which can haemorrhage or rupture, which can have a fatal outcome. They can also cause high blood pressure and fluid retention which are risk factors for heart faliure and heart attack which can also be fatal.

I suggest a bit of massage and gradual mobilisation both of which you can do yourself.
It's also a lot cheaper. ;)

BJ

[steenkh]

Mainstream treatments include NSAIDS and corticosteroids. Both of these medications can cause gastric ulcers, which can haemorrhage or rupture, which can have a fatal outcome. They can also cause high blood pressure and fluid retention which are risk factors for heart faliure and heart attack which can also be fatal.
OK, I did not know that. It has been my impression from treaments given to friends and relatives here in Denmark that mainstream treatment means going to a physiotherapist who will do a number of massage and stretching treatments.

Unfortunately, I still have not got a copy of Ernst and Singh's "Trick or Treatment" where I have the impression that the risks involved are compared to each other.

[steenkh]

I don't know, what chiropractic treatments are known to work?
From other sources I have gathered that chiropractic treatment is roughly as effective, if not better, than conventional techniques. Simon Singh's original "Spinal Trap" article seems to agree:
But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

[BenBurch]

Back problems are (generally) self-limiting. Chiro treatments are generally over so many weeks that you can expect most to have disappeared by the end. I believe that Chiro is likely to be no more effective than placebo manipulation for such problems.

[Blue Wode]

I don't know, what chiropractic treatments are known to work?

FYI, after thoroughly evaluating the evidence on chiropractic in their book Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial, this is what British scientists, Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, propose that all chiropractors be compelled by law to disclose to their patients prior to treatment:
"WARNING: This treatment carries the risk of stroke or death if spinal manipulation is applied to the neck. Elsewhere on the spine, chiropractic therapy is relatively safe. It has shown some evidence of benefit in the treatment of back pain, but conventional treatments are usually equally effective and much cheaper. In the treatment of all other conditions, chiropractic therapy is ineffective except that it might act as a placebo."

[p.285]

[paximperium]

Chiropractic "therapy" is no better than a good massage. Most unimpressive.

[BenBurch]

Chiropractic "therapy" is no better than a good massage. Most unimpressive.

I would argue a good massage is likely to be MORE helpful.

[paximperium]

I would argue a good massage is likely to be MORE helpful.
And less likely to cause a stroke.

[BenBurch]

And less likely to cause a stroke.

I have friends who do massage for a living, and have been their practice subject while they were learning years ago. It might not cure anything, but wow does stress go away. And I think a lot of the muscular aches we have come down to stress and subconscious tensing of muscles.

On a similar note I have found that isolation tanks do about the same thing - inappropriate muscle tension goes away temporarily.

[fls]

Split from: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121214

Out of idle curiosity.
Does anyone have any comparative statistics for iatrogenic deaths attributable to chiropractic per case treated as compared to "mainstream" medicine?

While chiro may well have hazards inadequately reported by its adherents, it is also pretty clear that real medicine kills people with regrettable frequency too. Medicine is inherently hazardous.

If the evidence says chiropractic is dangerous bunk , then dump it- but let's not pretend that chiropractic has killed more people than Eli Lilly, Hoffman La Roche or Glaxo Smith Klein.
Because that would probably be bogus.

In the desert, babies are cheap , but bathwater is a valuable resource. Sometimes we have to decide which to throw away.

Chiropractic manipulation is applied fairly indiscriminately, right? I think it would be fair to say that anyone going to a chiropractor with a complaint will be offered a chiropractic solution, and they do promote the idea of preventive manipulation. If we apply conventional medicine and pharmaceuticals in that manner, I'd say that medicine would probably kill everyone. So there's no comparison at all. Iatrogenic deaths would number in the hundreds of millions. For the first year or two, anyway.

Linda

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
While chiro may well have hazards inadequately reported by its adherents, it is also pretty clear that real medicine kills people with regrettable frequency too. Medicine is inherently hazardous. As has been mentioned but needs reiterating: The issue is risk/cost vs benefit/risk-of-not-utilizing the thing you are evaluating.

The cost and risk of subluxation (the neck adjustments) are enormous and the benefit is ZERO. You can go to a chiropractor which doesn't do subluxation if you want the placebo effect. These 'modern' chiropractors ignore the whole premise of spinal manipulation and pretend that isn't part of their profession. I see them as physical therapists and personally, I'd rather go to a PT if I needed PT.

BYW, rupturing the vertebral artery by neck manipulation by chiropractors is rare but common enough that I have seen one patient who was admitted to a hospital I was working in that was a newly made quadriplegic from having it done. That's more than enough risk in my book to avoid a procedure that is based on as much bunk as homeopathy. (Both chiropractic and homeopathic practices originate from individual 1800s wingnuts coming up with a crackpot theory based on nothing but imagination.)

[Tomblvd]

If you really want to take a stab at any kind of comparison between chiro vs. modern medicine, yet another factor are the deaths and illnesses that are prolonged or exacerbated by a patient choosing chiro before a doctor. I've seen many patients in my years with moderate to severe jaw pain with associated headaches. It is classic TMJ symptoms, but none of the patients who first saw a chiro were told to have a dentist look at them. Some of these people were "treated" for years before they ended up in my chair. If you were to add up the personal suffering, lost work days, etc., I'm sure you'd find chiro is a drain on the system.

In another case I am familiar with, a woman started having severe weakness in an arm, to the point she couldn't pick up a cup. Nevertheless she was "treated" by a chiro for weeks before she ended up in the ER. She had MS. Had someone showed up at my office with sudden onset peripheral weakness such as that, I would drive her to the ER myself, as quickly as I could.

How many people die as a result of chiros screwing around with symptoms they have no business treating? Yet, since the chiro was not directly involved at the time of death, there is no consideration of their culpability.

[Soapy Sam]

Does mainstream medicine really do anything more dangerous than cervical manipulation for the same ailments that chiropractic treatment is known to work for?

Good question- and BillyJoe gives a fair answer.

To declare my position on this- while I think the sillier claims of chiros are just...silly, it's my personal experience that it can fix some neck related problems- or at least mine went away after spinal manipulation and stayed away, whereas the same NSAIDs prescribed for me by GPs almost certainly caused the bleeding esophagus that caused me to be medivacced several thousand miles at considerable expense.

Now this is, I'm assured, all anecdotal.
But I'm sceptical about that.

Nb. I'd reiterate before the sky reigns vitriol- I am of the opinion, from personal experience, that some spinal manip, as done by one chiro I happen to have encountered, fixed one problem in one individual (moi), related to a compressive injury to cervical vertebrae.
I have no further opinion on the subject, because I have had no further experience of it.

I do have considerable experience of GPs, several of whom I do not think fit to be in charge of a dog's dinner, far less anything more complex- but that, as they say is another story.
I suspect most chiros are at least as useless and likely more so- but at least, like their homoeopathic brethren, they are unlikely to poison anybody.

Clostridium difficile killed 248 people in Scottish hospitals last year. While getting rid of chiropractic might save a few lives, I think we might have higher priorities.

That said, I fully support Simon Singh's fight against this ludicrous lawsuit and will be wearing my "Keep Libel Laws out of Science" Tee-shirt this week.

Nb. Thanks to Prof. Yaffle for the thread split and my apologies for requiring it. The original question was tongue in cheek and didn't fit the Singh thread.

[Tomblvd]

Good question- and BillyJoe gives a fair answer.

To declare my position on this- while I think the sillier claims of chiros are just...silly, it's my personal experience that it can fix some neck related problems- or at least mine went away after spinal manipulation and stayed away, whereas the same NSAIDs prescribed for me by GPs almost certainly caused the bleeding esophagus that caused me to be medivacced several thousand miles at considerable expense.

Now this is, I'm assured, all anecdotal.
But I'm sceptical about that.

Skeptical about what? You said yourself that this was you "personal experience". By definition, that is an anecdote.

If chiro was successful with the neck-related problems you mention, it shouldn't be too difficult to do a study of a number of people with a similar problem, treat them, and demonstrate a statictically significant number were helped. You see that is when your individual story becomes data we can all examine.



Nb. I'd reiterate before the sky reigns vitriol- I am of the opinion, from personal experience, that some spinal manip, as done by one chiro I happen to have encountered, fixed one problem in one individual (moi), related to a compressive injury to cervical vertebrae.
I have no further opinion on the subject, because I have had no further experience of it.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it, but there is no data to back that opinion up.



I do have considerable experience of GPs, several of whom I do not think fit to be in charge of a dog's dinner, far less anything more complex- but that, as they say is another story.
I suspect most chiros are at least as useless and likely more so- but at least, like their homoeopathic brethren, they are unlikely to poison anybody.

It is hard to "poison" someone when you cannot prescribe medicine (chiros) or give out water (homeopaths). So your point is essentially moot.


Clostridium difficile killed 248 people in Scottish hospitals last year. While getting rid of chiropractic might save a few lives, I think we might have higher priorities.

Unless you are alleging that the C diff outbreak was malpractice, I'm not sure of your point here.

[steenkh]

To declare my position on this- while I think the sillier claims of chiros are just...silly, it's my personal experience that it can fix some neck related problems- or at least mine went away after spinal manipulation and stayed away, whereas the same NSAIDs prescribed for me by GPs almost certainly caused the bleeding esophagus that caused me to be medivacced several thousand miles at considerable expense.

Now this is, I'm assured, all anecdotal.
But I'm sceptical about that.
I too has received spinal manipulation for a neck problem, and it had an almost miraculous effect. Before the ten-minute session I was hardly able to move, and after the session, I was able to walk on my own, and my journey next day was saved. In this case I did not go to my GP because it was weekend, and because there was no time before I had to leave on this journey. I went to the chiropractor on advice from others, and at the time I did not know of the dangers of spinal manipulation so I felt I had little to lose.

Danish chiropractors do not spew nonsense about subluxations, and those I have discussed it with have only treated muscular problems.

Last year I again went to a chiropractor after having seen two GP's, one of which told me that I had a small blood clot in my leg, and the other told me I had no blood clot, but my pains were age related and there was nothing to be done. After three months of pains, I saw a chiropractor who noticed a swelling of the foot (nobody had examined my foot before), and popped my toes, after which I could walk normally and the pains had disappeared. The swelling of the foot was probably the result of a bicycle accident I had had three months earlier, and I am sure that the popping of my toes just had anaesthetised the muscles and the resulting relaxation made the pains go away.

In this last case there was no spinal manipulation involved, and I believe any experienced physiotherapist could have done the same thing, but the point is that my GPs did not send me to a physiotherapist, and that the chiros simply seem better educated - or experienced - with this kind of ailment than the GPs, and I would not hesitate to see a chiro again for a similar problem. If I knew a physiotherapist that I could trust (my wife and I unfortunately have experienced a number of "bad apples") then I would probably go to that physiotherapist, because the presumably lower risk of the treatment.

Although I am positively inclined towards chiros I wholeheartedly support the "crusade" against unwarranted and dangerous treatments that has started with Simon Singh's libel case. The good chiros do not use unwarranted treatments anyway, and if the abandonment of dangerous practices leave them with little to do, then so be it.

[Soapy Sam]

Skeptical about what? You said yourself that this was you "personal experience". By definition, that is an anecdote.
No argument. However, I have found on this forum a tendency to use the word "anecdotal" to mean "Imaginary" in accounts which do not fit the mainstream view. On a sceptic board, I find this regrettable.



If chiro was successful with the neck-related problems you mention, it shouldn't be too difficult to do a study of a number of people with a similar problem, treat them, and demonstrate a statictically significant number were helped. You see that is when your individual story becomes data we can all examine.Agreed.



That is your opinion and you are welcome to it, but there is no data to back that opinion up.No. I have the data. You don't. I have given it several times on this forum in some detail. It has been consistently dismissed as worthless anecdote. Fine. It's my neck, nobody else's, but that's what I mean about local misuse of the term "anecdotal". If ALL events that happen outside a research laboratory are going to be seen in this negative and cynical sense, then we may as well all wear blindfolds when we drive to work. ALL the evidence in Darwin's "Origin of Species" is, by your definition , anecdotal.



It is hard to "poison" someone when you cannot prescribe medicine (chiros) or give out water (homeopaths). So your point is essentially moot. Oh boy.



Unless you are alleging that the C diff outbreak was malpractice, I'm not sure of your point here.
My point is that there are far more pressing matters needing attention. The stupidity of the BCA is truly astounding and the sceptical response is both gratifying (to me personally) and surprising in it's extent. I'm suggesting it might be good if the same level of interest was being taken in something that kills a lot more people than chiropractic.

[Soapy Sam]

In this last case there was no spinal manipulation involved, and I believe any experienced physiotherapist could have done the same thing, but the point is that my GPs did not send me to a physiotherapist, and that the chiros simply seem better educated - or experienced - with this kind of ailment than the GPs, and I would not hesitate to see a chiro again for a similar problem. If I knew a physiotherapist that I could trust (my wife and I unfortunately have experienced a number of "bad apples") then I would probably go to that physiotherapist, because the presumably lower risk of the treatment.

Although I am positively inclined towards chiros I wholeheartedly support the "crusade" against unwarranted and dangerous treatments that has started with Simon Singh's libel case. The good chiros do not use unwarranted treatments anyway, and if the abandonment of dangerous practices leave them with little to do, then so be it.

Bingo. My experience closely matches yours- the chiro did not in any sense fit the impression I keep reading here- of a cynical fool spouting nonsense. I dealt with a perfectly sane person who was methodical, explained exactly what he intended to do , mentioned absolutely nothing beyond the purely mechanical and who actually achieved the result he said he would.

I too would go to a physio could I have found one to do it. It was in fact a state registered physio who advised me to see the chiropractor!

This is in no sense an endorsement of the sort of nonsense Singh has rightly described as "bogus". But in my experience -and that's all I have to go on - that sort of chiro appears to be a straw man.

[fls]

No argument. However, I have found on this forum a tendency to use the word "anecdotal" to mean "Imaginary" in accounts which do not fit the mainstream view. On a sceptic board, I find this regrettable.

I don't think anyone is denying your experience. What is at issue is what sort of conclusions can be drawn from it. Oftentimes anecdotes lack critical information which would place an entirely different complexion upon the situation. At other times they tend to represent a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy. Your type of story seems like it should be compelling, which is why it is still surprising to discover that it also happens in the presence of sugar pills.

My point is that there are far more pressing matters needing attention. The stupidity of the BCA is truly astounding and the sceptical response is both gratifying (to me personally) and surprising in it's extent. I'm suggesting it might be good if the same level of interest was being taken in something that kills a lot more people than chiropractic.

The solution is simple - one just closes all the hospitals. It makes sense to forego situations which may kill you.

Linda

[Blue Wode]

I dealt with a perfectly sane person who was methodical, explained exactly what he intended to do, mentioned absolutely nothing beyond the purely mechanical


You were lucky. Here’s an indication of the percentage of chiropractic patients who are likely not be so fortunate:
“…mechanical conditions of the musculoskeletal system were felt
to be treated effectively by chiropractic intervention and there was 100% agreement that it was beneficial in treating mechanical dysfunctions of the spine.

Non-musculoskeletal conditions in adults, including asthma (64%), gastro-intestinal complaints (61%) and pre-menstrual syndrome (PMS) (70%), were considered conditions that can benefit from chiropractic management. Opinions on the treatment of osteoporosis (43%), obesity (26%), hypertension (42%) and infertility (30%) were less conclusive. Childhood musculoskeletal and muscular conditions, infantile colic, otitis media and asthma were perceived to benefit from chiropractic intervention by more than 50% of the respondents…

...Traditional chiropractic beliefs (chiropractic philosophy) were deemed important by 76% of the respondents and 63% considered subluxation to be central to chiropractic intervention.”

The scope of chiropractic practice: A survey of chiropractors in the UK
Aranka Pollentier, Jennifer M. Langworthy,
Clinical Chiropractic (2007) 10, 147—155

http://www.cam-research-group.co.uk/POI/The%20scope%20of%20chiropractic%20practice%20a%20s urvey%20of%20chiropractors%20in%20the%20uk%20-%20Aranke%20Pollentier%20-%20Clinical%20Chiropractic%202007%2010%203%20pg%20 147-155.pdf

[steenkh]

This is in no sense an endorsement of the sort of nonsense Singh has rightly described as "bogus". But in my experience -and that's all I have to go on - that sort of chiro appears to be a straw man.
We seem both to have met well-educated non-woo chiros, but on the other hand, the listings of hundreds of chiro web pages with claims of treatment for colic, ear infections and other nonsense, seem to suggest that there are enough of the bad lot to warrant a firm action against them.

[fls]

[This is in no sense an endorsement of the sort of nonsense Singh has rightly described as "bogus". But in my experience -and that's all I have to go on - that sort of chiro appears to be a straw man.

I find it odd that you expected a fool spouting nonsense. Wouldn't it make more sense to expect that these practitioners appear sensible to themselves and to others? Most of us wouldn't be able to recognize nonsense that's outside of our area of expertise, and we certainly don't expect it in our ourselves.

However, this is a good example of the value of experience. The sort of chiro described by Singh is by far the norm, while the sort of chiro you experienced (assuming that you know that he eschews subluxations) is uncommon (http://www.chirobase.org/17QA/basis.html). Yet it seemingly makes sense to you to form a judgement based on your own experience and come to a different conclusion.

Linda

[Tomblvd]

No. I have the data. You don't. I have given it several times on this forum in some detail. It has been consistently dismissed as worthless anecdote. Fine. It's my neck, nobody else's, but that's what I mean about local misuse of the term "anecdotal". If ALL events that happen outside a research laboratory are going to be seen in this negative and cynical sense, then we may as well all wear blindfolds when we drive to work. ALL the evidence in Darwin's "Origin of Species" is, by your definition , anecdotal.

I speak to the number of observations, not where they are collected. Darwin's book is full of thousands of observations. Done in a scientific manner.

"The plural of "anecdote" is not "data""


Oh boy.


Meaning?


My point is that there are far more pressing matters needing attention. The stupidity of the BCA is truly astounding and the sceptical response is both gratifying (to me personally) and surprising in it's extent. I'm suggesting it might be good if the same level of interest was being taken in something that kills a lot more people than chiropractic.

I'm missing your point entirely here. Are you saying that we are ignoring something while we post here? I'd say most of us are more than capable of carrying on more than one online conversation at a time, discussing many things. And as I pointed out earlier, I do see the toll of chiro in my practice, so it is something that affects me directly.

If you are concerned about "something that kills a lot more people" You are more than welcome to start another thread about it.

[BillyJoe]

I find it amazing that every time someone questions the effectiveness and dangers of chiropractic, or some other form of alternative medicine, that the argument always shifts to the shortcomings or dangers of conventional medicine. Of what relevance is the problem with conventional medicine when considering the problems of chiropractic. Perhaps they both have to clean up their act.

[LissaLysikan]

Common logical fallacy - if I prove you are wrong, then I am right. There's even a name for it, but of course it ran away from my head when I went to type it.
False Dichotomy?

[Ocelot]

Common logical fallacy - if I prove you are wrong, then I am right. There's even a name for it, but of course it ran away from my head when I went to type it.
False Dichotomy?

Argument from Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy)?

[LissaLysikan]

Argument from Fallacy?
Noi - but your link got me closer - Black-or-white fallacy (web prefix)fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
(I'm a newb, can't post links yet)

[Ocelot]

(I'm a newb, can't post links yet)

Allow me

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html

[Tomblvd]

I find it amazing that every time someone questions the effectiveness and dangers of chiropractic, or some other form of alternative medicine, that the argument always shifts to the shortcomings or dangers of conventional medicine. Of what relevance is the problem with conventional medicine when considering the problems of chiropractic.

It is absolutely essential that chiro demonize modern medicine, usually with "Big Pharma" in tow, in order to raise the stature of their own. You'll always see chiro presented as "safe and effective", while medicine is nothing but, well, you know, sick people. When you have no evidence to prove your way is better, scare people away from the alternatives.


Perhaps they both have to clean up their act.

Modern medicine has many shortcomings, but there's not a day that goes by that there aren't many good men and women experimenting and investigating ways to make things better. One need only look at cancer survival rates, cases (or lack thereof) of polio, or countless other factors that prove modern medicine is improving. Compare that to chiro, they are still essentially teaching the same theories and techniques that Palmer did a century ago.

[fls]

Perhaps they both have to clean up their act.

Considering the reference to C. difficile, that takes on a whole different meaning...

;)

Linda

[fls]

Of what relevance is the problem with conventional medicine when considering the problems of chiropractic.

It speaks to the issue of what we tolerate in other arenas.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

The solution is simple - one just closes all the hospitals. It makes sense to forego situations which may kill you.

Linda

You know, that might just work:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1561

Industrial action by doctors in Israel seems to be good for their patients' health. Death rates have dropped considerably in most of the country since physicians in public hospitals implemented a programme of sanctions three months ago, according to a survey of burial societies.

The Israel Medical Association began the action on 9 March to protest against the treasury's proposed imposition of a new four year wage contract for doctors. Since then, hundreds of thousands of visits to outpatient clinics have been cancelled or postponed along with tens of thousands of elective operations. Public hospitals, which provide the vast majority of secondary and tertiary medical care, have kept their emergency rooms, dialysis units, oncology departments, obstetric and neonatal departments, and other vital facilities working normally during the industrial action.

So the basic rule is don't let a physician touch you or prescribe anything unless you really, really need it.

:)


(That physicians are dangerous should not be a surprise given the symbol they choose to represent themselves professionally has snake(s) on it.)

[Tomblvd]

You know, that might just work:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1561



So the basic rule is don't let a physician touch you or prescribe anything unless you really, really need it.

:)


(That physicians are dangerous should not be a surprise given the symbol they choose to represent themselves professionally has snake(s) on it.)




So how many people died later because of cancelled diagnostic procedures (angiograms, stress tests, etc)? How many people suffered because their elective surgery was cancelled?

Yes, cancelling thousands of elective procedures including most surgeries will result in a temporary lowering in the death rate; surgeries are inherently dangerous. You aren't preventing those deaths, just putting them off for a while.
But to argue that modern medicine is responsible for a net gain in deaths over the decades is beyond silly, it's pathologic.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2741/when-doctors-go-on-strike-does-the-death-rate-go-down


The Straight Dope

When doctors go on strike does the death rate go down?
January 4, 2008
Dear Cecil:

Hi, Cecil. I have come across a number of seemingly credible reports suggesting that every time doctors go on strike the overall death rate goes down, in some cases quite precipitously. Can you ascertain if this in fact is the case or if some other factors are at work here?

— Jacob

As we'll see below, Jacob, it's not really so surprising that mortality statistics sometimes show a drop during a doctors' strike. What's staggering is that a reasonable person could see such stats and for even an instant think: Holy crap, those doctors are killing us. Sure, there'll always be a few alternative-medicine fringe dwellers who genuinely see the medical establishment as some sinister cabal presiding over a high-density feedlot of human misery. But the way this "fact" about doctors' strikes gets passed around suggests that a lot more people are a little more nuts than you'd want to imagine.

****snip****

Heh