Are chiropractor's woo?

[SkepticalScience]

I had dinner the other day, with a bunch of people - including a chiropractor.

Everyone addressed him as "Dr." so I assumed he was some sort of Medical Dr armed with years of training and respectful of science.

But as soon as he opened his mouth, he started saying some REAL woo-woo things: the "overwhleming evidence" of the healing benefits of homeopathy, reiki(sp?) , etc.

He concluded by saying "My experience in the Chiropratic field has convinced me of one thing - as scientists, there is much we have to learn from our ancestors. Many of their healing practices need to be examined more - for there is much wisdom we have not yet learned."

All this led me to wonder, what qualifications are really needed to be a chiropractor? Do they have to go through medical school??

Or is this something I can get certified over the internet for or something??

Lemme know!
SS

[kookbreaker]

Too much of it is woo.

Chirobase (http://www.chirobase.org/)

[IIRichard]

In general, chiropractic is woo, although there may be rare exceptions. You can get more information at "Quackwatch" (http://www.quackwatch.org/) which will lead you to another couple of websites specificaly dealing with chiropractic.

IIRichard

[Soapy Sam]

Past threads on this site suggest that while chiropractors stick to spinal manipulation for musculo-skeletal problems and some forms of soft tissue injury , including nerve damage, they can be a positive force in healthcare.

As soon as they start diverging from that , there is a potential problem.

In general, the business seems to be less rational in the U.S. than in the U.K.

Spinal manipulation carries risks. It should not be done by anyone who does not understand anatomy, and probably not by people who believe in fairies.

Caveat emptor.

[CFLarsen]

Wasn't it Bob Park who said something like "Why visit a chiropractor for 4 weeks, when you can take a painkiller and get it over with right away"?

[anonimouse]

Most chiropractors subscribe to woo-ish thinking. However, it turns out one of my new neighbors is a chiro, and he's actually a pretty smart guy who has a fair disdain for many in his profession. He'd prefer to stick to what chiropractic has shown it can do reasonably well (help certain muscoskeletal conditions) and stay away from nonsense like homeopathy.

(and I admit I'm paraphrasing this, since I didn't have a tape recorder with me...)

"It makes us medical pariahs," he told me. "While I have a few doctors that will send me the occasional referral, most of them want nothing to do with me because I'm a chiropractor. I'm thankful I do well enough and am established enough that I don't need to sell bogus treatments. But others do it because they feel they have to in order to stay in business, and many others do it because they truly believe chiropractic can do all these wonderful things."

[crimresearch]

There are careers that award a degree with the word 'Dr.' in it, after a short period of specialized training following a bachelor's degree.

Optometrists, lawyers, and chiropractors come to mind.

If chiropractors would stick to the provable basics of what they do, and not make grandiose claims, I suspect that they would enjoy a better reputation.

Of course, the same could be said about lawyers...
;)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by crimresearch
There are careers that award a degree with the word 'Dr.' in it, after a short period of specialized training following a bachelor's degree.

Optometrists, lawyers, and chiropractors come to mind.

If chiropractors would stick to the provable basics of what they do, and not make grandiose claims, I suspect that they would enjoy a better reputation.

Of course, the same could be said about lawyers...



This is the first tme I've seen three years of law school following a college degree characterized as "a short period of specialized training."

I am also unaware of any attorney that refers to himself as a doctor, despite the J.D. degree. It is certainly not common.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by crimresearch
***snip***

If chiropractors would stick to the provable basics of what they do, and not make grandiose claims, I suspect that they would enjoy a better reputation.

***snip*** Unfortunately, you can't eat a good reputation. It's a rare backcracker that can earn his daily bread solely on manipulation to relieve back pain. Simple economics forces them to dabble in the "black arts" of wooity.

[Eos of the Eons]

Chiros don't attend medical school. They are "D.C.", not M.D.

I think there is some information as to why they got to call themselves "doctors"...don't have time to dig for it right now.

The first chiro (Palmer) claims to have cured someone's deafness by cracking his back. Palmer figures the back must be straight to allow for uninhibited energy flow. All ills are caused by "subluxations"...blah blah....so you must straighten the back to cure everything and keep it straight (I don't know what he proposed for a broken bone).

"I am not the first person to replace subluxated vertebrae, but I do claim to be the first person to replace displaced vertebrae by using the spinous and transverse processes as levers...and to develop the philosophy and science of chiropractic adjustments." D.D. Palmer, Discoverer of Chiropractic
... Over the succeeding months, other patients came to Palmer with every conceivable problem, including flu, sciatica, migraine headaches, stomach complaints, epilepsy and heart trouble.

...D.D. Palmer defended himself against the doctors’ attacks by presenting arguments against the medical procedures of vaccination and surgery.
http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/consumer/history.htm
Replace subluxed vertebrae? Yep, Palmer claims that our vertebrae just jump out of place (that would kill you if it really happened btw).

Chiros are notoriously anti-vaccine as well. It's a straight back you need, not vaccines.

I feel that calling them "doctors" is horribly misleading.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
This is the first tme I've seen three years of law school following a college degree characterized as "a short period of specialized training."

I am also unaware of any attorney that refers to himself as a doctor, despite the J.D. degree. It is certainly not common.

Where did I say anything about JDs calling themselves Doctor? Their diploma says 'Juris Doctor'.

And if you think that 80+ semesters (2 years full time) of law school is a long time in direct comparison to what an MD has to go through after their bachelor's, then you are innumerate.

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Where did I say anything about JDs calling themselves Doctor? Their diploma says 'Juris Doctor'.

And if you think that 80+ semesters (2 years full time) of law school is a long time in direct comparison to what an MD has to go through after their bachelor's, then you are innumerate.

Law school is three years, med school is four. While med school is a year longer, I dont consider three years of grad school "a short period of specilized training"

I'm not sure how long it takes to be an optomotrist or a chiro, so I wont comment on those.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
Law school is three years, med school is four. While med school is a year longer, I dont consider three years of grad school "a short period of specilized training"

I'm not sure how long it takes to be an optomotrist or a chiro, so I wont comment on those.


You are comparing apples and oranges.

Some lawyers might take 3 or 4 years to earn 80 graduate credits, and might do some form of internship, etc...but the overall difference in time between getting an MD and getting a JD is a significant one.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by crimresearch
And if you think that 80+ semesters (2 years full time) of law school is a long time in direct comparison to what an MD has to go through after their bachelor's, then you are innumerate.

And if you meant to say the above when claiming that it was "a short period of specialized training," then I question your writing ability.

What I think -- consistent with what I wrote -- is that I have not seen anyone else refer to law school as "a short period of specilized training."

If you wanted to say instead that law school isn't as tough as med school -- fine. I agree wholeheartedly. But the gulf between chiro training and law school is at least as wide and deep as that between law school and med school, if not moreso.

[crimresearch]

Your new claim about the relative toughness of the 2 programs is as big a diversion as your false claim about my saying that lawyers called themselves 'Doctor'.

My post was about the relative length...you can understand the difference can't you? You are just being a troll, right?

And your failure to understand that law school teaches specialized knowledge further marks you unfit to comment intelligently in this area...so why are you?

[asthmatic camel]

Words of advice from my G.P., Dr. J. M### M.D. on the occasion of my suffering a slipped disk: "Whatever you do, don't go to a chiropractor." Wise words indeed, although she was preaching to the converted.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Your new claim about the relative toughness of the 2 programs is as big a diversion as your false claim about my saying that lawyers called themselves 'Doctor'.

My post was about the relative length...you can understand the difference can't you? You are just being a troll, right?

And your failure to understand that law school teaches specialized knowledge further marks you unfit to comment intelligently in this area...so why are you?


Now you're simply blowing smoke and resulting to more direct insults with no provocation -- except that I questioned you calling law school "a short time of specialized training."

I still do question that characterization, your two attempts to re-write my posts into some bizarre claim vis-a-vis med school notwithstanding. I think it is obvious to any reader that your versions of what I have posted show either a woeful or deliberate misunderstanding of what I wrote.

Contrary to your post, I made no claim at all regarding "[your] saying that lawyers called themselves 'Doctor.'" I merely pointed out -- after asking my initial question -- that lawyers don't use the D part of the JD to call themselves doctor. How you managed to turn that into an accusation aimed at you I still have not quite worked out, but I am sure your thought processes there are interesting to a professional.

Your overly-provocative reaction to a mild query marks you as somewhat unhinged or a deliberate troll. In either case, I'm through with you.

N/A

[crimresearch]

All of that would be wonderful were it not for your track record here, which shows that innocent questions and random commentary are not in your repertoire..but insinuation and strawmen are.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.palmer.edu/PCC_Academics/DC/DCCurriculum.htm

Chiro Curriculum. Hmmmm.

[Barbrae]

IF this is accurate it is interesting:

Chiropractic VS Medical education (http://www.drburk.com/education.html)

[Suezoled]

He concluded by saying "My experience in the Chiropratic field has convinced me of one thing - as scientists, there is much we have to learn from our ancestors. Many of their healing practices need to be examined more - for there is much wisdom we have not yet learned."
*clears throat*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhh hh

sorry.

Originally posted by Barbrae
IF this is accurate it is interesting:

Chiropractic VS Medical education (http://www.drburk.com/education.html)

It's not.
http://www.drburk.com/index.html
Two things:
1.) quality is in no way denoted by quantity
2.) that pro-chiro site is still misleading

http://www.cce-usa.org/2005%20January%20STANDARDS.pdf
To save some time, you can scroll to the PDF's pages 15, 21, 22, 23... etc. One "physics" class that can be taken is kinesiology.

And mind you, this was put out in 2005 of this January. This is only 1 chiro school in the U.S. There isn't enough of an academic standard for everyone to have to follow the same basic educational standards.

Wanna talk Chiro? Go to those who actually went through the process, or at least went through it enough to read the writing on the wall. They're the brave souls who said "this is wrong" and so decided to go against such things.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1210/video/watchonline.htm

and go to "Adjusting the Joints" Very informative.

[Rolfe]

Bump for Alkatran. Just thought this thread might as well continue, since it's so recent, and the identical subject.

Rolfe.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
IF this is accurate it is interesting:

Chiropractic VS Medical education (http://www.drburk.com/education.html)

This is very misleading.

For instance, you will notice that there is no pharmacology, a requirement for M.D./D.O. (and even DPM) candidates, listed in the chiropractic curriculum. "Well," you might say, "chiropractors don't prescribe drugs. So, this should obviously be omitted from a 'fair' comparison." The problem is that many patients make visits to chiropractors and conventional, legitimate medical practitioners who may have prescribed a medication for them. How is a chiropractor, acting as a "doctor", going to fully be able to advocate for such a patient?

Furthermore, a greater divergence also occurs when it comes to clinical training. For example, how much surgical training does a chiropractor get in school? The answer: zero. Again, one might note that chiropractors don't offer surgery as a function of their specialty, but I'd add that, among other things, it is this further development and application of previously learned information (e.g., anatomy, etc.) that helps "tie together" and reinforce basic knowledge.

Lastly, having just had to calculate the total hours of my medical education for training licensure - i.e., a residency, or period of additional supervised training also not required of chiropractors - in the state in which I'm applying, I can tell you that I've personally had 4,416 hours of formal medical education, which includes my clinical training. Furthermore, the state in which I'm applying requires a minimum of 4,000 hours of medical training, including a minimum of 72 weeks of clinical clerkships.

So, comparing "classroom hours", for many reasons including a couple I touched on above, is dubious and incomplete at best. The implicit suggestion is that "book" learning stops for physicians-in-training once they leave the classroom. For the record, this is completely false. Throughout each of my clerkships, I have had lectures several times during the week. This is in addition to bedside teaching, papers and presentations I've had to prepare and give, numerous literature searches, keeping up with assigned and independent reading and, most importantly, being responsible for knowing the full spectrum of medical and potential clinical management issues of the patient's I've been assigned. Above all, to date I've been required to pass three separate, rigorous federal licensure exams that certify that I have knowledge of the medical and clinical sciences demonstrating that I will be a safe and at least minimally competent clinician.

So, in conclusion, the only thing that's "interesting" about this table is it's inaccuracy and sophistic reasoning in comparing two training curricula that have very different goals. In reality, there is no real parity between the two, especially with regrads to what happens after each leaves the classroom.

-TT