YSK that chiropractors are not medical doctors and "Systematic reviews... have found no evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective"
YSK that chiropractors are not medical doctors and "Systematic reviews... have found no evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective"
"Systematic reviews of controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have found no evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.[8] A 2011 critical evaluation of 45 systematic reviews concluded that the data included in the study "fail[ed] to demonstrate convincingly that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition."[10] Spinal manipulation may be cost-effective for sub-acute or chronic low back pain, but the results for acute low back pain were insufficient.[11] No compelling evidence exists to indicate that maintenance chiropractic care adequately prevents symptoms or diseases.[12]"
You're viewing a single thread.
This is a very north american opinion, which also happens to be very condescending in tone, while op explicitly dismiss commenters who disagree with them. The practices designated by the various terms, such as chiropractors, osteopath, physical therapists, etc. vary depending on the countries and contexts, especially in some european countries where chiropractors must answer to the same standards and regulations as the other medical professions. This should be taken into account.
Physical Therapists should not be lumped into that group at all.
Actually, a DC goes to school for 4 years to learn what they do. A PT used to go for 4 years undergrad, then 2 years for the MS. Now you really can't practice without a PhD. When a DC says they can do everything a PT can do plus Rx certain things, it really pisses PTs off. They work within the scope of a MD's direction. DC don't. Both use Phillip Greenman's Principles of Manual Medicine in their training (an Osteopathic text).
in the us, again, it doesn't happen like that in a lot of countries.
Well regulated snake oil is still snake oil. Just cause a regulatory board says its relatively safe doesnt mean its actually effective. Chiropractory is no more effective than a good massage, and you know what if thats all they advertised it as then fine. But it aint theres a whole bunch of woo mixed into it.
They run the risk of injuring their customers, with the way that they “manipulate” the neck and spine.
There are people who can generally help those with back issues or whatnot, they’re called doctors.
You can just get a good massage. They feel good and you are probably more likely dying driving back and forth from the place.
I literally said that in my comment. No better than a good massage, was meant to imply that its about as good if not worse than a good massage.
That's just not true, regulations imply healthcare reimbursement, which implies strict control on the treatment and the practicians, because insurance companies hate paying.
Osteopathy was originally pseudoscientific quackery, but has long abandoned the woo crap that was not supported by medical evidence. Osteopathic medicine today is grounded firmly and exclusively in actual science.
Physical therapy is, and always has been, medical science based therapy.
Chiropractic therapy is founded upon disproven theories and requires no actual medical training. The industry regulates its own certifications, and chiropractors are taught a perverted concept of physiology.
...from a north american perspective.
Those definitions are just not true in a lot of countries outside of the us.
Considering osteopathy was invented in the United States by an American, who was basically just making shit up, and all of the underlying theories and mechanisms of action have been thoroughly debunked, I'd say that a lie is a lie anywhere in the world, regardless of legal status.
Psychoanalysis was invented almost at the same time in Vienna and a lot of freudian concepts have since been critiqued due to his biases. Does it mean Austria forever owns psychoanalysis and anything that could be discovered since? There is a difference between a field of research, a scientific discipline and a paradigm. Debunking a theory that was invented more than a century ago doesn't disqualify every research done after that. Also, paradigm change often comes from opposing theories from the same field they oppose. If we did like that, there wouldn't be a lot of research field left standing.
You accept yourself that osteopathy was able to go beyond its suspicious origin, but refuse to imagine that chiropractice could do the same. Which is why I reiterate: chiropractice requiring no medical training is a north american thing.
It means anyone anywhere practicing Freudian therapy is peddling debunked medicine.
Chiros anywhere still crack your joints, even though it's an imaginary benefit and a very real risk. Patients of chiros would be better served in physical therapy or massage therapy. There's nowhere on earth that this isn't true.
You're just presenting nuanced conclusions as overwhelming truths to put weight on your opinion, while taking a few shortcuts. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but that doesn't mean you get to dismiss any contradicting ones by deciding unilaterally what the words mean.
Chiropractice in the US might be just "cracking joints", but it's not true everywhere. If you can't accept that, then I don't know what to tell you.
Are you saying that Chiropractors don't crack joints in other countries?