Slashdot Mirror


British Chiropractors Drop Case Against Simon Singh

SJrX writes "Several sources are reporting that the British Chiropractic Association has dropped its lawsuit against famed writer Simon Singh. He had recently won a High Court ruling in his favour, but this had been open for appeal." Also covered at The Independent and at MacLeans. Singh had angered the chiropractors' trade group with his published claim that certain chiropractice treatments were "bogus."

51 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Glad to see the UK upholding freedom of speech by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was truly surprised that Singh was sued in the first place for seemingly innocuous remarks about chiropractors. Yes, his comments basically called them to task for their industry group's assertion that chiropractic could basically cure all sorts of illnesses.

    Hopefully this serves as a warning to other "slandered" groups that they had better have something more substantial than hurt feelings if they want to abridge someone's freedom of speech.

    1. Re:Glad to see the UK upholding freedom of speech by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The BCA still ruined his life for a good year or two. That's a wonderful deterrant against people with smaller bankrolls.

    2. Re:Glad to see the UK upholding freedom of speech by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hopefully this serves as a warning to other "slandered" groups that they had better have something more substantial than hurt feelings if they want to abridge someone's freedom of speech.

      In what way did the BCA not get what they wanted? Singh's attitude went from 'you are ripoff artists' to 'please dont sue me'. The courts sided with the BCA. The eventual dropping of the case won't hurt them much, as far as I can tell. The chilling effect on critics, however, is more pronounced. Singh himself will likely not attempt this again without a legally obvious amount of evidence, which by the way, is impossible to ethically gather.

    3. Re:Glad to see the UK upholding freedom of speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is something very wrong with a legal system where someone can sue you and then drop the case or lose, and you still have to pay and are not compensated for your time.

    4. Re:Glad to see the UK upholding freedom of speech by c++0xFF · · Score: 5, Informative

      Singh might go after them for his legal fees. That would be about a £100,000 loss to the BCA (not to mention what they spent already). It doesn't make it better for Singh, but it's still a victory for everybody else. And this might spark a reform in the libel law, which is another win for everybody else.

      So far, Singh has been hit the hardest, but the fight isn't over yet. I don't know if we can make things easier on him directly, but maybe the other side can still be hit hard.

    5. Re:Glad to see the UK upholding freedom of speech by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was more than just an innocuous remark. He co-authored a book explaining why it was bogus. They did this to discredit him.

      Now, I'm going to buy the book.

    6. Re:Glad to see the UK upholding freedom of speech by VJ42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is something very wrong with a legal system where someone can sue you and then drop the case or lose, and you still have to pay and are not compensated for your time.

      Simon sing is going to go after the BCA for costs: http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/british-chiropractic-association-drops-shameful-libel-case-against-science-writer-who-criticised-them/

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  2. Chiropractors! (wait for it) by bugeaterr · · Score: 3, Funny

    What a pain in the neck! (At least proctology is based on peer-reviewed science)

    1. Re:Chiropractors! (wait for it) by Nethead · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's peer rear-viewed science.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:Chiropractors! (wait for it) by colinrichardday · · Score: 3, Funny

      As opposed to urology, which is pee-er reviewed scince.

    3. Re:Chiropractors! (wait for it) by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      And urology is pee-reviewed science.

  3. Not completely bogus by spun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They can make back pain marginally better. That's not bogus at all. They can not, however, fix much of anything else, which was Singh's complaint against them, because they claim they can fix everything from gout to cancer.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Not completely bogus by NecroPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The one that got me was their claims that they could cure colic.

      Back pain? Sure, no problem.
      Neck pain? Sometimes; depends on why the pain is there.
      Shoulder pain? I'll even buy that one.

      Colic? Often caused by gas, treated by moving the baby around. (Driving works, for some reason.)

      But [Eddie Izzard] cracking the bones [/Eddie Izzard]??? Not so much.

      I'm wondering how many chiropractically treated colic cases are going to wind up phsycially screwed up because of this... We won't know for another dozen years, tho.

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    2. Re:Not completely bogus by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > They can make back pain marginally better.

      Massage can make back pain a bit better. Since some of what chiropractors do resembles massage, they can sometimes improve it. The theory under which they operate, however, is completely bogus. If you want a massage see a massage therapist, not a quack.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Not completely bogus by c++0xFF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you have a baby with colic, you'll do just about whatever it takes to make that baby stop crying.

      Chiropractors who say they can fix it are capitalizing on the desperation of parents.

    4. Re:Not completely bogus by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They can make back pain marginally better.

      Not just back pain, and not just marginally. My dad hurt his back on the job, and the MDs could do nothing for him except give him drugs and offer surgery that could even make the situation worse. A Chiropractor cured him completely.

      But no, it won't help gout or cancer, but giving up alcohol and beans will alleviate gout.

    5. Re:Not completely bogus by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 3, Funny

      My health insurance covers a chiropractor, and not a massage. I'll see the cheaper (for me) quack and just schedule a massage there.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    6. Re:Not completely bogus by backdoc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I had a bad experience with a plumber one time. Should I say the entire profession is bad?

      I am a chiropractor. I no longer practice though. Why? Because I never subscribed to the chiropractic philosophy. I don't agree with the philosophical principles that chiropractic is founded on. But, that doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit millions of people beyond what any other health care profession can provide. Chiropractic provides more than symptomatic relief. It restores normal mobility to the joints. And, this is what I believe provides relief. I guess an Osteopath could provide that service, too.

      The problem I've seen is that percentage wise, only a small number of people seek Chiropractic care. So, to make a living, that forces the unscrupulous chiropractor to treat conditions outside of their scope or keep the patient coming in longer than necessary, under false information. I could never do either. So, I went back to school and got a degree in CS. I'm much happier.

      But, I want to correct you. Although my personality conflicts with the principles of the profession, Chiropractic does not resemble massage. It is not quackery.

      I am fully convinced that Chiropractors prevent thousands of unnecessary surgeries every year. When it comes to neuromusculoskeletal conditions, I don't think other health care providers can make that claim.

      I think the key is to find a Chiropractor by referral. If you they are helping you (give it a couple of weeks), then good for you. Otherwise, try something else.

    7. Re:Not completely bogus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm a fan of whiskey and soundproofing. Doesn't matter who you use it on, the crying isn't so bad after.

    8. Re:Not completely bogus by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Colic? Often caused by gas, treated by moving the baby around.

      Hehe... I've seen a few babies that wouldn't stop screaming get better after an adjustment.

      Not Colic per se, but you can knock bones out of place at any age.

      The chiropractors I know do a lot of muscle work too, so they're more like Chiropractor-Physio hybrids. My favourite Chiropractor also knows a lot of nutritional stuff. She just radiates knowledge compared to my MD.

      But they are people. I'm sure there's quacks, or less educated members of the profession. That happens with every profession.

    9. Re:Not completely bogus by rikkards · · Score: 4, Informative

      I appreciate your honesty. My wife experienced a mild stroke in 2004 due to an upper neck adjustment that ended up bounding back a couple days later and pinched a blood vessel. She has experienced vertigo since which is finally subsiding. She also was seeing a chiro for years before that happened. She ended up seeing a physio therapist afterwards and since then has had a lot of the initial problems dealt with.

    10. Re:Not completely bogus by anegg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fundamental theory of Chiropractic is quackery. The fact that the process of applying the theory is sometimes theraputic is not a good enough reason to excuse the basis for the practice. I believe that in some cases, where Dr.s of Chiropractic have repeatedly "manipulated" folks in an attempt to cure illness, people have become seriously injured or died. I wouldn't trust the scientific objectivity of nutritional advice from someone who believes in Chiropractic theory.

    11. Re:Not completely bogus by Zerth · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm a fan of whiskey and soundproofing. Doesn't matter who you use it on, the crying isn't so bad after.

      Is the whiskey for you, the baby, or both?

      I've bolded the answer for you:)

    12. Re:Not completely bogus by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There was at least one study done at Northwestern College of Chiropractic in the early 1990s...

      Hey, slightly OT question...

      This is one of my pet grammatical peeves, and you might actually know the answer: Why do you guys call it "Chriropractic"? That's an adjective, not a noun.

      A philosopher studies philosophy - the writing of philosophical essays - and takes courses in philosophic thinking, leading to a Doctorate in Philosophy (the original Ph.D). But he does not get a Doctorate of Philosophic.

      A psychiatrist studies psychiatry - the provision of psychiatric care - often given at a Psychiatric Hospital. If you ask him what he does for a living, he'll say he's into psychiatry, not "psychiatric".

      A chiropractor performs chiropractic treatment, fine. Goes to a "College of Chiropractic Practice/Care/Medicine/Any-other-noun-you-like?" Sure. But instead of using a perfectly cromulent word like "Chiropracty" (I'd even accept a modernized version along the lines of "Chiropractice"), you guys call it "College of Chiropractic" or "Doctor of Chiropractic". WTF? :)

      I'm not splitting hairs here - "chiropractic care", "chiropractic theory" are all gramatically fine, but you're the only profession that (mis)uses the adjective form of the profession on an institutional level. There's gotta be an interesting historical accident behind that naming quirk, and I'm genuinely curious as to what's the story? :)

    13. Re:Not completely bogus by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whoa, there. There are two different schools of thought in Chiropractic care. It's important not to lump them together.

      The first school of thought, which Wikipedia refers to as "straight" chiropractors, is an untestable pile of gibberish in which the spine and nerves cause everything that's wrong with the human body. I wouldn't disagree with your description of that as quackery, but that's not an accurate description of what most chiropractors believe.

      The second school of thought (and the predominant theory among modern chiropractors) is scientific in nature and is fairly sound. In this school of thought, misaligned spinal vertebrae cause muscles in the back and neck to tighten up to prevent injury (trivially provable). The result of this is cramping, pain, and reduced flexibility in the neck and spine (also trivially provable). This, in turn, can cause or contribute to a number of other musculoskeletal problems such as sciatica, arthritic pain in the knees, stress headaches, etc. Spinal adjustments (particularly when followed by additional muscle work) allows the muscles in the back and neck to relax, reducing pain caused by muscle stiffness, allowing greater freedom of motion. This, in turn, allows the person to use better posture without pain, which reduces the rate of damage in other places.

      Can people be injured by chiropractic care? Sure. Can people be injured by botched spinal surgery? Also yes. Is spinal surgery quackery? No, and neither is most chiropractic care.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    14. Re:Not completely bogus by uglyduckling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find it very telling that people will quickly call a chiropractor a "quack" but they will buy into just about anything an MD tells them. I myself have seen the benefits of going to a chiropractor, is it the placebo effect? Maybe, but even if it is why does that offend you so much?

      It's like this: A chiropractor will earn your trust by treating something that arguably can be treated by physical therapy / massage, e.g. lower back pain. Having gained your trust, they will then claim to be able to help you with your irritable bowel syndrome, to which you think "well he helped with my back, must be worth a try". The placebo effect of having ongoing massage, the personal attention of having an apparently skilled professional spending time treating you, etc. etc., does seem to relieve the symptoms a bit, so you keep giving this guy money. In reality, he's abusing the trust you've placed in him, because there's not only lack of evidence that his treatment works for IBS, but actually there's plenty of evidence that it doesn't work at all, not least the body of scientific knowledge about the nervous and alimentary systems gleaned over the last century or so. On the other hand, when you get a treatment from an MD it is (or should be) scientific and evidence-based. When he earns your trust, you then go to him with another problem, which he treats again with something scientific and evidence-based. There's a world of difference - one abuses your trust, the other continues to offer genuine treatment.

      Maybe in the (current) US system it doesn't matter - you can choose to spend your money or insurance premium as you see fit. In the UK, I get very angry with public money being spent on treatments proven to be non-beneificial - or at least no better than placebo.

      The other thing that makes me angry is that chiropractors (and osteopaths) wind the clock back two centuries. Two hundred years ago, medical "professionals" of all varieties spouted all sorts of gibberish, and although provided therapeutic benefit in some cases, mostly they provided a false sense of reassurance and did good more by luck than judgement. The genuine medical profession has moved on, learnt a great deal, thrown out treatments that don't work, and is based on solid science. People complain about cancer treatment, but it is only because of the modern medical profession that people live long enough to die of cancers. Chiropractic quacks try to promote an anachronistic, magical view of medicine which makes a mockery of genuine science and the hard work of the medical profession.

    15. Re:Not completely bogus by nido · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've read that Dr. Palmer (founder of chiropractic) was an early student at Dr. Still's school of Osteopathy. Palmer left after a year to found chiropractic.

      I probably shouldn't say that misaligned spinal vertebrae cause the muscle tension; correlation is not causation, and it's equally possible that the muscle tension causes the misalignment.

      Dr. Still's guiding philosophy was that muscles move bones, and nerves control muscles. His profession of doctors were fantastically successful before they got seduced by pharmaceutical-based medicine (look up the 1918 flu fatality rates for Osteopathic hospitals vs. M.D. hospitals - here's a pdf: Osteopathy and Influenza).

      While there is a time and a place for everything, drugs should be used temporarily for the immediate survival of the patient, not as maintenance-en-perpetuity.

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    16. Re:Not completely bogus by adelord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I am fully convinced that Chiropractors prevent thousands of unnecessary surgeries every year. When it comes to neuromusculoskeletal conditions, I don't think other health care providers can make that claim." I am fully convinced that Yoga Therapists with training in Western Physical Therapy do the same, and with less risk to the patient. The hybrid vigor between those two disciplines is tremendous.

      --
      Eugene Debs: "Money constitutes no proper basis of civilization"
    17. Re:Not completely bogus by treeves · · Score: 2, Funny

      I feel pretty dense right now. Thanks.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    18. Re:Not completely bogus by scrote-ma-hote · · Score: 3, Informative

      Chemo operates on the fact that we know that cancer is caused by malignant white cells, so what do we do? We nuke all your white cells.

      WTF are you talking about? Only a small subset of cancers (known as haematological) cancers are caused by malignant white cells. These are leukaemias and lymphomas. Other cancers are caused by other cells, e.g. carcinomas (epithelial cells), adenocarcinoma (glandular cells), sarcomas (connective tissue cells) etc.

      In general, chemotherapy operates on the fact that cancer is caused by rapidly-dividing, malignant cells. Primarily, chemotherapeutic drugs affect the ability of the body to create new cells, often by disrupting DNA synthesis. This means that all cells, especially cancer cells are less able to divide and grow. This is why your hair falls out, you get mucositis etc etc. These are also rapidly turning over cells.

      I'm not an oncologist (but I am a doctor, and you'll notice from my spelling that I don't live in the US), so can't quote improvement in survival, but when you base most of your statement around a misleading premise, it makes the rest of your argument look pretty shoddy.

  4. Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back problems by el_flynn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to work as a helpdesk consultant -- this was waay back 13 years ago -- and part of my duties was to lug bigass monitors for the company from one workstation to another (they were a publishing house with a lot of DTP guys). One day I lifted a monitor the wrong way, and long story short -- the back pain stayed with me right up until a couple of months ago.

    Used to be I couldn't lie face-down for more than 10 minutes before my back would start hurting. And I couldn't carry my kids much. One day the pain got so bad I went to a chiro, and the guy did manage to straighten out my back. Hurt like heck when he "realigned" my spine, but that 13-year-injury is no longer there.

    So yeah, I used to think they're bogus. But now I dont. YMMV.

    --
    The Wknd Sessions - Malaysian and South East Asia independent music
  5. If you drop it just right... by T+Murphy · · Score: 5, Funny

    "British Chiropractors Drop Case Against Simon Singh" -newspapers
    "Well that's a load off my back" -Singh
    "See! Our treatment works!" -chiropracters

  6. Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > So yeah, I used to think they're bogus.

    They are. A massage therapist could helped you more and with less hocus-pocus.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  7. Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble by The+Yuckinator · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did the chiro also offer to cure your diabetes? Cancer? Emphysema? Bad skin? This is what Singh was commenting on - the widespread, and supported-by-the-association claims to actually cure disease via Chiropractic Manipulation.

    Bogus, indeed.

  8. Re:Most are bogus... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Funny

    But the placebo effect is really great!

    Let's hope they offer him more than a placebo for his accumulated legal costs.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  9. unwittingly... by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Several sources are reporting that the British Chiropractic Association has dropped its lawsuit against famed writer Simon Singh.

    Now they've unwittingly made this the even more famed writer Simon Singh. Before this, I hadn't even heard of him. Sometimes it's smarter to let the writer write what he will then to have a high court make him look even better. Now their illusionary world looks even more like it is.

  10. Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble by Rantastic · · Score: 5, Informative

    Used to be I couldn't lie face-down for more than 10 minutes before my back would start hurting. And I couldn't carry my kids much. One day the pain got so bad I went to a chiro, and the guy did manage to straighten out my back. Hurt like heck when he "realigned" my spine, but that 13-year-injury is no longer there. So yeah, I used to think they're bogus. But now I dont.

    Except that while you may have seen a Chiropractor, I am willing to bet that he was also a licensed physical therapist. What you have described is a physical therapy treatment, not a chiropractic treatment.

    This is the reason that a lot of people think that chiropractic treatments are legitimate: They are receiving physical therapy treatments from so called "mixed" chiropractors.

    Strict, or so called "straight" chiropractors claim they can fix any problem in the body (heart disease, cancer, whatever) by manipulating your bones and muscles. That kind of nonsense is right up there with balancing the humors to restore the body's vitality.

    --
    Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.
  11. Re:McLibel by SargentDU · · Score: 2, Informative

    A few small, rich voices can make a difference!
    Part of his complaint with regard to the lawsuit was that the Chiropractors' Association that sued him also sue poor people who should have free speech rights that are socked with having to settle because they can't afford the legal costs.

  12. Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Informative

    Chiropractic treatment (massage therapy and physical therapy) has been well established as an effective treatment for back pain, and many "chiropractors" end both their claims and treatments there.

    The problem is, true Chiropractic goes much further, claiming that a wide variety of diseases are caused by "misalignments" of the spine, other joints, and soft tissue. "Traditional chiropractic assumes that a vertebral subluxation or spinal joint dysfunction interferes with the body's function and its innate intelligence." In many cases, these claims are demonstrably false.

    "Chiropractic is often described as two professions masquerading as one. Unlike the distinction between podiatry (a science-based profession for foot disorders) and foot reflexology (an unscientific philosophy which posits that many disorders arise from the feet), in chiropractic the two professions attempt to live under one roof, albeit with much tension between them."

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

  13. Boycott? by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I propose that anyone living in Britain who was seriously considering seeing a chiropractor- and still is- avoid any members of the British Chiropractors' Association, and lets them know exactly why.

    Though I suspect most people who would be willing to support this boycott wouldn't be planning on seeing a chiropractor now, if they ever were.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  14. Re:*bashes head against desk* by Rantastic · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's no such thing as the Placebo effect!

    I'm curious how you can to that conclusion. I just read the study you referenced and that is not at all what it says.

    What is actually says (emphasis mine):

    We did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients were informed.

    Nowhere in that study do the authors claim that there is no such thing as the placebo effect.

    --
    Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.
  15. Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble by catmistake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Probably not. Massage therapists work on muscles; I've never heard of one doing a spine adjustment. I, too, firmly believe 99% of chiroprators are full of shit, but the one thing they seem to do well is straighten the back... mostly they treat the symptom of back pain. But if the adjustment permanently removes the pain, I call that a cure, regardless of the quackery behind their methods.

    I'd never go to a chiropractor, ever. I'd go to an orthopedic specialist that's a doctor of osteopathic medicene, though... but of course, their science IS science. There are many D.O. chief of surgeons and D.O.'s that run hospitals. I'd even go so far to say the D.O. is better than the M.D., as far as the skill of the healer is concerned... just not as popular.

  16. Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble by abdulwahid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > So yeah, I used to think they're bogus.

    They are. A massage therapist could helped you more and with less hocus-pocus.

    I had a bad back problem a few years ago after doing martial arts. The regular doctor told me I would never be able to do sports again, gave me some drugs for the pain and I was given some massage session. One year later, I was still in pain. Although it did come and go but at the worst points I couldn't do simple things like lift the kids into the car or push a shopping trolley. I used to take pain killers and tried various different massage techniques.

    I went to two chiros. The first was bogus. He pulled and pushed me around and I didn't feel any better afterwards. A few months later I went to a second one at had a greatly different experience. He was very methodical and explained exactly what he was doing and where the problems in my body where. Many clicks later and a few sesssions later I felt much better. I could stand straight again with ease - no pulling pain sensation like before.

    Now it has been a good few years and I have no back problems anymore. I even play sport again normally.

    My conclusion was that there are a lot of bogus people out their practising these types of techniques but perhaps with a really skilled person and with very specific problems in the back, their techniques really can help.

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
  17. Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mr. Singh didn't say that all Chiropractic procedures are bogus. It's the stuff about curing allergies and diabetes and stuff - that is the bogus part. But don't take this to mean that a good chiropractor can't work wonders if you have disc problems.

  18. At last! by QuasiRob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thats put those stupid Quacks in their place. Glad it's over, it was distracting me from ridiculing homeopathy. http://www.1023.org.uk/

    --
    If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?
  19. Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble by c++0xFF · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My conclusion was that there are a lot of bogus people out their practising these types of techniques but perhaps with a really skilled person and with very specific problems in the back, their techniques really can help.

    I currently have some (not too bad) back pain from several years ago. It comes and goes, but I can live with it.

    Every time I hurt, my wife suggests I go to a chiropractor. But I don't -- because I don't know who I can trust. How do I know it's not some quack? How do you find that "really skilled person" and know you have one of those "very specific problems in the back?"

    My current theory is to ask them what they can cure. If they say suggest wacko things like cancer and ear aches, I'll go somewhere else. You'd think there would be a better way, though, wouldn't you?

  20. Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've never heard of Chiropractors curing cancer. Heh - when my chiropractor got a malignant melanoma, she got it cut out before it could spread. :P

    But I have heard the theories that proper alignment can help your body heal itself. I'd be interested in statistics (one way or the other) showing cancer rates in people that regularly have chiropractic adjustments, vs those that don't. Is anyone aware of such statistics?

  21. See a Physiatrist instead. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Interesting
    For all those considering seeing a Chiropractor, consider seeing a Physiatrist instead. This is a MD specializing in restoring optimal function to people with injuries to the muscles, bones, tissues, and nervous system. Quite often they have Chiropractic training (or the equivalent) as well. They know when to stop "cracking the bones" and start doing medicine and have the MD to do so. They also don't seem to want the "maintenance" income - I mean - visits that Chiropractors seem to want...

    Personal example. My wife injured her neck hiking. The Chiropractor did one x-ray and wanted to start her on routine (weekly) manipulations to get and keep things "aligned". The Physiatrist did several x-rays, took a complete medical history, did one manipulation and a gave shot of cortisone into the controlling neck muscle and told her she only had to return if she re-injured it. She never needed any further treatment.

    Another example. A friend hurt her foot, but was actually dating a Chiropractor. He said he could fix her foot with manipulation and massage. After a week of pain, he took her to his office for an x-ray - that revealed her foot was actually broken.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  22. Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble by nido · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Every time I hurt, my wife suggests I go to a chiropractor. But I don't -- because I don't know who I can trust.

    I hurt for a long time. It started when I was in college, so I went to the campus health center. The Physician's Assistant said I didn't have carpal tunnel syndrome, gave me double-strength ibuprofen, and said to exercise. A few weeks later I went back to see the M.D., who said there was nothing wrong with me that a little exercise wouldn't fix, and offered to write a prescription for occupational therapy (to evaluate my posture while using teh computer, I think).

    While I was very thin, I was hardly sedate. I upped my physical activity, but it only made the inflammation and shooting pains worse.

    I took myself to a chiropractor. Crack crack crack, then her assistant applied a mechanical massager, "see you next week". I saw no improvement after the second or third visits, so I didn't go back to her.

    I had double health insurance, so I went to another M.D. nearby. He said there was nothing wrong we me. I went to a third M.D., who said there was a chiropractor nearby who got good results for many of his patients.

    I went to that chiropractor, who did a form of light-force manipulation. I saw him once, and knew he couldn't help my case.

    Over a period of 7 years I had appointments with over 7 chiropractors, at least 4 M.D.s, dozens of massage therapists and other non-doctor body-workers, and over 7 D.O.s.

    The first body-worker I ever went to did an intense form of massage with her thumbs that caused my body to completely relax - it was as if I melted into her table. I felt fabulous for a week and a half, then the burning all-over pain returned, with a vengeance. I went back to the same woman when I got home for the summer, but she wasn't able to repeat the effect. Years later I figured out what happened...

    The 18th doctor put it well: “All some people need is any kind of touch – this is why people love their masseuse or their chiropractor. The rest of us just look for the specific kind of touch we need.”

    How do you find that "really skilled person" and know you have one of those "very specific problems in the back?"

    I've written a few things on this topic. I just put one of my opt-in emails on my website. It's a story about how I fixed my father's dog's accident-induced limp with hands-on therapy. Feel free to send me an email (to the address at the bottom of that page) if you have any questions.

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  23. Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ear aches are actually a really bad example. A lot of ear aches are really muscle knots in the SCM (sternocleidomastoid) muscle.

    And even when you have a real ear ache with a bacterial causes, chronic ear aches can be the result of excessive tension in certain neck muscles causing insufficient eustachian tube drainage. When the ears don't drain properly, they are more prone to infection. That's not saying chiropractic care can fix the infection, but it can reduce the incidence of it.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  24. Chiropractors and chiropractors by Caity · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's been said already that some chiropractors happen to also be good physio therapists.

    I have a friend who is a chiropractor who eventually was forced to start her own clinic because she refused to do kineaseology (i'm pretty sure I spelled that wrong, but whatever).

    That's the one where you lie down and hold up your arm and they push your arm down and ask you a question like "did something bad happen do you where you were a teenager" - depending on how hard it is to push your arm down in response to that question, they determine whether they're on the path to working out the trauma that's causing whatever your present health problem is (ie, if it's easy to push down, they're on the right track!).

    They keep asking questions until they narrow it down enough that you are supposed to be able to figure it out. In my case apparently all my problems were caused by a falling out I had with a friend when I was 15... "so, did you have any falling outs with friends when you were 15? Right, well, that's the reason why you have a hip problem now you're 32!". Utter utter bullshit.

    But she couldn't get a job in an established clinic because she wouldn't practice it!