Paralyzed woman sues chiropractic for half billion III
Tue, 2008-06-17 19:09
#1
Paralyzed woman sues chiropractic for half billion III
Tue, 2008-06-17 19:09
#2
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000702]C... from here.[/url]
Wed, 2008-06-18 04:42
#3
quote:
Triciamarie, do either of those conditions impinge on a flow of healing energy to the body?
I would think anything that is out of its natural alignment would impede things like circulation, "electricity" flow, neural communication, and probably other things that science knows about that I don't. I don't find this concept particularly kooky.
I know if I'm getting work done on one part of my body, I will feel "energy flow" in other parts, as well. This is a common phenomenon for everyone, except maybe peope who deny, or can't recognize what they're feeling in their own body.
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: jas ]
Wed, 2008-06-18 05:39
#4
Wayne MacPhail, I would appreciate if you would refrain from levelling personal insults at me everytime you don't agree with something I say.
Wed, 2008-06-18 06:06
#5
wayne, have you ever had a chiropractic adjustment or treatment?
Wed, 2008-06-18 06:49
#6
earlier posted by wayne:
quote:
---------
quote:
A subluxation is a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health.
----------Any neurologist or anatomist will tell you that's a complex crock of nonsense. It's basically a complicated way of saying "we think vertebrae pinch spinal nerves that deliver healing energy to the body". So, classic D.D. Palmer stuff.
[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subluxation]subluxation[/url]
quote:
Dictionary.com Unabridged v 1.1 - Cite This Source - Share Thissub·lux·a·tion Audio Help suhb-luhk-sey-shuhn Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Medicine/Medical.
[b]a partial dislocation, as of a joint; sprain.[/b]
Origin: 1680–90; < NL subluxātiōn-, s. of subluxātiō; see sub-, luxation
Dictionary.com Unabridged v 1.1
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
so yes, what you quoted from the chiropractic source does sound like a fancy way of saying exactly what the definition of subluxation is, namely a dislocation ([i]articular changes[/i]). now, i hope you are not going to disagree with basic anatomy that the nerves that exit from the spine control electrical signals that affect muscle and organ function. pretty simple. and when these [i]articular changes[/i] reduce the opening these nerves pass through, most doctors, MDs that is, will refer to that as a "pinched nerve" and tell you you're hooped without surgery and serious pain medication. sounds alot like the quoted [i]compromise neural integrity[/i] doesn't it.
this isn't rocket surgery or brain science. it's simple mechanics. it seems wayne that what you take issue with is the esoteric language used to describe it. that's just marketing, something all doctors do too. and i don't mean advertising style marketing. asking someone to wash their hands with an "approved sanitary anti-bacterial gel" sounds way more fancy than "soap", and doctors like to look and sound fancy.
here's a simple annecdote:
when i was 17 i was at a halloween party and very drunk, as were all the other people standing around in the parking lot as we drove away (i was a passenger in my own car), i ruffed the ruffles on one of the Three Musketeers standing beside the car. He didn't care for that and sucker punched me right in the jaw, on my right side. not very gentlemanly, no. so i got out and knocked the guy down, and was immediately set upon by the other Musketeers, who were his brothers. all very stupid and the end result was stitches under my left eye, and, this is the point of it, my jaw was "out", and my teeth didn't fit together. my bite was so off i was getting shooting pains in the joint of my jaw. clearly it was out of alignment. at the hospital that night they did a series of x-rays on my jaw, and aside from the misalignment, there were no cracks or fractures of any sort.
so, i went to see my GP to get the stitches removed, whom i thought up until that point was a nice woman, and my dentist, at her suggestion, in the same clinic, who i thought was a nice man.
it was too early to take them out, and she tut-tutted about my foolishness, which was fair enough, and the dentist took bite impressions of my misaligned teeth, tut-tutting the whole time, and scheduled me for a series of appointments to have my teeth ground to fit again.
the pain in my jaw persisted, so i asked my chiropractor about it when i went to see him next, and he had a look, in a very gentle and measured manner adjusted my jaw, and immediately my teeth fit and the pain stopped in the joints. the "adjustment" by the way, was simply applying controlled pressure laterally and vertically, while i opened and closed my mouth, the result of which i would describe as "reseating" my jaw. not too hard of a concept to grasp, and very gentle in execution. it went "out" once more while eating, and a follow up adjustment was all i needed to permanently fix it.
i then returned to the clinic to have the stiches removed and see the dentist. My GP asked how my jaw was and if the dentist was helpful. I replied that my chiro had fixed my jaw, i had no pain and my teeth fit again. she lost it on me! she started ranting and raving about how chiropractors are witch doctors and whatever he did would be temporary and i would have a lifetime of problems. i walked out, disgusted.
the dentist was even more outraged after he did some further bite tests (they use a sort of carbon paper). he asked what had happened between my last visit and now and i told him about the chiro adjustment, and he lost it too! when he was done frothing, i asked him if he was mad because my chiro had just cost him a whack of money he was going to charge to "fix" my teeth. well, that certainly didn't go over well.
i never went back and have never had any further alignment or pain issues with my jaw. if i had been docile and listened to the dentist, i would still have misaligned jaw and teeth that had been ground up in unnatural ways. not unlike your vertebrae being misaligned and then having surgery to fix it, when a simple, non-invasive, manipulation by a trained hand would suffice quite nicely.
subluxation doesn't exist eh? note the origin of the word according the Random House definition. 1680-90. not something D.D. Palmer invented. not a kooky mystical term.
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]
Wed, 2008-06-18 07:28
#7
Catchfire
The more I read Wayne, the more it seems like he has constructed an inviolable idea of what chiropractic care is, and when others tell him that his research differs from their experience, he points back to his own construction and tells them their experience is wrong. And then he calls others "obtuse."
Most people have agreed that spinal misalignment should not affect things like heartburn. Most people who support chiropractic care point out that doctors often recommend chiropractic for back pain. Yet Wayne repeatedly ignores this information and repeats the word "subluxation." A search for that word on the Canadian Chiropractic Association website, incidentally, comes up with zero hits. In fact, what they do claim is:
quote:
Chiropractors are regulated, primary care health providers. In cases such as low back pain, chiropractic care may be the preferred method of treatment. Where other medical conditions exist, chiropractic care may support medical treatment by relieving the musculoskeletal aspects associated with the condition. Chiropractic care may also be palliative, providing symptomatic relief of the musculoskeletal disorders associated with chronic conditions.
Now, in light of Wayne's assertions and the case in question, a skeptic would certainly be worried by certain euphemisms used that may betray a new-age-ism behind some treatments (i.e. "musculoskeletal aspects associated with the condition") but as for back pain, it is my understanding that chiropractic care is good for this, and I have personally been prescribed it by two doctors (I only used it for a short while before abandoning it).
But Wayne's "subluxation" straw man that he seems to know better than chiropractics themselves won't allow him to accept any benefits chiropractic care might offer.
Wed, 2008-06-18 07:44
#8
I'm sorry, I missed the "obtuse" comment in the earlier thread - I just noticed it was long and continued to a new thread without reading the last few posts. triciamarie is right - let's keep this conversation free of those kind of remarks, Wayne.
Wed, 2008-06-18 08:54
#9
My apologies, I did not mean that the poster was "obtuse" as in "dull or unintelligent" but rather that he/she was being, in my opinion "deliberately obtuse" and complicating a simple metaphor.
Wed, 2008-06-18 10:03
#10
well said Catchfire
Wed, 2008-06-18 10:21
#11
M. Spector
quote:
Since starting my training in neurology in 1993, I have seen virtually all the complications of chiropractic care that one can imagine. These include compressed spinal cords, crushed nerves in the neck and back, torn arteries and muscles in the neck, broken necks, a wide variety of strokes, and at least two deaths. I have also seen patients with huge tumours compressing their spinal cords, which their chiropractors were treating with a lengthy series of manipulations, needlessly delaying the urgent medical treatment that these patients required. My experience, unfortunately, is hardly unique. The vast majority of practicing clinical neurologists have similar stories to tell. The practice of chiropractic provides a steady stream of injured patients for an already grossly overworked medical community.
Dr. Brad Stewart, neurologist and assistant professor of neurology, Univ. of Alberta, in the foreword to Wayne MacPhail's and Paul Benedetti's book [url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=uiRRwf8oKZMC&printsec=frontcover&source=... Doctors[/url]
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Wed, 2008-06-18 10:41
#12
Catchfire, you say, "but as for back pain, it is my understanding that chiropractic care is good for this, and I have personally been prescribed it by two doctors"
Most people do go to chiropractors for low back pain. Many more get their necks adjusted. Why?
Sandy Nette had no back pain, no neck pain, no headache. Her neck was adjusted. Why?
Wed, 2008-06-18 10:48
#13
Catchfire
Wayne you are right. They should not get their necks adjusted. People should not get treatment from chiropractic if there is no pain or complaint. Moreover, if adjusting the neck or even the spine risks stroke or bulging or paralysis, then these risks need to be studied and analyzed, the same way risks of surgery or medication are considered.
But this is not what you have been saying on this thread. Or rather, it is all you have been saying, in an unfortunate attempt to rebut testimony that claims chiropractic treatment improved their physical condition where a GP failed. Again, I mentioned nothing about neck adjustment, but you felt it necessary to pry it into my statement somehow.
Yours is a poor, unscientific argument for abolishing chiropractic treatment, which, again, has made at least a case for its effectiveness against back pain. It is diversionary, and in some cases, rudely dismissive.
Wed, 2008-06-18 11:12
#14
quote:
..My experience, unfortunately, is hardly unique. The vast majority of practicing clinical neurologists have similar [b]stories[/b] to tell. The practice of chiropractic provides [b]a steady stream[/b] of injured patients for an already grossly overworked medical community...
a steady stream of "stories". once again, no cited statistics. how steady is this stream? 1 a day? 1 a year? 1 every 50 years? why is this not in the news more? why have neurologists not been raising a hue and cry to have this tragedy continue? is it because they are so grossly overworked making money hand over fist that they don't have time for activism on behalf of these injured patients?
this trial is going to make alot of people look foolish, and it won't be the chiropractors.
Wed, 2008-06-18 11:24
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:
[b]..Sandy Nette had no back pain, no neck pain, no headache. Her neck was adjusted. Why?[/b]
that's a great question wayne! why, if she had no symptoms, and no pain, did she get her neck adjusted?
if she signed a waiver, which you said earlier she couldn't remember if she had (which will be on file if she did and easily provable), then that is informed consent, just like if they put you under general anasthetic for surgery, and she was consenting to the legitimate practice of preventative maintainance, knowning the potential risks.
i have yet to see a chiropractor who would touch me without taking x-rays, have them sent out for third party analysis, and then review them with me before even the first adjustment.
i have yet to see a chiropractor, or for that matter read or hear about them, who would adjust any part of you if it was unnecessary.
i have been to a doctor though who, when i saw him for a bad case of poison ivy, and after specifically telling him i didn't want a steroid based prescription, gave me one anyway, completely ignoring me. fortuately, the pharmacist next door, traditionally trained, but subsequently trained as a naturopath and had a dual practice, could read the prescription when i went to have it filled, and honoured my request and gave me a non-steroid herbal alternative that worked perfectly.
so far, heresay and anecdotal "evidence", and just plain dismissal of differing points of view from the anti-chiropractic camp are all i see.
Wed, 2008-06-18 11:27
#16
Farnival, in the story I co-wrote for the Globe and Mail Dr. Stewart says he and his colleagues in Edmonton alone see one to two cases of stroke following neck manipulation per month.
And, in fact in 2002 Stewart and 62 other clincal neurologists across Canada issued a [url=http://www.chirobase.org/15News/neurol.html]warning[/url] about this very thing.
Many neurologists and doctors have done lots of volunteer work to raise awareness of this issue. Your statement:
quote:
is it because they are so grossly overworked making money hand over fist that they don't have time for activism on behalf of these injured patients?
is groundless.
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]
Wed, 2008-06-18 11:33
#17
Speaking of anecdotal evidence, I work with a nurse who also works in the vascular unit of a big hospital in Toronto. She was telling me today about one of her patients, who injured her shoulder and went to a chiropractor. Turned out there was damage to the major artery going into her arm, and whatever the chiropractor did made it worse. Long story short, the artery developed a clot, the arm died and had to be amputated.
You get enough anecdotes, they add up to data.
Wed, 2008-06-18 11:35
#18
Farnival you asked, "why, if she had no symptoms, and no pain, did she get her neck adjusted?"
Because she had been led to believe, and chiropractic literature encourages, chiropractic treatment to maintain health.
Given that many chiropractors believe there is little harm and much value in neck adjustments, informed consent is impossible to give as it is based on misleading information.
Sandy Nette got her neck adjusted because she trusted her chiropractor. That is not her fault.
Wed, 2008-06-18 11:46
#19
M. Spector
Watch the [i]Scientific American Frontiers[/i] segment on chiropractic on the [url=http://www.pbs.org/saf/1210/video/watchonline.htm]PBS website[/url] (third box from the top).
Wed, 2008-06-18 12:04
#20
quote:
I have yet to see a chiropractor who would touch me without taking x-rays, have them sent out for third party analysis, and then review them with me before even the first adjustment.
Out of the 4 chiropractors in whose hands I've been, I've had 3 who did precicely that. So, you can either assume I'm lying, seriously inattentive, or accept that at least in the GTA it can happen 3 out of 4 times. (sorry, one of them was in Midland)
quote:
if she signed a waiver, which you said earlier she couldn't remember if she had (which will be on file if she did and easily provable), then that is informed consent,
I signed waivers. 2 out of 4 did not discuss them with me and I don't remember what they said. One discussed the possibility of stroke as a very remote possibility, but certainly not the way he did it, and one had me sign in the context of what I can only describe as a sales pitch on the benifits of chiropractic in general, and himself in particular. It was he who I mentioned in the first thread as having a whole family in, toddlers on up, whom he treated purely preventitavely. Actually it was he who contributed the most to turning me off chiropractic, along with talking to my own doctor about it.
The guy I've seen most, and he's a pretty nice guy really, treats his whole family preventitavely. I do not for a minute think he believes himself to be doing other than good. Had I been financially strapped he probably would have given me freebies.
I used to be a fan, and I'll be the first to admit having your neck popped like that feels great. Just speaking for myself though, and with my own little anecdotes, I look forward to a lot more light being shone on this practice.
Wed, 2008-06-18 12:06
#21
quote:
Originally posted by Sineed:
[b]..Long story short, the artery developed a clot, the arm died and had to be amputated.[/b]
Look up Deep Vein Thrombosis if you consider the rare chiropractic induced stroke is an issue. You'll be running around banning people from sitting down.
Wed, 2008-06-18 12:32
#22
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]...Out of the 4 chiropractors in whose hands I've been, I've had 3 who did precicely that. So, you can either assume I'm lying, seriously inattentive, or accept that at least in the GTA it can happen 3 out of 4 times. (sorry, one of them was in Midland)......I signed waivers. 2 out of 4 did not discuss them with me and I don't remember what they said. One discussed the possibility of stroke as a very remote possibility, but certainly not the way he did it, and one had me sign in the context of what I can only describe as a sales pitch on the benifits of chiropractic in general, and himself in particular...[/b]
well, i would walk right out of any doctor's office that tried to give me a sales pitch about anything. i would also walk out of a chiropractor i didn't know who did not take or look at existing x-rays of me.
and if you didn't discuss a liability waiver with a chiro who also didn't talk about it, then i'd say both parties are at fault.
there has to be a measure of responsibility and skepticism on the part of the patient, or as the doctors now call us, consumers when you are dealing with health care professionals. if safety steps are not followed or risks not discussed, that is negligent for sure, but both parties bear some responsibility. doctors are not gods to be blindly followed and believed. in any profession.
wayne, i happen to agree with the preventative maintainance theory espoused by chiropractic. that in may make me a fool in your eyes, but it has worked out quite well so far, and makes perfect sense to me. but my chiros don't adjust something that doesn't need it. perhaps this woman's chiro was incompetant. it does sound like this woman was/is a bit naive and is now looking for someone to blame. sorry if that sounds harsh, but so does the witchhunt going on here.
and these neurologists, did they ever call on individual chiros to be barred from practice and be charged with negligence causing harm to these patients they've seen? why have i not read about this except here on this thread?
you still haven't answered my previous questions of charges against chiropractors for causing strokes and death. when/who/where?
and btw, if you are going to link to a warning and claim it's a legitimate source, could you use a published peer reviewed journal or professional news outlet, not an anti-chiropractic conspiracy site run by MD's who clearly have an axe to grind? i googled Brad Stewart, MD, FRCPC, who wrote the warning and the only place it appears or his name comes up is the site you linked to. no news outlets, or anything else. thanks. (someone made a 9/11 reference earlier i think)
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]
Wed, 2008-06-18 12:41
#23
Farnival said:
quote:
it does sound like this woman was/is a bit naive and is now looking for someone to blame.
Watch the videos then repeat that statement.
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]
Wed, 2008-06-18 12:50
#24
quote:
Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:
[b]Farnival said:Watch the videos then repeat that statement.[/b]
wayne, i'm not and never have said this woman didn't suffer an injury, and is now seeking compensation. that happens every day with botched medical proceedures. i'm quite certain the videos are heartwrenching. anyone that is paralyzed for whatever reason has a heartwrenching story too.
that still doesn't not make the case you are making. you have claimed subluxation is a made up term by chiros that doesn't exist, but it's not made up.
i pointed out for the first 150 posts in this discussion, to the annoyance of many posters here, only used your book, and your opinion stated forcefully as fact as a reference, and still have provided no published statistics on what you and some MD's call an epidemic.
you still have not answered any questions regarding charges or penalties faced by chiropractors for a proceedure you say they know is harmful, other than telling me to watch a video you made, and refer me to a conspiracy site.
you are the author. you are the researcher. the burden of proof falls to your, not me or the other posters here.
and you have yet to do that.
Wed, 2008-06-18 12:52
#25
Chiropactic colleges do a really poor job of sanctioning their members. I've seen the proceedings.
And in terms of criminal charges. You want to know the truth? When the victims of chiropractors or their surviving families sue they get worn down and beaten down by chiropractic associations.
They often end up settling out of court with a gag order attached to the settlement because the chiropractic associations throw tons of money, lawyers and experts at them. If that doesn't happen, the stroke victim dies before (because it's been drawn out) the case is settled and the final settlement drops to almost zero because the victim is dead.
So, when all that happens, you know what, those beaten down families have no time, money or will to proceed with any kind of criminal charges.
That's the reality. Show some sympathy.
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]
Wed, 2008-06-18 12:58
#26
can you provide a list of these court cases where the alleged victims were "beaten down" by the system and tons of money?
can you provide specific examples, as in actual cases, where the person died before the trial finished?
i'll show some sympathy when you provide concrete, verifiable information that isn't only in your book, and answer the questions i keep asking with links to published clinical studies that are peer reviewed.
so far, nada.
and i think it wouldn't be too hard to make the same case for victims of medical doctors blowing it and causing tragic outcomes for thier patients, then tying things up in legal proceedings. that i do read about in the papers.
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]
Wed, 2008-06-18 13:02
#27
farnival, I can be of no further assistance to you.
You're welcome to take that as victory, substantiation, validation, vindication, proof of my bias or conclusive evidence that you are right and I lack the evidence to prove my case. Or whatever.
Truth is, you have just exhausted my patience with your lack of sympathy and unwillingness to appreciate the issue at hand. I wish you well.
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]
Wed, 2008-06-18 13:07
#28
quote:
Originally posted by farnival:
[b]i'll show some sympathy when you provide concrete, verifiable information that isn't only in your book, [/b]
In the first thread, he listed SOURCES that didn't include his book. He listed tons of them. You ignored them.
He did the research FOR the book, he listed the sources he used for the book, but they're not good enough. He could list 1000 sources and it wouldn't be good enough.
What's the point?
Wed, 2008-06-18 13:07
#29
that's twice now.
perhaps if you'd like to send me a gratis copy of your book, replete with verifyable references of course, so i can get the real story, since you are unable to provide any help here?
i have absolute sympathy for anyone injured in the pursuit of good health by a medical professional.
what i don't have any sympathy for is witchhunts against a who profession based on annecdotal evidence and statistical insignificance.
now, don't go jumping on that last word. the injured people aren't insignificant or are their problems. what i mean is there is a statistical rate of injury in all the medical disciplines and chiropractic is certainly not exempt.
but this is making a mountain out of a molehill.
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]
Wed, 2008-06-18 13:13
#30
the point is wayne can't prove his point, even with 1000's of so-called references.
and the court case will determine that, i'm sure. but i will absolutely return here and apologise to wayne if he is in fact correct and the result of the court case is that subluxation doesn't exist as he postulates, and the chiropractic profession is barred from performing neck manipulations as they have no benefit.
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]
Wed, 2008-06-18 13:25
#31
quote:
Originally posted by farnival:
the point is wayne can't prove his point, even with those 1000's of references you refer too.and the court case will determine that.
It is good to see that a point can't be proven through sources that you won't bother to look at - while at the same time complaining about no sources. (and even though some of those sources are collected at a "conspiracy site" it is easy to see that they reference countless studies which have appeared in the most prestigious medical journals in the world.)
quote:
this trial is going to make alot of people look foolish, and it won't be the chiropractors.
You seem very certain. And what if (and I repeat if) there is a trial and the judge rules that neck manipulations are unsafe based on the evidence provided.
Wed, 2008-06-18 13:50
#32
quote:
Look up Deep Vein Thrombosis if you consider the rare chiropractic induced stroke is an issue. You'll be running around banning people from sitting down.
Look up the difference between arteries and veins.
Wed, 2008-06-18 13:51
#33
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]You seem very certain. And what if (and I repeat if) there is a trial and the judge rules that neck manipulations are unsafe based on the evidence provided.[/b]
well, if you read my previous post fully, you will see i said i would return here and say i was wrong.
but i'm pretty confident that i won't have to do that.
and i have gone through the references wayne did post and so far the ones i can find online are inconclusive in thier results. if i have time i'll post the links that wayne could have posted originally, as people do on babble when they are citing sources.
and as for the conspiracy site, so now this is a legit source, but in other forums it's not? interesting.
well, i can see my view is appreciated about as much as i appreciate wayne's, so to paraphrase an author we know,
"i can be of no further use to you". buh-bye.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-06-18 14:24
#34
quote:
Originally posted by farnival:
and as for the conspiracy site, so now this is a legit source, but in other forums it's not? interesting.
Any site has to be judged by its content. And maybe I wasn't clear, as I wasn't telling you to accept what was at the site, but was pointing out that many of the references were to the most prestigious medical journals in the world, so if you dismiss the original article due to its location (which is fine with me) then it still gives you plenty of articles to reference which are found in very reputable locations.
For example the last example Wayne provided - in which you dismissed Brad Stewart - includes 23 references, most of which come from medical journals such as the first 3 from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The Canadian Medical Association Journal also reported the warning from the 62 neurologists.
There is a difference though between say a 9/11 conspiracy site printing a bunch of crap they make up or feel must true and a 9/11 conspiracy site printing something from or related to a legitimate engineering journal or physics journal.
There is also a difference for example between a neurologist, such as Brad Stewart, talking about strokes and a couple of people from loose change with little to no engineering and physics training talking about everything related to physics and engineering.
Wed, 2008-06-18 14:41
#35
TemporalHominid
The suit names:
-the couple's chiropractor, Gregory John Stiles;
-The Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors
-The Alberta Ministry of Health and Wellness.
Chiropractic treatments should not be patially covered by Alberta health. It's not based on science but rather pseudo-science. As the lawsuit / statement of claim states:
quote:
The procedure is an ineffective and dangerous one which chiropractors employ routinely..Ideological practitioners of chiropractic masquerading in the white smock of science perpetuate its unregulated indiscriminate use with the condonation and protection of their supposed regulator against all reason. It has got to be stopped.
Both the chiropractic association and Alberta Health and Wellness should have known such a procedure has not been scientifically proven and could pose risks to a patient's health...
Members of the association and other health-care groups warned the association the procedure "had its origins in borrowed and mystical and occult practices of a bygone era...
Alberta Health was aware that the province's chiropractic system was confused, poorly regulated and presented a major health risk
Chiropractic treatments are not a harmless placebos, they have potential to cause great consequences.
Wed, 2008-06-18 15:06
#36
Are Chiropractic treatments covered by provincial health insurance? I've never been to one, or really heard much about them. I actually thought it was a specialist with a medical degree before reading this. Where do they go to school? I cannot find anything about chiropractory at universities??
Wed, 2008-06-18 15:10
#37
I believe that there are only two in Canada:
[url=http://www.cmcc.ca/]Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College[/url]
and
[url=http://www.uqtr.uquebec.ca/]University of Quebec at Trois Riviиres[/url]
Those I know who are Chiropractors went to school in the US.
Wed, 2008-06-18 15:19
#38
quote:
posted by Kevin Laddle:
[b]Are Chiropractic treatments covered by provincial health insurance?[/b]
I can't speak for the rest of the provinces but until recently they were covered in Ontario - if memory serves correctly they were added to the list in the early 70's and were delisted a couple of years ago.
Wed, 2008-06-18 15:36
#39
M. Spector
[url=http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ohip/chiropractic.html]Three and a half years ago, actually.[/url]
Wed, 2008-06-18 16:42
#40
Some chiropractors are being very revealing in their comments on the Sandy Nette video [url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=SHX7m09OZ8E]on You Tube[/url].
Wed, 2008-06-18 17:49
#41
quote:
For example the last example Wayne provided - in which you dismissed Brad Stewart - includes 23 references, most of which come from medical journals such as the first 3 from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The Canadian Medical Association Journal also reported the warning from the 62 neurologists.
Of course we can always trust what is in medical journals.
or as Richard Smith former editor of the British Medical Journal [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/oct/30/bewaremedicaljournal...
quote:
Can you trust medical journals? You might hope that you could - not least because they are one of the main conduits between new research and doctors. News from the journals also features regularly in the mass media, influencing public and political thinking on health, sickness, birth, and death; pretty important things, I'm sure you'll agree. My conclusion after 25 years working for a medical journal, 13 of them as the editor, is that you should be suspicious of journals. Maybe if you're smart you're suspicious of everything.One problem with medical journals is that much of what they contain is plain wrong. And much of what's not wrong simply doesn't matter. Canadian researchers have for years been combing medical journals to find research articles that matter to patients and are "true" in that their conclusions are supported by their methods and data: they find that it's less than 5% of the article and for most journals less than 1%.
Wed, 2008-06-18 19:47
#42
TemporalHominid
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[QB][/QB]
I trust peer reviewed journals that are challenged by the whole medical profession, every day,
medical science is always under scrutiny, always self correcting, always being tested, and new data is always considered. Skepticism should be the default position; inquiry never stops. That is, refuse to believe a claim unless and until the scientific evidence for that claim becomes so great it would be illogical and unreasonable not to believe it.
Chiropractic "medicine" is stagnant, it is going no where fast. Chiropractic has a supernatural focus. The supernatural is not observable, not testable. Faith is required, as scientific evidence is not available to support the supernatural claims of chiropractic
I should note : I am not a qualified medical doctor...
...but I am a qualified chiropractor, a qualified astrologist, a qualified reflexologist, a qualified alchemist, a qualified magnetic therapist, a qualified pet psychic, and a feng shui expert
[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]
Wed, 2008-06-18 20:37
#43
quote:
I trust peer reviewed journals that are challenged by the whole medical profession, every day,
medical science is always under scrutiny, always self correcting, always being tested, and new data is always considered.
According to Richard Smith from above
quote:
One reason that journals publish so much rubbish is because their method of assuring quality - peer review - is hopeless. Broadly, peer review is the process whereby one or more peers of the authors of a study pass a judgment on the study, usually anonymously. It lies at the heart of science and determines which research gets funded, which studies are published, who is promoted, and who wins a Nobel prize.Despite being central to science it had never been studied until 20 years ago, a paradox for a way of studying the world that depends on experimentation and data. When the studies began they showed that peer review was slow, expensive, largely a lottery, ineffective at detecting error, prone to bias, easily abused, and entirely useless for picking up fraud. In one study of peer review the researchers inserted eight errors in a 600-word article and sent it to 400 reviewers: the median numbers of errors that the reviewers spotted was two; nobody spotted more than five; and one-fifth of the reviewers didn't spot any. As the now famous saying goes: "If peer review was a drug it wouldn't be allowed on the market." Yet it continues to be a sacred belief for an intellectual discipline that scorns faith and demands evidence.
You might wish to check out his book The Trouble with Medical Journals it might make you a little more sceptical about your central assumptions concerning medical science.
Thu, 2008-06-19 05:24
#44
N.R.Kissed. There is no doubt that peer review should be open to scrutiny, criticism and correction. So should all of science, medicine and learning in general. The peer review process is not perfect, errors go uncaught, sometimes bad research gets published and goes unpunished.
However, your complaints about medical research journals, I'm afraid, must be levelled, with an order of magnitude greater force, at chiropractic journals which are peppered with unscientific, unproven and dangerous nonsense of the worst kind that goes routinely unchallenged.
Fair is fair.
[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]
Thu, 2008-06-19 05:27
#45
quote:
well, i would walk right out of any doctor's office that tried to give me a sales pitch about anything. i would also walk out of a chiropractor i didn't know who did not take or look at existing x-rays of me.and if you didn't discuss a liability waiver with a chiro who also didn't talk about it, then i'd say both parties are at fault.
Farnival, in my post well above, you miss my point by such a distance that I can only assume intentional evasion. You had made several statements about chiropractors, suggesting you had never heard of or encountered certain behaviour. Well now you have, unless of course you wish to assume that I'm lying, and if that's the rationalisation you need than so be it.
You're right, I wasn't as wise and informed a medical services consumer as I might have been. I'm wiser now.
Your support of a "caveat emptor" approach to medical services may sadly be justified, which is why, like I said above, a lot more light should be shed on chiropractic. For the record, other medical practice as well. It's starting to happen more with psychiatry for instance.
Thu, 2008-06-19 06:01
#46
Catchfire
The implication that Sandy Nette is now paralyzed because of gullibility or a lack of rigor in self-education--a lack that led to a misplaced trust in someone who presents themselves as a public health provider--is odious to say the least. Christ.
Thu, 2008-06-19 06:29
#47
I agree, Catchfire. The responsibility lies with the chiropractor, with the Chiropractic College and Association that allows subluxation-based nonsense and with the Ministry of Health and Wellness which has had ample proof that the College hasn't been willing or able to govern itself.
Sandy Nette believed chiropractic was safe and effective for maintaining health. Where did she get an idea like that from? From the relentless advertising the association does and from what her chiropractor's website told her. So, the fault lies with her? I'm with you 100%. Christ.
[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]
Thu, 2008-06-19 08:21
#48
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:Of course we can always trust what is in medical journals.
I never said that medical journals always get everything right. But farnival was complaining about the quality of the site that Wayne was linking to, so I pointed to the articles from medical journals. Now if the most prestigious medical journals are not good enough either then what is? Should I instead trust the writings on bathroom stalls? Because I called one of those numbers once and I would say that I had an OK time, but not a "good time." Or should I ask Sylvia Browne what to think?
I know lots of people don't care about scientific evidence - and in fact many hate science and would prefer unscientific means. Fine, they can be treated through whatever mumbo-jumbo they want and if they feel that non-existent energy flows are going to do that then be my guest. But they can't have it both ways, they can't also pretend that something has evidence if it doesn't. They should admit that they haven't achieved the standards required by conventional medicine (they will still get lots of customers). If instead they tell their customers that have achieved such then they are not being honest with their patients (and therefore their patients can not truly consent to treatment).
Thu, 2008-06-19 08:25
#49
quote:
Should I instead trust the writings on bathroom stalls? Because I called one of those numbers once and I would say that I had an OK time, but not a "good time."
Did you sign a waiver?
Thu, 2008-06-19 08:31
#50
No, I was too trusting at the time.
Thu, 2008-06-19 11:48
#51
quote:
Now if the most prestigious medical journals are not good enough either then what is?
Well if the former editor of one of the most prestigous medical journals writes a book providing detailed evidence of why I should mistrust them then I feel obliged to pay attention.
quote:
I know lots of people don't care about scientific evidence - and in fact many hate science and would prefer unscientific means. Fine, they can be treated through whatever mumbo-jumbo they want and if they feel that non-existent energy flows are going to do that then be my guest. But they can't have it both ways, they can't also pretend that something has evidence if it doesn't. They should admit that they haven't achieved the standards required by conventional medicine
I can't really say whether lots of people care about science if you're implying that is my position then you would be wrong.
What I am saying it is wrong to critique an entire discipline on the basis of "standards required by conventional medicine" while at the same time ignoring the fact that medicine frequently fails to meet these same standards. I don't think it is scientific to overstate the knowledge of medicine or ignore obvious short comings that exist in it's practice. I think if there is a criticism of chiropractics it should be precise as possible.
In terms of neck manipulations I believe it is very plausible that they could cause damage and are potentially dangerous and beyond any risk benefit analysis in terms of ethical practice. If there is compelling evidence to support this belief than action should be taken to ensure the practice ceases. I do not think this actually translates into a full scale attack on all chiropractic practice and I actually think this only detracts from the main issue of concern i.e. dangerous practices.
[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]