The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

By and large, I believe the profession of chiropractics to be complete and utter bullshit.  I won't go as far to say that it's completely useless; There's probably a placebo affect in there somewhere, and I imagine that it helps alleviate some specific things in a way similar to getting a massage, but the overall concept of "realignment" carries no real medical value.  I think it's an accepted form of snake-oil.

There is a person I know who is very, very nice.  We aren't "friends", in that we hang out outside of our common interests, but we are acquaintances that are in a club together, so I see her each weekend.  We're friendly -- we talk about things, she's creative and we share ideas on some of our other projects.  Anyway, this is what she does for a living and she's really passionate about it.  She's recently started her own business, and I get a lot of links to her things -- like asking to become a fan or vote for her in some local business contest -- stuff like that.  She isn't pushy or anything like that.

Anyway, my interest in her well-being (being as that I like her as a person and think that she's genuinely pleasant) conflicts with my desire to rid the world of pseudoscience.  If she were a plumber or something, I'd give her advice on SEO to make her have a better website.  How would you handle this?

My chiropractor is the only person that can help with my piriformis issues. (I actually get a pain in my ass. Seriously. That's what it is.) I have a tilted pelvis. The more I run the more tilt there is. I go in. He readjusts and my hips go back to a normal position.  If I do my exercises everything stays in line. When I don't, my piriformis starts to hurt again and I can't run.

Not sure why you consider it pseudoscience, but you should man up and tell her that's what you think of her profession. Otherwise, you're being dishonest with her and she'll understand that you don't wish her success with her business.

I see chiropracty a lot like I see the eyedrops, Visine. The more you use it, the more you need to use it, when you probably should have just used some natural saline tears or something to start with.

I do think you should help her if you can though... You aren't going to rid the world of this form of pseudoscience in your lifetime, so you may as well help her just to be nice and set a shining example for others.

I am anti-religion at my very core, but when my neighbor (a local church pastor) asks me if I can help him move or lift something, I don't think "no, he's religious...I better not help him, as I'd be indirectly helping organized religion." I say "no sweat, pastor John" and help him out.

I agree with this. Honestly, if I were better with my stretching and strengthening I wouldn't need to see the chiro.

Further, I don't understand the people that go to the chiro for a cold or stuff like that.

I don't want to spout off about chiropractics, since I admittedly don't know a ton about it.  Here's a link from a skeptical publication explaining its lack of a medical basis.  ...if you're interested.

http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

(I actually read this after I made my post, but a lot of the major issues are the same.)

In short, testimonials of people saying that it works for them (like in your case) aren't good enough for science.  Medicinal practices need to pass a double-blind study with a control group to eliminate the various biases that come with this kind of thing.

The only issue I have here is that when dealing with pain issues it varies widely from person to person why they are in pain. I'm not quite sure how you would control that.

I've tried physical therapy, medical drs, etc. A quick adjustment of the hips and I'm up and running. That's all the proof I need. Of course, this is an experiment of one as are most things like this.

However, that's beside the point. If you don't believe in it you need to tell her. Period. Otherwise, you're being disingenuous.

Hijack,but perhaps the same realm....What about acupuncture? Do you consider it bunk too?

A control group just means that you're not doing anything.

Ideally, you have large groups of people to test, to reduce statistical anomalies.

Then you have a test where you're doing "correct" chiropractics.
Then a test where you have "incorrect" chiropractics.
Then a test where you use a previously proven treatment (perhaps a medicine or heat wrap or something...who knows).
Then a test where you do nothing. (a control group)

A double-blind study means that the patient doesn't know which of the treatments they're getting AND the doctor doesn't know which treatment they're giving.  It's hard in applications like chiropractics and acupuncture. 


Why do I need to tell he?r -- I don't tell you what I think of your job, out of nowhere.  If she asked me, I'd absolutely say something, but to this point, I've had no reason to bring it up.

This is kind of my point. How do you control something that works differently for different people. One person physical therapy works. The next active release therapy works. Maybe the next person just needs to strengthen that part of the body. That's part of the issue with any sort of "pain" issues.

I think you need to tell her so that you don't have to conflict with your desire to rid the world of pseudoscience. I would hate to think someone respects me etc when he/she actually thinks I'm a quack. That's what this is really about. You think she's a quack.

^^^ It is a bit impossible to do any type of blind study. In order to not know the chiropracter is not treating you, you basically have to have no idea what a chiropracter is. Like you said it doesn't lend itself to that type of study.

I don't think you can call it pseudoscience because some people actually need these treatments and they do indeed cause a change in the body.

Generally speaking, my problem is that chiropracters tend to not turn people away if they do not need the service. A medical doctor would not give you medicine just because you feel you have a problem. A Chiropracter will typically ask you to come back three times a week for uneccesary reasons.

Hmm....sort of.  I actually don't "hate" chiropractics, like I do something like homeopathy, which I think is an outright scam.  I think that it does have benefits, but not in the realm (or for the reasons) that it claims.  I don't think that chiropractics is unethical or completely without merit like some other forms of psuedoscience.  It's kind of a "tweener". 

But if it comes up, maybe I'll mention it.  It's kind of like religion.  I don't hide my religious views, but at the same time, I don't go telling random people that I think their religion doesn't make any sense.

I think chiropractics (and acupuncture) have a place in pain management.  However, as far as these  being able to treat or cure disease, I call bullshit.

Just a note:  I took my dog to a colleague who was certified in veterinary acupuncture and she taught me how to do it on my dog for her hip arthritis.  It helped and improved her quality of life without potentially harmful drugs.  She had liver disease so I did not want to give her anything other than what was absolutely necessary.  I started treating her with glucosamine/chrondroitin and acupuncture when she was 12.  She lived to be 17, when I euthanize her when her arthritis got so bad she could not get up anymore.

What would you say to those of us who have gone the traditional route and see your beloved medical professionals, only to be told they cannot find anything wrong, or they put you on drugs that mess your head up so bad you feel like you are falling down drunk?
I have been that route for over a year with my back and neck problems. When I told them that I had partial loss of feeling in my feet, they stuck needles into my legs and ran an electric current through my nerves, and that did not work.
I actually had one doctor say that I should just lose some weight ( she has since been fired for her treatment of patients).
I have found some relief finally through a chiropractor, and we are working on the other issues that the other doctors and their "real" science could not figure out.
Far from being a pseudoscience, I would call it a niche medical field that can help with certain  health aspects that get overlooked in the standard way of medical thinking.

I reject this assessment that there is anything other than a standard way of medical thinking (or any kind of thinking).  In order for anything (medical or otherwise) to be deemed effective, it has to pass certain standards.

I'm not a blind supporter of big medicine or anything like that.  But just because a doctor couldn't find anything wrong with you doesn't mean that chiropractics is effective.  Even if it "works for you", it's not necessarily effective.  I know that sounds like a stupid statement, but given how confirmation bias and placebos work, it makes sense.

There is no such thing as an alternative treatment.  If any treatment passes basic scientific tests, it's adopted.  Perhaps your doctor doesn't adopt it, but it is a proven treatment.

There is only one valid method: The scientific method. It's simple, it requires openness -- both of method and of mind. The latter tends to fail for some ;).

Anyway, Dave is essentially right. There is no such thing as alternative treatment -- only treatment that has been scientifically proven, treatment for which no studies have been done, and treatments which have been proven to work no better than placebo.

While blinding (and double-blinding) is indeed important in validating a treatment, it's by no means the only element. "Randomization" is also extremely important (essentially determining which patients are subjected to which treatment). Poor randomization can easily skew the results making a bogus treatment appear to work quite well -- even with double blinding!!!

Let me cut to the chase: Chiropractic doesn't appear to be bogus (not entirely, anyway).

I didn't know, had mixed "feelings" about it, so I looked it up. There's an awesome non-profit, independent research institution called The Cochrane Collaboration (cochrane.org). Their main focus is systematic reviews of health care treatments. To say that their research has saved lives is an understatement. (They've also repeatedly concluded that a bunch of big pharma drugs had undiscovered harmful side effects, worked no better than cheaper alternatives, no better than placebo etc).

Anyway, this is the logical choice to go for solid scientific FACT about a treatment.

With regards to chiropractic, there are a numbers of ongoing studies, but if we focus on one aspect - spinal manipulative therapy, there are some conclusions. This treatment is performed by chiropractors, as well as other health professionals, including doctors. It's not "all of chiropractic", just a single "intervention" performed by chiropractors, amongst others. Anyway:

A Cochrane review of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low-back pain concluded that SMT was not superior to other effective treatments, but was more effective than placebo (Assendelft 2004).

http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005427/frame.html
(you have to click "next" to get the full text, which includes the cited part).

So, SMT isn't bogus. It may not be a magic pill, but it apparently does work. On average, it's not better than other effective treatments (which include "pain medication", "exercises", "physical therapy", and others), but it's better than placebo.

Homeopathy, on the other hand, is complete and utter bullshit.

Crystal therapy, likewise, is complete and utter bullshit.

If you're interested in acupuncture, I've linked to some Cochrane Reviews below. I've snipped A PORTION of the conclusion, but there's more and I don't guarantee that the part I cited is representative of the full text. Go read it yourself, if you're interested ;). There's a nice little summary in a blue box on each page which do a much better job than the one or two sentences provided by me. Seriously, go read the source.

For shoulder pain:
source: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005319.html
conclusion: The improvements with acupuncture for pain and function were about the same as the effects of receiving a fake therapy for 2 to 4 weeks. [...] There is not enough evidence to say whether acupuncture works to treat shoulder pain or whether it is harmful.

For migraines:
source: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001218.html
conclusion: Collectively, the studies suggest that migraine patients benefit from acupuncture, although the correct placement of needles seems to be less relevant than is usually thought by acupuncturists.

For low back pain:
Source: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001351.html
Conclusion: For chronic low-back pain, results show that acupuncture is more effective for pain relief than no treatment or sham treatment. [...] Acupuncture is not more effective than other conventional and "alternative" treatments.

For tension-type headaches:
Source: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab007587.html
Conclusion: Three of the four trials in which acupuncture was compared to physiotherapy, massage or relaxation had important methodological shortcomings. [...] In conclusion, the available evidence suggests that acupuncture could be a valuable option for patients suffering from frequent tension-type headache.

I have a feeling that this thread is far too ideological for me, but, here it goes...



I firmly believe that these two statements go hand-in-hand.  It may be that your layman's view of the science makes you skeptical, and perhaps her guidance, explanation, and clarification could change your idea on the work as a whole.

However, regardless of your thoughts of her profession, if you want to help her you should because she's your friend.  Maybe she thinks web site marketing is a bunch of black magic mumbo jumbo that people pay up the nose for and there's really no basis to it.  But, I'm sure you could help her understand otherwise.

(and don't even say its not the same thing.  Its exactly the same thing)

I don't think you should approach her out of nowhere unless its a "hey let me help you with your business" sense.

Uh....no.  It's not even remotely similar.

Web Marketing is proven to be effective.  It passes the scientific method.  If you have a sizable number of websites that are receiving "proper" internet marketing, they will consistently perform better than a) websites that are incorrectly marketed or b) websites that are not marketed at all.

As for chiropractics, let me clarify -- I think that there probably are some benefits to certain aspects of treatments.  But, as to the claims as to why this stuff helps reduce pain or some of the other things that they claim that it treats, without the proper evidence to support it in a medical sense.  When I say I don't know a ton about chiropractics, I'm talking about the specifics of the treatments.  ...but then again, the burden of proof isn't on me (the patient).

I'm going to see my chiro today. :-)

You don't know the specifics, so how can you make an educated judgment on their medical validity?  People go to the Chiropractor, and they feel better when they come out.  Consistently.  Yet you write that off as the placebo effect.

If you ask me, the placebo effect is bullshit.  There's no such thing.  People don't magically feel better because they think they do, its because the doctor moved something, did something, whatever, to make them feel better. 

Just cause you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Unless you tell me you have a pretty solid background in neurochemistry, those claims come across as a wee bit off the cuff.  The effect of placebos is well documented, and has been since Dr. Beecher launched all of his independent studies way back in the 50's. I am not a neurochemical expert by any stretch (either), but the placebo effect, and the mind's ability to affect the body's other systems without any outside chemical stimuli, was referenced in my behavioral psych classes. The mind can do soooo much, and sometimes, all it needs to make something happen is to believe that something is happening.

Wrong.

The placebo effect is proven fact.

Chiropractors make people feel better. 

That is also a fact.

But somehow we are OK to pick and choose which facts we want to "believe" and which are BS?

I see...

I'm not disputing that chiropractors make some people feel better.  I just question if the chiropractors' claims hold up under scientific scrutiny.  I think that's a fair concern to demand evidence when talking about medical treatment.  Chiropractics have delivered in some of those areas, but have not in other areas.

That doesn't sound that unreasonable to me.

No, not unreasonable, and granted I've done zero research on the subject, but there IS science behind the profession, because not any old joe schmoe can walk up and open up a chiropractic clinic.  You need to be a doctor.

My thought is that, if you were to learn what those doctors have learned, you might have a different opinion of the profession.  That's all.

I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

I shouldn't have jumped into this one.  As I said, too ideological for my tastes.

Chiropractors do not go to medical school.   They are Doctors of Chiropractic, not MD's or DO's. 

Again I will say I do believe they have a place in pain management but not in the healing of disease, which is one of their claims.

This discussion was going quite nicely until this... Sorry, but to claim that the placebo effect is bullshit is so incredibly ignorant, that I don't even know how to respond.

My hip and piriformis were hurting. I went to see the chiro. I feel better and am not nearly as freaked out about running my race on Sunday. That's all the proof that I need. And...my insurance pays for it.

I love how everyone else gets to make outlandish claims about their random beliefs (or lack thereof), but when I post a hypothetical equivalent response, I get hammered for it.

The placebo effect is has been studied and shown to exist.  It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in it.

Ahhwwww.....

Take it as a compliment.

Update:

This story had a happy ending.  The other day, I ran into the chiropractor and told her about my concerns.  She was actually glad that I did.  Before I even explained myself, she said that there are two types of chiropractics (paraphrasing), 1) science-based and 2) philosophy-based.  She says that she is science-based and all of her treatments are based on double-blinded, scientific studies.

99% of people who use chiropractors are fat fucks. How about losing some weight and that would take care of your back problems?

See. Aren't you glad you asked. As stated, I love my chiro. I only went to him as a last resort and he was the only person that helped with my issue. He doesn't get all philosophical and gives me exercises and stretches that work on the imbalances I have. I see nothing wrong with that.


My guy does mostly sports chiro stuff. Rarely any fatties there.

Mad props to you for doing such a comprehensive research study of all chiropractic patients...

::)