This is correct. A lot of people think that as podiatrists are “foot doctors” and cardiologists are “heart doctors”, so chiropractors are “back doctors”. This is false, but something that chiropractic takes advantage of.

Chiropractic is Reflexology for the back instead of the foot.

TAMU Student said:
> … many Chiropractors view their subject much more scientifically than it was viewed in the past, they are like better-trained physical therapists.

While it may be true that some chiropractors view things “more scientifically”, but chiropractic itself is founded on mystical nonsense.

> I mean, the AMA even says that Chiropractic therapy can be beneficial, and their opinion far outweighs this guy’s.

Some scientific study has shown chiropractic to be beneficial in limited use. The limited use? Control of mild lower back pain. The studies showed chiropractic to be about as effective as stretching and exercise or massage. Now let’s examine further. Pain is a subjective experience – there is no independent way to measure it. All pain treatment is measured by “rate your pain experience” – self evaluation. Subjective experience is the type of condition most succeptible to placebo effects. Low back pain is one of those widespread ailments with limited recourse. Note that the two mainstream medical treatments essentially involve stretching and massage. Chiropractic as implemented is essentially stretching and massage. Popping the back consists of applying pressure in the region, and perhaps twisting. It is, therefore, questionable that the underlying methodology and theory of chiropractic is what is responsible for the effectiveness of treatment in these limited cases. It is likely that the benefits are largely coincidental through similarity of results, or else placebo.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chiro.html

Now consider that many (most?) chiropractors do not limit their practice to merely spinal manipulation. Chiropractors have a tendency to engage in a whole slew of “alternative and complementary” practices of questionable validity. These include homeopathy, applied kinesiology, contact reflex analysis, and herbal supplements. Some chiropractors can be anti-medicine, claiming the spinal alignment is the true means to fight disease and illness. They can also be anti-vaccination.

Quackwatch does include an article from a “rational chiropractor”.
http://www.chirobase.org/07Strategy/goodchiro.html

This article describes a chiropractic practice that eschews the roots of chiropractic (spinal alignment is the cause of disease), cautions against excessive use of spinal adjustments, and limits chiropractic to musculo-skeletal issues. The descriptions sound like they are basically physiotherapy. If this is the “more scientific” form of chiropractic that you mention, then I agree it has more scientific footing. But I wonder what makes it “chiropractic” over physiotherapy and osteopathy.

Re: DennyMo,

I guess I didn’t make my earlier comment clear.

I am very familiar with the claims of Richard C. Hoagland (as well as those of Velikovsky, von Daniken, von Flanderen, the Heaven’s Gate group, etc. — as anyone who teaches general astronomy these days needs to be to answer questions on those topics from students and the general public). In fact (sorry, Phil!) I was very familiar with Hoagland and his claims wrt the “face” on Mars, the pyramids, the billion-year-old “ruins of crystal domes” on the Moon, the position of Orion as seen from the Apollo 11 landing site, the “special” properties of the number 19.5, etc., years before I first heard of the Bad Astronomer. When I got the BA blog e-mail yesterday and read “These are some funny cartoons […] let me just point you to this one,” however, my initial thought was that the *single panel shown there* was the entire cartoon and since it seemed to be a simple statement of face (”Richard Hoagland says Mars has a face.”) I spent awhile examining the panel closely to try to find the punch line hidden somewhere in that panel which I obviously must have been overlooking . . .

I guess I didn’t make my earlier comment clear.

I am very familiar with the claims of Richard C. Hoagland (as well as those of Velikovsky, von Daniken, von Flanderen, the Heaven’s Gate group, etc. — as anyone who teaches general astronomy these days needs to be to answer questions on those topics from students and the general public). In fact (sorry, Phil!) I was very familiar with Hoagland and his claims wrt the “face” on Mars, the pyramids, the billion-year-old “ruins of crystal domes” on the Moon, the position of Orion as seen from the Apollo 11 landing site, the “special” properties of the number 19.5, etc., years before I first heard of the Bad Astronomer. When I got the BA blog e-mail yesterday and read “These are some funny cartoons [...] let me just point you to this one,” however, my initial thought was that the >>> single panel shown there >> entire cartoon >> must

it’s very painful, and – in the end – terminal if not addressed.

Worse, it’s hereditary – both is father and son have it.

I’m not passing this on to you to play with your emotions… it’s background.

In the case of his father, it presented late in life and the doctors were able to do something about it (sure,it required surgery, and will again, but his quality of life is normal, and he’s expected to not die from it.

In the case of the son, I fear for his life. The boy lives with his mother, who in a marvelous demonstration of turning a blind eye to the facts, insists there’s nothing wrong. And her chiropractors – WHO KNOW THE FAMILY HISTORY – agree. (I say chiropractorS, because she’s gone to 3 or 4 in the past 8 years – changing when her current favorite proves to be ineffectual. What’s that saw about repetition and insanity?)

I can deal with the denial on her part, she’s lay, under educated, and clearly unwilling to face facts. But the Chiropractors I condemn wholeheartedly and moneygrubbing charletans worthy of nothing but scorn. if they were honest in their beliefs and actually thought of themselves as medical people, they’d not hesitate to refer the case to another doctor.

So, based on an admittedly short base line, I extropolate and declare all chiropractors liars, thieves, and charletans. Be damned to them all.

Visitor, Completely ignoring our differing opinions regarding chiropractors, I think pointed attacks on unproven concepts are entirely valid. It may come across as mean-spirited (and may even be meant that way ) but it serves a purpose. If you simply pan the idea, or just offer polite amusement, you aren’t getting the other side *involved*. Ideally, heaping ridicule and scorn on the idea will get *some* of the adherents to actually buckle down and prepare to defend their beliefs. Generally, this means acquiring data and information. Many of these people aren’t stupid – they just haven’t thought their position through. Make them mad, and they just might.

In my usual roundabout way, I’m pointing out that, when it comes down to the final analysis, this is a war, and only a fool fights a war with a single bullet.

This is excellent advertising/misdirection on the part of the chiropractic industry. A lot of people tend to think that, because Chiropractors manipulate your spine, they are therefore only concerned with back injuries. This is not, however, what they do: they believe that the manipulation of the back re-aligns “chakras” which promote or block the flow of energy, in much the same way that an acupuncturist believes that needles re-direct the flow of “chi”/”qi” energy.

And, much like acupuncture and homoeopathy, the practitioner believes that a chiropractic can cure an endless list of ailments.

The success of the chiropractic silence on many of these matters has resulted in many people thinking that it is simply a branch of osteopathy.