Anonymous, wikipedia says that Palmer was a beekeeper, school teacher, and grocery store owner, as well as other things which I find irrelevant (and I didn't know that, but the many jobs one has had in one's life again is irrelevant, many MD's probably worked at McDonald's to pay their way through school), and why, in addition, your post is an Ad Hominem fallacy and incorrect. In addition your argument is a Straw Man Arguement, due to attacking an incorrect "straw man".
I will concede that some chiropractors are weird and practice some forms of "quackery", which why I also prefaced in post with NOT ALL CHIROPRACTORS ARE THE SAME. BTW, your post for Forbes didn't work, but again irrelevant because it doesn't apply (straw man). Admittedly, some of my colleagues get out of school and forsake most of what we learn in chiropractic school and embrace some form of pseudo-scientific paradigm (I don't understand why), but not mainstream chiropractors.
I question your statement that most chiropractors are "straight" (I would question the semantic use of the word), but you stated that a large percentage "believe in subulxations as the root cause of human disease." I would disagree with that thought, and I believe more chiropractors would agree that it may contribute to disease, but not ultimate root cause.
The founder D D Palmer, theorized this, (but then was modified and marketed by his son B J Palmer, who to most chiropractors would agree popularized chiropractic) but most mainstream/modern chiropractors do not ascribe to it, hence the straw man, again. At least can we agree, that it's not all chiropractors, and definitely I would exclude myself from that claim.
You ask, "Why would cracking someone's back do anything else except make a sort of popping noise?" I would refer you to the multitudes of people who get adjusted daily, and again suggest that you have never had a good adjustment. Truthfully, I would be skeptical myself, had I not had a profound experience, and I love skeptics, if you are a skeptic, read this.
I think the best research is simple research as long as the premise is correct, context and consistency of factors, where you have a problem, ask a question, "You saw a chiropractor for it, did it work, yes/no?" like here at cure togther.com. They ranked chiropractic treatment as 11th, and obviously not everyone got chiropractic treatment, and for some it was effective, others not. Had they limited the financial barriers to chiropractic care would that have skewed the results for the positive and moved up the rank? If you get a significant amount of yes's more than no's, that's enough research for some, but not always good enough. Because then you have to ask why "yes", or why "no", investigate further, do another study with better parameters.
Chiropractic won't work for all headaches and maladies of all types. That would be "silly", and some chiropractors do make such claims, which I would not agree with, but to nullify the effectiveness based on your Ad Hominem and Straw Man Arguement would also be "silly".
I'm for intellectual honesty within the chiropractic profession as well, and there are those who make outlandish claims about what we can cure, based on a vitalistic model should be challenged.
Many, if not most, patients who have migraines that I see in my office have likely already seen MD's, neurologists, as well as other specialists and come to me out of desperation. I would agree with you that if you are ill (one would have to define ill), you should likely go to see an MD (I do myself), but for neuromusculoskeletal disorders, headaches included, depending on the cause (which many times has a biomechanical/functional component and can't always be determined without an evaluation), chiropractic is extremely effective. When chiropractic is not effective, I refer back to the MD where they manage it with medication, not cure, though, usually. Sometimes it's both and we co-treat concurrently. I've had a few patients sent by their neurologists because they've read that it may help. Most do get at least some relief, if not complete recovery.
By the way, I'm not opposed to medication, when necessary, but most people, including myself would rather not treat with drugs, unless absolutely necessary. That's what chiropractors are best at.
I would contend that your blanket claim that "Chiropractic is not effective for any condition" is "silly" and the author of the article original article would likely agree with me as well as many others who have had positive experiences with chiropractic care. I would expect that there are also negative experiences, however, overall, I would submit that there are more positive experiences than negative and I think popular opinion as well as research would validate that.
Comment Reply
Anonymous, wikipedia says that Palmer was a beekeeper, school teacher, and grocery store owner, as well as other things which I find irrelevant (and I didn't know that, but the many jobs one has had in one's life again is irrelevant, many MD's probably worked at McDonald's to pay their way through school), and why, in addition, your post is an Ad Hominem fallacy and incorrect. In addition your argument is a Straw Man Arguement, due to attacking an incorrect "straw man".
I will concede that some chiropractors are weird and practice some forms of "quackery", which why I also prefaced in post with NOT ALL CHIROPRACTORS ARE THE SAME. BTW, your post for Forbes didn't work, but again irrelevant because it doesn't apply (straw man). Admittedly, some of my colleagues get out of school and forsake most of what we learn in chiropractic school and embrace some form of pseudo-scientific paradigm (I don't understand why), but not mainstream chiropractors.
I question your statement that most chiropractors are "straight" (I would question the semantic use of the word), but you stated that a large percentage "believe in subulxations as the root cause of human disease." I would disagree with that thought, and I believe more chiropractors would agree that it may contribute to disease, but not ultimate root cause.
The founder D D Palmer, theorized this, (but then was modified and marketed by his son B J Palmer, who to most chiropractors would agree popularized chiropractic) but most mainstream/modern chiropractors do not ascribe to it, hence the straw man, again. At least can we agree, that it's not all chiropractors, and definitely I would exclude myself from that claim.
You ask, "Why would cracking someone's back do anything else except make a sort of popping noise?" I would refer you to the multitudes of people who get adjusted daily, and again suggest that you have never had a good adjustment. Truthfully, I would be skeptical myself, had I not had a profound experience, and I love skeptics, if you are a skeptic, read this.
I think the best research is simple research as long as the premise is correct, context and consistency of factors, where you have a problem, ask a question, "You saw a chiropractor for it, did it work, yes/no?" like here at cure togther.com. They ranked chiropractic treatment as 11th, and obviously not everyone got chiropractic treatment, and for some it was effective, others not. Had they limited the financial barriers to chiropractic care would that have skewed the results for the positive and moved up the rank? If you get a significant amount of yes's more than no's, that's enough research for some, but not always good enough. Because then you have to ask why "yes", or why "no", investigate further, do another study with better parameters.
Chiropractic won't work for all headaches and maladies of all types. That would be "silly", and some chiropractors do make such claims, which I would not agree with, but to nullify the effectiveness based on your Ad Hominem and Straw Man Arguement would also be "silly".
I'm for intellectual honesty within the chiropractic profession as well, and there are those who make outlandish claims about what we can cure, based on a vitalistic model should be challenged.
Many, if not most, patients who have migraines that I see in my office have likely already seen MD's, neurologists, as well as other specialists and come to me out of desperation. I would agree with you that if you are ill (one would have to define ill), you should likely go to see an MD (I do myself), but for neuromusculoskeletal disorders, headaches included, depending on the cause (which many times has a biomechanical/functional component and can't always be determined without an evaluation), chiropractic is extremely effective. When chiropractic is not effective, I refer back to the MD where they manage it with medication, not cure, though, usually. Sometimes it's both and we co-treat concurrently. I've had a few patients sent by their neurologists because they've read that it may help. Most do get at least some relief, if not complete recovery.
By the way, I'm not opposed to medication, when necessary, but most people, including myself would rather not treat with drugs, unless absolutely necessary. That's what chiropractors are best at.
I would contend that your blanket claim that "Chiropractic is not effective for any condition" is "silly" and the author of the article original article would likely agree with me as well as many others who have had positive experiences with chiropractic care. I would expect that there are also negative experiences, however, overall, I would submit that there are more positive experiences than negative and I think popular opinion as well as research would validate that.
November 14, 2011 - 4:00pmThis Comment
Reply