ChIropractors

[nditalynow]

I agree with some of the previous posts; there's good and bad in all professions. In my only experience with a chiropractor, my sciatic problem went from bad to a nightmare after he was finished "manipulating" me. Long story short, I ended up in the ER that night and received a stern lecture from the doctor on duty about chiropractors causing paralysis, not having enough ambition to finish med school, etc. etc. I have friends that have been helped by chiropractors but I won't go near one.

 

[dexyboi86]

I am a chiropractic student, and it makes me laugh reading this thread. So many misconceptions...

On the issue of the existence of 'subluxations', they do exist. Subluxation is our term for 'something not right'.

Our schooling lasts a little over 3 years, and we go year-round. We are not 'med-school drop-outs'...I just feel that drugs are not always the best primary form of treatment for each and every person/condition. It is a philosophy thing.

Osteopaths are good...the mix Chiropractic and allopathic principles.

As for DCs being dangerous, that is, quite frankly, bulls**t. We are highly trained to do what we do, and cannot be licensed until we know how to do it. There is always the chance that something can go wrong...but what about people who die on the operating table? Do we immediately say the surgeon is incompetent? No, we chalk it up to being 'just the way the cookie crumbles'.

I could go on and on about this stuff. Not every DC is as good as the next, but that is true of any profession. Please feel free to message me or whatever if you have any questions. Do not ask other people...go straight to the source! (oh, that is funny...cause we DCs are all about fixing the source of the problems)

 

[Snade]

Within the medical profession, physical therapy, massage therapy, and chiropractic offer much the same relief for CERTAIN problems with the neuroskeletal system. The problem, I've found, is that diagnosis is often based upon symptoms and not on, for example, MRIs or other scans which would likely show where the true problem lies. So the manipulators, of whatever ilk, are essentially flying blind. It's a crap shoot: you stay the same or get better or get worse.

As far as chiropractic itself is concerned, I've found it to be around 25% science and 75% bunk. In some areas it's little better than homeopathy. It's popular, however, because of its placebo effect and because treatment costs so much less than that from neurologists or other specialists.

 

[dexyboi86]

The problem, I've found, is that diagnosis is often based upon symptoms and not on, for example, MRIs or other scans which would likely show where the true problem lies. So the manipulators, of whatever ilk, are essentially flying blind.
As far as chiropractic itself is concerned, I've found it to be around 25% science and 75% bunk. In some areas it's little better than homeopathy.

We spend about a whole year leaning about diagnostic imaging, whether x-ray or CT or MRI.

25% science? You need to spend 1 week on a chiropractic campus. I wish my science classes were only 25% of what I have to deal with. When a DC palpates, we are looking below the skin...our training is so extensive, a simple touch of the fingers can indicate a lot...not all, but you would be suprised!

 

[AndrewH]

The problem, I've found, is that diagnosis is often based upon symptoms and not on, for example, MRIs or other scans which would likely show where the true problem lies. So the manipulators, of whatever ilk, are essentially flying blind.

My chiropractor doesn't treat anyone until he's done an x-ray first.