Chiropractic, Docs vs. Quacks?

[Jyera]

I doubt it would work. People would still use the title Dr regardless of what the "official" name of the title was. Check Google -- there's something like 1000 entries for "baptist priest," and the Baptist church, by policy, does not have priests. (They have pastors, instead.)

We can doubt, but it has little element of action. Have big and influential organisation tried to actively protect the official "title" of "Dr" ? or tried to introduce a new Title and failed ?

 

[Jyera]

In the US, the title "doctor" is completely unregulated by the government. I'm not sure there's a whole lot that can be done about it.

Also, I'm not sure how other MD's would feel about having their title changed.

I would think if the new "MDr." cannot be introduced, at least somebody should enforce proper usage of "Dr.". But my understanding is that Doctor of Philosophy of all other field also share the "Dr" title. It has been used for a very long time and it is hard to reverse it. IT would be hard to regulate the use of Dr. So the logical step is to introduce a new ones. Maybe "MDr".

As we continue to debate endlessly.

Everyday, many "pseudo-healers" are blatantly making use of "Dr" in every available article in the public media to "legitimise" and "professionalise" their field. This include the many "pseudo-healer"-friendly journalists.

I have counted and observed the news article in my region. Every article that talk about Homeopathy and Chiropractor will have a "Dr. ABC" mentioned.
Don't take my anedotal account. Go observe it yourself.

The public is being put on a slow acting poison.
Both in the mind of the public as well as in the brand call "Doctor".

It is like a vampire sucking and defiling the value of "Dr." to fortify their own brand like "Chiropractic". When the brand "Chiropratic" are strong enough, they don't need "Dr" anymore.

Why isn't Medical doctors trying to protect their "Brand".
I'm not a medical doctor. I am finding it very weird for me to be talking about something which I thought a medical doctor would be actively championing.

In my opinion,
WHO or major medical professional body needs to put this into their agenda.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Isn't there anything that CAN be done to the chiropractic situation ?

Are we aware of anyone doing anything about it?

Of course there are things that can be done, and some things that are done. At least in the US, the livelihood of chiropractics is controlled by state licensing boards, insurance companies, and university accrediting agencies.

A few years back, Life University was essentially run out of business by an accrediting agency. The accrediting agency (which I think was fairly newly formed) established new standards that required classes on teaching students when to refer patients to traditional medical doctors. Life apparently took some offense to the implication that chiropractors couldn’t cure anything and failed to teach the courses which resulted in loss of accreditation. No accreditation means students can’t get student loans and graduates can’t get chiropractic licenses in most states. Which basically means the university closes and gets itself a nasty class action lawsuit from upset students.

New York, and perhaps some other states, have censured chiropractors for providing “treatment” to people with no symptoms. Censure boils down to loss of license, loss of business, loss of reputation, and the end of your chiropractic career.

Insurance companies can influence the livelihood of chiropractors by controlling what types of “treatment” will be covered by the insurance.

From the little bits of news about chiropractics that I've seen, things seem to be going a bit downhill for chiropractors. But chiropractors have large organized associations that can carry hefty political weight.

 

[steenkh]

I know that anecdotes and personal experiences are worth nothing in a scientific examination, but I was directing my reply towards Nick Bogaerts' question why people were using chiros instead of physios, so I thought that a personal experience would be in order here.

I might add that in Denmark, some physios are using the same manipulation as chiros and some chiros are in any case doing a lot of massaging, so there is a definite overlap between the two groups. A real scientific investigation by the Danish Health Authorities into which kind of treatment was effective against back pains deemed that the only treatment that made a difference in terms of non-recurrence of the pains was chiropractic. I saw the book with this investigation during one off-session discussion with my chiro, and although this investigation was the reason why chiropractic is now subsidised by the National health insurance, he complained that doctors would still only refer patient to physios even though physiotherapy was well below chiropractic in the investigation.

Anyway, Eos, I read your posts with interest, and I can easily imagine that the chiros are playing down the health risks of some of their manipulations. However, I am not so sure that the physios have effective treatments. and I suspect that like much of what the chiros do, the tretament is based on the placebo effect, or the Hawthorne effect.

 

[daenku32]

I can crack my own back. Should I file a claim to the insurance company?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

You are making a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims steenkh. Please provide us with some proof.

Physiotherapists are a lot better and far more scientifically trained on the actual workings of the body without the whacky philosophies

In Canada today, a physiotherapist is a university graduate with a minimum of four years academic training plus clinical internships completed in recognized health care facilities across the world.

http://www.opa.on.ca/index.htmL.


I've also perused some physio studies and find them far superior to anything from any type of chiroquacker

http://www.physiotherapy.asn.au/AJP/50-2/AustJPhysiotherv50i2Zafiropoulos.pdf

 

[Jyera]

Of course there are things that can be done, and some things that are done. At least in the US, the livelihood of chiropractics is controlled by state licensing boards, insurance companies, and university accrediting agencies.

A few years back, Life University was essentially run out of business by an accrediting agency. The accrediting agency (which I think was fairly newly formed) established new standards that required classes on teaching students when to refer patients to traditional medical doctors. Life apparently took some offense to the implication that chiropractors couldn’t cure anything and failed to teach the courses which resulted in loss of accreditation. No accreditation means students can’t get student loans and graduates can’t get chiropractic licenses in most states. Which basically means the university closes and gets itself a nasty class action lawsuit from upset students.

New York, and perhaps some other states, have censured chiropractors for providing “treatment” to people with no symptoms. Censure boils down to loss of license, loss of business, loss of reputation, and the end of your chiropractic career.

Insurance companies can influence the livelihood of chiropractors by controlling what types of “treatment” will be covered by the insurance.

From the little bits of news about chiropractics that I've seen, things seem to be going a bit downhill for chiropractors. But chiropractors have large organized associations that can carry hefty political weight.

Great to hear the things that actually happened.
"Going downhill" might be a positive "consolidation".

I can identify with the part you mentioned about the accrediting agency.
Over here in my country. There are such thing as a public funding to subsidise short term adult skills training.

I think the authority managing the fund do check carefully that the funds are not abused. Non-critical or Wooish topic should be unlikely to get any funding if the public officer did their job right.

On the other hand a strong business which may overcome this disadvantage by building a very strong brand name and monopolising the market.

 

[Jyera]

You are making a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims steenkh. Please provide us with some proof.
Physiotherapists are a lot better and far more scientifically trained on the actual workings of the body without the whacky philosophies
http://www.opa.on.ca/index.htmL.
I've also perused some physio studies and find them far superior to anything from any type of chiroquacker
http://www.physiotherapy.asn.au/AJP/50-2/AustJPhysiotherv50i2Zafiropoulos.pdf

If there are good honest, competent person within the Chiro industry that can stand on their own as a qualified physiotherapist, I think they should receive help to be independent.

From the link you provide me, I think Chiropratic industry do not need highly skilled person. Because if they lose all their capable people, they could always take the path they have taken before. -- That is, declare themselves a religion and continue to practice . By then, it is by god's will that you heal or die under their treatment.

When they do fail, law will come down onto them.

 

[steenkh]

You are making a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims steenkh. Please provide us with some proof.

I am sorry, but I did not notice that I claimed very much. And I certainly did not claim anything about the education of physios contra chiros.

 

[lawman]

While it is dangerous to ever say ALL, I have more than a mere passing knowledge and experience with the business of chiropractic, and I can tell you that every, all,100% of what I have heard , seen and witnessed ,first and second hand ,is 100% QUACKERY when it comes from a chiropractor. The only reason to see one is to insure the DC has a handsome income while avoiding honest work

 

[Eos of the Eons]

A real scientific investigation by the Danish Health Authorities into which kind of treatment was effective against back pains deemed that the only treatment that made a difference in terms of non-recurrence of the pains was chiropractic. I saw the book with this investigation during one off-session discussion with my chiro, and although this investigation was the reason why chiropractic is now subsidised by the National health insurance, he complained that doctors would still only refer patient to physios even though physiotherapy was well below chiropractic in the investigation.

Those are unsubstantiated claims, especially since the book found in the chiro office could very well be unscientific and biased, used data mining, and misquotes. Can we get the book title and author names?
What were the controls used in the study that was referenced in the book? Was it a double blind study?

There is some "proof" that some kinds of lower back pain may be helped by chiros, but I would still prefer an MD that could diagnose anything that may be wrong, and doesn't just look for phantom subluxations in my xray.

 

[Dr. Imago]

However, they both would tell you the same thing as Penn and Teller: they're fine for back and neck problems.

Ehh... I'm not sure you should consider "Penn and Teller" to be the definitive expert reference on that (if it's even true they actually said that). I've personally been involved in the care of a relatively young man (32-years-old) last summer who suffered a traumatic vertebral artery dissection following a "complimentary" neck adjustment from a chiropractor. He was subsequently and permanently paralyzed from the shoulders down.

-Dr. Imago

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I wouldn't let any chiro touch my neck

http://www.chirowatch.com/cw-cervical.html

In the meantime, preliminary data from a study by Dr. John Norris, a neurologist at Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, suggests that there may be as many as 150 strokes a year in Canada caused by chiropractic manipulation.

http://www.canoe.ca/ChiroYork/home.html

Sixty-two clinical neurologists from across Canada, all certified members of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, have issued a warning to the Canadian public and provincial governments about the dangers of neck manipulation. The signers include private neurologists as well as chiefs of neurology departments of major teaching hospitals. Calling their concerns significant, they warn that stroke and death due to neck manipulation has been reported in the scientific literature for over 50 years and that manipulation is one of the leading causes of stroke in the under 45-age group. The neurologists express six basic concerns:

http://www.chirobase.org/15News/neurol.html

 

[Physiotherapist]

I agree that manipulation of the neck such as chiropractors use, is dangerous and should never be done.

As a physio, I look at posture. A lot of neck, shoulder and back problems can be caused by poor posture, so quite a large aspect of my job is postural education and helping patients to help themselves.

A lot of the time, poor posture can cause muscular contraction, so work on the muscles and connective tissue is particularly beneficial, especially stretching exercises and then patients can continue the exercises between sessions too.

I also use massage where appropriate, postural education and soft tissue work.

Physiotherapy is degree based in England too. They are mostly 3 to 4 year courses here and they include practical placements.

 

[Psiload]

It has to be said...

The function of the spine is to support the head, neck, and chiropractor.

And oldie but a goody.

 

[lawman]

There is NO scientific evidence, none, that support the claim that chiropractors make about curing anything and everything. There is in fact some evidence that chiropractic adjustments may have some mild and transitory benefit for low back pain suffers. As to the remaining claims from the chiropractic community; they claim they can cure everything from poor eyesight, diabetic's, colds,and the flu ( some even assert that there is no such thing as a "germ"- they deny the exsistence of and the effects upon the body by infections from viruses and bacteria!), improve sight, hearing, and even IQ scores, along with the entire range of malady's that palgue the human condition: these claims are all nonsense. I know of a number of chiropractic offices that openly claim they should be the "primary health care provider" for the family- they assert they should be on par or replace the MD in the national (US) health care system! At the same time these same quacks are at this moment selling "detoxifying treatments with the Aqua-Detox device and selling the idea that to be healthy you must get periodic chiropractic treatments. you be the judge.....

 

[ChristineR]

http://www.chirobase.org is web central for "good" chiropractors. They have a list of chiropractors who subscribe to their guidelines, which include

I reject biotheistic notions that "subluxations" and/or "nerve interference" are the cause or underlying cause of disease.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I know of a number of chiropractic offices that openly claim they should be the "primary health care provider" for the family- they assert they should be on par or replace the MD in the national (US) health care system!

That's very very scary, considering their anti-vaccine stance.

 

[HopkinsMedStudent]

Oh boy I love chiropractor threads.

First, lets discuss the title "doctor"

That title has been around for centuries, going way back to the middle ages when the first universities in europe were formed. Medical doctors dont hold that title in exclusivity.

IN modern parlance, the term "doctor" with no qualifiers generally refers to a medical doctor, which can be either an MD or a DO. However, the AMA or doctors in general are powerless to regulate the usage of the term. As long as you graduated from a program recognized by the US Dept of Education as a "doctoral" program you can call yourself a "doctor." So that includes everybody from NDs (naturopaths) to DCs (chiros) to PhDs.

Now, how does the DOE decide what constitutes a doctoral program? The answer is pure popularity and nothing more. Say for example I wanted to start a nationwide network of witchcraft schools. As long as I can generate enough popular interest, it would be quite easy to get recognized by the DOE as a "doctoral" program and I could give away doctorates in withcraft. The DOE makes NO DETERMINATION on educational value or legitimacy, the only parameters they consider are: 1) Is there enough popular interest? 2) Is there a single regulatory body over this group of schools? As long as you met those criteria, you are in with the DOE.

So doctors really have no way to stop other people from using the "doctor" title.

Now somebody asked whether MDs refer to chiros. Actually this is fairly common. What usually happens is a GP will meet a chiro who seems to be less quacky than the others. Maybe the chiro doenst say anythign about anti-vax or curing autism, or whatever and often thats enough for the MD to agree to refer out to the chiro.

Spinal manipulation has absolutely been proven effective for low back pain, there is no doubt about that. The real question is whether its more/less effective than medication, and how much of hte back pain would resolve with simple massages rather than spinal manipulation. My guess is that most of the effectiveness of chiropractic therapy could be delivered by a qualified massage therapist.

There are some "legit" chiros who only treat back pain, and will not spout off hte BS about subluxations or try to treat other conditions. However, they are few and far between because staying in business as a chiro is VERY DIFFICULT if you only treat back pain. Thats why so many get involved in the quackery.

Chiro schools are problematic, because most of them tacitly approve some of the sham quackery that goes on. The national organization which controls chiro schools is a joke; the DOE should revoke their charter but of course to avoid a political uproar they wont do that.

 

[lawman]

Regarding the title "doctor"..... I too have a doctorate, (and it is in a legitimate discipline-law), to accompany my B.S. undergraduate degree, and nobody calls me "doctor"....yet chiros expect to be called "doctor" . Most DC's will tell you (and pretend) that they have the same educational qualifications as an MD!!!...
I know one DC who is fond of refering to himself as a "physician", -which is NOT a term of art in the law, but I digress... in fact they -DC's are the only discipline I am aware of that gives out a "doctorate" after as little as three years of formal education... in my state an undergraduate degree from a college or university, ( accredited by the State), IS NOT required, all that is required to be called a "doctor of Chiropractic" is a degree from a college of chiropractic,.... which can require as little as 90 credit hours of undergraduate work, and then completion of the required classes from a "chiropractic college" and we have a brand new "doctor" ... sure,,,
I have seen the course requirements from at least one major chiropractic school- Cleveland Chiropractic college...The course requirements are nothing like graduate school or medical school.... they can tell themselves all day long that they- DC's-have the same qual's as an MD, or a DO or for that matter a DVM,,, and it still will not make it so.
Lawman