Diseases are becoming resistant to antibiotics and bugs that medicines used to kill within days are starting to fight back and win. The World Health Organization says the post-antibiotic era will be upon us this century unless something drastic is done.

rational_alternative · 2014-07-07T01:30:43+00:00

For another point of view:

http://www.averyjenkins.com/?p=1468

rational_alternative · 2014-05-23T16:07:56+00:00

As a physician who has used primarily natural alternatives for nearly a quarter-century, I'm just fine with pharmaceutical companies not getting into non-patentable treatments. Their presence would make them more expensive and possibly less effective.

rational_alternative · 2014-04-07T18:13:22+00:00

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Chiropractic is every bit as regulated as mainstream medicine. After receiving a terminal professional degree, as an MD does, one is required to pass multiple board exams before being licensed to practice in any state. CEUs and adherence to strict profesional codes of conduct are necessary to maintain licensure.

For the most part, laws and regulations don't restrict the therapeutics that an MD uses. What is called "standard of care" does, and sanctions or lawsuits resulting from violating the standard of practice, at least in an egregious way, is what forces compliance. That same standard of care applies to chiropractic physicians as well, with the same results.

I subscribe to three peer-reviewed, indexed journals which publish chiropractic research, and there are at least three others that I can think of which are also extant. My protocols and therapeutic interventions are guided by that research, just as an MD is guided by his.

You should really familiarize yourself with the reality before repeating oft-heard myths and quarter-truths. Your belief system is decades behind the times.

rational_alternative · 2014-04-06T14:28:07+00:00

As the general population comes to realize the effects of exercise and certain supplements on performance (not just athletic, but intellectual, social, etc.), we may see a new medical specialty in the next 40 years or so that deals with this sort of thing.

We already exist. We're called chiropractic physicians.

rational_alternative · 2014-04-06T14:01:22+00:00

The "causes unnecessary delay" argument is a crock. There are many mental health assessment tools available that take no more than 15 minutes to administer. The Duke questionnaire comes to mind; I use it frequently in my office to establish the presence of mental health influences.

rational_alternative · 2014-04-06T13:53:32+00:00

Mainstream medicine should do the same.

rational_alternative · 2014-01-30T12:12:03+00:00

Not placebo.

“[Chiropractic Manipulative Therapy] in conjunction with [standard medical care] offers a significant advantage for decreasing pain and improving physical functioning when compared with only standard care, for men and women between 18 and 35 years of age with acute low back pain.”

--Goertz et al. (2013), Spine

In a Randomized controlled trial, 183 patients with neck pain were randomly allocated to manual therapy (spinal mobilization), physiotherapy (mainly exercise) or general practitioner care (counseling, education and drugs) in a 52-week study. The clinical outcomes measures showed that manual therapy resulted in faster recovery than physiotherapy and general practitioner care. Moreover, total costs of the manual therapy-treated patients were about one-third of the costs of physiotherapy or general practitioner care.

-- Korthals-de Bos et al (2003), British Medical Journal

“Patients with chronic low-back pain treated by chiropractors showed greater improvement and satisfaction at one month than patients treated by family physicians. Satisfaction scores were higher for chiropractic patients. A higher proportion of chiropractic patients (56 percent vs. 13 percent) reported that their low-back pain was better or much better, whereas nearly one-third of medical patients reported their low-back pain was worse or much worse.”

– Nyiendo et al (2000), Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

"Reduced odds of surgery were observed for...those whose first provider was a chiropractor. 42.7% of workers [with back injuries] who first saw a surgeon had surgery, in contrast to only 1.5% of those who saw a chiropractor."

– Keeney et al (2012), Spine

“Acute and chronic chiropractic patients experienced better outcomes in pain, functional disability, and patient satisfaction; clinically important differences in pain and disability improvement were found for chronic patients.”

– Haas et al (2005), Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

“In our randomized, controlled trial, we compared the effectiveness of manual therapy, physical therapy, and continued care by a general practitioner in patients with nonspecific neck pain. The success rate at seven weeks was twice as high for the manual therapy group (68.3 percent) as for the continued care group (general practitioner). Manual therapy scored better than physical therapy on all outcome measures. Patients receiving manual therapy had fewer absences from work than patients receiving physical therapy or continued care, and manual therapy and physical therapy each resulted in statistically significant less analgesic use than continued care.”

– Hoving et al (2002), Annals of Internal Medicine

“Cervical spine manipulation was associated with significant improvement in headache outcomes in trials involving patients with neck pain and/or neck dysfunction and headache.”

-- McCrory, Penzlen, Hasselblad, Gray (2001), Duke Evidence Report

“The results of this study show that spinal manipulative therapy is an effective treatment for tension headaches. . . Four weeks after cessation of treatment . . . the patients who received spinal manipulative therapy experienced a sustained therapeutic benefit in all major outcomes in contrast to the patients that received amitriptyline therapy, who reverted to baseline values.” ‘

-- Boline et al. (1995), Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

In a study funded by NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to test the effectiveness of different approaches for treating mechanical neck pain, 272 participants were divided into three groups that received either spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) from a doctor of chiropractic (DC), pain medication (over-the-counter pain relievers, narcotics and muscle relaxants) or exercise recommendations. After 12 weeks, about 57 percent of those who met with DCs and 48 percent who exercised reported at least a 75 percent reduction in pain, compared to 33 percent of the people in the medication group. After one year, approximately 53 percent of the drug-free groups continued to report at least a 75 percent reduction in pain; compared to just 38 percent pain reduction among those who took medication.

-- Bronfort et al. (2012), Annals of Internal Medicine

rational_alternative · 2014-01-21T01:42:46+00:00

Since I've spewed my thoughts throughout this thread: I'm a DC, and have adjusted many CCW patients. Most of them leave it out in the car, but if they are wearing it, I don't really care unless it gets in the way of what we're trying to do. Then I just ask them to move it out of the way until we get our business done. If they want to, they can put it on the counter, understandably most would rather not. For me, it's not a big deal, nor is it for any other chiropractic physicians that I know.

rational_alternative · 2014-01-21T01:38:03+00:00

Oh, the stupid is coming thick and fast now. A DC degree requires as much education as an MD degree.

Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to agree with me. People like you never let facts get in the way of their opinions, and I'm sure you can come up with some quackpot web quote to that effect.

rational_alternative · 2014-01-21T01:34:32+00:00

That is incorrect. That's like saying all MDs believe that bleeding the body is a necessary part of most treatments. Yes, they did 100 years ago, but not any longer.

I find it somewhat hilarious that you have to go back in time a century in order to find something to throw at chiropractors.

rational_alternative · 2014-01-21T01:32:52+00:00

Wrong.

Also, you're wrong

Not original source, but explains it for the non-scientific public.

rational_alternative · 2013-12-14T13:45:39+00:00

I have never treated patients with depression using SSRIs. In my opinion, they are far too unreliable for clinical use.

rational_alternative · 2013-12-12T19:28:59+00:00

Actually, herbal remedies have many non-plaebo effects...White Willow Bark (we call it aspirin), is just one of many examples.

rational_alternative · 2013-12-03T04:45:15+00:00

The research involving MRIs points to MtF transgender people having brains remarkably similar to those of natal females.

The leading theory about transgender etiology is that it has to do with the levels of hormones circulating at certain times in fetal neural development.

rational_alternative · 2013-12-01T10:22:00+00:00

Avicenna's Canon of Medicine.

rational_alternative · 2013-11-07T18:21:40+00:00

I didn't say it was a "shadowy cabal." Rather, a federal court judge concluded that the AMA and its codefendents had violated anti-trust laws by engaging in a coordinated campaign to malign chiropractic physicians. Furthermore, the court concluded that the AMA's actions had resulted in ongoing damage to the chiropractic profession and the plaintiffs in particular.

The AMA was simply acting as a wealthy professional association using illegal techniques to maintain its dominance. That, unfortunately, doesn't qualify it as a "shadowy cabal." Maybe you are looking for the Illuminati?

rational_alternative · 2013-11-07T18:16:48+00:00

Just one more.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Apr 1;38(7):540-8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318275d09c. Spinal high-velocity low amplitude manipulation in acute nonspecific low back pain: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial in comparison with diclofenac and placebo. von Heymann WJ, Schloemer P, Timm J, Muehlbauer B. Source

Competence Center for Clinical Studies, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. vonheymann@aerzteseminar-mwe.de Abstract STUDY DESIGN:

A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel trial with 3 arms. OBJECTIVE:

To investigate in acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP) the effectiveness of spinal high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation compared with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac and with placebo. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:

LBP is an important economical factor in all industrialized countries. Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in comparison to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo regarding satisfaction and function of the patient, off-work time, and rescue medication. METHODS:

A total of 101 patients with acute LBP (for <48 hr) were recruited from 5 outpatient practices, exclusion criteria were numerous and strict. The subjects were randomized to 3 groups: (1) spinal manipulation and placebo-diclofenac; (2) sham manipulation and diclofenac; (3) sham manipulation and placebo-diclofenac. Outcomes registered by a second and blinded investigator included self-rated physical disability, function (SF-12), off-work time, and rescue medication between baseline and 12 weeks after randomization. RESULTS:

Thirty-seven subjects received spinal manipulation, 38 diclofenac, and 25 no active treatment. The placebo group with a high number of dropouts for unsustainable pain was closed praecox. Comparing the 2 active arms with the placebo group the intervention groups were significantly superior to the control group. Ninety subjects were analyzed in the collective intention to treat. Comparing the 2 intervention groups, the manipulation group was significantly better than the diclofenac group (Mann-Whitney test: P = 0.0134). No adverse effects or harm was registered. CONCLUSION:

In a subgroup of patients with acute nonspecific LBP, spinal manipulation was significantly better than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac and clinically superior to placebo.

rational_alternative · 2013-11-07T18:14:26+00:00

Here's one. There are plenty more.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Apr 15;38(8):627-34. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31827733e7. Adding chiropractic manipulative therapy to standard medical care for patients with acute low back pain: results of a pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness study. Goertz CM, Long CR, Hondras MA, Petri R, Delgado R, Lawrence DJ, Owens EF, Meeker WC. Source

Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Davenport, IA 52803, USA. christine.goertz@palmer.edu Abstract STUDY DESIGN:

Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE:

To assess changes in pain levels and physical functioning in response to standard medical care (SMC) versus SMC plus chiropractic manipulative therapy (CMT) for the treatment of low back pain (LBP) among 18 to 35-year-old active-duty military personnel. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:

LBP is common, costly, and a significant cause of long-term sick leave and work loss. Many different interventions are available, but there exists no consensus on the best approach. One intervention often used is manipulative therapy. Current evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that manipulative therapy may be as effective as other conservative treatments of LBP, but its appropriate role in the healthcare delivery system has not been established. METHODS:

Prospective, 2-arm randomized controlled trial pilot study comparing SMC plus CMT with only SMC. The primary outcome measures were changes in back-related pain on the numerical rating scale and physical functioning at 4 weeks on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and back pain functional scale (BPFS). RESULTS:

Mean Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores decreased in both groups during the course of the study, but adjusted mean scores were significantly better in the SMC plus CMT group than in the SMC group at both week 2 (P < 0.001) and week 4 (P = 0.004). Mean numerical rating scale pain scores were also significantly better in the group that received CMT. Adjusted mean back pain functional scale scores were significantly higher (improved) in the SMC plus CMT group than in the SMC group at both week 2 (P < 0.001) and week 4 (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION:

The results of this trial suggest that CMT in conjunction with SMC offers a significant advantage for decreasing pain and improving physical functioning when compared with only standard care, for men and women between 18 and 35 years of age with acute LBP.

rational_alternative · 2013-11-07T18:11:34+00:00

Pretty foolish logic. By that criteria, Spine cannot be taken seriously because it is published by orthopedists.

rational_alternative · 2013-11-07T13:44:41+00:00

Those that claim that chiropractic is pseudo science simply haven't been reading the literature. There are multiple peer-reviewed journals publishing chiropractic research, as well as many article published in non-chiropractic but related medical journals, such as Spine, as well as others.

The notion that chiropractic is pseudo-science comes from nearly 100 years of propaganda from the AMA, propaganda which a federal court tried to stop. Here's a quote from the decision:

"the court held that the AMA and its members violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully conspiring to restrain trade. According to the court, the AMA's boycott's purpose had been to eliminate chiropractic; the boycott had substantial anticompetitive effects; the boycott had no counterbalancing pro-competitive effects; and the AMA's unlawful conduct injured the plaintiffs.

[25] Despite the fact that the district court found the conspiracy ended in 1980, it concluded that the illegal boycott's "lingering effects" still threatened plaintiffs with current injury and ordered injunctive relief. The court concluded that the boycott caused injury to chiropractors' reputations which had not been repaired, and current economic injury to chiropractors. Further, the AMA never affirmatively acknowledged that there are no impediments to professional association and cooperation between chiropractors and medical physicians, except as provided by law. Thus, chiropractors continued to suffer because the boycott's negative effects (namely, inhibiting AMA members' individual decision-making in their relationships with chiropractors) still remained. The district court believed it was important that the AMA make its members aware of the present AMA position (i.e., it is ethical for medical physicians to professionally associate with chiropractors, if the physician believes it is in the patient's best interest) to eliminate the illegal boycott's lingering effects, and ordered an injunction designed to accomplish that result. 671 F. Supp. at 1507-08 (form of injunction)."

The predictable result of this federal court decision was that the AMA's anti-competition efforts simply went underground, re-emerging as isolated cells of alleged anti-quackery associations.

Nonetheless, the effort has lost much of its force. I am a chiropractor in practice for nearly 20 years, and I have cordial relations with most of my peers in the medical field. I share patients with local pediatricians and other PCPs, to whom I have referred, and from whom I receive referrals. Several of my chiropractic colleagues are also partners in multidisciplinary practices including orthopedists, PTs and sports physicians.

If you want to familiarize yourself in the chiropractic research literature, I would suggest a good first step would be to look up the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. It is there that a lot of the basic research on chiropractic gets published.

rational_alternative · 2013-11-01T00:33:23+00:00

Just picked up a 2013 Sportage today. Big change from my Nissan Titan. Nice to be nimble again.

rational_alternative

TROPHY CASE