Chiropracy

I know some here have tried this (?), not sure if it really was for MAV. Anyway I took a session yesterday due to some stuff that’s not related to mav (at least not directly)… Question: is it normal to feel pretty zore in your back the next day? I’m feeling really tender between my shoulderblades and just generally sore, but I’m not sure if I should partly blame my bed for being too soft???

cheers.

Hi Mikael,

I have used all of the following for back problems - chiropractic, osteopathy, physiotherapy and massage. My experience is as follows:

Chiropractic - I don’t like it, I think it’s too intense and I’m not sure that bones need or should be cracked. From what I know there is no evidence that chiropratic has any efficacy outside of back problems. In fact, it can be downright dangerous. You may have heard of a UK science writer, Simon Singh who has questioned the claims some chiropractors make, without any scientific basis or evidence. A reputable Australian current affairs program did a piece on this recently: www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Mess … &dm=1&pd=3

Osteopathy - I still use this occasionally with good results (mostly for TMJ). Osteopaths usually give your body a “warm up” with massage before they start “adjusting”. I’m not sure I buy their explanation that the “cracking” is popping the gassy stuff between joints and that even if this is true that it actually has any scientific basis.

Physiotherapy - I think this is the most legitimate and least damaging. They are working the muscles, which then pulls the bones back into line. They also give you exercises and stretches to do.

Massage - I find it can relieve minor muscular pain and is very relaxing which is always good. I’m not sure it actually does much to correct back problems though.

As for any soreness - I only get that when the muscles have been worked a lot. It’s never worse than the feeling a day or so after a strong weights work out.

Hope that helps,
Victoria

Well keep in mind that chiropractic is not simply “cracking bones” or adjusting the spine or neck. If you go to a chiropractor, do your research and see what his or her background is. Talk to him or her before getting treatment. If they are willing to discuss their practice and background and a treatment program for you based on your needs, this is a good sign. I see a chiropractor for a soft tissue/joint injury from my car accident this past August. He does various massage and manipulation, electrotherapy, and ultrasound therapy. All are helping. A year or so prior I had started seeing him when I first started having symptoms of MAV, but we stopped because the neck adjustments were too much at the time - meaning I did not have the MAV diagnosis and did have the TMJ issues and did not want to have the manipulations done while I figured out what was going on with the neurologists. I eventually found out and told him and he was fine with it.

In terms of MAV issues, I think some here would agree that neck/should massage is wonderful. It helps when the neck muscles tighten up (especially when you get headaches). That can be done by a chiropractor or a massage therapist.

Just be wary of anyone who says they can “cure” your symptoms with chiro or anything for that matter! :wink:

PS> And yes, you can feel sore after a chiropractic session. If you hurt, tell your chiro, for that means he/she was working you too hard.

hi and thanks for the replies; I feel much better today… There has been a lot of fuss in the past years about chiros being dangerous, so I was a bit nervous I guess. Anyhow he’s great and cleared up the fog surrounding chiropracy and its bad rep pretty good for me (apparently the name chiropractor has not been a licensed name in sweden until 2-3 years ago; this meant that there were a lot of unqualified people doing this work and calling themselves chiros… The real deal needs a 5 year education.

again thanks :slight_smile:

Hi Mikael,

Chiropractic is a diverse profession and it is difficult to even characterise what a “typical” chiropractor is likely to do. There are a great many things that happen under the umbrella of “chiropractic.” There is a wide range of differences between individual chiropractors, but most can be placed within one of three basic types: Straights, Mixers, and Reformers.

[size=130]Straights[/size]
Straight chiropractors consider themselves the only true or pure chiropractors because they limit their practice to the identification and treatment of spinal subluxations. They stick strictly to Palmer’s concept of disease and believe that all ailments can be treated through spinal manipulation to restore the flow of innate intelligence. Once freely flowing, they believe innate intelligence has unlimited power to naturally heal the body. Straight chiropractors are the most extreme in their anti-scientific views. They openly advocate a philosophical rather than a scientific basis for health care, calling mainstream medicine “mechanistic” and “allopathic.” They call physicians “drug pushers” and disparage the use of surgery. They are careful not to give diseases names, but none-the-less they claim to cure disease with their adjustments. They oppose vaccinations. They also openly advocate the replacement of scientific medicine with chiropractic as primary health care.

[size=130]Mixers[/size]
Mixers represent the largest segment of chiropractors, and may at first seem more rational. They accept that some disease is caused by infection or other causes and they do not limit their practice to fixing subluxations. Most chiropractors in this group, however, do not supplement subluxation theory with scientific medicine, but rather with an eclectic array of pseudoscientific alternative practices. Mixers commonly prescribe homeopathic and herbal remedies, practice acupuncture and therapeutic touch, diagnose with iridology, contour analysis, and applied kinesiology, and adhere to the philosophy of naturopathy. This broad use of unproven, unscientific, and fanciful so-called “alternative” practices clearly indicates an antiscience attitude, as well as a lack of scientific knowledge.
The rhetoric of Mixers indicates that they are attempting to become accepted into the scientific mainstream, rather than replace scientifically based medicine with a philosophy-based approach. They no longer openly oppose immunisation, like Straights do, but they do advocate the freedom to choose whether or not to be immunised. Their appeal to freedom is emotionally effective, especially in the United States, but it fails to recognise that immunisation is far less effective in eliminating or containing infectious diseases when it is not given to everyone (herd immunity). They also advocate a role for chiropractors as a primary care portal of entry system within HealthCare, despite the fact that they lack adequate training as generalists skilled in medical diagnosis.

[size=130]Reformers[/size]
A small minority of chiropractors, numbering only about 1,000, or 2% of all chiropractors (these are rough estimates because accurate figures are lacking), have been openly critical of their own field. They have called for absolute rejection of the subluxation theory of illness, disposing of pseudoscientific and unethical practices by chiropractors, and the restriction of chiropractic to treating acute musculoskeletal symptoms. They are attempting to bring their field into the scientific mainstream. Occasionally chiropractic reformers have attempted to forge a new profession, entirely shedding the pseudoscience attached to the chiropractic brand. About ten years ago one group in Canada renamed themselves “Orthopractors,” and considered the new discipline of orthopractic as distinct from chiropractic. Orthopractic is the use of manipulation to provide symptomatic relief from uncomplicated acute back strain. They do not believe in maintenance therapy, treating medical ailments, or the use of pseudoscientific alternative practices. Reformers call subluxations “dumbluxations” because they know it’s all nonsense without a shred of evidence to support most chiropractic claims.

The take home message is to stick with one who uses the adjustments for manipulation only – safest for the lower back. If they do some massage and ultrasound therapy, great. Both are used by physiotherapists with proven results. The only evidence out there shows that chiropractic can be effective for lower back pain, but no more than main stream treatments such as physiotherapy. I used to see a guy for neck manipulation but since I got a grip on my food triggers and made the appropriate lifestyle changes I haven’t gone back. I feel safer not having my neck cracked. It was migraine causing the neck pain anyway. Of course the chiro never had a clue about that (nor did any doctors).

Best … Scott 8)

Has anyone in the Boston area heard of a chiro at Newton Wellesley Hospial call Dr. Jackson who claims to be able to treat vertigo. He has a website at www.doctorjackson.org and was featured on the news program Chronicle. Chiro’s make me nervous but he claims to be able to help 90 percent of his patients.
Any opinions?

Joan

Hi Joan,

Never heard of him but this is a massive red flag: “he claims to be able to help 90 percent of his patients.”

What does that mean exactly? It’s so easy for these guys to pull numbers out of a hat like that and make such general statements. No doubt he’d have some theory on how the vertigo was caused by a subluxation or a problem with energy flow. Perhaps he is able to loosen up neck tension and reduce pain which in itself might raise someone’s migraine threshold and reduce attacks but I wouldn’t read much more into it. There’s no evidence supporting chiropractic to suggest otherwise.

edit: I just had a look at his site briefly where he uses the “toxins” and “depleted nutrients” argument to explain vertigo. I would love to know how he “screens” for toxic metals. He then goes on to explain that the two causes of vertigo are “mechanical fault of the neck” (which of course can be fixed by his adjustments) and/or “a low level of wellness” (whatever that means). The latter group are “toxic” according to him, a state not recognised by medical practioners who, by the way, have studied at university levels for 5-6 years and then spend more years specialising in a field such as neurology. Sheesh. His site is chock full of nonsense.

Scott

Scott: thanks for the insight on this. I have already been wary of Chiros now I know why.

Ahhh, a “mechanical fault of the neck”. So this Dr Jackson is a chiropractic mechanic. Makes perfect sense now. Frankly, whenever I hear/read the word “toxin” my bull shit detector goes into overdrive.

Vic

Now I don’t know this chiropractor or much about them. Basically I have only spoken to one in my life and he offered no cures. I am sure there are good and bad chiros just like doctors. How many people has Hain or Rausch “cured”, they only use trial and error with meds that are questionable at best.

We do not know what will help each one of us and I see very little science in many of the med trials the so called experts have us undertake. I keep hearing that evidence is emerging, well, let’s get on with it already.

S

the guy i went to treats pain and nothing else. Guess hes legit. Thanks for the info Scott. Didn’t know any of that

— Begin quote from ____

. Frankly, whenever I hear/read the word “toxin” my bull shit detector goes into overdrive.

— End quote

Ha ha ha; indeed!

I agree with what you say Sally. However I do feel that we in the future will have a clear picture on the mechanisms in question here, and by that time the whole trial and error thing will be a thing of the past…Let’s just hope the future comes soon

Hi Sally,

I am sure there are good and bad chiros just like doctors.

Yes, there definitely are, and most would likely fall under the Reformer category of chiropractor. I went to a good guy as well once who was a Straight. There was a caveat though: I just let him do the manipulation with which he was skilled, but never listened to his other very questionable advice (mostly quackery). He once suggested I go on a 3-day “detox” diet of green apples. :roll:

How many people has Hain or Rausch “cured”, they only use trial and error with meds that are questionable at best.

They have never cured anyone and would never misrepresent the current science by saying so because they both know there is no cure for migraine, a genetic disease. But what they would do is offer an evidence-based approach to reducing your symptoms down to a manageable or negligible level using a lifestyle intervention first followed by meds with known efficacy if lifestyle alterations alone failed to raise your migraine threshold.

We do not know what will help each one of us and I see very little science in many of the med trials the so called experts have us undertake.

Migraine is an extremely complicated neurological illness with no one clear treatment that works for everyone. For the reasons I outlined in the “What is migraine?” thread, it’s just not that simple. Doctors like Rauch and Hain do in fact use science every day in trying to treat people with MAV. They choose meds that have proven clinical efficacy in reducing migraine incidence by >50%. That does not guarantee a fix for any one particular person, however, because there are a number of factors involved in each migraineur’s presentation. At this stage the best we have is trial and error with these medications. But at least they are on the right track whereas telling someone they have MAV because they are toxic or because there’s a mechanical problem in the neck requiring years of adjustments is just plain nonsense. My last point is that both Hain and Rauch would have spent 5 years studying medicine at University level followed by many more years of specialising in neurology. On top of that they have over a decade (or more) of experience treating people with MAV. I think it’s safe to say they are experts. I would definitley be listening to their advice over some chiropractor advocating a detox diet to treat MAV.

Scott

fact is neurology as a field is still very immature; no one really understands the brain more than at a VERY superficial level (subject A thinks of stuff B → area in brain lights up = that’s the center of stuff B related things). I’m sure the future will clear the fog and also straighten up a lot of todays misconceptions; both regarding migraine and other neurological illnesses.

I believe in (empirical) science as the only valid method for the kind of progress in question here, but scientists can sometimes fail to see the forest for all the trees as well… For one I see a lot of scientist meeting new ideas with direct scepticism rather than curiosity at times; somethings are blatantly bs, but not everything regarded as such at first glance remains entirely that way upon closer inspection.

Hey Mikael,

I think you’ll find that in science the rule of thumb is to meet every new idea with both curiosity and tons of skepticism. All scientists are hugely curious and are wanting to explore the unknown but to do so also means being really skeptical too until the evidence piles up. The best scientist will form a new hypothesis about whatever it is they are trying to explore and then throw everything they have at it to try and disprove it. If it stands up to this sort of testing over time and cannot be torn down, it becomes a scientific theory and then eventually fact (such as the theory of evolution). True, there are some hypotheses that at first are laughed at: the existence of dark matter I think was first scoffed at back in the 1930s but is today –– even though there is no concrete understanding of its nature – accepted as the reason behind anomolies in the rotation of galaxies. Einstein’s theory of relativity was also not accepted outright and was greeted with much skepticism but over time it has held up and only recently been proven to be correct.

The skeptical stance needs to be adopted rigorously because we’re human and people have the tendency to misinterpret just about everything. Moreover, we see correlation where there is none and often assume correlation implies causation. It’s just the nature of our brains. We can be so easily tricked. If you’re the scientist with a great idea there is emotional attachment to it all as well – wanting it to be correct. The wanting it to be true can lead to confirmation bias and all sorts of other things that can lead someone to believe something is true when in fact it is not.

Scott :slight_smile:

A couple more reasons to favour science and medicine over quackery:

a) Many ‘alternative’ therapies claim to be able to ‘cure’ a range of conditions where science/medicine has ‘failed’. The arrogance! If the alternative stuff worked it wouldn’t have to be called ‘alternative’ it would just be called ‘medicine’.

b) Many ‘alternative’ therapists disparage science with “it doesn’t know everything”, when that is exactly the point. Science doesn’t claim to know everything, otherwise they wouldn’t need to keep researching and testing stuff.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - you wouldn’t trust your car to an ‘alternative’ mechanic so why would you trust your body with some un (or self) accredited ‘alternative’ therapist? And don’t kid yourself that just because something’s “natural” it can’t hurt - if it’s strong enough to cure it’s strong enough to do damage.

I went right off chiropratic when I had my neck cracked. I’ve seen too many James Bond films where bad guys with gold teeth and facial scars kill people with one quick, deadly twist.

Vic

Not sure when this turned into a science vs quackery debate lol.

My point is only that sometimes things work but the reason we think something works is not the correct reason; that doesn’t change the fact that the thing itself works. Most scientific theories will prove to be somewhat faulty in the light of new evidence, but perfect objectivity and truth is as I see it more like a journey than a goal (that is: an ideal). The few studies regarding chiropracy here in Sweden have shown it to be effective against back pain, and although the theories behind its efficacy may be faulty this fact stands still. Just because the Greeks thought the sun was a big chariot which Helios rode over the skies, that doesn’t mean that we, once finding out that this idea was false, should dispense of the concept ‘sun’ altogether.

I would, however, never see a chiro for something other than pain and agree with what’s been said here earlier. Not sure anyone has even disagreed? One can be dismissive of quackery AND be dismissive of the current scientific knowledge regarding our condition, both at the same time! (yeah I know; crazy huh?)

Doctors are after all (most of them) not primarily scientists; rather, they get their tools from science and then use these tools to the best of their ability. I feel sometimes doctors forget that the current tools (including more theoretical “tools” such as a diagnosis) aren’t all the possible tools, and that perhaps more tools will be in the workshop tomorrow.

The “carmechanic” or tomorrow may have more impressive tools than the one who’s working today, but nonetheless these are the best tools currently availible and I would not go to anyone else if my car broke down.

=)

Hi Mikael,

I’ll take the blame for the debate veering off in a science vs quackery debate - I think I was feeling pretty fired up at the time :lol: .

I think the bottom line is that chiro can help with back problems but that’s about it. On that I think we all agree.

The sun isn’t a golden chariot?? Does that mean the sky isn’t a pretty blue carpet?? Next you’ll be telling me the earth isn’t flat. :wink:

Vic

Hi Mikael,

LOL, yup, the subject of quackery has risen again. It is never seems to be a dull topic!

I think we’re all on the same page here as Victoria summarised. I would add that the great thing about science is that ideas and theories do change over time. Yup, sometimes what we once thought to be true might need refining and fine tuning as new evidence accumulates and adds to our understanding and knowledge. That’s the beauty of it all. Look how far HIV treatment has advanced over the last 20 years. No doubt migraine will follow this pathway. For now they know that a CSD event is the first event in a migraine. Years from now (decades?) this will expand greatly I imagine as they unravel more of this mysterious disease.

By contrast, homeopaths, chiropractors and acupuncturists will make the same claims they always have for centuries. No new evidence will come to shed any new light on any of these sorts of treatments to give greater understanding. In fact, overwhelming evidence shows they don’t work at all (apart from chiros treating lower back problems). But you can guarantee that in another hundred years they will all still be whistling the same tune and it will be based on some sort of faith and philosophy only. And there will be somebody saying, “but we need to do more research” even though they should have moved on centuries before.

Scott

— Begin quote from ____

The sun isn’t a golden chariot?? Does that mean the sky isn’t a pretty blue carpet?? Next you’ll be telling me the earth isn’t flat. :wink:

— End quote

:twisted:

Hi Mikael,

— Begin quote from ____

LOL, yup, the subject of quackery has risen again. It is never seems to be a dull topic!

I think we’re all on the same page here as Victoria summarised. I would add that the great thing about science is that ideas and theories do change over time. Yup, sometimes what we once thought to be true might need refining and fine tuning as new evidence accumulates and adds to our understanding and knowledge. That’s the beauty of it all. Look how far HIV treatment has advanced over the last 20 years. No doubt migraine will follow this pathway. For now they know that a CSD event is the first event in a migraine. Years from now (decades?) this will expand greatly I imagine as they unravel more of this mysterious disease.

By contrast, homeopaths, chiropractors and acupuncturists will make the same claims they always have for centuries. No new evidence will come to shed any new light on any of these sorts of treatments to give greater understanding. In fact, overwhelming evidence shows they don’t work at all (apart from chiros treating lower back problems). But you can guarantee that in another hundred years they will all still be whistling the same tune and it will be based on some sort of faith and philosophy only. And there will be somebody saying, “but we need to do more research” even though they should have moved on centuries before.

— End quote

Well put. I do hope the people of tomorrow are less prone to fall for quackery than those of today; then again, perhaps a world in which everyone was as rational and superawesome as me would be a pretty dull world. Who would I then dismiss? :stuck_out_tongue:

You’ll get a kick out of this Mikael – Hitler on chiropractic:

Hitler on chiropractic evidence mashup (adult content) - YouTube)

:lol: