Hendon Chiropractic & Wellness Center

Hendon Chiropractic & Wellness Center

There are 37 comments on the Nashville Business Journal story from Aug 23, 2009, titled Hendon Chiropractic & Wellness Center. In it, Nashville Business Journal reports that:

Technique Specializing in Light Force or "Gentle Chiropractic", Dr. Hendon's technique provides better results than standard chiropractic adjustments without the snap, crack and pop.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Nashville Business Journal.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#1 Aug 25, 2009
Hmmmmmm. Seems this chiropractor can treat effectively with "little" force. Not the "usual" back cracking.

Which chiropractic techniques have been shown to be more effective for particular conditions? Say ... bed wetting or spinal stenosis?

Would a chiropractor please post links to the studies for which indicate which chiropractic technique is most effective for those conditions above.

Chiropractors have been known to say that all their treatments are just as effective as the next. I find this assertion to be absurd. Some chiropractors treat every one of their patients, no matter what their disease or illness by "tweaking" only the patient's top vertebrae. Others will treat every patient, no matter what their condition by only clicking their spines with a reconditioned dental clicker.

Hmmmm?
Blair-SOT DC

Somerset, PA

#2 Aug 26, 2009
And some people are so bitter because their feeble minds can't grasp the concepts of chiropractic.

To those reading these forums, Wisdom is a rambling malcontent. He would have whined and complained about any profession he pursued, but he chose chiropractic. As with anything, if your heart is not in it, if you would complain and seek sympathy rather than exert effort to learn, your professional success is doomed. So he channels his self-hatred and disappointment at chiropractors and chiropractic, spamming all over these forums, because he simply can't face his own demons. He has demonstrated that he prefers to be angry and childish to growing, learning, and professional discourse. I feel sorry for him, really. Were his mind a little more open, I think chiropractic may be able to help him, but he must make his own choices.

I would not dignify his posts by responding to him directly, but others reading these forums actually looking for help or information about chiropractic should be aware of this situation.
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#3 Aug 26, 2009
I asked a simple question. " Which chiropractic techniques have been shown to be more effective for particular conditions? Say ... bed wetting or spinal stenosis?

Would a chiropractor please post links to the studies for which indicate which chiropractic technique is most effective for those conditions above."

In typical chiropractic fashion this "blair" chiropractor responded with ....

"I would not dignify his posts by responding to him directly, but others reading these forums actually looking for help or information about chiropractic should be aware of this situation."

Yup. Don't bother these "doctors" with reasonable questions. Just trust them. They know what's better for you. they know that their particular technique works because they say it does. Period. ha ha

The chiropractic diaper needs to be emptied.

But I'd be glad to discus the bizarre "blair" chiropractic if you wish.

Lets start with some legitimate research studies that validate the "blair" chiropractic technique.

Oh wait. there are none. Oh well.
tom

Saint Paul, MN

#4 Aug 26, 2009
A non-surgical approach to the management of lumbar spinal stenosis: A prospective observational cohort study
Donald R Murphy1,2,3 , Eric L Hurwitz4 , Amy A Gregory1 and Ronald Clary1

1Rhode Island Spine Center, 600 Pawtucket Avenue, Pawtucket, RI 02860, USA

2Department of Community Health, Brown University School of Medicine, USA

3Research Department, New York Chiropractic College, USA

4Department of Public Health Sciences and Epidemiology, John A. Burns School of Medicine University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii, USA

Abstract
Background
While it is widely held that non-surgical management should be the first line of approach in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), little is known about the efficacy of non-surgical treatments for this condition. Data are needed to determine the most efficacious and safe non-surgical treatment options for patients with LSS. The purpose of this paper is to describe the clinical outcomes of a novel approach to patients with LSS that focuses on distraction manipulation (DM) and neural mobilization (NM).

Methods
This is a prospective consecutive case series with long term follow up (FU) of fifty-seven consecutive patients who were diagnosed with LSS. Two were excluded because of absence of baseline data or failure to remain in treatment to FU. Disability was measured using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RM) and pain intensity was measured using the Three Level Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Patients were also asked to rate their perceived percentage improvement.

Results
The mean patient-rated percentage improvement from baseline to the end to treatment was 65.1%. The mean improvement in disability from baseline to the end of treatment was 5.1 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Clinically meaningful improvement in disability from baseline to the end of treatment was seen in 66.7% of patients. The mean improvement in "on average" pain intensity was 1.6 points. This did not reach the threshold for clinical meaningfulness. The mean improvement in "at worst" pain was 3.1 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful.

The mean duration of FU was 16.5 months. The mean patient-rated percentage improvement from baseline to long term FU was 75.6%. The mean improvement in disability was 5.2 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Clinically meaningful improvement in disability was seen in 73.2% of patients. The mean improvement in "on average" pain intensity from baseline to long term FU was 3.0 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. The mean improvement in "at worst" pain was 4.2 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Only two patients went on to require surgery.

No major complications to treatment were noted.

Conclusion
A treatment approach focusing on DM and NM may be useful in bringing about clinically meaningful improvement in disability in patients with LSS

Entire paper can be found here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/7/16
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#5 Aug 27, 2009
He he. tommy boy, do you bother reading the stuff you post. Or did you just see the word chiropractic in the article?

You posted a limited "distraction" study. Distraction, as you obviously don't know, it NOT a chiropractic technique, though a few chiropractors do stretch spines.

Nice try though. Very few chiropractic colleges even teach "distraction". And if they do, big deal. Distraction of the low back is not technically chiropractic. Sot, blair, ak, peirce stillwagon, hio gonstead and palmer are chiropractic techniques which are held to treat disease.

Look, I understand that you know very little about chiropractic.

You conveniently forgot to post the "conclusion" of this chiropractic propaganda, I mean "study". So here it is..........

"Because the sample size is relatively small and there is no control group, firm conclusions regarding this cannot be drawn."

Now, where are those chiropractic bed wetting studies?
consumer

Davenport, IA

#6 Aug 27, 2009
LOOK LOOK LOOK

a study for spinal stenosis
like you requested wisdom
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#7 Aug 27, 2009
oh ok consumer,

Now slowly.

I asked for a study that would indicate which chiropractic technique is most effective for a particular condition"

Now I know this may be difficult for you to comprehend, as you also saw the word chiropractic in this article and so assumed it showed which chiropractic technique was most effective for spinal stenosis.

First, distraction is not even a chiropractic technique. But thats not even the point. This article not only does not only NOT indicate which chiropractic technique is more/most effective in treating spinal stenosis (which was my question) but the "conclusion" of this article says that NO conclusions can be drawn from it.

"consumer", it seems you would make a good chiropractic puppy. Just follow along and wag your tail. Don't let the facts change your mind.

Now, how about posting a study that shows which chiropractic technique is best for treating bed wetting. Ha Ha Is it nucca nuttery or activator?

There are no studies. Period.

The chiropractic diaper needs to be emptied. And fast.
nwtk2007

Rowlett, TX

#8 Aug 28, 2009
If you knew anything AT ALL about chiropractic you would know that the specific technique is not the issue. The issue is restoring normal motion to joints.

Just too stupid and pathetic. But you are Wisdump.
tom

Minneapolis, MN

#9 Aug 28, 2009
Wizzy: >>"Distraction, as you obviously don't know, it NOT a chiropractic technique,..."<<

REALLY?-"Obviously"- , then, you are not an ....ahem....."expert ". You appear to distort/omit the facts, either selectively, or ignorantly, or both.

58% of Chiropractors incorporate this method/technique as one of their treatment options. Perhaps you need to get informed(assuming your declarations are made out of ignorance on the subject---I am being generous here, in giving you the benefit of the doubt).

http://www.coxtechnic.org/thetreatment.asp

Wizzy: >>"Very few chiropractic colleges even teach "distraction".

REALLY? Please provide your evidence for this declaration. My evidence indicates it to be taught at ALL the chiropractic colleges.

nwtk: >>"If you knew anything AT ALL about chiropractic you would know that the specific technique is not the issue. The issue is restoring normal motion to joints."<<

nwtk, This is wizzy's pathetic attempt to "box in". If one were to apply his (il)logic to allopathy ----> there would only be one(1) hypertension Rx, One(1) diabetes medication, One(1) cardiac medication...... Or that all orthopedic surgeons must use the same procedure on all ACL surgeries......, Or that all physios must only use one predetermined technique on stroke rehabs......

The absurdity of this is obvious.

Wizzy is either clueless or extremely dishonest, or both.

Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#10 Aug 28, 2009
As I am the chiropractic expert, I have to laugh when this quacker nwtk asks,

"If you knew anything AT ALL about chiropractic you would know that the specific technique is not the issue. The issue is restoring normal motion to joints."

Ha Ha I know, "all techniques work". Ha ha Thats the number one chiropractic mantra. Never question another quacker's technque, least your technique be questioned.

Seems you argument should be with your fellow quackers who claim to treat every disease by light tweaking only the top vertebrae. ha ha So much for restoring "normal motion". Ha ha

And yes nwtk, a particular technique is always the issue. You know I have no problem with chiropractors treating the few people who may benefit from mild spinal manipulation.

It is all the other bizarre chiropractic techniques and treatments that have NO research to back them up. Heck I understand your reactionary and irrational defense of all those bizarre techniques, I mean, really, you click spines to treat disease. Ha Ha The stupidity of it all.

And tommy boy, distraction is not a chiropractic technique, any more than trigger point pressure is.

And please, don't link me to Cox's website. He sells tables to chiropractors. Remember, I am THE chiropractic expert.

Lastly stop trying to pretend you understand any medical procedure. You are not qualified to speak about surgical procedures.

Keep reading chirotalk. And empty those chiropractic diapers.

Hey, where are those chiropractic bed wetting studies you all claimed you have? Oh that's right, they don't exist. Hey, but don't let that stop you quacks from claiming you can treat it. Ha ha
tom

Minneapolis, MN

#11 Aug 28, 2009
Wizzy: >>"Distraction, as you obviously don't know, it NOT a chiropractic technique,..."<<

REALLY?-"Obviously"- , then, you are not an ....ahem....."expert ". You appear to distort/omit the facts, either selectively, or ignorantly, or both.

58% of Chiropractors incorporate this method/technique as one of their treatment options. Perhaps you need to get informed(assuming your declarations are made out of ignorance on the subject---I am being generous here, in giving you the benefit of the doubt).

http://www.coxtechnic.org/thetreatment.asp

Wizzy: >>"Very few chiropractic colleges even teach "distraction".

REALLY? Please provide your evidence for this declaration. My evidence indicates it to be taught at ALL the chiropractic colleges.

Wizzy posts->>"And tommy boy, distraction is not a chiropractic technique, any more than trigger point pressure is."<<

Wizzy- Your attempt at distorting what DCs -DO- is intentionally, and shamefully, dishonest.

Flexion-distraction is very much a "chiropractic technique---- taught at all chiropractic colleges, and utilized by no less than 58% of all DCs. Facts are facts.
Wizzy boy,----sorry if the facts debunk your unsupported fasinations. If you have evidence that refutes this, please post it. I won't hold my breath though- your posting history indicates links to indexed cites to be nonexistant.

Wizzy: >>"And please, don't link me to Cox's website. He sells tables to chiropractors.

REALLY? WHY? Perhaps you desire to ignore/distort the published papers, and federally fuded research?
http://www.coxtechnic.org/publishedoutcomes.a...

Remember, I am THE chiropractic expert."<<

REALLY? Where can we find your indexed, published papers?
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#12 Aug 28, 2009
"My evidence indicates it to be taught at ALL the chiropractic colleges".

You really are ignorant aren't you?

Take a few minutes and search the chiropractic college websites.

Start at sherman and life chieoquackery schools.

Report back to me. And try to stop being so ignorant.

Lastly, while "Cox" made up his own brand of distraction, "distraction" itself is not a chiropractic technique. I know that distinction is way beyond your grasp, but so be it. You can't teach a stupid dog new "knowledge".

Hard to imagine why I'm wasting so much time with someone so ignorant about chiropractic. It is important that the public understand the type of twisting and spinning of the truth that goes on in chiropractic.

You serve as useful idiot very well.

The fundamental belief and scam that continues in chiropractic is that chiropractors can find and remove "subluxations" to cure / treat disease. they use stupid scams like nucca and ak and sot to scam the public. While some do mild manipulation, the overwhelming majority of chiropractors are continuing to scam the public. Indeed, the chiropractic diaper needs to be emptied.

Again, as thousands of chiropractors claim they can treat "
bed wetting", I'll repeat,....

"Hey, where are those chiropractic bed wetting studies you all claimed you have? Oh that's right, they don't exist. Hey, but don't let that stop you quacks from claiming you can treat it. Ha ha"

I'm still wondering why nwtk is not able to cure bed wetting when the rest of his quack colleagues say it is possible. Hmmmm, maybe he's in a pickle with that question? Should he admit to being an outright quack or can he come up with a "reasonable" excuse as to why he doesn't tweak atlas to cure bed wetting like his quack colleague" nucca".???

These chiropractors continue to dig themselves into a deep deep hole.

Keep reading chirotalk, the world's finest chiropractic website.
tom

Minneapolis, MN

#13 Aug 28, 2009
Wizzy posts:
>>"And the fact that you have no other evidence other than a few people claiming they feel better from their self limited and uncomplicated conditions, means that placebo is to be considered."<<

Lumbar spine stenosis self limiting???? What a clueless comment.



from the study:
"Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common and often disabling disorder that generally occurs in the sixth or seventh decade of life [1], although it can uncommonly occur in younger individuals [2]. The incidence of this condition has been reported to be 811%[3], with a slight preponderance in women [1]. LSS can lead to low back and leg pain, most typically via encroachment on the central canal, lateral recess, or lateral canal. The source of the encroachment is typically vertebral body osteophytes, hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum or zygapophyseal joint, or a combination of these [1]. The posterior longitudinal ligament may be involved in some individuals [4]. The development of these degenerative changes is often accompanied by restriction of segmental mobility [1].

One of the hallmarks of LSS is neurogenic claudication, in which the patient develops low back and/or leg pain after a period of walking that progressively worsens as walking is continued, with improvement or resolution when walking ceases and the patient sits or flexes the lumbar spine [5].

LSS is one of the most common reasons for spine surgery in older people [6], although little is known about the efficacy of surgical management of patients with LSS, particularly compared to non-surgical management [7]. It is generally felt that most patients with LSS should be managed non-surgically before considering surgical intervention [8], but little is also known about what non-surgical approaches are most efficacious."

".... in a natural history study by Johnsson [32], 70% of patients were found to be unchanged over 49 months, and 15% improved. So it would appear from this that, while deterioration is not the norm in patients with SS, most patients would not be expected to improve over time.

Nonetheless, clinically meaningful improvement in disability was seen in over two-thirds of the patients, and the improvement appeared to be maintained over an average of 16.5 months after cessation of treatment. The sustained improvement over the long term may relate to the emphasis in the management strategy on treatments that are designed to specifically address the known pathophysiology of LSS and on exercise that was designed to compliment the DM and NM, with continuous monitoring of compliance with home exercise throughout the treatment process. However, this study's design does not allow for firm conclusions to be drawn regarding this. Only two patients went on to require surgery, suggesting that the treatment approach studied here may be an effective alternative to surgery for patients with LSS.

Entire study here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/7/16
nwtk2007

Rowlett, TX

#14 Aug 28, 2009
Wisdump - "You can't teach a stupid dog new "knowledge"."

So why should we bother with you?
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#15 Aug 29, 2009
Try to follow instead of claiming "why bother"?

Re post, In response to a dummy who claimed distraction was taught at chiropractic colleges,(as a way of claiming that all chiropractic techniques are legit), he said, "My evidence indicates it to be taught at ALL the chiropractic colleges".

I replied,

You really are ignorant aren't you?

Take a few minutes and search the chiropractic college websites.

Start at sherman and life chieoquackery schools.

Report back to me. And try to stop being so ignorant.

Lastly, while "Cox" made up his own brand of distraction, "distraction" itself is not a chiropractic technique. I know that distinction is way beyond your grasp, but so be it. You can't teach a stupid dog new "knowledge".

Hard to imagine why I'm wasting so much time with someone so ignorant about chiropractic. It is important that the public understand the type of twisting and spinning of the truth that goes on in chiropractic.

You serve as useful idiot very well.

The fundamental belief and scam that continues in chiropractic is that chiropractors can find and remove "subluxations" to cure / treat disease. they use stupid scams like nucca and ak and sot to scam the public. While some do mild manipulation, the overwhelming majority of chiropractors are continuing to scam the public. Indeed, the chiropractic diaper needs to be emptied.

Again, as thousands of chiropractors claim they can treat "
bed wetting", I'll repeat,....

"Hey, where are those chiropractic bed wetting studies you all claimed you have? Oh that's right, they don't exist. Hey, but don't let that stop you quacks from claiming you can treat it. Ha ha"

I'm still wondering why nwtk is not able to cure bed wetting when the rest of his quack colleagues say it is possible. Hmmmm, maybe he's in a pickle with that question? Should he admit to being an outright quack or can he come up with a "reasonable" excuse as to why he doesn't tweak atlas to cure bed wetting like his quack colleague" nucca".???

These chiropractors continue to dig themselves into a deep deep hole.

Keep reading chirotalk, the world's finest chiropractic website.
nwtk2007

Rowlett, TX

#16 Aug 29, 2009
Who claimed to have Chiropractic Bed Wetting studies Wisdump?

Could you please copy and paste the quote with the time and date it was said so we can verify what you are saying someone said instead of lying about what you say they said?
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#17 Aug 29, 2009
Thank you. There are no "bed wetting studies.

None at all.

Yet thousands of chiropractors claim to be able to cure/treat bed wetting.
As you say .... chiropractors making outrageous claims without any research.(And you think this is the only disorder chiroquackers claim to cure without research?) Ha ha You know it isn't.

My simple question to "you" is why can't you cure / treat bed wetting?

Simple question for a chiropractor like you. Try answering it instead of continuing with your non answer answers.
nwtk2007

Rowlett, TX

#18 Aug 29, 2009
So I and no one else said there were studies.

Are you just toooo stupid or what?
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#19 Aug 30, 2009
So we agree that there are NO studies which support such chiropractic imbicility. Yet thousands of chiropractors continue to claim that they can treat disorders like bed wetting, not to mention other disorders, but more on them later. let's focus on bed wetting.

Great, now we are getting somewhere. We agree that chiropractors make claims without any evidence,(other than a few anecdotal claims that people got better from self limiting conditions).

Great. This is the first step in your de-programming.

Now, for the second phase of de-programming.......answer this question.
Why is it that YOU can't cure / treat bed wetting?

Remember, thousands of chiropractors claim that they can. Now, a simple and direct answer from you would be very helpful in removing you from the chiropractic cult.

Maybe nucca nut can help you with this answer. Wait...nucca really does believe that he can effectively treat every disease by tweaking atlas. Hmmmm? Maybe he would not be the best quack, I mean chiropractor to help you answer this.

So, be honest, and then we'll move on to other diseases and conditions that chiropractors claim to cure/treat without any evidence.
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#20 Aug 30, 2009
I'll understand if you want to continue with your non answer answers. You know that I am very familiar with how chiropractors respond.

Either way, it is very helpful for people to see how licensed chiropractors respond.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brentwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
13-year-old boy found guilty of first-degree m... 1 hr OMG 1
Old Time Pottery 1 hr Teacher 09 1
doctors and pain clinics beware of cindy kay am... 12 hr Fed Up 1
Hottest local news anchor.... (Feb '11) 14 hr Isacc 2,512
C.O.C. or The Confederation of Clubs (Jun '10) 18 hr Skinz1026 36
Prisoner Transportation Services LLC is a Disgrace (Aug '09) Fri Disgusted 335
milfs lonely women (Sep '12) Thu Jay 78
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brentwood Mortgages