the pro-adjuster

Going to the chiropractor can be scary for some people. The adjusting and manipulation of the spine cause some to stay away, but a new device may change that. Full Story

Since: Jul 07

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

#81 Oct 23, 2007
lawman wrote:
hey NUUCA- help us out here? Go to the web page above, click on the upper cervical menu selection:
http://www.ashcompanies.com/data/pdf/resource...
It seems to tell me that there IS NO scientific basis for your NUCCA technique . thanks to tommyboy for getting me unto this thread........
Not that this response will sink in any more than any other has, nor do I expect any further response from lawboy on it since he runs to hide any time I actually address what he wants answered, but her you go:

Problem #1: Lawman gets all his information from blatantly anti-chiropractic sites (chirobase, chirotalk, etc), or (as pointed out here) from medical insurance sites. Before I even address what is posted on that site, let's put their motivations in perspective ... ANY insurance company is purely interested in keeping the cash they get from you at all cost ... that is their entire reason for being.

So, we have 3 reasons quoted as to why upper cervical techniques are "considered unacceptable":
[quote]1. The clinical benefits of using x-rays to identify subluxation or determine line of
adjustment do not outweigh the known health risks of ionizing radiation and is,
therefore, unsafe.[/quote]
They are far out of date on their information regarding the impact of x-ray. For one, the typical x-ray series in our office including pre- and post- films amounts to a total exposure of .44 mSv of radiation (6 films taken - standard 3-film series =.22mSv). To put that in perspective, the "upper limit of low-level radiation (that used in medical/dental/other uses)per year is 100 mSv which causes .004 long term mutations per cell"
(Cohen, B. AJRoentgenology 2002; 27:49-55)
Let's also take into account the fact that the "natural" rate of long term mutations per cell is 1 per cell per day ... knowing those two things, it's not hard to see why “Below 10 Rad (10 Rad = 100mSv)…risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non existent”(Position statement of the Health Physics Society 1998-99)

Even if you don't like that, then you should know that the current information supports the hormesis model regarding the impact of ionizing radiation on humans as opposed to the old linear model (based off of studying Hiroshima survivors). In the hormesis model, they predict (supported by research) that low levels of ionizing radiation is actually beneficial and helps to prevent the occurance of cancer ... the "Zero Equivalence point" where ionizing radiation is projected to be more harmful than beneficial is at or slightly above the 100mSv upper limit (we would have to shoot more than 200 sets of films on a single person in 1 year to come anywhere close to that level).

So essentially, the "known health risks" they tout are either entirely out of date, or are fabricated.

continued ...

Since: Jul 07

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

#82 Oct 24, 2007
[quote who="ASHA"]2. Adjusting upper cervical vertebrae to treat chief complaints unrelated to the
cervical spine (e.g., lumbar pain) has not been shown to be either effective or scientifically plausible.[/quote]
Yet another uninformed point. Upper cervical chiropractors (or any straight chiropractors for that matter) only treat the subluxations (or misalignments if you prefer) that they find. However, this treatment often has the pleasant side effect of clearing up many of the patients persistent problems. Again, this is the trouble you run into when you rely on a lawyer or insurance company for your information ... they don't have the knowledge or training to get past the symptom management to actually correcting something that might be the cause of the complaint. To give you an analogy that you might be able to understand ... why is it that you don't push a tylenol directly into your skull, since that is where the headache you are treating is?

[quote who="ASHA"]3. Non-evidence based procedures used to confirm the removal of the subluxation or
to assess outcomes of care have not been shown to be either effective or scientifically
plausible.[/quote]
So basically, they don't like that we use x-rays to identify the problem, and then claim that the correction shown on x-ray as well as physiologically through postural measurements, bilateral paraspinal temperature readings, or other means. Never mind the patient's symptoms which are no longer bothering them. This last point is purely based on opinion, and again is not surprising when you consider the source being an insurance company interested in paying out as little as possible.

I'm sure their opinion is completely unbiased and informed though ... despite the obvious indications otherwise.
BDC

Anderson, SC

#83 Oct 24, 2007
jim wrote:
BDC, didn't you just get in trouble telling that other guy he obviously didn't know anything about anatomy? You know, the guy that turned out to be an MD neurologists.It seems you have a need for scornful propagations. Why do you have that need? Does it take attention off somethig else? Something painful for you? It seems to come in handy for you sometimes. Is it some kind of last resort?
If he is a neurologist then good for him I could imagine how much time it took to achieve that goal. I just do not understand that if someone knows that much about the spinal cord branching nerves can't at least admit that pressure on a nerve will either excite it, inflame it, or impeed its normal function. If this is false then please show me the door and I will give up my DC degree.

The problem is not showing preasure has serious effects on a nerve but rather how a vertebra could cause this problem. I do not know about now, but last time I checked there was no empty space in the vertebral or spinal column. All voids were filled with veins, arteries, and different types of soft or conective tissue.

Or am I mistaken on that and my schooling was wrong?

Since: Mar 07

United States

#84 Oct 24, 2007
DR T says...."We need more independent research to prove the effectiveness of what Chiropractors do,
"

I agree.
BDC

Anderson, SC

#85 Oct 24, 2007
lawman wrote:
DR T says...."We need more independent research to prove the effectiveness of what Chiropractors do,
"
I agree.
Too bad we only get grants for LBP. Imagine what we could prove with just some of the government's millions going into the medical field. Try and fund a multimillion dollar research project by yourself lawman. It is hard. But It is proven in LBP just ask the gov. if you want proof.
Anatomy

Davenport, IA

#86 Nov 6, 2007
Linked below is a great article in the journal of SPINE. It is not an opinion but rather it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal respected all across the world.
Safety of Chiropractic Manipulation of the Cervical Spine: A Prospective National Survey Spine October 1, 2007, 32(21):2375-2378
If you are looking for a gentle approach you can check out www.orthospinology.org , www.nucca.org or httwww.atlasorthogonality.com .
Curious

Phoenix, AZ

#87 Jan 3, 2008
Is this thread supposed to be on the Pro-adjuster or on chiro in general. Would any of you who believe in the benefits of chiro treatment care to discuss the pro-adjust vs. traditional manual manipulation?

BDC

“Want Truth?”

Since: Dec 07

South Carolina

#88 Jan 3, 2008
Curious wrote:
Is this thread supposed to be on the Pro-adjuster or on chiro in general. Would any of you who believe in the benefits of chiro treatment care to discuss the pro-adjust vs. traditional manual manipulation?
I have seen many DCs go with the pro-adjust. I do not use one myself. Some people love it and some people hate it. Sorry I can't be more exact. What is it that you want to know about it?
Dr T

Evansville, IN

#89 Jan 4, 2008
Curious wrote:
Is this thread supposed to be on the Pro-adjuster or on chiro in general. Would any of you who believe in the benefits of chiro treatment care to discuss the pro-adjust vs. traditional manual manipulation?
I would love to discuss this (Pro-Adjuster) with you. Just send something back this way to let me know you wish to continue...
Dr B

Minneapolis, MN

#90 Feb 27, 2008
Lawman,
Medicine studies the effects of treatment on patients by measuring the physiologic responses of patients... If you check the dictionary, "physiologic" pertains to the study of human function and human parts, in laymans terms. You can measure the function of a human. I walked in and could not stand straight or bend to touch my toes, I walked out and I was MEASURABLY more erect and could bend to touch my toes..... Functional Physiologic outcome!

As for needing an MRI to show improvement, MRI are static pictures which do not measure nerve function, and as any radiologist will tell you now days, they have been incorrectly missing spinal conditions for years with MRI's.... By taking them laying down. Advanced technology today takes them weight bearing. This may show a condition totally missed by the lay down MRI.

Point, all tests are not as objective as you say, and if you ask an MD how many prescriptions he rights on SUBJECTIVE information, I bet he would tell you 80% or more!
Dr T

Rockford, IL

#91 Mar 14, 2008
Dr B wrote:
Lawman,
Medicine studies the effects of treatment on patients by measuring the physiologic responses of patients... If you check the dictionary, "physiologic" pertains to the study of human function and human parts, in laymans terms. You can measure the function of a human. I walked in and could not stand straight or bend to touch my toes, I walked out and I was MEASURABLY more erect and could bend to touch my toes..... Functional Physiologic outcome!
As for needing an MRI to show improvement, MRI are static pictures which do not measure nerve function, and as any radiologist will tell you now days, they have been incorrectly missing spinal conditions for years with MRI's.... By taking them laying down. Advanced technology today takes them weight bearing. This may show a condition totally missed by the lay down MRI.
Point, all tests are not as objective as you say, and if you ask an MD how many prescriptions he rights on SUBJECTIVE information, I bet he would tell you 80% or more!
Do you remember the stats of medical procedures that are scientifically proven? Isn't it less than 30%? I can't recall...
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#92 Mar 15, 2008
Chiros bashing medicine.

It all started with the fish mongering founder of chiropractic. DD the nut job.

All chiropractors run to their MDs when real illness strikes. Hypocrites.
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#93 Mar 15, 2008
From www.chirotalk.com ...

Patient evaluation is meaningless when the chiropractor is allowed to evaluate the patient according to whatever chiropractic algorithm or chiropractism the chiropractor chooses. All of these chiropractic methods of evaluation, including leg-checks, x-ray marking, motion palpation, and instrumentation, for example, have never been validated and are grounded in nothing more than chiropractic "say-so" and empty assertion. In other words ... GIGO ... garbage in, garbage out. Homeopaths and astrologers do extensive evaluations, too. So what.

Diagnosis, then, is a conclusion based on this initial arbitrary and empty chiropractic "evaluation." Patients Suffer Needlessly from proprietary Chiropractic Lesions & Problems -- variably defined versions of the Chiropractic Subluxation all suggesting Spinal Dysfunction and/or Imbalance. MANY bullshit, donchano.

The treatment, of course, is directed at what's been diagnosed. This makes sense, doesn't it? But, if you've been following the bouncing chiropractic ball so far, you may have noticed that the diagnosis was based on the evaluation, which itself is grounded in nothing more than chiropractic say-so and assertion. It's a closed chiropractic loop. You're going to be treated ... which is to say, "adjusted" one way or another. I can name that chiropractic tune in these three notes.

The point is, a chiropractor CAN choose whatever arbitrary diagnostic/treatment pair they're in the mood for. Instead of evaluation, diagnosis and therapy being based on the patient and their complaint, it's all a foregone conclusion favoring the practitioner's taste and choice. That's "bass ackwards," in case you hadn't noticed. It puts the chiropractic cart before the patient's "horse."

As for "treatment plan, re-evaluation, revision of treatment plan, referral as needed, release from care upon satisfactory resolution" -- this, too, becomes irrelevant as DCs touch their own chiropractic noses using their favorite evaluation/diagnostic/treatmen t algorithm. In short, on what basis could you refer if your diagnosis was, let's say -- a T8 (Most Underrated Vertebra) off its level base or ANY of the user-defined Chiropractic Subluxations you're licensed to pick from a chiropractic hat for any reason you choose. When and why would you refer to a NUCCA practitioner or a chiropractor who practices Chiropractic BioPhysics if you were an S.O.T., Gonstead, or Activator® practitioner, for example?

Before you offer something stupid and irrelevant like, "I don't practice this way" or talk about what "chiropractic" would be if only it wasn't "chiropractic," please recall that the answer to the question of chiropractic quackery is not drdoomsday is no quack. In other words, stick with the issues on the chiropractic table even if you may not eat any particular chiropractic food or cook using any particular chiropractic recipe. Presumably, you're interested in those things that chiropractors think, say, and do about which you have your doubts and concerns and have not come to chirotalk to rationalize your own Chiropractic Choice™. In other words, try not to confirm your own chiropractic purchase by selling chirotalkers a bill of chiropractic goods.
DR T

Rockford, IL

#94 Mar 15, 2008
Wisdom wrote:
Chiros bashing medicine.
It all started with the fish mongering founder of chiropractic. DD the nut job.
All chiropractors run to their MDs when real illness strikes. Hypocrites.
Didn't bash anything, I was just asking a question for which you once again have no answer...

...Still batting a thousand aren't you?
DR T

Rockford, IL

#95 Mar 15, 2008
Wisdom wrote:
From www.chirotalk.com ...
Patient evaluation is meaningless when the chiropractor is allowed to evaluate the patient according to whatever chiropractic algorithm or chiropractism the chiropractor chooses. All of these chiropractic methods of evaluation, including leg-checks, x-ray marking, motion palpation, and instrumentation, for example, have never been validated and are grounded in nothing more than chiropractic "say-so" and empty assertion. In other words ... GIGO ... garbage in, garbage out. Homeopaths and astrologers do extensive evaluations, too. So what.
Diagnosis, then, is a conclusion based on this initial arbitrary and empty chiropractic "evaluation." Patients Suffer Needlessly from proprietary Chiropractic Lesions & Problems -- variably defined versions of the Chiropractic Subluxation all suggesting Spinal Dysfunction and/or Imbalance. MANY bullshit, donchano.
The treatment, of course, is directed at what's been diagnosed. This makes sense, doesn't it? But, if you've been following the bouncing chiropractic ball so far, you may have noticed that the diagnosis was based on the evaluation, which itself is grounded in nothing more than chiropractic say-so and assertion. It's a closed chiropractic loop. You're going to be treated ... which is to say, "adjusted" one way or another. I can name that chiropractic tune in these three notes.
The point is, a chiropractor CAN choose whatever arbitrary diagnostic/treatment pair they're in the mood for. Instead of evaluation, diagnosis and therapy being based on the patient and their complaint, it's all a foregone conclusion favoring the practitioner's taste and choice. That's "bass ackwards," in case you hadn't noticed. It puts the chiropractic cart before the patient's "horse."
As for "treatment plan, re-evaluation, revision of treatment plan, referral as needed, release from care upon satisfactory resolution" -- this, too, becomes irrelevant as DCs touch their own chiropractic noses using their favorite evaluation/diagnostic/treatmen t algorithm. In short, on what basis could you refer if your diagnosis was, let's say -- a T8 (Most Underrated Vertebra) off its level base or ANY of the user-defined Chiropractic Subluxations you're licensed to pick from a chiropractic hat for any reason you choose. When and why would you refer to a NUCCA practitioner or a chiropractor who practices Chiropractic BioPhysics if you were an S.O.T., Gonstead, or Activator® practitioner, for example?
Before you offer something stupid and irrelevant like, "I don't practice this way" or talk about what "chiropractic" would be if only it wasn't "chiropractic," please recall that the answer to the question of chiropractic quackery is not drdoomsday is no quack. In other words, stick with the issues on the chiropractic table even if you may not eat any particular chiropractic food or cook using any particular chiropractic recipe. Presumably, you're interested in those things that chiropractors think, say, and do about which you have your doubts and concerns and have not come to chirotalk to rationalize your own Chiropractic Choice™. In other words, try not to confirm your own chiropractic purchase by selling chirotalkers a bill of chiropractic goods.
Blah, Blah, Blah...

...yet it still works. Explain that part since you aren't receptive to many who have tried to get it through your cranium. Do you even know anatomy? We had a "professor" for one of the local college on this site in the past. He had the same attitude and he was supposedly a great neurologist. Yet couldn't explain basic neurological principals. Yeah, I want my kid to go to his class and waste my money all for a dogmatic position in medicine that you claim only runs rampant in Chiropractic. It does so because you can't see past your own ignorant ranting...
...Again.
David

Windsor, Canada

#96 Apr 14, 2008
lawman wrote:
Concept therapy peddlers claim:
For fifty years the chiropractic profession has been exploited by technique peddlers who claim that their petty technique is the thing which heals. But these elusive peddlers are now on the run! Concept therapy is exposing them, and members of our profession are beginning to see that they have been "hoodwinked" all these years by the fellow who ... sells a technique adjusting the spine. There are 168 different methods of adjusting the spine, each one boasting to be the best.
That was written in 1963 by the "seller" of the "new" Concept therapy chiropractic technique...
Only 168 methods--- my gosh!
I appreciate your thoughts, yet I find that there may be flaw in your arguement upon closer examination. If it is your arguement that because of the diversity of adjusting techniques, Chiropractic is somehow weaker, then first of all let's apply the same issue to medicine. According to your perspective, then, only one drug or type of surgery should be used for EVERY ill. Or, if that is too radical, for every category of ill (only one pain killer, or heart drug). If one drugs does not work, then too bad for you.

Of course this is absurd. And so is the notion that the 168 types of chiropractic approaches is a negative on the profession. The reality is that many forms of drugs exist because there are unique differences in the population besides age and gender. There is liver detox profiles, absorption rates - it is called Biochemical diversity, or polymorphic uniqueness. To be valid, you must be fair, and it must be logical. My observation of your arguement is neither, and does not stand up to close and thoughtful scrutiny.

The reality is that the diversity of Chiropractic styles is a strength - whether as a patient or practitioner. Just find one that you can accept, get results, and then use it. Just like you might want to utilize a drug. Find one that works and then use it. Logical.

Just like you would not 'throw medicine out with the bath water' because a drug did not work the first time, does not mean that you should throw chiropractic out with the bath water" because one particular style did not work. If that was the case, all hospitals would be empty, and no-one would use Tylenol anymore.

The best kept secret in Chiropractic is that Lance Armstrong and Tiger Woods, Jim Sweeney, and Jerome Bettis and many other athletes prefer chiropractic over medicine for their daily proactive care. If can work on the PGA and the Tour de France, I think that the detractors of the profession of chiropractic need to stop their pontificating, and scientifically realize that it works. Besides, the research also indicates that only 15% of medicine has scientific validity anyway. Chew on that for a while.
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#97 Apr 14, 2008
David, another ignorant chiropractor, as "evidence" in support for chiropractic claimed..".....only 15% of medicine has scientific validity anyway."

Ha Ha Who the heck told you that? Did you "learn" that at your chiropractic college?
Stop being soooo stupid.

David, you've got to stop being a typical chiroquacker. Your bashing of medicine, indeed, your reference to anything having to do with medicine is TOTALLY irrelevent to anything having to do with chiropractic.

All those 168 chiropractic techniques you referenced have NO legitimate studies that indicate they are good for anything.

No legitimate studies exist for SOT, dnft, activator or any of the other bizarre techniques currently used by tens of thousands of quacks throughout the world.

Yes, some athletes use chiropractors, PTs and Osteopaths for the occasional generic manipulation.

Maybe one or two athletes use chiropractor for a bizarre chiropractic technique as listed above. Just as the general population can be taken in so to can an athlete. Some people also see astrologers. So what?

Stop your nonsense. The claim that chiropractors find and remove fictitious lesions, they call subluxations, is sush fantasy. Subluxations have never been found by anyone other than chiroquackers. They don't exist, yet a whole field has been built around them. Chriopractic was founded by bizarre fish mongers DD and BJ who claimed to cure the deaf by pushing on the spine. Chiropractors have yet to denounce that idiocy.

Chiroquackers are a strange bunch indeed.

Since: Jul 07

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

#98 Apr 14, 2008
Looks like your chiroblabers didn't mention this kind of information when they were indoctrinating you, Wizdum:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/...
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#99 Apr 15, 2008
No. I usually don't base my conclusions on one opinion. Unlike you nut jobs who now claim that chiropractic is effective in treating every imaginable disease after just one silly and very limited nucca study, done by an 84 year old propagandist for nucca.

But hey, maybe that's just me.....NOT.

You fellas are such amateurs.
Wisdom

Brooklyn, NY

#100 Apr 15, 2008
And goodness knows, chiropractic has 0% scientific validity.

Again I asked for evidence that SOT, acivator or dnft have any legitimate studies to back it up.

You've come up with NOTHING. Yet these bizarre chiropractic techniques are currently used by thousands of chiropractors. And all use them in their own way, no standards, nothing. Its all so stupid really.

Start cleaning up your own field.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Chiropractic Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Alternative treatment helps children with autism 7 hr Weedhopper 1
Foot Orthotics (Sep '10) 22 hr Pavlos Lombardi 8
Teacher discovers new twist to easing chronic b... Thu Weedhopper 1
Chiropractor Thu Julia Carlson 10
The Truth About Chiropractors (Apr '13) Thu Rose Henderson 29
Can exercise improve back pain (Aug '13) Thu RayAustin 44
NAOMI X-ray (Sep '11) Wed Leachmark707 35
More from around the web