From: Freddy on

The Boom King <Boom!@spamsux.com> wrote in message
news:zge9g.845$CG3.306(a)fe05.lga...
> Freddy wrote:
>
> > Can you provide any randomly-controlled double blind longitudinal
studies
> > which demonstrate the long term neurological effectiveness of
"maintenance"
> > joint popping?
>
> Actually... no, I can't.

There is no evidence that maintenance care does anything other rhan mobilize
some adhesive spinal joints and the patient sunjectively feels better
something you attribute to improved neurological function


Although, I do wonder what some docs like
> Malik Slosberg or Christopher Kent might have to say on the subject.
> And, I wouldn't have anything to say at all about joint popping, but I
> can speak with authority on chiropractic adjustments.

OK, what exactly is an "adjustment" and why do patients need to continue to
be "adjusted" for the rest of their lives

Personally, I
> have two thoughts on a comment like this:
>
> 1. I don't think such a study is possible. We don't have the
> technology to measure nebulous ideas like nerve function and health (and
> please don't confuse nerve function with nerve conductivity..

What is the end purpose of nerves but to conduct and coordinate action
potentials? They do something else now?

.. just
> because your computer is getting power, doesn't mean its working well).
> Not even in the short term. However, does this mean that the theory
> isn't true? I hope not, because I'll have to chalk up 10 years of
> clinical practice as self delusion and drop out of health care.

10 years? Still a rookie-with the rosy "philosophy-driven" bias. I will
never convince you otherwise about maintenance care, don't get me wrong, I
have patients who come for it all the time because they subjectively feel
better after the massage-like stimulation and joint release. But if you
actually figure you are repositioning vertebra for better nerve function,
you are mistaken. I thought that correction was the goal, way back with the
initial "intensive-care" period. If you fixed it then, why does it continue
to need fixing? Unless you really didn't fix it then?
I
> wouldn't be able to find a system of health care that only relies on
> treatments and philosophy that meet this criterion.
>
> 2. Does this "lack" of scientific evidence bother me? Not in the
> least. I have a strong background in science that has made me very
> skeptical of the various claims of chiropractors all through
> chiropractic college and right up until this moment. And more often
> than not these claims have proven true in my personal experience
> (although some have proven truly wacky). That is way more authoritative
> than any scientific study to me. You could show me the most dazzling
> rcdbs absolutely proving chiropractic was a hoax, and I would shut off
> the computer, sleep like a baby, and get up Monday morning to answer the
> calls of the long-term patients asking for further help with their
> problems and the new patients looking to improve their lives. Not even
> give it a second thought. Though I might keep an eye out for the next
> study that disproves the first. The philosophy is logically consistent,
> and there is more than enough clinical evidence to support it. Really,
> good enough for me.

Sounds like your goal is to get the patient to become dependant on you for
their subjective sense of well-being.



>
> --
> Who's the Boom King?


From: Freddy on

The Boom King <Boom!@spamsux.com> wrote in message
news:n%e9g.1298$AJ6.706(a)fe06.lga...
> Freddy wrote:
>
>
> > Yet, I can show *you* a study actually published by the National
> > Chiropractic College in Chicago which shows the lifespan of the average
> > Chiropractor in the United States is a mean 3.2 years less than the
average
> > MD.
> >
> > Tell you something?
>
>
> No, not really. And *I* did throw away the 10 minutes to read the whole
> study. It's got its own critique at the end so I'll leave it for anyone
> interested. I was kinda happy to see how long some of those old-timers
> lasted, some of whom I've actually had the honor of meeting and even
> receiving an adjustment from. Considering my job is many more times
> physically stressful than any MD I know, I would be kind of encouraged
> by this study if it accurately reflects reality. The fact that
> chiropractors have such a hard time getting disability insurance may be
> more telling than anything.
>
> On a personal note (yes... anecdotal data), I've had an insurance agent
> inform me that chiropractors are among the highest brackets of
> disability insurance because the job was as physically demanding as most
> manual laborers and an injury can often be career ending. Livin to 73
> sounds pretty good actually.

So what you are saying is that someone who does heavy manual laborer really
can't be expected to live much greater than 73 even with the best
chiropractic care available?
Are you saying that after 10 years of practice any chiropractor can say they
never traumatized a patient with an "adjustment"? If patients were never
traumatized by treatment, there wouldn't hardly be any malpractice claims. I
have seen a few that definitely were the fault of the chiropractor.





>
> --
> Who's the Boom King?


From: Max C. on
That was a fantastic rebuttal, BK. I often feel sorry for people that
need to see "randomly-controlled double blind longitudinal studies" in
order to believe anything is real. It's as if to be so arrogant that
the person believes that humans know everything there is to know in the
universe... and even more, can set up a study to prove or disprove all
of those things.

The fact is, the request for the "randomly-controlled double blind
longitudinal studies" is a fail safe for the pro-med group here. Many
of them somehow believe that if such a study doesn't exist for a given
topic, then you can't possibly have definitive answers on said topic.
It's kinda sad.

Max.

The Boom King wrote:
> Freddy wrote:
>
> > Can you provide any randomly-controlled double blind longitudinal studies
> > which demonstrate the long term neurological effectiveness of "maintenance"
> > joint popping?
>
> Actually... no, I can't. Although, I do wonder what some docs like
> Malik Slosberg or Christopher Kent might have to say on the subject.
> And, I wouldn't have anything to say at all about joint popping, but I
> can speak with authority on chiropractic adjustments. Personally, I
> have two thoughts on a comment like this:
>
> 1. I don't think such a study is possible. We don't have the
> technology to measure nebulous ideas like nerve function and health (and
> please don't confuse nerve function with nerve conductivity... just
> because your computer is getting power, doesn't mean its working well).
> Not even in the short term. However, does this mean that the theory
> isn't true? I hope not, because I'll have to chalk up 10 years of
> clinical practice as self delusion and drop out of health care. I
> wouldn't be able to find a system of health care that only relies on
> treatments and philosophy that meet this criterion.
>
> 2. Does this "lack" of scientific evidence bother me? Not in the
> least. I have a strong background in science that has made me very
> skeptical of the various claims of chiropractors all through
> chiropractic college and right up until this moment. And more often
> than not these claims have proven true in my personal experience
> (although some have proven truly wacky). That is way more authoritative
> than any scientific study to me. You could show me the most dazzling
> rcdbs absolutely proving chiropractic was a hoax, and I would shut off
> the computer, sleep like a baby, and get up Monday morning to answer the
> calls of the long-term patients asking for further help with their
> problems and the new patients looking to improve their lives. Not even
> give it a second thought. Though I might keep an eye out for the next
> study that disproves the first. The philosophy is logically consistent,
> and there is more than enough clinical evidence to support it. Really,
> good enough for me.
>
>
> --
> Who's the Boom King?

From: The Boom King on
Freddy wrote:

>>>Yet, I can show *you* a study actually published by the National
>>>Chiropractic College in Chicago which shows the lifespan of the average
>>>Chiropractor in the United States is a mean 3.2 years less than the average MD.
>>>
>>>Tell you something?
>>
>>
>>No, not really. And *I* did throw away the 10 minutes to read the whole
>>study. It's got its own critique at the end so I'll leave it for anyone
>>interested. I was kinda happy to see how long some of those old-timers
>>lasted, some of whom I've actually had the honor of meeting and even
>>receiving an adjustment from. Considering my job is many more times
>>physically stressful than any MD I know, I would be kind of encouraged
>>by this study if it accurately reflects reality. The fact that
>>chiropractors have such a hard time getting disability insurance may be
>>more telling than anything.
>>
>>On a personal note (yes... anecdotal data), I've had an insurance agent
>>inform me that chiropractors are among the highest brackets of
>>disability insurance because the job was as physically demanding as most
>>manual laborers and an injury can often be career ending. Livin to 73
>>sounds pretty good actually.
>
>
> So what you are saying is that someone who does heavy manual laborer really
> can't be expected to live much greater than 73 even with the best
> chiropractic care available?

I really didn't say that. But, if you want to get into it, that's OK.
The so-called study referred to examines two small population groups of
chiropractors, one group that died in the seventies and another from the
nineties. The seventies group had a mean age at death of 74.2, these
chiropractors were born generally between 1900 and 1910, hence the
average age of death roughly 75. Lets just use the first decade of of
the 20th century as the birth period for this population. According to
the National Vital Statistics System
(http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html), the average life
expectancy at birth of a man born in this decade is between 47.9 - 49.9
years. In the second population, that died in the 1990's, the mean age
of death was 73.3, born generally between 1920 and 1930. Men in the US
from this decade had an average life expectancy at birth of 55.5 - 57.7
years. The reported population of chiropractors outlived their average
life expectancy by about 20 years. So, I would say that general manual
laborers born in the same time period as the chiropractors in this
"study" were doing quite well to live to 73, so did the DCs and the MDs.

Was it the higher than average socio-economic status? The access to
preferred medical facilities later in life? And probably the most
important factor of all, clearly expressed in the study, is that the MD
data did not differentiate for gender and that alone could have skewed
the data in the opposite direction (i.e.. take out all the female MDs
that would have raised the average).

No one knows whether any one in any of this discussion had "the best
chiropractic care available". The DCs may have been a bunch of heavy
smokers and the MDs may have been sneaking off for covert chiropractic
visits. However, all that being said, in answer to the spirit of your
question, I think chiropractic evaluation does contribute to a healthy
lifestyle and all things being equal (which they never are), a person
will be more functional and healthy later in life having been involved
in chiropractic than not.

So, if on average the chiropractors in this study have outlived their
expected life span by about 20 years, the question becomes, "Does that
tell *you* something?"



> Are you saying that after 10 years of practice any chiropractor can say they
> never traumatized a patient with an "adjustment"?

After carefully going over my post... No, never said anything even
remotely like that. However, you just did. Does that mean you would
like to discuss that also?


>If patients were never
> traumatized by treatment, there wouldn't hardly be any malpractice claims. I
> have seen a few that definitely were the fault of the chiropractor.

Well, now that *you* mention it, indeed there ARE hardly any malpractice
claims against chiropractors. Go out and research it if you want, but
here's the best way to prove it: My malpractice insurance is $1M / $3M
coverage, the highest available. I pay about $990 per YEAR. Yes...
that's per year, and that's less than either of our CAR insurance. A
medical doctor pays many multiples of this figure for the same insurance
depending on specialty (I've heard 10K and higher). Why so low?
Comparatively, we hardly ever get sued. So one of three things must be
happening here:

1. Chiropractors are hurting patients, but have developed some sort of
ultra secret x-files conspiracy to prevent law suits, by brain washing
or hypnosis or mirrors.

2. Insurance companies don't understand actuarial tables. (Maybe they
don't mind losing money?)

3. Chiropractors hardly ever hurt people.

I'm going with #3 for now.

Regards,
Richard


--
Who's the Boom King?
From: Freddy on

The Boom King <Boom!@spamsux.com> wrote in message
news:K4t9g.1118$a13.807(a)fe02.lga...
> Freddy wrote:
>
> >>>Yet, I can show *you* a study actually published by the National
> >>>Chiropractic College in Chicago which shows the lifespan of the average
> >>>Chiropractor in the United States is a mean 3.2 years less than the
average MD.
> >>>
> >>>Tell you something?
> >>
> >>
> >>No, not really. And *I* did throw away the 10 minutes to read the whole
> >>study. It's got its own critique at the end so I'll leave it for anyone
> >>interested. I was kinda happy to see how long some of those old-timers
> >>lasted, some of whom I've actually had the honor of meeting and even
> >>receiving an adjustment from. Considering my job is many more times
> >>physically stressful than any MD I know, I would be kind of encouraged
> >>by this study if it accurately reflects reality. The fact that
> >>chiropractors have such a hard time getting disability insurance may be
> >>more telling than anything.
> >>
> >>On a personal note (yes... anecdotal data), I've had an insurance agent
> >>inform me that chiropractors are among the highest brackets of
> >>disability insurance because the job was as physically demanding as most
> >>manual laborers and an injury can often be career ending. Livin to 73
> >>sounds pretty good actually.
> >
> >
> > So what you are saying is that someone who does heavy manual laborer
really
> > can't be expected to live much greater than 73 even with the best
> > chiropractic care available?
>
> I really didn't say that. But, if you want to get into it, that's OK.
> The so-called study referred to examines two small population groups of
> chiropractors, one group that died in the seventies and another from the
> nineties. The seventies group had a mean age at death of 74.2, these
> chiropractors were born generally between 1900 and 1910, hence the
> average age of death roughly 75. Lets just use the first decade of of
> the 20th century as the birth period for this population. According to
> the National Vital Statistics System
> (http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html), the average life
> expectancy at birth of a man born in this decade is between 47.9 - 49.9
> years. In the second population, that died in the 1990's, the mean age
> of death was 73.3, born generally between 1920 and 1930. Men in the US
> from this decade had an average life expectancy at birth of 55.5 - 57.7
> years. The reported population of chiropractors outlived their average
> life expectancy by about 20 years. So, I would say that general manual
> laborers born in the same time period as the chiropractors in this
> "study" were doing quite well to live to 73, so did the DCs and the MDs.
>
> Was it the higher than average socio-economic status? The access to
> preferred medical facilities later in life? And probably the most
> important factor of all, clearly expressed in the study, is that the MD
> data did not differentiate for gender and that alone could have skewed
> the data in the opposite direction (i.e.. take out all the female MDs
> that would have raised the average).
>
> No one knows whether any one in any of this discussion had "the best
> chiropractic care available". The DCs may have been a bunch of heavy
> smokers and the MDs may have been sneaking off for covert chiropractic
> visits. However, all that being said, in answer to the spirit of your
> question, I think chiropractic evaluation does contribute to a healthy
> lifestyle and all things being equal (which they never are), a person
> will be more functional and healthy later in life having been involved
> in chiropractic than not.
>
> So, if on average the chiropractors in this study have outlived their
> expected life span by about 20 years, the question becomes, "Does that
> tell *you* something?"
>
>
>
> > Are you saying that after 10 years of practice any chiropractor can say
they
> > never traumatized a patient with an "adjustment"?
>
> After carefully going over my post... No, never said anything even
> remotely like that. However, you just did. Does that mean you would
> like to discuss that also?
>
>
> >If patients were never
> > traumatized by treatment, there wouldn't hardly be any malpractice
claims. I
> > have seen a few that definitely were the fault of the chiropractor.
>
> Well, now that *you* mention it, indeed there ARE hardly any malpractice
> claims against chiropractors. Go out and research it if you want, but
> here's the best way to prove it: My malpractice insurance is $1M / $3M
> coverage, the highest available. I pay about $990 per YEAR. Yes...
> that's per year, and that's less than either of our CAR insurance. A
> medical doctor pays many multiples of this figure for the same insurance
> depending on specialty (I've heard 10K and higher). Why so low?
> Comparatively, we hardly ever get sued. So one of three things must be
> happening here:
>
> 1. Chiropractors are hurting patients, but have developed some sort of
> ultra secret x-files conspiracy to prevent law suits, by brain washing
> or hypnosis or mirrors.
>
> 2. Insurance companies don't understand actuarial tables. (Maybe they
> don't mind losing money?)
>
> 3. Chiropractors hardly ever hurt people.
>
> I'm going with #3 for now.
>
> Regards,
> Richard
>
>
> --
> Who's the Boom King?