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

Thank You for your great answer


Stuart Hyderman BPE DC
Edmonton Alberta




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


From: The Boom King on
Max C. wrote:

> 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.


Thanks Max. Nice to meet ya. I was just passing by and saw the
original post (hoping it wasn't just a troll, probably was though, huh?)
and thought to help the guy out a little.


--
Boom!
From: The Boom King on
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.

OK, let's assume the only thing that maintenance care, or any adjustment
for that matter, does is mobilize some adhesive spinal joints.
Hopefully this is just another phrase to describe a spinal subluxation,
that's OK with me BTW, and also I doubt you intend the word adhesive in
any medical sense (i.e. adhesions of said joints). Given that, if a
chiropractor mobilizes spinal joints that have lost their normal
mobility, and this is a good simple definition of a chiropractic
adjustment, resulting in the patient "feeling" better, that is by
definition improved neurlogic function. But perhaps you didn't intend
such a literal interpertation. The key here, that most people miss, is
that just popping the spine is not a chiropractic adjustment. It's
manipulation. DOs, MDs and any number of people trying to emulate the
results chiropractors achieve are doing that all the time. A
chiropractor is trained to identify the presence of a spinal subluxation
which by definition is causing interference in the normal function of
the nervous system. She is also trained in reducing or removing this
interference by the using the hands generally, to deliver a chiropractic
adjustment. The identification of the subluxation is what makes it an
adjustment. There are objective findings that are used before and after
to accomplish this. Take that away, and I could teach a really smart
monkey to pop your back. I know, I've had some do it to me.

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

See above for the first part. I got a little ahead of myself. Well,
technically I wouldn't say patients need to be adjusted for the rest of
their lives. I've been very careful to assert that patients can benefit
from ongoing chiropractic *evaluation*. Of course I realize that you
know this means that a patient is checked to determine the presence or
absence of a subluxation and treated accordingly. However, again this
may be semantics. Why don't we just fix the spine and leave it alone?
My fingers will fall off if I go into this question too deep, but
let's try a summary and example and see if you're satisfied.
Subluxations come and go. Sometimes the patient works them out, but
most of the time it requires an outside force (me and you) to correct
the dysfunction. The vast majority of the time, the subluxation comes,
the patient feels discomfort then "gets over it". I find in this case
the body adapts to the dysfunction and compensates for it. This person
hasn't seen a chiropractor. The compensation leads to further
dysfunction (altered mechanics) of different or the same regions and
multiple recurrent episodes of back problems, layer upon layer, like an
onion. So if I clear your spine of subluxations, and you go out and
live your normal life, 100 years of clinical experience has shown us you
will develop new (maybe recurrent in the same region as previously - or
maybe an altogether new region) subluxations. Why? Lets leave that for
another discussion if that's OK. But suffice it to say most of us with
our level of health, posture, exercise and nutrition habits, and most of
all spiritual and emotional stress are going to develop some
subluxations over some period of time. Which brings me to my example
who happens to be my yoga teacher. She teaches yoga everyday, manages a
health food store, and directs american indian sweat lodges on some
weekends. She is the most healthy, radiant person I've ever met. Mind,
Body, Spirit. When she comes to my office once every 1-3 years, I
generally don't need to adjust anything. The last 2 visits, no
adjustment. If everyone lived like her, I'd be in a different line of work.


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

A particular nerve indeed has only one job: to fire or not. Just as a
bit in a computer is either a 1 or a 0. But put them all together,
billions, and wow. That's a lot of data. Nerves in general (real
general) are connected to the brain at one end and something the brain
needs to control at the other. For the brain to coordinate the
functions (all the functions) of the body to maintain homeostasis with
its environment it needs clean information in to put correct commands
out. GIGO right? The vertebral subluxation by definition interferes
with this exchange, in a vastly more complex way than the old garden
hose theory (which by the way works, but isn't accurate), and needs to
be removed for the brain to have an accurate picture of its environment
and respond accordingly. So... just electrical impulses down your DSL
line, but magnificent if interpreted correctly.

> 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?

If you still have this position after my above response, I'd be happy to
go further...


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

Let me just clip from the original post that started all this and see if
we need to go further. OK?

""A good chiropractor will encourage you to make positive changes in
your life, perhaps refer you to other professionals in the community who
can help with this, leading to such a dramatic increase in your wellness
that you almost never "need" to see him at all. Not a very good scam.""

Sorry if its too long winded,
Regards,
Richard


PS. Just between me and you (and everyone else with a computer ;): If
National CC spent more time teaching their students to identify and
correct subluxations, and less time writing ridiculous "studies", we'd
be better off as a profession.


--
Boom!
From: Freddy on

Max C. <maxc246(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147551514.188145.326460(a)j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 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.

To be sure, but when the patient, and say a third party payor ask the
legitimate question; What are you doing exactly and how is it that you
understand what you are doing? The answer that we don't understand
everything in the universe, while quite true, doesn't cut it. To prattle on
about "subluxation" and "nerve interference" is just plain too vague. Why do
think Chiropractic was de-listed in Ontario and funds for drugs went up?
That is because the drug companies provide researched explanations about
their products, as hokey as they are.


>
> 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: Mark Probert on
Max C. wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> You should spend some time figuring out what you are doing wrong to
>> cause repeated injury. I do a lot of lifting of my son to and from his
>> wheelchair and, so far, have not had a significant problem. I learned
>> how to lift a very time ago, and I think that is what does it. I plan
>> every lift.
>
> Oh, I know what I did wrong the first 2 times. I lifted without
> thinking it through first.

Exactly my point. Visualizing lifting from the point where you place
your feet to begin to the end point can prevent most lifting injuries.

The 1st time was when I was a teen working
> at Wal-Mart. I lifted a case of Chlorox and twisted my upper body as I
> lifted.

Lifting has got to be separate from any other activity. The stress on
the paraspinals must be as even as possible.

> It had to be, without a doubt, the worst pain of my life. I
> lived with that pain for over 2 years before I finally went to my first
> chiropractic visit. They fixed in less than 2 months what I had lived
> with for over 2 years.

You were lucky not to have direct impingement on the nerve roots. Two
years of wear causes long term residual problems.

The second time was years later building a
> house. Same stupid thing, though. I lifted something heavy and
> twisted. Down I went.
>
> The last 2 times it has happened (one just a couple of months ago) have
> no explanation. I just wake up in severe pain. Nothing out of the
> oridinary the day before.

You may have had several small problems which accumulated over a period
of time until one incident triggered it. Remember that it is the
imbalance of the stress on the paraspinals which causes the most
problems. After several back injuries you become more susceptible to
injury.

I'm starting to suspect my bed. It *is*
> rather soft.

Soft beds do not help. Are you doing back exercises? I do them three
times a week, without fail. My son uses his dumbbells for his upper body
while I do my low back. Family plan.

>>> Sounds like you got a doc that's trying to build a client base without
>>> enough clients.
>> On occasion one of my insurance company clients questions the frequency
>> of treatment a chiropractor is providing. We have set up a surveillance
>> camera outside of the chiropractors office and do a patient count. One
>> fellow was treating 30 patients an hour. He does not do workers
>> compensation any longer. Without that, a chiropractor in NY is out of
>> business.
>
> 30 an hour!?!? Just one doctor in the office? Yeah, there's something
> wrong there.

There have been a few. However, the vast majority of chiros are honest
and sincere with there business practices.

The worst case was an orthopedic surgeon. I did an undercover visit with
a false claim. There was nothing wrong with my back (MRI negative,
EMG/NCV negative, etc. the week before) and he diagnosed a back problem
without any significant lost of motion, etc. and recommended 3X a week
PT in his PT center. Just my complaints of low back and radicular pain,
which were intentionally, non-anatomical.

Prosecuted, convicted and license pulled.