All your questions about CHIROPRACTIC answered (2 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

How did i forget to reply to this one??
You in effect are actually insulting your buddy boy mr physio there!

Dry Needling, is a Western medicine name given to acupuncture, uses all the same sites as those of "ashi" points which 98% correlate to trigger points (ones that don't correlate are in some weird places).

And which profession uses, endorses and puts their "unproven" faith into such a treatment? Which profession "delude" its "victims" in this method? *Drum Roll* .......Physiotherapists!!!!!


Note: before you go saying its only done in US. I am pretty sure you might find one or two wankers here. And remember, your putting down chiro on what you read on a US site without listening to what chiro maybe here.

There are crackpots of all trades (like GPs who don't believe in vaccinations). Considering acupuncture itself is no better than a placebo, I would have nothing to do with a physio who had anything to do with versions of it. That, however, does not cast aspersions on physio

 

[BoREd^7]

I don't support chiro, and I am currently compiling a heap of evidence to the contrary but can I just point out....

Thank you Katie Trully, it’s a pleasure to hear a voice of reason that is actually backed up by intelligence.
Are you compiling this for a study? Or law case? Send me a message if you like as I believe I have a recent paper somewhere which did a summary of literature against chiropractors (and ones for chiros) that a lawyer friend used in his case. I might be able to dig it up. Your call.

FUCK.

Journals I refuse to read articles about chiropractic from;
Spine
Evidence based complementary and alternative medicine

You can read them, but I would not consider what is stated without further investigation.
Out of interest. What about JMPT?

my bad, thats what i mean

Really, it did not sound anything remotely like what you said

 

[BoREd^7]

I am sorry Kwayera, but first you say this...

Physiotherapy is based on and backed by real science- and evidence-based medicine. That is why it is mainstream medicine, not "alternative" or "complementary".

Chiropractic, homeopathy and acupuncture, in contrast, are not.

Then when its revealed Physios, you know those “mainstream medicine” type as you say. You go...

There are crackpots of all trades (like GPs who don't believe in vaccinations). Considering acupuncture itself is no better than a placebo, I would have nothing to do with a physio who had anything to do with versions of it. That, however, does not cast aspersions on physio

So which side of the fence you sitting on in next comment? As now even GPs are crackpots.

All this proves is your full of sh*t and talking out your ass.

The truth is, maybe that GP relies on not taking the risk of putting rendered virus into a baby, who knows maybe they want to inject it later when the child whos immune system is more stronger? You don’t like it, go to another doctor, thats what choice is all about! There are also heavy grade metals used in the production of those vaccines, such as silver. At one stage lead was even used. So maybe they just don’t want that in a baby.

Note: Before you go saying anything against me for being a crackpot, NO I don’t believe in that, Vaccinate away is my opinion, in overall it has prevented spread of many diseases but I respect peoples’ rights to hold their own opinions

 

[BoREd^7]

I mean absolutely no disrespect here but I do not think it is anatomically possible to tear the carotid artery via a cervical spine manipulation.

It is shocking that a chiropractor did not ask you those questions (about the blood thinners and haematopoetic system), if I were to leave that out of my initial consult in clinic it would be an instant fail. I hope the new generation of chiropractors (my colleagues) have enough medical insight to screen for red flags properly.

In a healthy, elastic, properly formed arterial canals, it is impossible as you would anatomically have to effectively remove the head before enough tension is exerted (lack of slack in artery).

Unfortunetly, not all arteries are the same, not all are as elastic (smokers, age, drinkers, contraceptive pill, etc), not all are formed properly (i actually have patients who have malformed vert. arteries, naturally i don't adjust them), not all arterial walls are strong enough, etc

Thats why all manipualtion of spine carries inherent risk.
Thats why we do the VBI screening, and take detailed history, etc

Unfortunetly to make things worse, what Katie was saying is that upon onset of a arterial dissection (as the arterial wall may have fully/part ruptured for unknown reason), who do people usually go to see for the h/a? a Chiro. A chiro does not pick up red flags (thunderclap h/a, new, more severe, etc) and should they manipulate or not, the patient will probably suffer full blown dissection.

That is why all health professionals have imdemity insurance. If you did everything right, all the tests, all preventable steps and there was no way to know what was happening even before chiro intervention. You took steps to prevent it, then you can not be legally held liable. Many cases like this go to court, not as many as you think actually pay out

(hence why people later go cry to media afterwards because, one they couldn't do so before the case, and they were promised large sums by the lawyer trying to get the job, but in the end all they get is no payout and a large bill for costs like lawyer, court, witnesses, etc).

Thats why it is usually recommended not to manipulate during a current migraine state as arterial walls are fully dilated at this stage.

 

[:kaz.n:]

For the people who cannot find the post of mine that Bored^7 has quoted, I meant to edit that post (I think I spelt haematopoetic wrong) but accidentally deleted it. I refreshed the page and it was gone. I really should get to bed!

Bored^7, I completely understand everything you just stated in regards to the dangers of cervical manipulation, and I totally agree with you. I just didn't agree with the statement "tore the carotid artery". If anything, it would be the vertebrobasilar artery that would have undergone a dissecting aneurysm. I didn't think it would be anatomically possible to tear the carotid.

But I understand the sentiment and the fact that we must be vigilant as practitioners about the risk factors of our intervention- point taken.

K.

 

[katie tully]

Thank you Katie Trully, it’s a pleasure to hear a voice of reason that is actually backed up by intelligence.
Are you compiling this for a study? Or law case? Send me a message if you like as I believe I have a recent paper somewhere which did a summary of literature against chiropractors (and ones for chiros) that a lawyer friend used in his case. I might be able to dig it up. Your call.

No, just out of interest tbh, One of my friends is a chiro, and I'd rather have a broad knowledge of the pros and cons before I outright dismiss her profession.

 

[extensorindicis]

yes considering that physio atar requirments range from 97ish-98ish and chiro programs are a good 10-15 lower, i can only conclude that i am an illiterate imbecile. I think the adage "for those that didn't make the cut at any mid/high level health programs but still want to play doctor, become a chiro" still stands

In Australia, Chiro is not very well known (you even seem to grasp this point *shock*), that is a fact.

lol no chiro is very well known for its quackery in australia, hence not very well respected as a profession, you seem unable to grasp that, atleast, kaz n accepts that and wants to change that, this results in less demand for chiro courses and hence cuttoffs as low as 75 for chiro. With cuttoffs like that you can't tell me that the best and brightest students are admitted and able to mess with someone's spine in the future. I acknowledge TER's are the best indicator of abilities at uni, but its the best indication yet.


Lol sorry to burst you're bubble, ... but, per capita, per country physio is used more often and is accepted


Actually, if you work it out worldwide, that same per capita argument actually puts you further behind. If you isolate Australia, then it is right
(Bubble remains unburst... your stupidity still at full throttle)

Lol do you even understand what per capita means? No you don't just isolate australia, you look at the big picture not just the US, and you'll find physio is the main form of treatment, in hosp and private practice, chiro is used as an alternative/complementary treatment like accupuncture/massage therapy/reflexology if all else fails in the UK, NZ, EU, Asia, South Asia, Middle east etc etc and increasingly Physio in the US. Accept it chiro is in decline in the US. Most third world countries have no chiros only physios. Cos its accepted over chiro pseudoscience.



Again your proving yourself to be illiterate, I acknowledged physio also has certain risks,but the fact that there are hundreds of strokes caused by chiro, and only a few cases of strokes caused by physio despite being a more widely used modality in the world shows you're arguments have no substance.

Good that you finally acknowledge that... considering it a page ago, according to you it was “only” chiro that caused stroke

have you not come across past tense in your rigorous 5 years of chiro? I stated i acknowledged! not acknowledge GG you getting the right to dr prefix is a joke

Look up reality!! Hundreds of incidents caused by all professions, if you look there is even studies done to compare which found equal risk! (no I am not going to spend time searching for an idiot like you).

find it, if you don't its some anecdotal BS thought up by yourself[


But in the end, who cares? bone crackers been around since cave-age, whats your point? Like I said before, medicine involved magic potions and snake oils at one stage, one stage surgeons were regarded as barbarians and shunned from medicine as they effectively break Hippocratic oath (you brought it up) by cutting the body, is it all still the same now?

You do, because you brought up the false notion chiro was before physio and hence its more proven and beneficial. Surgeons doctors used magic pills in the dark ages not in the 1800s or 1900s you fool. Chiro was in the 1890s and was still prescribing the snake oil and magic pill pseudoscience and has not evolved much since.

Fact is physio was established after chiro, so who officially manipulated first?

Not surprised your not too good with numbers chiro 1890s, physio officially 1813 in Sweden. 1894 UK 1914 US lol

how come you guys can't do that now?

Because these days... snake oils are no longer a recognised form of treatment for cancer either

err the father of chiro, Parker didn't use snake oils to treat a mans hearing. He used chiro techniques of spinal manipulation. If it was possible then why is it impossible now?


Actually if you read (correctly) what I said, I never adhere to the philosophies.If you read correctly, I was the first to suggest that the very misconceptions you kept bringing up (from your favourite websites) were old fable stories, incorrect and that chiro schools especially here in Australia do not teach it. That Aust schools actually focus evidence-based teaching

so why did you do chiro if you don't believe in the chiro philosophy? what a waste of 5 years of hard study? the chiro philosophy states that "illness occurs as a result of disturbances in the nervous system. Such disturbances are caused by derangements of the spinal structure. These disturbances may cause or aggravate disease in various parts or functions of the body" if you don't believe in this doesn't that bring into question your whole career? you're now some hybrid physio practitioner going by the occupational name chiropractor? Whats the point of the chiro degree name if it has done away with its philosophy?

You did this for me... you showed with your article that manipulation, whether it is performed by a physio or chiro is equally effective as the other.

giving some one like you the legal right to have a dr prefix is a joke, when your even unable to read a journal article conclusion properly. It stated that LOWER BACK MANIP. benefits are the same whether it is carried out by a physio or a chiro! Not all treatments since your modality is simply a placebo treatment!

your a disgruntled chiro unable to deal with the insecurities posed by the publics perception of the chiro philosophy

This is exactly why I call you illiterate. I am not disgruntled... that would mean I’m dissatisfied or disappointed with chiro, I am not. I am the one here backing it up and clearing up misconceptions that you keep putting out. I am pleased I chose chiro.

ike I said, I actually did my research before I made the choice, I researched it properly and talked to (you know, as opposed to just jumping on two websites and thinking I know everything like some) all modalities that interested me incl. Physio, Chiro, Osteo, Radiographers, Rad. Therapy, Nuc. Medicine, and orthopaedic surgeon and sports med. I had a better idea back then of what each entails than what you (appear) to know about at this point.

you can appear to be all pro chiro career choice but the fact that you so vehemently oppose any negative feedback about chiro and go to the point of persoanally attacking others posts, and is unwilling to post ANY journal articles to discount our argument that chiro is a pseudoscience suggests that your in denial.

and lol are you seriously saying you chose chiro over physio, radio, rad thep, nuclear medicine, ortapedics and sports med? You don't have a choice in those disicplines if you are unable to get into those courses or career paths!

Let me guess what really happened, you got a TER that would not let you get into med so no orthapedics etc etc, couldn't get into radtherapy, nuc med, radio, OR physio, and decided heck ill just get into chiro and banish anyone in the future who looks down upon it? fairly certain thats what happened. Someone would be pretty dumb choosing a pseudoscience if they could ACTUALLY get into conventional medicine modalities.

I never said I agreed with the philosophy, you keep repeating this fact. Again, I actually said I do not follow it, and nor do universities in Australia that teach chiro.

If you don't believe in the very essence of chiro treatment then what are you? a chiropractor that couldn't get into physio but still wants to play physio under the occupational name of chiropractor?

Seriously dish out some journal articles stating the medically proven benefits of chiropractic treatment or GTFO, tilll then you're just a pseudoscientist in denial about the career decision his made and trying to be a practitioner his not

EDIT: sorry Katie.

 

[katie tully]

jesus christ, extensorindicis, learn to use the quote function or something. shit.

 

[:kaz.n:]

so why did you do chiro if you don't believe in the chiro philosophy? what a waste of 5 years of hard study? the chiro philosophy states that "illness occurs as a result of disturbances in the nervous system. Such disturbances are caused by derangements of the spinal structure. These disturbances may cause or aggravate disease in various parts or functions of the body" if you don't believe in this doesn't that bring into question your whole career?

Just want to clear up for everyone that there are many types of chiropractic philosophy. The particular philosophy that you are describing is an outdated one and most new generation chiropractors do not subscribe to this philosophy. Sadly however, alot of the traditionalists do. Just for your information they do not teach this philosophy anymore at Macquarie.

A more moderate hypothesis would suggest that spinal manipulation results in the optimal biomechanical function of the spine at a segmental level hence delaying the onset of degenerative disease (which is inevitable but exacerbated by poor biomechanics), decrease in pain (due to an increase in proprioceptive input) etc.

This is what they teach us in university so I really do not beleive my 5 years (4 years so far) have been a waste.

 

[BoREd^7]

No, just out of interest tbh, One of my friends is a chiro, and I'd rather have a broad knowledge of the pros and cons before I outright dismiss her profession.

That, I can respect. You are broadening your knowledge instead of insulating the myths and misconceptions.

I would be happy if you walked away with a negative view of chiropractic profession, at least it would be an informed decision, and not prejudicial.

I started this to clear up some of the misconceptions however, this has completely sidetracked away from any possibility of a reasonable discussion into direct personal attacks (I am also to blame), but when even a moderator is contributing to the disinformation. It’s a shame.

In real life it is easier to convince and reason with a person, as people can not throw in random comments and run, which makes it easier to publicly shame those who proclaim stupidity as fact.

By the way what is “tbh”? sorry not familiar with all internet terms or is it just mistake

 

[BoREd^7]

Wonderbread's comments in bold

lol no chiro is very well known for its quackery in australia,
This seriously sounds like the words of an idiot and I am tried of this revolving argument, just because you insult something, or state something as fact does not make it true... you keep talking too much shit out your ass and no actual listening

With cuttoffs like that you can't tell me that the best and brightest students are admitted and able to mess with someone's spine in the future. I acknowledge TER's are the best indicator of abilities at uni, but its the best indication yet.
Yes, TER (or ENTER scores, in Victoria) are not the best indicator of performance, even the Dean of Medicine had stated that, why you think interview process was instated in medicine entry, and now Melb Uni is taking next step. Medicine entry will be post-grad only! So you have to do a science degree and then they look at your results before you gain entry.

Reason, they kept finding people were gaining higher enter scores, but when in medicine their scores were dismal, those people were useless in communication skills with patients, and yr12 does not demonstrate same subjects as those in medicine resulting drop out rate, plus lots come away shocked after they see real cadavers, have to make incisions or surgery, etc were reasoning for the change. SO check reality, not your assumptions!
By the way speaking of avoidance... what year of your degree are you in???

Lol do you even understand what per capita means? No you don't just isolate australia, you look at the big picture not just the US, and you'll find physio is the main form
I do understand quite clearly what per capita means, question is can you read the answer before you comment?

Accept it chiro is in decline in the US. Most third world countries have no chiros only physios.
Again, you say something, don’t mean its right
Actually chiro is still on increase, projections show there will be atleast 100,000 in US alone by 2010.
So stop stating your (uneducated) opinions as facts! As for Australia, if they are opening more schools, shows there is demand
As for third world, doctors there usually underfunded and underequipped some can’t afford penicillin, so the last thing they are going to have is either physio or chiro.
Your ignorance/stubbornness is beyond any level I have ever seen before.


I stated i acknowledged! not acknowledge GG you getting the right to dr prefix is a joke
No actually you stated, that it was “chiro will cause stroke from manipulation”, when you finally were told that manipulation is done by all modalities and all carry equal risk you said quote “physios do it in a more gentle manner” . This just shows complete ignorance and no knowledge of what even your own physio manipulation involves
But now suddenly you acknowledge that? And you were arguing about Dr prefix?
NO.. I am sorry but what you said is clear as day. You demonstrate no knowledge of anything heath care related
(As for Dr prefix, read earlier, it has been covered a million times)
By the way speaking of physio... what year of your degree are you in???


You do, because you brought up the false notion chiro was before physio and hence its more proven and beneficial.
Actually if you read correctly!
I stated, chiro was involved in manipulation first, physio only incorporated it at much later stage, something like 1980’s from memory
Infact if you actually read what I said was, “officially manipulated first?”

Your not one for detail are you?
But speaking of detail... what year of your degree are you in???

err the father of chiro, Parker didn't use snake oils to treat a mans hearing. He used chiro techniques of spinal manipulation. If it was possible then why is it impossible now?
I do not answer when people take words out of context
But back on context... what year of your degree are you in???

so why did you do chiro if you don't believe in the chiro philosophy?
Yet how many times are you going to presume to tell me what philosophies and beliefs my profession has/teaches?
Stop reading stupid websites you idiot. They are the same ones that taught you we do no STT, PhysTherapeutics, exercises, rehab, etc etc
You just keep on coming back onto topics which were covered, with renewed and amplified stupidity

giving some one like you the legal right to have a dr prefix is a joke, when your even unable to read a journal article conclusion properly. It stated that LOWER BACK MANIP. benefits are the same whether it is carried out by a physio or a chiro! Not all treatments since your modality is simply a placebo treatment!
We covered the legal right to Doctor prefix, people smarter than you have evaluated and allow us to carry the title. Welcome to reality. (full explanation is few pages back)

Your second part of argument really makes little sense:
First you state (quote) “Physio, chiro and osteo ARE NOT THE SAME... THIS IS WHY ITS A PSEUDOSCIENCE NON OF THESE HAVE BEEN MEDICALLY PROVEN” and then when providing the article you say “to keep Mr Bored happy a journal article”.

In the end result of article: Both modalities are equal
Now you change your tune? But yet call chiro placebo?
Like I said numerous times before, whatever studies validate chiro, also validate physio treatments. What ever studies validate physios, also validate chiro.

WOW.. ignorant and stubborn as a mule
But speaking of pseudoscience... what year of your degree are you in???

you so vehemently oppose any negative feedback about chiro and go to the point of persoanally attacking others posts
Actually, as I said before (I am getting real tired of writing this very line in everyone of your replies) that I am not against negative feedback about chiro. I applaud K for writing his views, I got plenty more myself.
HOWEVER, what I do take so vehemently/strongly was clearing up your infinite number of misconceptions/lies/stupidity which you kept stating as fact in regard to chiropractic!!!

You know nothing about chiropractic, and the more you talked the more I doubt you have knowledge of physio. Remember all those fabulous facts you provided; no chiro does soft tissue, exercise, rehab, doctor title is just frivolous, chiros are on decline, its all pseudoscience, physios are safer, etc and list still keeps growing

As for personal attack, I apologies but you just can not offer constructive/non-biased/educated arguments, your demonstrated knowledge is very dismal (inc about your own profession), you simply resort to continuos number of misinformed statements which you state as fact, or simple name calling, it gets rather frustrating as it feels like a revolving circle

and lol are you seriously saying you chose chiro over physio, radio, rad thep, nuclear medicine, ortapedics and sports med? You don't have a choice in those disicplines if you are unable to get into those courses or career paths!
(what happened to just commenting about personal attacks? Now you see why?)
Usually I wouldn’t answer personal shit, but fuck it... Yes I did. Like I said I researched all of them before making a choice and I chose the one with more appeal to me. I talked to all of practitioners; my decision was an educated one, not based on two crappy websites.
I chose chiro because manipulation (chiro offered it earlier) and sport postgrad was what I wanted to do, in no case did I cared about working in hospital, I always wanted my own practice, chiro offered a bonus rad license and doctor title, plus all chiro education is recognised worldwide (try apply for job as PT in all the countries you mentioned above, you’ll have to do bridging courses at minimum). And no way in hell I wanted to spend 10yrs+ in med school eating shit, working 70hr weeks and getting paid peanuts as intern, then in the end to effectively get to be an orthopaedic or sports physician just so I can open up my own practice. Chiro achieved this much quicker

Let me guess what really happened, you got a TER that would not let you get into med so no orthapedics etc etc,
Actually, your completely wrong on this one. One, in Vic we have different system (not TER) but all the same, I come to accept you know little by now
Reality is, I entered chiro after completing another degree (had no idea what I wanted back then and I made a stupid choice to chose a course based on scores, I thought like you it meant it must be better), which actually required a higher enter score than either physio/chiro/rad med/etc
I actually did get offers from all above mentioned. The administration officer for medical rad even sent me a personal email asking if I’d reconsider after I knocked back the early offer.
As for medicine, like I said, I have family & friends who are orthopaedic, neurosurgeons and oral/maxillo surgeons, I knew exactly what each entailed... hence it was promptly cut from list

fairly certain thats what happened. But as usually proven... just because you think it, don’t make it correct

Someone would be pretty dumb choosing a pseudoscience if they could ACTUALLY get into conventional medicine modalities
Hey, you chose the same pseudoscience, that does everything the same, just under a different name.
ACTUALLY speaking of pseudoscience... what year of your Pseudoscience are you in???

If you don't believe in the very essence of chiro treatment then what are you?
= Means I can think for myself... duhh
In the end, when your done, your basically given the tools, but you have to use your head when to use each one. Its not only knowing how to treat the patient, its also knowing when to (and more important when NOT) that separates each practitioner. (One day you may learn this...)

a chiropractor that couldn't get into physio but still wants to play physio under the occupational name of chiropractor?
Again... you say, don’t mean that’s fact. Don’t presume to know me or my profession, especially when you don’t even know your own
ohh I think there was something I forgot to ask Ohh yeh... what year of your degree you in???

 

[katie tully]

tbh = to be honest

 

[BoREd^7]

tbh = to be honest

no worries, makes sense
sit back, relax and let the show con't

 

[BoREd^7]

quackquackquackquack

Where did that picture of your bath toy rubber ducky go?

 

[BoREd^7]

LMAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOO

Last Reputation Received: 6 Oct 2009 1:15 AM
extensorindicis
Comment: dr fool

Ohh thats cute (and mildly disturbing), this forum is your life!:uhhuh::uhhuh::uhhuh::uhhuh::uhhuh::uhhuh::uhhuh:

 

[extensorindicis]

well thats great now the chiro student has concluded that physiotherapy is a pseudoscience. I shall cease to argue my points with such an uneducated buffoon.

I don't understand what your insistence with my degree year is. Is my opinion less if i'm in a lower year? Having completed one degree and now 5 years of uni you must be 30 or something? am i right? probably not because what ever i say is not fact despite providing numerous links, but what ever you say is?

So let me get this straight.

1. you could get into physio with its 97+ atar in victoria, could get into radiation therapy, radiation med etc but chose some other degree instead. You EVEN had the med radiation admis. officer headhunt you because your such a worthy candidate...right ic...

2. you then proceeded to do 5 more years of chiropractic, because you get to open up your own practice, which an orthapod can do but takes longer(what a downer), had reasonable hours and receive Dr. title(that says alot about your insecurities)....

TBH your story isn't too believable... more like you did some uni course that you could get into with your shitty uai, ter enter, then couldn't find grad jobs, and ended up applying and getting into chiro school... sounds pretty right... this is more than evident when your unable to hold a straight argument nor provide journal articles to opposing arguments. So this is why you feel so insecure, with all that time invested and now 25-30ish in age, when someone insults/questions your chosen profession, I can see why you get pretty heated.

You sound more and more like a joke, particularly when you have the backbone to attack Kwayer's chosen career and calling him a failure... kinda ironic really.

I can see that your intellectual capacity is quite lacking, so i'll excuse you for just copying my signature as your own and cheekily writing 'courtesy' of extensor.... just shows how primitive you are... probably the first act of forum vigilantism on BOS.

Good luck, infact you'll need alot of luck in your chosen pseudoscience. Just don't let the public's dim view of chiropractic go to your head.

P.S. use the 'Dr' title wisely otherwise as a consequence of your prochiro views, your use of it may look even more frivolous than it should.

EDIT: Bored, can you reiterate the reasoning behind chiro's given the legal right to the title Dr prefix? Just for the laughs if for nothing else.

 

[extensorindicis]

A more moderate hypothesis would suggest that spinal manipulation results in the optimal biomechanical function of the spine at a segmental level hence delaying the onset of degenerative disease (which is inevitable but exacerbated by poor biomechanics), decrease in pain (due to an increase in proprioceptive input) etc.

Thanks kaz.n, thats cleared up what's actually taught now at unis, couldn't quite get that out of mr.bored. He just kept denying but couldn't explain what his learnt.

But, are you able to provide any articles to back this hypothesis up, because unless it can be proven medically that such spinal manipulations to maintain optimal bio mec funct. in the spine can delay degenerative diseases and decrease pain through proprioception, then it just sounds as pseudoscientific as the last dogma proposed by chiro's forefathers.

I'm more doubtful than ever.

 

[:kaz.n:]

Here is one:

Cervical spine manipulation alters sensorimotor integration: a somatosensory evoked potential study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
SIGNIFICANCE: This study suggests that cervical spine manipulation may alter cortical somatosensory processing and sensorimotor integration. These findings may help to elucidate the mechanisms responsible for the effective relief of pain and restoration of functional ability documented following spinal manipulation treatment.

Does that really sound unscientific to you? I think it sounds perfectly scientifically feasible in every regard.

Can you point out to me exactly which part of the hypothesis I outlined to you is pseudoscientific?

As physiotherapists also use spinal manipulation, can you now please tell me what is the rationale physiotherapists use to justify their spinal manipulation? I am sure it will be a very similar hypothesis to what I just outlined. If not, how does it differ? And have you got any 'medical' research to 'prove' or back-up why physiotherapists also manipulate the spine?

Thank you,

K.

 

[extensorindicis]

Here is one:

Cervical spine manipulation alters sensorimotor integration: a somatosensory evoked potential study.
Cervical spine manipulation alters sensorimotor in...[Clin Neurophysiol. 2007] - PubMed Result
SIGNIFICANCE: This study suggests that cervical spine manipulation may alter cortical somatosensory processing and sensorimotor integration. These findings may help to elucidate the mechanisms responsible for the effective relief of pain and restoration of functional ability documented following spinal manipulation treatment.

No Kaz.n that doesn't sound unscientific at all. In fact that sounds right. And i agree with those findings despite almost having a layman's understanding of spinal manipulation.

Its not so much spinal manipulation that i'm against, its that the definition of what is taught in modern chiro isn't very different from its past, infact the only difference is that the s word 'subluxation' is missing.

Bear with me, i'm finding some articles on your question on physio.

 

[:kaz.n:]

No Kaz.n that doesn't sound unscientific at all. In fact that sounds right. And i agree with those findings despite almost having a layman's understanding of spinal manipulation.

Its not so much spinal manipulation that i'm against, its that the definition of what is taught in modern chiro isn't very different from its past, infact the only difference is that the s word 'subluxation' is missing.

Bear with me, i'm finding some articles on your question on physio.

Thanks for acknowledging that the hypothesis being taught at Macquarie university is scientific and feasible, I am happy I was able to clear up that common misconception.

I mean no disrespect here, but can you please elaborate on what you mean in the text that I have made bold? Just want to also explain my point of view on the issue and maybe we can come to a common and logical understanding?

Take your time with the research journals I requested, I understand you have better uses of your time and it really isnt a priority.

At the end of the day I don't think it is right to say one profession is more or less effective than the other, one profession is pseudoscientific etc. If we can come to a common understanding we can integrate our expertise and better serve the public. The physio versus chiro argument does nothing but waste energy, energy that can be put to more productive uses.

Have a good night,

K.