Talk:Chiropractic

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(grammar correction)
m (Robot: Substituting template: Unsigned)
Line 62: Line 62:
 
*I say no, I think it needs a copyediting and rewriting.  [[User:Doggedpersistence|'''<font color="#00F0A20">DogP</font>''']] 21:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
 
*I say no, I think it needs a copyediting and rewriting.  [[User:Doggedpersistence|'''<font color="#00F0A20">DogP</font>''']] 21:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
  
I agree that the primary piece forwarded for inclusion is a "SLAM PIECE." Edit correction would also include that chiropractic did not begin in the 19th century. It was practiced and extolled by the Father of Medicine, Galen. Socrates and Plato were adherents. My view is the only people gripping are those that count their lucre from the medical point-of-view, i.e. loss of income. cj  {{unsigned|76.115.124.187}}
+
I agree that the primary piece forwarded for inclusion is a "SLAM PIECE." Edit correction would also include that chiropractic did not begin in the 19th century. It was practiced and extolled by the Father of Medicine, Galen. Socrates and Plato were adherents. My view is the only people gripping are those that count their lucre from the medical point-of-view, i.e. loss of income. cj  <sup>&mdash; Unsigned, by: [[User:76.115.124.187|76.115.124.187]] / [[User talk:76.115.124.187|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/76.115.124.187|contribs]] </sup>
 
:I have had years of treatment by a chiropractor, and I approve this article. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 20:04, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
 
:I have had years of treatment by a chiropractor, and I approve this article. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 20:04, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
  

Revision as of 13:21, 14 April 2010

I hope this is informative, and I hope I offended at least one or two people, or I probably haven't done a great job.!--PalMD-yada yada 22:34, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I was going to comment. I think it is fair, apart from, perhaps, the price part. Where the hell in the USA am I supposed to find a "GP" who can fix back pain? I went to a hospital. $180 to get told to lie on my tummy with an ice pack on my lower back. And a useless prescription that was bettered by ibuprofen (at admittedly off-label dosages, but do you know any women who take less than three at a time?). Chiropractors can do very well at relieving (and helping "cure") chronic or acute lower back and neck pain, yes. This is true. First place I'd go after a car accident. On the other hand, my D Ch., a very nice guy (haven't been there for a while) also sells, um, colored glasses, and, um, little vials of smell things. OhhhhhKay. But he doesn't "push" them, at least. So, yeah, there's a lot of quackery runnin' around in chiropractry, and, as the article says, a good massage might work just as well. I fixed a typo. humanbe in 22:53, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
By the way, what does disc surgery cost these days? humanbe in 22:56, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
A crapload...but usually isn't necessary. Most back pain gets better over several weeks to months with conservative therapy. By the time surgery is necessary, youre kind of screwed.--PalMD-yada yada 23:02, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

What we need are better drugs. Highly location-focused, anti-inflammatory and analgesic things. That are cheap. Dang, there was that time my shitty busted tooth finally abscessed under its cap - at 5 PM on a Friday. Some friends dropped by, wired to the gills... all I needed was a little "local anesthetic", you know, a 1/4 gram to spot my face through the weekend... but was there any left over? NNNnnoooooo! Shit. But the root canal was fun. "Do you want to wait for the novocain to take effect, or should I drill now?" "Drill now, Doc... Aaahhhh, that's better!" None of my frickin middle class white dentists understood why I wanted a gold star in my new cap :( - and this was 1982! humanbe in 23:31, 8 June 2007 (CDT)


Contents

Offensive article

"I hope I offended at least one or two people" OK Doc. I'll take offense. Where do you get off with this "Evidence Based Medicine" junk? Don't you know that there are other ways of knowing that can't be repeated in a test tube? Don't you know that there are thousands of people who have spontaneously got batter after just one treatment? Very often I speak to people who have heard about people who swear by alternative medicine. I hope you retract the whole article or at least acknowledge that medial science doesn't know everything. I am outraged.--Bob_M (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Godspeed, and I look forward to reading your productive edits! humanbe in 15:27, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
I'm glad to see that you are starting to adopt Mr Shafley's editorial style - and presumably - his beliefs.--Bob_M (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
They aren't "beliefs", they are facts. Please don't come here expecting that sort of liberal deceit to convince anyone of your anti-American, anti-Christian positions. I am sure within 98% certainty, for instance, that you are against school prayer. Gods peed on you! humanbe in 15:43, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
Well, Godspeed to you too!--Bob_M (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
Hey, don't use that kind of language aroun here! humanbe in 15:59, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
Look, it's obvious you're only here to cause godspeeding trouble and cast doubt on the intentions of real contributors you godspeeding troll! --Bob_M (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
It's been nice discussing this with you "Bob M" (is that your real name?), but I now have to spend some time learning and writing useful plagiarized stubs articles. I will also be keeping an eye on your contributions, as it seems you are in violation of the 90/10 rule. Godspeed! humanbe in 17:12, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
"Ask not for whom the gods peed, they peed for thee."~~ C®acker 16:17, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
Ok, fellas, I'm gonna God the fuckin speed all over your ugly asses. And, yes, Godspeed really is Newspeak for FUCK YOU. cp:User:Aschlafly
Sir, please continue to contribute in a constructive manner and help us run this project into the ground as efficiently as possible. I look forward to learning from your constructive edits! Thank you and Godspeed! --AKjeldsen 16:40, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

sick on-topic crap

The human mind is a wonderful thing. I get tons of patients who say "I understand what you're saying about all that science stuff, but I know my own body."--PalMD-yada yada 16:38, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Since I'm out sick, im trying to violated the 10/90 rule.--PalMD-yada yada 16:43, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
All your violation are belong to me.--PalMD-yada yada 17:17, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Horse shit!

Dear Sirs;

I would like to point out that this article appears to be a slam piece against chiropractors written by someone with no experience as a chiropractor. Please, at the very least turn this into something that looks like an educated article.

First off;

Chiropractic has been proven to cost less per treatment than allopathic care. Case in point;

Blue Cross of CA

98940 Spinal Manipulation, 1-2 areas $40 Copay $5-$20

vs.

99213 Office Visit Lvl 3 $128.00 Copay $35

Vicodin ES TID 30 pills $125.00 Copay $10-$125 (Depending on formulary)

In terms of cost per lifetime, cost is insignificant compared to the money saved by keeping workers working and people off meds. 4.246.153.127 03:28, 21 November 2007 (EST)


Studies supporting chiropratctic are cited. I still don't think we can find evidence that it is any more than glorified physical therapy. Despite the fact that physical therapy is a good thing, there is no consistency of standards for chiropractic training or practice. Perhaps when that happens, it can be less roundly criticized.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 07:06, 21 November 2007 (EST)

I take offence at the term Glorified Physical Therapy'. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of a subluxation. A sublaxation is where one or more vertebrae are misaligned. This can cause major issues with the spinal cord, leading to pain. A chiropractic adjustment resets the golgi tendon organ and realigns the spine, thus eliminating pain.

Not all chiropractors use manual adjusting! Activator, one of the most common techniques, involves using a extremely low force. Research for it is here

cover story

(please do not archive this section)

  • SusanG - nominated it, so probably "yes"
  • I think it's a good article, so I vote yes as well. humanUser talk:Human 12:18, 29 January 2008 (EST)
  • I say no, I think it needs a copyediting and rewriting. DogP 21:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree that the primary piece forwarded for inclusion is a "SLAM PIECE." Edit correction would also include that chiropractic did not begin in the 19th century. It was practiced and extolled by the Father of Medicine, Galen. Socrates and Plato were adherents. My view is the only people gripping are those that count their lucre from the medical point-of-view, i.e. loss of income. cj — Unsigned, by: 76.115.124.187 / talk / contribs

I have had years of treatment by a chiropractor, and I approve this article. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:04, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Glad to see the AMA is well represented here

This article does not appear balanced. I concur chiropractic is glorified PT, but PT is not a pseudoscience. TheRationalOne 02:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem here isn't chiropractic or PT per se, it's subluxation theory (IMO). Chiropractic is effective - but subluxation theory is a pseudoscience. Chiropractic works for some other reason(s) besides subluxation theory, and the sooner the chiro community gets away from this ridiculous clinging to a disproven theory, the sooner they will be accepted as a mainstream branch of medicine (except maybe by the stubbornist of true believers, but they're just as bad as the quacks). Same goes for acupuncture - it's effective, but "qi" is a pseudoscience. Secret Squirrel 22:25, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
I agree exactly with Mssr. SS. Chiropractic "works", but has no sensible "theory" behind it. What works about it, and why, could be explored, but many chiropractic practitioners (try typing that three times in a row!) have no interest in "evidence". I went to one for years on end, paying with my own money, and I approve this message: ħumanUser talk:Human 23:50, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
I've gone to one off and on whenever back issues creep up, and it works in clearing up back pain and spasms rather quickly. I wouldn't spend my money on it if it wasn't effective for me. (Yes, that is a testimonial, which doesn't cut it at all as proof of anything, just that chiropractic is IMO worthy of much further study using scientific method -- and the biggest thing getting in the way of that is some of the chiropractors themselves, who continue to insist on belief in the disproven subluxation theory. I just ignore all the posters and brochures at their offices about "subluxations" and the claims that chiro can cure non-back-related problems like asthma and allergies - which I don't buy at all - and go to a chiropractor for back issues. Secret Squirrel 18:41, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

This place is FAR worse than Conservapedia

The Chiropractic article is about the worse example of blatant sophistry I've ever read in my life! Consider this statement:

"In some studies, chiropractic did cost more overall.[3]"

It's citation is an OP-ED article! HAHA! OMG. This place is a joke! That sentence turned into this a paragraph or two later:

"Cost: chiropractic care costs more than usual care for low back pain".

NO citation was given for that one!

Conservapedia sucks, but this place makes it look like the Encyclopedia Britannica! LOL. 24.175.66.89 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Note, I reverted myself... got click happy, didn't notice this was a talk page.... This bunchanumbers was inserting stuff onto the main page... thought he was doing the same...
Now then, Bunchanumbers, to address your point. We've never made the claim that we're A, an Encyclopedia, B, Accurate, or C, trying to create anything near good articles.... Read through sometime, you'll notice a firm tongue in cheek editorial stance genius SirChuckBDMorris for new Jinx! 00:23, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
I'll point out that even if we did, we would still be better than Conservapedia. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 00:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, we're just a "bunch of idiots" (copyright Johnny Damon, ca. 2004). We're having fun, and trying to leave an interesting resource in our wake. humanUser talk:Human 01:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
We're all bozos on this wiki. --Kels 18:42, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Incredibly delayed LOL at Firesign ref Kels. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience vs. bullshit

I believe that this is better suited as pseudoscience and not bull because chiropractic has a few good uses, and is, therefore, not a total croc. While some of the other woo surrounding chiropractic is total bullshit, chiropractic as a means of helping with back problems isn't, in and of itself, bull.The Goonie 1 08:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one, and will fight you to the death on it ;) I have availed myself of many years of chiro - and let me tell you, as much as it sometimes made my back easier to deal with, the explanations I got for why were total bullshit. ("you're body is made to heal itself" etc. poo). Also, a decent massage would probably have done as much good as any given "adjustment". I'd argue that it is both pseudoscience (absolutely) and bullshit (absolutely). Perhaps we should make a thing where the two templates are randomly displayed? ħumanUser talk:Human 08:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
What we need to do is find some sort of wording for concepts that fit into the bullshit or pseudoscience categories not so much for the concept itself, but for explanations and uses of the concept. For example, we wouldn't call stars (you know, those things in the sky) bullshit, but we would call someone who thinks they are (oh, I don't know) spaceship lights from UFOs full of it. I don't know. I just have a hard time classifying something as bullshit if there are legitimate uses for it.The Goonie 1 08:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, to tell the truth, I think both templates suck and should die a slow painful death. Neither adds to our articles - which are pretty clear as to what we think is PS, BS, etc. All they do is clutter up pages and cause terrible confusion and mortal terror and battles between such fine upstanding users as us. Now, go fuck yourself, admit I'm right, and we'll delete both lame templates? ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 08:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I never really liked those templates, either.The Goonie 1 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support