3 ms·

> > the medical equivalent of scientology (chiropractic medicine). An apt analogy. Scientology happens to include a few training exercises that might be consid

> > the medical equivalent of scientology (chiropractic medicine). An apt analogy. Scientology happens to include a few training exercises that might be considered valid or beneficial. But a small grain of validity isn't enough to overcome the metric ton of woo and indoctrination surrounding it. Anything of value can be assessed by researchers in the relevant qualified field, but those small grains aren't Scientology, and you wouldn't label them that. A chiropractor who performs physiotherapy is analogous to a scientologist who performs mainstream psychology. Or a homeopathist who slips full doses of actual drugs into their dilutions. > This is an unfair slander In my view, anyone providing services under the chiropractic banner can be legitimately called idiots, quacks, charlatans, and a danger to society. They are unqualified to perform anything. They deserve all the scorn and ridicule we can muster. I don't care if they focus on techniques consistent with physiotherapy; by using the chiropractic label, they are providing legitimacy to the ones who believe and practice woo woo. If you want to practice physiotherapy, we already have a label for that. It's called physiotherapy.

icelancer 13y ago
Why? There are plenty of chiropractors who perform manual therapy and spinal manipulation to fix mechanical low back issues - and there is a LOT of evidence behind these methods. They don't delve into the bullshit subluxation theories. That isn't "physiotherapy." That is quite clearly chiropractic medicine. And in that regard, it works. Just section them off into subluxation believers and people who work on lower backs. That's how I split them, considering I refer my clients to chiros all the time (and use them myself for my herniated lumbar discs).
- sjwright 13y ago
  > That isn't "physiotherapy." That is quite clearly chiropractic medicine. And that's where we vehemently disagree. Look up the definition of chiropractics. Read Wikipedia. If you want to be associated with that garbage, use the name. If you don't, don't. > I refer my clients to chiros all the time Why not refer your clients to physiotherapists who can perform the same techniques, and have actual qualifications to do so? At the very least you know they're not at risk of being handled by a "subluxation believer". You'll also have the peace of mind that the practitioner is licensed and regulated by non-quacks, and held to a higher standard of ethics.
  - icelancer 13y ago
    Because, unfortunately based on your definition, the best manual spinal manipulator I know is a "chiropractor."
    - sjwright 13y ago
      No, based on my definition, the best manual spinal manipulator you know is a semi-qualified physiotherapist who trades under the chiropractic brand. Based on your own definition, they are "good PTs." So you agree, it's physiotherapy. Don't understand why you're arguing the point.
      - icelancer 13y ago
        No, as I've said many times in this thread, SOME of them are PTs. And you responded to this comment below: "I don't agree. I have a PT who uses chiropractic methods but I also have seen a chiropractor who does nothing but lower back manipulation and traction methods, both of which have evidence backing their methods to fix lower back mechanical issues. He is not a charlatan. It would be unfair to group him with the subluxation magicians." I would not call him a PT, because he is not a PT. I have no idea why you are attempting to knock down a strawman consistently. He is a chiropractor and he's not opting out of the brand simply because you think he's a charlatan. And I am not going to call him by another name because you are on an overzealous semantic war.
        sjwright 13y ago
        It is not a straw man to describe the general field of chiropractics as anti-science quackery. Just because some narrow physio-therapeutic component of chiropractics happens not to be quackery, doesn't make the general field respectable. You could claim that homeopathic therapies can promote good hydration. Hydration is important. But that doesn't make homeopathy respectable. Semantics matter. Why should I show any respect to people using the chiropractic label when the preponderance of practitioners are subluxation magicians and modern witch doctors?

icelancer 13y ago

Why? There are plenty of chiropractors who perform manual therapy and spinal manipulation to fix mechanical low back issues - and there is a LOT of evidence behind these methods. They don't delve into the bullshit subluxation theories. That isn't "physiotherapy." That is quite clearly chiropractic medicine. And in that regard, it works. Just section them off into subluxation believers and people who work on lower backs. That's how I split them, considering I refer my clients to chiros all the time (and use them myself for my herniated lumbar discs).

sjwright 13y ago
> That isn't "physiotherapy." That is quite clearly chiropractic medicine. And that's where we vehemently disagree. Look up the definition of chiropractics. Read Wikipedia. If you want to be associated with that garbage, use the name. If you don't, don't. > I refer my clients to chiros all the time Why not refer your clients to physiotherapists who can perform the same techniques, and have actual qualifications to do so? At the very least you know they're not at risk of being handled by a "subluxation believer". You'll also have the peace of mind that the practitioner is licensed and regulated by non-quacks, and held to a higher standard of ethics.
- icelancer 13y ago
  Because, unfortunately based on your definition, the best manual spinal manipulator I know is a "chiropractor."
  - sjwright 13y ago
    No, based on my definition, the best manual spinal manipulator you know is a semi-qualified physiotherapist who trades under the chiropractic brand. Based on your own definition, they are "good PTs." So you agree, it's physiotherapy. Don't understand why you're arguing the point.
    - icelancer 13y ago
      No, as I've said many times in this thread, SOME of them are PTs. And you responded to this comment below: "I don't agree. I have a PT who uses chiropractic methods but I also have seen a chiropractor who does nothing but lower back manipulation and traction methods, both of which have evidence backing their methods to fix lower back mechanical issues. He is not a charlatan. It would be unfair to group him with the subluxation magicians." I would not call him a PT, because he is not a PT. I have no idea why you are attempting to knock down a strawman consistently. He is a chiropractor and he's not opting out of the brand simply because you think he's a charlatan. And I am not going to call him by another name because you are on an overzealous semantic war.
      - sjwright 13y ago
        It is not a straw man to describe the general field of chiropractics as anti-science quackery. Just because some narrow physio-therapeutic component of chiropractics happens not to be quackery, doesn't make the general field respectable. You could claim that homeopathic therapies can promote good hydration. Hydration is important. But that doesn't make homeopathy respectable. Semantics matter. Why should I show any respect to people using the chiropractic label when the preponderance of practitioners are subluxation magicians and modern witch doctors?