2 ms·

> That isn't "physiotherapy." That is quite clearly chiropractic medicine. And that's where we vehemently disagree. Look up the definition of chiropractics. Re

> 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

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?