Page 1 of 1

Free at last

PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:29 pm
by Sam Weston
Hi Dean,

Your articles on chiropractors really opened my eyes. I've seen several over the years and I was totally convinced they were doing me some good. Trouble is I never got any better. Now I know they were just feeding me a line of bull.

I'm free of them now and I'm rebuilding my back. I couldn't be happier with the progress I'm making.

Thanks for your help,

Sam Weston

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:39 pm
by Jason
Hi everybody,

I agree with Sam, Chiropractors are worthless if not dangerous. I can't believe that constantly cracking the joints in your back isn't causing a lot more damage than we even realize.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:55 pm
by Michelle
Hi guys,

It is causing damage. I met a woman several years ago that had to have back surgery because she was seeing a chiropractor. Her surgeon actualy told her the chiropractic adjustments were the reason for her back problems. That's when I stopped seeing my chiropractor.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:29 pm
by Jason
Hi Michelle,

Sounds like the classic formula. Take a minor back strain add a couple of years of chiropractic treatment and presto, you get surgery for degenerative disc disease. What more could you ask? :lol:


PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:00 pm
by Richard
back strain + chiropractic = surgery


PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:05 am
by Michelle
The government should run them all out of business.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:00 am
by Richard
Don't hold your breath. The chiropractic associations have too much money and that money buys politicians. End of story.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:19 am
by Michelle
Why don't the real doctors speak out more about chiropracic?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:32 am
by Dean
Hi guys,

Years ago, the AMA tried to mount an education program informing the public about the dangers of chiropractic but the chiropractic associations got together and sued them under the anti-trust statutes and won. Now the AMA can't do anything to expose chiropractic lest they be found guilty of trying to have a monopoly on the medical industry.

So, basically we're on our own.


PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 1:18 am
by randolph
Hello Dean

Are you referring to the Wilks case against the AMA?

Thanks, Randolph

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 12:20 pm
by Dean
Hi Randolph,

I don't recall whether it was the Wilks case or not. I just took a glance at the wikipedea article to refresh my memory and it appears to be the one, but I can't say with exact certainty.

I made the above post from memory and after looking at it again I realize that I got the details backwards. The AMA wasn't mounting a public education campaign, they were simply preventing their members from associating with unscientific medical practitioners such as chiropractors.

What the judge seems to say is that they should have been using a public education campaign instead of boycotting chiropractors. Public education is okay, what the AMA was doing was not.

It was one of those things you read ... say to yourself, "That was interesting" ... and then forget about it. Had I known that I would some day find myself writing about it I would have taken better notes. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say.

I think anyone interested in learning more about this topic should read all the available materials on the case before deciding what it all means. Under no circumstances should you base any decision solely on extracted quotes. (The writer may be distorting the truth, after all.)

Having said that, here's an interesting quote I grabbed from the Wikipedia article (emphasis added is mine) ...

Judge Getzendanner also went out of her way to make clear what she was not doing:

The plaintiffs clearly want more from the court. They want a judicial pronouncement that chiropractic is a valid, efficacious, even scientific health care service. I believe that the answer to that question can only be provided by a well designed, controlled, scientific study... No such study has ever been done. In the absence of such a study, the court is left to decide the issue on the basis of largely anecdotal evidence. I decline to pronounce chiropractic valid or invalid on anecdotal evidence. ... ssociation

It is important to keep in mind that when reading the reports about this trial alleging that the AMA attempted to suppress "evidence" that this evidence being referred to is anecdotal. It is nothing more than people giving their opinion. A few years ago, my opinion about chiropractic was totally different than it is today. (Not a very reliable basis for establishing a medical profession.)

The judge very plainly states that no scientific study had ever been done and thus, there is no scientific evidence being suppressed.

Chiropractors like to glean through this ruling and pick out "sound bites" that they can use to "prove" that chiropractic is valid. But the case plainly does not say that.

It is an anti-trust case only.

My opinion on the matter is that both sides are going about it all wrong. The AMA should put it's efforts into public education and the chiropractors should put their money into research instead of into lawsuits.

But what do I know...