Damn you Section 302 (a) (1)!
February 23, 2006 6:16 PM Subscribe
Why not? We let them muck around with people for no particularly good reason.
posted by drpynchon at 6:21 PM on February 23, 2006
posted by drpynchon at 6:21 PM on February 23, 2006
You should be apologizing to us for this post.
(Wayback Machine archive of site.)
posted by LarryC at 6:25 PM on February 23, 2006
(Wayback Machine archive of site.)
posted by LarryC at 6:25 PM on February 23, 2006
Well, that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
posted by brain_drain at 6:26 PM on February 23, 2006
posted by brain_drain at 6:26 PM on February 23, 2006
I look forward to the MeTa thread after the deletion of this thread.
posted by klangklangston at 6:35 PM on February 23, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 6:35 PM on February 23, 2006
This site doesn't exist at all.
I sense a conspiracy against people who love pets.
A lot.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:42 PM on February 23, 2006
I sense a conspiracy against people who love pets.
A lot.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:42 PM on February 23, 2006
And here I thought this was going to be a site about people who fetishize chiropractors.
posted by BrotherCaine at 6:45 PM on February 23, 2006
posted by BrotherCaine at 6:45 PM on February 23, 2006
Whew! Apparently lots of people have strong feelings about chiropracty. Or pets. Or something.
So hey, maybe the chiroptractors are worried that this stuff actually works in pets? That would be pretty funny.
posted by drmarcj at 6:48 PM on February 23, 2006
So hey, maybe the chiroptractors are worried that this stuff actually works in pets? That would be pretty funny.
posted by drmarcj at 6:48 PM on February 23, 2006
Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
posted by TedW at 6:51 PM on February 23, 2006
posted by TedW at 6:51 PM on February 23, 2006
TedW writes "Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
...maybe that duck needs a spine correction!
posted by clevershark at 6:52 PM on February 23, 2006
...maybe that duck needs a spine correction!
posted by clevershark at 6:52 PM on February 23, 2006
Now what do I do for my snail? He's suffering a terrible backache!
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:54 PM on February 23, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:54 PM on February 23, 2006
Waitaminnit . . . the state of California cracks down on pseudo-science chiropractors when they try to mess around with animals, but allows them to practice their quackery on human beings? Something seems oddly out of place here. Perhaps it has something to do with PETA?
posted by aladfar at 8:17 PM on February 23, 2006
posted by aladfar at 8:17 PM on February 23, 2006
Poor little Fido and his subluxations!
I lost most of what respect I had for chiropracty when I was in one's office and saw a sign on the wall that said "If Germ Theory were true, the human race would have been dead long ago."
Any "physician" that denies that germs exist and cause disease is so sold on their own nonsense that they don't deserve even the least common denominator of professional respect.
Not all chiropractors feel this way, but I'm given to understand that such radical views are not all that rare in the field. Won't someone think of thechildren animals!
posted by darkstar at 8:28 PM on February 23, 2006
I lost most of what respect I had for chiropracty when I was in one's office and saw a sign on the wall that said "If Germ Theory were true, the human race would have been dead long ago."
Any "physician" that denies that germs exist and cause disease is so sold on their own nonsense that they don't deserve even the least common denominator of professional respect.
Not all chiropractors feel this way, but I'm given to understand that such radical views are not all that rare in the field. Won't someone think of the
posted by darkstar at 8:28 PM on February 23, 2006
I've always thought that there was a market for monkeys that would give back massages by walking on people. I guess it'd just be another skill for a helper monkey to have.
posted by kendrak at 8:32 PM on February 23, 2006
posted by kendrak at 8:32 PM on February 23, 2006
Why do people think chiropractic care is psudo science? I've never seen any evidence that it is, other then a few random assertions thrown about every once in a while.
I mean, do you people honestly believe that cracking someone's back doesn't do any good? or that back pain can't be helped by spinal adjustments?
There may be quack chiropractors, but there are also quack medical doctors.
posted by delmoi at 9:39 PM on February 23, 2006
I mean, do you people honestly believe that cracking someone's back doesn't do any good? or that back pain can't be helped by spinal adjustments?
There may be quack chiropractors, but there are also quack medical doctors.
posted by delmoi at 9:39 PM on February 23, 2006
delmoi, go actually read the research. There simply is no science behind the vast majority of chiropractic -- at it's heart, the notion of 'subluxation' as it is defined by them, is a concept not supported by science in the least. People think it's pseudoscience because basically that is what it is.
Does cracking your nuckles cure osteoarthritis? And so it goes. Evidence (as in science) suggests that for back pain, short term symptomatic benefits can be had with chiropractic visits without any longterm benefit, but the same can probably be said about seeing a message therapist. Furthermore physical therapists have better long term results. Moreover there are growing case reports of significant harm done by certain chiropractic practices.
posted by drpynchon at 9:55 PM on February 23, 2006
Does cracking your nuckles cure osteoarthritis? And so it goes. Evidence (as in science) suggests that for back pain, short term symptomatic benefits can be had with chiropractic visits without any longterm benefit, but the same can probably be said about seeing a message therapist. Furthermore physical therapists have better long term results. Moreover there are growing case reports of significant harm done by certain chiropractic practices.
posted by drpynchon at 9:55 PM on February 23, 2006
delmoi, sure, sometimes cracking someone's back can help them feel better. Sometimes the effect is only temporary, of course. But sometimes, spinal adjustments can significantly reduce back pain in some patients with disk protrustion, sciatica, etc. That's been attested to pretty soundly.
However, if you actually look at what most chiropractic science programs teach, the fundamental point is that "subluxations" are the root of most ailments, and that spinal adjustment to reduce or alleviate sublixations can have a very broad therapeutic benefit on diseases, ranging from diabetes to emphysema, drug addiction, and so forth.
They also argue very often, as that web site indicates:
I've actually had a chiropractor urge me to come back for weekly adjustments (at $25 a pop) for an indefinite time, as a means to treat my asthma. The same chiropractor had a program by which he gave discounts to healthy babies to receive adjustments, on the completely unfounded premise that regular spinal adjustments would prove salutary to the developing child.
This is just outrageous, and completely unsupported by scientific tests, but is a common theme among many, though not all, chiropractors. You'd virtually NEVER encounter a mainstream physician urging the whole family to come in for weekly or bimonthly visits for treatment, just to stave off the possibility of some hidden and unproven malady.
Additionally, not all, but many chiropractors are so sold on the idea of subluxations that they reject many allopathic therapies, including sometimes very important back surgery when it's indicated.
Not all chiropractors are like this, of course. But a very large number of them are. Chiropracty has a place in health care, but from my experience and research, it is very often irresponsibly overstated by its practitioners.
Indeed, the benefits of regular human touch, being paid attention to, and the placebo effect of having some health therapy, are all significant. But for all that, a massage therapist can give you the same or better benefits and won't risk damaging your spine.
Conclusion: chiropracty has some proven benefits within a very narrow therapeutic scope, but these are often grossly and irresponsibly oversold based on pseudoscientific claims of its practitioners.
On preview, what drpynchon said, too.
posted by darkstar at 10:18 PM on February 23, 2006
However, if you actually look at what most chiropractic science programs teach, the fundamental point is that "subluxations" are the root of most ailments, and that spinal adjustment to reduce or alleviate sublixations can have a very broad therapeutic benefit on diseases, ranging from diabetes to emphysema, drug addiction, and so forth.
They also argue very often, as that web site indicates:
If a subluxation continues undetected, the organ may suffer great damage, yet we won't even be aware of it! Because subluxations can destroy a person's health without any visible signs, they are often called "the silent killer."The result is that even healthy, asymptomatic people are urged to have regular (as in, weekly) chiropractic treatments, just to safeguard them from the possibility of hidden "killer" subluxations.
If you wait until your body sends out pain or other clear signals, it may too late. You need to stop subluxations before they have a chance to do major damage and before they become difficult to correct.
You -- and your entire family -- need to visit a chiropractor regularly to make sure you can all lead a healthy, subluxation-free life.
I've actually had a chiropractor urge me to come back for weekly adjustments (at $25 a pop) for an indefinite time, as a means to treat my asthma. The same chiropractor had a program by which he gave discounts to healthy babies to receive adjustments, on the completely unfounded premise that regular spinal adjustments would prove salutary to the developing child.
This is just outrageous, and completely unsupported by scientific tests, but is a common theme among many, though not all, chiropractors. You'd virtually NEVER encounter a mainstream physician urging the whole family to come in for weekly or bimonthly visits for treatment, just to stave off the possibility of some hidden and unproven malady.
Additionally, not all, but many chiropractors are so sold on the idea of subluxations that they reject many allopathic therapies, including sometimes very important back surgery when it's indicated.
Not all chiropractors are like this, of course. But a very large number of them are. Chiropracty has a place in health care, but from my experience and research, it is very often irresponsibly overstated by its practitioners.
Indeed, the benefits of regular human touch, being paid attention to, and the placebo effect of having some health therapy, are all significant. But for all that, a massage therapist can give you the same or better benefits and won't risk damaging your spine.
Conclusion: chiropracty has some proven benefits within a very narrow therapeutic scope, but these are often grossly and irresponsibly oversold based on pseudoscientific claims of its practitioners.
On preview, what drpynchon said, too.
posted by darkstar at 10:18 PM on February 23, 2006
Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Then clearly your dog has a bad back.
posted by dirigibleman at 11:47 PM on February 23, 2006
Then clearly your dog has a bad back.
posted by dirigibleman at 11:47 PM on February 23, 2006
Why do people think chiropractic care is psudo science? I've never seen any evidence that it is
posted by delmoi at 9:39 PM PST on February 23
Then you've had your head in the sand. The information is readily available. It's like saying "I've only heard random assertions that homeopathy is pseudoscience."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:45 AM on February 24, 2006
posted by delmoi at 9:39 PM PST on February 23
Then you've had your head in the sand. The information is readily available. It's like saying "I've only heard random assertions that homeopathy is pseudoscience."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:45 AM on February 24, 2006
Homeopathy cured my snail's headaches.
Actually, my snail died a few months ago, but the ghost shrimp we got to replace him doesn't seem to work as well as a replacement punchline.
He's darn cute though. Seriously, ghost shrmips kick ass.
Whoops, derail.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:41 AM on February 24, 2006
Actually, my snail died a few months ago, but the ghost shrimp we got to replace him doesn't seem to work as well as a replacement punchline.
He's darn cute though. Seriously, ghost shrmips kick ass.
Whoops, derail.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:41 AM on February 24, 2006
There have been plenty of undercover investigations of chiropractors.
"In 1994, ABC's "20/20" reported on visits to 17 chiropractors who had made it known...that they treated children. An infant named Blake was taken by his mother to nine chiropractors in the New York metropolitan area, accompanied by a "friend" who was carrying a hidden camera. Blake had had recurring ear infections, a problem that a pediatrician said could be managed with antibiotics and would eventually be outgrown. Every chiropractor found a problem, and all said they could help and recommended care ranging from several weeks to a lifetime. The first found "a misalignment between the second and third bones in his neck." ...The third, using muscle-testing, found "weakness in the adrenal glands." The fourth said there was a subluxation because one of Blake's legs was shorter than the other. The fifth claimed he could diagnose the boy's problem by pulling on his mother's arm while she touched the boy on the shoulder. The sixth chiropractor did a similar test by pulling on the mother's legs while Blake lay on top of her back. After diagnosing "jamming of the occiput (the back bone of the skull)," the chiropractor said he corrected it by "lifting" Blake's occiput with his thumbs. He also said: (a) Blake needed work on his immune system, (b) learning disorder might be a problem, (c) both mother and son had "eyes that don't team too well," and (d) the cameraman, whom the chiropractor incorrectly assumed was the boy's father, had the same eye problem."
posted by storybored at 9:28 AM on February 24, 2006
"In 1994, ABC's "20/20" reported on visits to 17 chiropractors who had made it known...that they treated children. An infant named Blake was taken by his mother to nine chiropractors in the New York metropolitan area, accompanied by a "friend" who was carrying a hidden camera. Blake had had recurring ear infections, a problem that a pediatrician said could be managed with antibiotics and would eventually be outgrown. Every chiropractor found a problem, and all said they could help and recommended care ranging from several weeks to a lifetime. The first found "a misalignment between the second and third bones in his neck." ...The third, using muscle-testing, found "weakness in the adrenal glands." The fourth said there was a subluxation because one of Blake's legs was shorter than the other. The fifth claimed he could diagnose the boy's problem by pulling on his mother's arm while she touched the boy on the shoulder. The sixth chiropractor did a similar test by pulling on the mother's legs while Blake lay on top of her back. After diagnosing "jamming of the occiput (the back bone of the skull)," the chiropractor said he corrected it by "lifting" Blake's occiput with his thumbs. He also said: (a) Blake needed work on his immune system, (b) learning disorder might be a problem, (c) both mother and son had "eyes that don't team too well," and (d) the cameraman, whom the chiropractor incorrectly assumed was the boy's father, had the same eye problem."
posted by storybored at 9:28 AM on February 24, 2006
But of course, the serious issue about chiropractors is that seeing them can cost you your life.
posted by storybored at 9:31 AM on February 24, 2006
posted by storybored at 9:31 AM on February 24, 2006
Homeopathy is a good example, as it also can be valuable in limited settings. Using homeopathy to make salves for burns or pain can allevieate symptoms, and it's usually pretty sound for upset stomachs and the like. A lot of medicines that we take today have antecedents in homeopathy. But it's unregulated and often overstates its claims something fierce.
posted by klangklangston at 12:42 PM on February 24, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 12:42 PM on February 24, 2006
Homeopathy is a good example, as it also can be valuable in limited settings. Using homeopathy to make salves for burns or pain can allevieate symptoms, and it's usually pretty sound for upset stomachs and the like.
You couldn't be more wrong with an electrified wronging machine.
There is no way in the current model of physics and chemistry that homeopathy can work. If you can demonstrate otherwise, you will win both the Nobel Prize and the JREF's Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. Put up or shut up.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:21 PM on February 24, 2006
You couldn't be more wrong with an electrified wronging machine.
There is no way in the current model of physics and chemistry that homeopathy can work. If you can demonstrate otherwise, you will win both the Nobel Prize and the JREF's Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. Put up or shut up.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:21 PM on February 24, 2006
In looking at a few websites, I guess I've been wrong about homeopathy. I've always thought that it was just another name for herbal medicines, but apparently it's a whole philosophy. I don't doubt that some of it works (as in the idea that some things can be treated with small amounts of what would cause similar symptoms in a larger dose), but the idea of dillution past one part per million seems totally untennable.
posted by klangklangston at 1:48 PM on February 24, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 1:48 PM on February 24, 2006
Pretty much, yeah.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:50 PM on February 24, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:50 PM on February 24, 2006
Which reminds me, Optimus, I hereby offer to buy you a beer (or other drink of your choosing) when I return to the States in August.
posted by darkstar at 2:21 PM on February 24, 2006
posted by darkstar at 2:21 PM on February 24, 2006
Sounds good, darkstar. Why aren't there any Arizona meet-ups? >:(
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:30 PM on February 24, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:30 PM on February 24, 2006
Heh...on a related note, I just received my e-newsletter of "What's New". In this week's edition:
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 24 Feb 06 Washington, DCposted by darkstar at 3:01 PM on February 24, 2006
1. DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS: TWO-MORE POPULAR SUPPLEMENTS STRIKE OUT.
Last week, saw palmetto, used by 2.5 million American men to treat prostate problems, was found to be ineffective. This week, the New England Journal of Medicine published the eagerly-awaited results of a trial of glucosamine/chondroitin, used by about 5.2
million Americans for arthritis pain at a cost of $30 to $50 a month. In 2004 alone, sales were $730M. The NIH sponsored study cost taxpayers $12.5M. Glucosamine/chondroitin, like saw palmetto, was found to be ineffective. Both are marketed under the 1994 Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act (DSHEA), which allows natural supplements to be sold without proof of safety or efficacy. After Stephen Strauss became director, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at NIH began in-depth studies of the most popular supplements. It takes time, and it's expensive, but let's look at the score: echinacea doesn't ward off colds or flu, St. Johns Wort doesn't relieve depression, ginko biloba doesn't improve memory, ephedra aids athletic performance but kills people, and is the only supplement to be banned. A year ago, the Institute of Medicine called for revision of DSHEA to require all treatments to meet the same standards (http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn011405.html).
Congress has done nothing, but I guess they've been busy.
before going to the pet chiropractor,consult an animal psychic
posted by hortense at 6:29 PM on February 24, 2006
posted by hortense at 6:29 PM on February 24, 2006
« Older Flip Your Id! It's Astro Sounds from Beyond the... | Nigga Pleez! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by onegreeneye at 6:21 PM on February 23, 2006