Caer Abred

Very interesting article in the New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... actic.html

The article quotes this Health Warning from a book on altrnative therapies:

"Warning: this treatment carries the risk of stroke and death if spinal manipulation is applied to the neck. Elsewhere on the spine, therapy is relatively safe. It has shown some evidence of benefit in the treatment of back pain, but conventional treatments are usually equally effective and much cheaper. In the treatment of all other conditions chiropractic therapy is ineffective except that it might act as a placebo."

One of the authors of the book is now being sued by the British Chiropractic Association after warning of possible harmful effects on children of using the treatment for such things as Asthma.

A bit of context: the inventer of Chiropractic apparently considered turning it into a religion at one point.

Hmmm.....

I don't now about the UK but in Belgium and certainly France medical practice seems to be related to crocodiles. They share their motto: "Change is bad". Yet, chiropractors are well respected, I think. But I'm under the impression that we mostly resort to chiropractors for, well... pain in the back or neck. Not asthma or any such thing. At least, not that I know of.

I'm allergic and used to have asthma when I was a small kid (didn't last, hopefully, cortisone got rid of it IIRC). It's caused by pollen entering my system and being rejected by my immune system—something to do with histamines, because I take antihistaminic drugs to counter that. I sincerely don't think that pawing my back would to any good...

But I confess that, when in June my hay fever is at its worst, I would be willing to try sticking needles in my eyes and massaging my spine with a sledgehammer if a drunk taxi driver hinted that it could do me good.

Don't actually know much about chiropractors.

I shall have a look at the article .... but I'm just going out for a family meal.

Osteopaths are regarded more skeptically here. But I think chiropractors are regarded more or less like kinesiotherapists.

Melhael wrote:...I'm allergic and used to have asthma when I was a small kid (didn't last, hopefully, cortisone got rid of it IIRC). It's caused by pollen entering my system and being rejected by my immune system—something to do with histamines, because I take antihistaminic drugs to counter that. I sincerely don't think that pawing my back would to any good...

You could of course be tested for what you are sensitive to and get desensitized. It works and there is lots of science behind why it works.In the long term it is also much cheaper than symptomatic remedies, lost work etc.

:caduceus:

Osteopaths in the US (DOs) get the same education as MDs, and many residencies have mixed DOs and MDs (it depends on the state you live in). Most DOs have given up the manipulations and their genesis crap.

Chiropractic is popular, but is considered by the Medical community to be high priced physiotherapists. I think they should only be used with a real doctors order, if at all.

Homeopathy is not big here, except perhaps in California (that's kind of a joke). It certainly does not have the status I perceive it does in the EU.

Kernos
/|\

I believe that registered Osteopaths here start off with the same training as medical doctors but then specialist. Both myself and my husband have been treated for musculo-skeletal problems by our local osteopath and have found it very effective, particularly my husband when he had a ruptured disc.

Chiropractics do have their place too and can also be very effective. Maybe it would be more useful for resources to be places in these manipulative therapies rather than in pain killing drugs and muscle relaxants which are commonly prescribed by GPs for back pain? If these therapies were embraced in the mainstream, would they be less 'woo-woo'?

Warm blessings

Elaine x

ShropshirePagan wrote:If these therapies were embraced in the mainstream, would they be less 'woo-woo'?

That puts the cart before the horse a little.

In order to become part of mainstream medicine they need to be properly evidenced as being either positively beneficial or else not harmful if they are to be considered as palliative treatments. That is how the Woo-Woo goes away.

Osteopathy is not at issue here by the way. The suggestion is that Chiropractic can be palliative, in the same way as massage can be, but that there are ways in which it is used that are risky, in particular neck manipulations.

Kernos wrote:
Homeopathy is not big here, except perhaps in California (that's kind of a joke). It certainly does not have the status I perceive it does in the EU.

Kernos
/|\

This is true.

I believe homeopathy used to be more prevalent in the US during the latter part of the 19th century but met with a demise. It is bigger in the UK, in Australia, and in parts of Europe (France and Holland especially although the continental systems of homeopathy are different in clinical practice).

In France and also in South Africa homeopaths have actually had to qualify as MDs (General Practitioners of medicine) before they are allowed to practice homeopathy.

I can understand homeopathy having its heyday in the 19th century as there wasn't a great deal else to choose from in those days in terms of medical treatments. Even antibiotics were but a distant dream ....

Being a somewhat allergic individual myself I have considered desensitization treatment in the past - but I understand it doesn't actually work for everyone and may (on grantedly rare occasions) actually cause anaphylactic reactions in certain people.