Chiropractor--pros and cons

[RoJoHen]

Indeed. There is a difference between a chiropractor who thinks that aligning your spine will magically cure your brain tumor and a chiropractor who thinks that aligning your spine will, ya know, keep your spine in alignment.

I have been having some pain in my lower back the last couple weeks, and I think it might have something to do with my spine. It really just feels like I need to "crack my knuckles" in my back, if you will. No amount of stretching I do is helping, and I think a chiropractor might be able to pop things back into place.

 

[thestrangequark]

The term "chiropractic science" is practically an oxymoron. We're taking about a practice completely unsubstantiated by science and based in the metaphysical idea that disruption in the "innate intelligence" of the nervous system can lead to things like skin disease and cancer. It is as primitive, unscientific, and wrong as the humor theory of disease or homeopathy.

Any discipline that formulates systematized knowledge as an object of study is a science. The one chiropractor I went to also provided physical therapy services, but had "chiropractor" as top billing. He didn't do any metaphysical mumbo jumbo. It was all about getting the spine back into alignment. That's the kind of chiropractor I'm talking about, not a metaphysical quack who got some unsubstantiated chiropractic training and claims to be a full fledged chiropractor.

Yes, I noted several times that there are two types of chiropractors: those who do use scientific medicine, and those who base their practice in the pseudoscientific nonsense of innate intelligence and disruption of energy flows. The thing is, the vast majority of chiropractors fall into the latter category, not the former. I used to believe that when people spoke of chiropractic, they were talking about the former, but most often they are not. Most of the major schools teach the latter, not the former, as baffling as that may seem.

As I noted before, the real problem is that there are physical therapists who focus on the spine and who are also call chiropractors. These professionals, whose work is science-based, don't believe in the magical ideas of subluxations. The problem is, they account for only about 12% of chiropractors.

"Subluxation" is a partial dislocation, as of one of the bones in a joint. It is a term that was first used in the 17th century in medical science. So there's no magic here. Perhaps some people misuse the term, but that does not mean the term itself is corrupted.

That is not how the vast majority (88%) of chiropractors use the term, and this is why the WHO classifies two types of subluxations, "medical subluxations" and "chiropractic subluxations." As this thread is about chiropractic, and as I qualified my usage of the term 'subluxation' with the metaphysical beliefs of chiropractic, I think it fairly obvious how I was using the term.

Remember: pseudoscience and quack medicine kill people.

That they do!

 

[Amaris]

The term "chiropractic science" is practically an oxymoron. We're taking about a practice completely unsubstantiated by science and based in the metaphysical idea that disruption in the "innate intelligence" of the nervous system can lead to things like skin disease and cancer. It is as primitive, unscientific, and wrong as the humor theory of disease or homeopathy.

Any discipline that formulates systematized knowledge as an object of study is a science. The one chiropractor I went to also provided physical therapy services, but had "chiropractor" as top billing. He didn't do any metaphysical mumbo jumbo. It was all about getting the spine back into alignment. That's the kind of chiropractor I'm talking about, not a metaphysical quack who got some unsubstantiated chiropractic training and claims to be a full fledged chiropractor.

Yes, I noted several times that there are two types of chiropractors: those who do use scientific medicine, and those who base their practice in the pseudoscientific nonsense of innate intelligence and disruption of energy flows. The thing is, the vast majority of chiropractors fall into the latter category, not the former. I used to believe that when people spoke of chiropractic, they were talking about the former, but most often they are not. Most of the major schools teach the latter, not the former, as baffling as that may seem.

"Subluxation" is a partial dislocation, as of one of the bones in a joint. It is a term that was first used in the 17th century in medical science. So there's no magic here. Perhaps some people misuse the term, but that does not mean the term itself is corrupted.

That is not how the vast majority (88%) of chiropractors use the term, and this is why the WHO classifies two types of subluxations, "medical subluxations" and "chiropractic subluxations." As this thread is about chiropractic, and as I qualified my usage of the term 'subluxation' with the metaphysical beliefs of chiropractic, I think it fairly obvious how I was using the term.

Remember: pseudoscience and quack medicine kill people.

That they do!

Indeed. I even used the term "vertical subluxation", which is the woo version of the term.