Helge - 09 October 2011 04:10 PM

Asanta@

How much have you studied the subject?

A rudimentary knowledge of physics, anatomy and physiology is all I need to tell you that. I have the rudimentary knowledge of physics, but I assure you, I know a lot more about anatomy and physiology!

Occam @

What is your point??

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc62zo_don-funke-horseworks_animals

http://www.avcadoctors.com/more_about_animal_chiropractic.htm

http://www.veterinarychiropractic.ca/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterinary_chiropractic

Doughsmith@    #57 #59  

“Chiropractic Education at the University of Southern Denmark has five years of study that consists of two parts, one theoretical and more practical. Swedish counterpart is a three-year bachelor’s degree and a two-year Master’s program. The latter part of the training consists of a practical part where students have the opportunity to practice their skills by working with chiropractic patients. A strong feature of the Danish education is that you as a chiropractic student reads along with medical students in the early years. Something that Gustaf sees as very positive. ” (the first three years)

From   http://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http://www.yrkesutbildningar.se/Yrkesutbildningen_aer_jaettebra_man_blir_ju_kiropraktor__d2169.html

Helge - 10 October 2011 05:10 AM

Occam @

What is your point??

I’ll try to get across to you.

1.  The three members I referenced are a great deal more well educated than you in the areas you are trying to discuss. 

2.  You are quoting links that have very poor reputations in the medical research field.

3.  You believe in fairytales about chiropractic, and you seem incapable of considering well documented data.

4.  You keep challenging the credentials of the three members who have been responding to those fairytales.  I challenge you to list the universities you’ve attended, the degrees you’ve attained, your relevant work experience, and papers you’ve published.

Occam

All your links demonstrate, Helge, is that there are people who believe chiropractic works on animals and who do it. It doesn’t say anything at all about whether it works. There is absolutely no evidence that chiropractic has any value when applied to animals. In the case of horses, studies of the anatomy of the spine suggest it is very unlikely that manual manipulation has any impact whatsoever.

http://www.doctorramey.com/chiropractic/

Same thing re. these pointless links to chiropractic schools. I could open up a school of tea-leaf reading and put courses in it about Newtonian mechanics. That wouldn’t tell anything about the efficacy of reading tea leaves, nor would it have any bearing on whether Newtonian mechanics had anything to do with it. Anyone can open up a school about anything. All it takes is money, and chiropractors have that. If you read the links I’ve already supplied, there is ample reason for denying that chiropractic techniques have any relevant effect on anything. Insofar as chiropractors have beneficial effect on their patients, it’s either due to the placebo effect or to using techniques (like deep massage) which are already a standard part of certain kinds of medical practice. The latter techniques have nothing necessarily chiropractic about them, and can be learned in a standard medical school setting, where one is also less prone to learn quackery.

mckenzievmd@

“All your links demonstrate, Helge, is that there are people who believe chiropractic works on animals and who do it. It doesn’t say anything at all about whether it works.” You are absolutely right about that. I em not interested in Horse Chiropractic(I have not heard about any serious research in that area). But a mistake ignorant people who discuss spinal manipulation, without experience or education in the subject , often do, is believing that one have to use a lot of power in order to normalize spinal motion. That is wrong. If you are seriously interested in the subject contact a school or contact a MD who use spinal manipulation, and discuss with them, if you do not “like ” chiropractors.

So is the only reliable information about astrology that given out by astrologers? You seem to think that only by doing a degree in chiropractic can one know anything about chiropractic. Clearly that is ridiculous, not to mention inconsistent since you seem quite willing to have opinions about things which you clearly have no advanced academic training in.

Helge - 10 October 2011 02:32 PM

mckenzievmd@

“All your links demonstrate, Helge, is that there are people who believe chiropractic works on animals and who do it. It doesn’t say anything at all about whether it works.” You are absolutely right about that. I em not interested in Horse Chiropractic(I have not heard about any serious research in that area). But a mistake ignorant people who discuss spinal manipulation, without experience or education in the subject , often do, is believing that one have to use a lot of power in order to normalize spinal motion. That is wrong. If you are seriously interested in the subject contact a school or contact a MD who use spinal manipulation, and discuss with them, if you do not “like ” chiropractors.

...to listen to them talk to me about a procedure leading to imaginary results…no thanks. I’m not into wasting my time that way.

CF"I” what a joke! Stupidity based medicine. When I gave link that mentioned
Odense university Dougsmith wrote:“I could open up a school of tea-leaf reading and put courses in it about Newtonian mechanics.”
  Shall I describe you here is two words enough: Ignorant and narrowminded . It is no idea to waste time here. Stick to your religion .

Helge - 10 October 2011 10:05 PM

CF"I” what a joke! Stupidity based medicine. When I gave link that mentioned
Odense university Dougsmith wrote:“I could open up a school of tea-leaf reading and put courses in it about Newtonian mechanics.”
  Shall I describe you here is two words enough: Ignorant and narrowminded . It is no idea to waste time here. Stick to your religion .

It might help to actually take a look at some of the research sometime, rather than pretending it doesn’t exist. Then you might actually understand what these medical professionals are saying about chiropractic: it’s a way to prey on the sick with useless treatments.

It is obvious who read research on the subject in this thread, and who do not. A link for those who only read but not write here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20889389

Helge - 12 October 2011 01:12 AM

It is obvious who read research on the subject in this thread, and who do not. A link for those who only read but not write here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20889389

Did you read the abstract? So your final word is a single, 92 patient study that shows that massage, acetaminophen and 8 weeks’ rest is better than ‘usual care’ on low back pain. 

I suggest actually doing some research. There are many, many studies on chiropractic. The papers are available at the links I provided earlier, many of them are on Barrett’s site, SBM, or on Wiki. No single study should be regarded as definitive, particularly one with few patients enrolled.

The Chiropractic Hospital-based Interventions Research Outcomes (CHIRO) study: a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines in the medical and chiropractic management of patients with acute mechanical low back pain.
Bishop PB, Quon JA, Fisher CG, Dvorak MF.

<snip>

METHODS:
Patients were assessed by a spine physician, then randomized to SC (reassurance and avoidance of passive treatments, acetaminophen, 4 weeks of lumbar CSMT, and return to work within 8 weeks), or family physician-directed UC, the components of which were recorded.

RESULTS:
Ninety-two patients were recruited, with 36 SC and 35 UC patients completing all follow-up visits. Baseline prognostic variables were evenly distributed between groups. The primary outcome, the unadjusted mean improvement in RDQ scores, was significantly greater in the SC group than in the UC group (p=.003). Regarding unadjusted mean changes in secondary outcomes, improvements in RDQ scores were also greater in the SC group at other time points, particularly at 24 weeks (p=.004). Similarly, improvements in SF-36 PF scores favored the SC group at all time points; however, these differences were not statistically significant. Improvements in SF-36 BP scores were similar between groups. In repeated-measures analyses, global adjusted mean improvement was significantly greater in the SC group in terms of RDQ (p=.0002), nearly significantly greater in terms of SF-36 PF (p=.08), but similar between groups in terms of SF-36 BP (p=.27).

<snip>

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[Edited for length. As per our rules please do NOT copy entire articles under copyright. You are allowed to copy as per ‘fair use’: a few sentences, no more. You’ve already supplied a link to this article, above, which is more than sufficient for any who are interested. Thanks. dougsmith—Admin].