# Chiropractors



## Yellow Fang (20 Jun 2020)

Has anyone experience with chiropractors? I have been seeing one about my shoulder. I couldn't raise my arm above shoulder level. In fact I couldn't get it anywhere near shoulder level. He's made it a lot better, but boy does he torture me.


----------



## icowden (20 Jun 2020)

Dangerous pseudoscience. Find a Physiotherapist.



> Systematic reviews of controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.[7] A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.[8] Spinal manipulation may be cost-effective for sub-acute or chronic low back pain but the results for acute low back pain were insufficient.[9] The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown.[10] There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations.[11] It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases.[12] There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of vertebral artery dissection, which can lead to stroke and death, from cervical manipulation.[13] Several deaths have been associated with this technique[12] and it has been suggested that the relationship is causative,[14][15] a claim which is disputed by many chiropractors.



Seriously. Ditch the quacks and find a physio.


----------



## si_c (20 Jun 2020)

icowden said:


> Dangerous pseudoscience. Find a Physiotherapist.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously. Ditch the quacks and find a physio.


This, there is no science behind it, it's dangerous quackery. It stems from the same period of crap ideas such as osteopathy, naturopathy and homeopathy. Despite the medical sounding name there is no good evidence to suggest it works and substantive evidence that it can cause damage to the spine.


----------



## Slick (20 Jun 2020)

I've been to both chiropractors and osteopaths and thought both were great at the time. I would go in pain pretty much twisted at one point and they would throw me around the room for an hour and I'd be ready to go back into battle so to speak which is what I needed at the time. Now I go to a physiotherapist and she warned me that she is just as brutal but so far I think I've surprised her as I've come to recognise that is exactly what is required when the trouble is deep tissue and only someone not in pain would wince at the treatment. I do laugh at the quackery comments that you have had so far and will litter the thread but despite their claims they have obviously never been doubled in pain that no pain killer would touch it they would soon change their tune. If I'm totally honest I'm not entirely sure there is a huge difference between them all, chiro's will concentrate on manipulation but only after massaging the areas and the physio will massage the area but always finishes with a few cracks to the spine from top to bottom. 

Good luck with your shoulder injury, it may feel brutal to begin with but I guarantee you will learn to love it.


----------



## slowmotion (20 Jun 2020)

I had a really badly prolapsed disk in my back a very long time ago, but didn't know it when the pain started. The NHS didn't seem to be in a great hurry to sort it out so I went to a chiropractor. Four visits later and a few hundred quid poorer, I began to have my doubts. Fortunately, I was eventually sent to the physiotherapists at Charing Cross Hospital who were entirely brilliant but impossibly bossy, as they probably get taught to be. The net result is that I'm not a great fan of chiropractors but I'm sure some people find their gentle patter excellent value for money.


----------



## sleuthey (20 Jun 2020)

Osteopath for me, regulated under UK law, charges less than a gas fitter, always had good results.


----------



## vickster (20 Jun 2020)

+1 for physio

what has the chiro diagnosed as the issue with your shoulder? And has he fully examined your neck too?


----------



## Yellow Fang (20 Jun 2020)

How's an osteopath different from a physiotherapist?


----------



## midlife (20 Jun 2020)

Frozen shoulder? @ Yellow Fang


----------



## Yellow Fang (20 Jun 2020)

vickster said:


> +1 for physio
> 
> what has the chiro diagnosed as the issue with your shoulder? And has he fully examined your neck too?



Can't remember exactly. He said there were muscles squeezing through bones and such. Initially he thought there might be something wrong with the joint too. During the first treatment session he said it was getting close to frozen shoulder territory, but that there was a bit of movement. To be fair my shoulder is a lot freer than it was. It was bad since before the lockdown, although it was getting a little bit better from doing the exercises I saw on YouTube. My GP said look up some physio exercises on the internet and take some ibuprofin. Ibuprofin did nothing. My stepfather, who's a retired GP, said it was called the 'arc of pain'. It is quite a common problem. He recommended rubbing voltarol on it. He didn't think I needed to see a physio or anyone else, but I had already made the appointments. I definitely think the chiropractor has made it better. I was say about 75%. It is just the pain during the treatments. It makes me want to whimper. I would have preferred a physiotherapist, but just about everywhere around here seemed to be shut at the time.


----------



## Archie_tect (20 Jun 2020)

I had a bad back and was recommended to go to a chiropractor... £40 a session, lots of joint popping... went to 3.
He advised to go for a walk for 20 minutes after each session to 'unwind'. I realised that it was the walk that was easing my back problem...


----------



## Rusty Nails (20 Jun 2020)

Don't let them try that stupid practice/party trick they do of sharply twisting the neck or spine so it clicks.


----------



## YellowV2 (23 Jun 2020)

I would like to know how many of those decrying the use of Chiropractic and Homeopathy have actually tried either practice? Also whether they base their prejudices on internet and published articles alone, (largely funded by the large pharmaceutical companies)? 
I have used a Chiropractor for fourteen years with very positive results, I also use alternative medicines (Homeopathy) with good results. I prefer to address the root cause of pain/illness rather than mask the symptoms. 
As with all walks of life there are those who are not good at their profession, as with GP's, Physio's, Osteopaths, if you are not happy you can seek an alternative.
If you want to, you can find specialists in their field, who believe drugs are often prescribed far too easily, Beta blockers being the prime example and Statins to lower LDL Cholesterol are another. Then there is type 2 diabetes, the list is endless.
This being said there are instances where certain drugs are necessary such as Cancer treatments but generally most are prescribed and used far too easily for the financial gain of the large Pharma companies!
I realise my opinion will be ridiculed by the majority but that's to be expected, after all we've been indoctrinated by the large pharmaceutical's into believing drugs are the answer.
I am not going to offer any responses to naysayers, it unlikely to change views, I just wanted to put an alternative view in the thread.

As a footnote I have used both Physio's and Osteopaths before also to good effect and when I had a Sequestrated (torn) disc in my back I had Physio from the NHS. This was after a referral from my Chiropractor as they were not sure of the problem and wanted me to have an MRI scan.


----------



## si_c (23 Jun 2020)

YellowV2 said:


> I would like to know how many of those decrying the use of Chiropractic and Homeopathy have actually tried either practice? Also whether they base their prejudices on internet and published articles alone, (largely funded by the large pharmaceutical companies)?
> I have used a Chiropractor for fourteen years with very positive results, I also use alternative medicines (Homeopathy) with good results. I prefer to address the root cause of pain/illness rather than mask the symptoms.
> As with all walks of life there are those who are not good at their profession, as with GP's, Physio's, Osteopaths, if you are not happy you can seek an alternative.
> If you want to, you can find specialists in their field, who believe drugs are often prescribed far too easily, Beta blockers being the prime example and Statins to lower LDL Cholesterol are another. Then there is type 2 diabetes, the list is endless.
> ...


It's not a question of needing to try it. I don't need to drink water to figure out that it does nothing to solve illness - hello Homeopathy!

It's nonsense from end to end and the same with chiropractic, it's a junk pseusoscience that "works" based on the idea that all illnesses can be fixed by moving bones. It's utterly irrelevent or not whether you think it work, the evidence (i.e. peer reviewed journals) show that it doesn't. Anecdote is not evidence.

Edit: I'm not going to get into pharmaceutical companies and their shenanigans or the overprescription of drugs as it's too long a topic - but it's also evidence based. Ben Goldacre has a lot of articles on it and covers it in his books too if you want some light reading.

The difference is that modern medicine is largely evidence based, if it doesn't work we stop using it, this isn't the case with junk medicine like the aforementioned, they keep doing the same thing and making the same claims regardless.


----------



## Slick (23 Jun 2020)

YellowV2 said:


> I would like to know how many of those decrying the use of Chiropractic and Homeopathy have actually tried either practice? Also whether they base their prejudices on internet and published articles alone, (largely funded by the large pharmaceutical companies)?
> I have used a Chiropractor for fourteen years with very positive results, I also use alternative medicines (Homeopathy) with good results. I prefer to address the root cause of pain/illness rather than mask the symptoms.
> As with all walks of life there are those who are not good at their profession, as with GP's, Physio's, Osteopaths, if you are not happy you can seek an alternative.
> If you want to, you can find specialists in their field, who believe drugs are often prescribed far too easily, Beta blockers being the prime example and Statins to lower LDL Cholesterol are another. Then there is type 2 diabetes, the list is endless.
> ...


The difference may be the use of pain killers for some as I've never been able to find one or combination that helps with the likes of back pain so an alternative was a must and it worked well for me.


----------



## fossyant (23 Jun 2020)

Yellow Fang said:


> How's an osteopath different from a physiotherapist?



The second has a proper qualification !


----------



## Trickedem (23 Jun 2020)

Whilst I don't like the mumbo jumbo pseudo science of Chiropractic. I had a prolapsed disk that was agony, to the point I could hardly walk and I got immediate pain relief from each appointment. After 3 or 4 sessions I stopped going, but would probably go back if I had a reoccurrence.


----------



## Electric_Andy (23 Jun 2020)

si_c said:


> same period of crap ideas such as osteopathy, naturopathy and homeopathy.


 Different things work for different people. My Dad had acid reflux for 10 years, NHS just prescribed him Gaviscon every time. He saw a homeopath and was better within 3 months, and it has never returned. I think an open mind is key and if it doesn't work for you then it doesn't mean it doesn't work for everyone. Backs and spines are a little different though, whereas homeopaths use natural remedies that are less likely to cause you any harm


----------



## Slick (23 Jun 2020)

Trickedem said:


> Whilst I don't like the mumbo jumbo pseudo science of Chiropractic. I had a prolapsed disk that was agony, to the point I could hardly walk and I got immediate pain relief from each appointment. After 3 or 4 sessions I stopped going, but would probably go back if I had a reoccurrence.


Mumbo jumbo that cured you and you still don't like it. Lol


----------



## roubaixtuesday (23 Jun 2020)

Electric_Andy said:


> homeopaths use natural remedies



Homeopaths use water. I guess that's natural. 

It's not about "different things for different people"; homeopathy does not work. For some people, they'll decide it has worked, some people happen to get better at the same time and ascribe it to the treatment, but homeopathy itself does not work. It's been extensively studied and the evidence is extremely clear.


----------



## Drago (23 Jun 2020)

Chiropractors are very highly trained medical specialists. It can take as long as weekend to become qualified.


----------



## si_c (23 Jun 2020)

Electric_Andy said:


> Different things work for different people. My Dad had acid reflux for 10 years, NHS just prescribed him Gaviscon every time. He saw a homeopath and was better within 3 months, and it has never returned. I think an open mind is key and if it doesn't work for you then it doesn't mean it doesn't work for everyone. Backs and spines are a little different though, whereas homeopaths use natural remedies that are less likely to cause you any harm


Just because you get better doesn't mean that it worked. Anecdote vs evidence.

A lot of people like homeopathic cold medicine because it's "natural" and their cold goes away. The fact that the cold would have gone away anyway is somehow dismissed as the pills worked. There is no active ingredient in homeopathy so any benefit is entirely placebo.


----------



## Drago (23 Jun 2020)

Homeopathy cured my chronic heart problem. I feel abs...urgh....argh...gurgle...thump!


----------



## Electric_Andy (23 Jun 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> Homeopaths use water.


 Have you ever been treated by a homeopath? They do not use water. There is a huge range of pills and potions, derived from natural ingredients. My Dad was taking 3 different pills for 3 months. I fail to see how getting rid of a dibilitating condition in 3 months, that had previously lasted for 10 years, is purely by chance or from a placebo effect. If you don't believe in it, fine, but have you ever thought who funds the research that disproves alternative therapies? Would it be the multi-billion pound pharmaceutical industry by any chance?


----------



## Electric_Andy (23 Jun 2020)

si_c said:


> Just because you get better doesn't mean that it worked. Anecdote vs evidence.
> 
> A lot of people like homeopathic cold medicine because it's "natural" and their cold goes away. The fact that the cold would have gone away anyway is somehow dismissed as the pills worked. There is no active ingredient in homeopathy so any benefit is entirely placebo.


After 10 years it didn't get better, and after 3 months of homeopathic treatment it did get better. That is too much of a concidence if you ask me. And this wasn't "a cold". It was a debiliating condition where my Dad could hardly eat anything without it feeling like molten lava. Why does it upset you so much that some people can find alternative tretments that are successful, rather than it costing the NHS to treat my dad with unsuccessful treatments?


----------



## roubaixtuesday (23 Jun 2020)

Electric_Andy said:


> Have you ever been treated by a homeopath? They do not use water. There is a huge range of pills and potions, derived from natural ingredients. My Dad was taking 3 different pills for 3 months. I fail to see how getting rid of a dibilitating condition in 3 months, that had previously lasted for 10 years, is purely by chance or from a placebo effect. If you don't believe in it, fine, but have you ever thought who funds the research that disproves alternative therapies? Would it be the multi-billion pound pharmaceutical industry by any chance?



The principle of homeopathy is that the active is diluted to concentrations below a single molecule in water. 

Homeopathy, and "alternative" (i.e. not evidence based) treatment has not been much studied by pharmaceutical companies - as fine upstanding capitalists they'd never waste their money on it, preferring things which can be demonstrated to show an effect. 

And yes, it is entirely plausible that the status of a long running condition changing at the same time as trying a treatment is coincidental. It's also plausible that it was perception rather than reality. It is, however, entirely implausible that dosing not a single molecule of a substance but relying on its "energy" imputed historically to a diluent had any effect. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions


----------



## Drago (23 Jun 2020)

A correlation of 1:1 from a single sample isn't exactly compelling. By that measure you could say my piles cleared up withing 3 months of buying a new shotgun must be concrete proof of the curative effects of Beretta. 

I'm pleased your Dad recovered, but if you advanced that as an argument in scientific company you'd be laughed at.


----------



## Electric_Andy (23 Jun 2020)

Who said I was presenting this to the Lancet? I'm simply saying that it works for some people, and has done for other members of my family too. Who cares if there's no scientific basis - the outcome was achieved, which is more than was offered by the various GPs my dad saw.


----------



## si_c (23 Jun 2020)

Electric_Andy said:


> Who said I was presenting this to the Lancet? I'm simply saying that it works for some people, and has done for other members of my family too. Who cares if there's no scientific basis - the outcome was achieved, which is more than was offered by the various GPs my dad saw.


Actually it's very important that there is a scientific basis, not recommending treatments that have been shown to have no effect beyond placebo is dangerous. If you don't understand the origins of homeopathy and how it supposedly works then dont' critique people who's understanding is clearly better than yours.

Just because they now offer pills instead of water that "remembers" doesn't mean it works any better now. It's frankly just bollocks from end to end and please don't delude yourself that it's not.


----------



## Drago (23 Jun 2020)

Without scientific basis we have no evidence whatsoever that the "treatment" was in any way responsible for the outcome. Sacrificing virgins and burning sandalwood in mystic ceremonies is where medicine would be today if we relied on hearsay instead of science.


----------



## Hudson1984 (23 Jun 2020)

my experience:
had bad knees for years - went to chiropractor, paid about £1,000 over the course of several months, was told "making great progress, can really see the difference etc" - knees still hurt. 
Went to an osteopath - paid SUBSTANTIALLY less, and along with some other issues, I came out feeling alot straighter, now my back issues were fine after osteopath - kness still hurt! 

later down the line, my hip started hurting. 
Osteopath - might be a tear, would explain the knee pain - come back every couple of weeks and we'll work on it. 
Three trips later - hips and knees still hurt. 

1 trip to physio:
Yes this may be a tear, may also be something more at play here. He looked further into issues, referred me for an MRI and Xray, seems I have a larger issue with Hip, it needs an operation, it's been this way for years and is suspected to be causing the knee pain by making me walk wonky. He suggested I can come back for more sessions to assist with keeping me comfortable but in reality it'll be best to keep active in ways that don't aggravate it and wait for the op then we'll get to work on rebuilding after that....1 trip... solved. 

I like my osteopath, but I agree the physio held the actual answers.


----------



## icowden (23 Jun 2020)

Electric_Andy said:


> After 10 years it didn't get better, and after 3 months of homeopathic treatment it did get better. That is too much of a concidence if you ask me. And this wasn't "a cold". It was a debiliating condition where my Dad could hardly eat anything without it feeling like molten lava. Why does it upset you so much that some people can find alternative tretments that are successful, rather than it costing the NHS to treat my dad with unsuccessful treatments?



It got better because he believed that the homepathic treatment would make it better. That's what the placebo effect is. It can achieve some incredible results. It doesn't mean that it works. As Tim Minchin put it:-



> Science adjusts its views based on what's observed;
> Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved
> If you show me that, say, homeopathy works
> Then I will change my mind
> ...



and my other favourite line:



> By definition," I begin
> "Alternative Medicine," I continue
> "Has either not been proved to work
> Or been proved not to work
> ...



As for the difference between an osteopath and a chiropractor:-



> Osteopathic medicine was founded by Andrew Taylor Still, a 19th-century American physician, Civil War surgeon, and Kansas state and territorial legislator.[16][17][18][19] He lived near Baldwin City, Kansas at the time of the American Civil War and it was there that he founded the practice of osteopathy.[20] Still claimed that human illness was rooted in problems with the musculoskeletal system, and that osteopathic manipulations could solve these problems by harnessing the body's own self-repairing potential



Osteopathy is a registered and regulated profession in the UK.




> Chiropractic was founded in 1895 by Daniel David (D.D.) Palmer in Davenport, Iowa. Palmer, a magnetic healer, hypothesized that manual manipulation of the spine could cure disease.[217] The first chiropractic patient of D.D. Palmer was Harvey Lillard, a worker in the building where Palmer's office was located.[38] He claimed that he had severely reduced hearing for 17 years, which started soon following a "pop" in his spine.[38] A few days following his adjustment, Lillard claimed his hearing was almost completely restored.[38] Chiropractic competed with its predecessor osteopathy, another medical system based on magnetic healing and bonesetting; both systems were founded by charismatic midwesterners in opposition to the conventional medicine of the day, and both postulated that manipulation improved health.[217] Although initially keeping chiropractic a family secret, in 1898 Palmer began teaching it to a few students at his new Palmer School of Chiropractic.[21] One student, his son Bartlett Joshua (B.J.) Palmer, became committed to promoting chiropractic, took over the Palmer School in 1906, and rapidly expanded its enrollment.[21]



Chiropractic is a registered and regulated profession in the UK.

Physical Therapy or Physiotherapy dates back to about 460BC and is a regulated science based profession meaning that practice is based on peer reviewed outcomes rather than belief.



> As a science-based practice, physiotherapy uses facts, theories and hypotheses and tests them against available data. Various recognised and validated tests are used to assess a patient’s muscle strength and range-of-motion. The profession itself has its roots in medical science. Physicians like Hippocrates and Galenus are believed to have been the first practitioners of physiotherapy. These scholars employed techniques such as massage, hydrotherapy and manual therapy. The mere idea of physicians practicing physiotherapy is enough to brand it a science. However, there is further proof.
> 
> Physiotherapy aims at promoting, restoring and maintaining physical, psychological and emotional well being. Physiotherapy treatments are formulated after extensive research and observations before being implemented, and the profession is subjected to strict regulation by various governing bodies. Physiotherapists have come to rely more and more on evidence-based practice to ensure that outcomes are spread throughout the profession and are not just the domain of a select few. Physiotherapists undergo years of rigorous training before they can become licensed to practice, with a large proportion going on to further post graduate study.



To become a chiropractor you need to attend a 90 minute interview, sound convincing about your practice and pay the fee.

To become an Osteopath you need to attend a degree or post-grad level training course taking 4 to 5 years.SO at least with an Osteopath you can expect:-
knowledge of anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, nutrition and biomechanics, plus at least 1,000 hours of clinical training. You must also have continuous professional development once qualified in order to be able to practice.

To become a Physiotherapist you need to do a 3 year degree or 2 year masters if you have an appropriate degree already, You must also have continuous professional development once qualified in order to be able to practice.

So the message would seem to be that Physio is best, then Osteo, then Chiro.


----------



## Yellow Fang (23 Jun 2020)

icowden said:


> So the message would seem to be that Physio is best, then Osteo, then Chiro.


Except when the physio and the osteo aren't open for business and the chiropractor is.

I did see a chiropractor about ten years ago about a knee problem. She was very nice. Sometimes she would actually climb on me to get some force on my problem areas. It was almost like real sex. Sadly, it did not do my knee much good and I ended up seeing a physio. My current chiropractor is different. He prefers to torture me. Nevertheless, my shoulder is almost better now, and it's been stiff for months.

I've seen physios before, usually for my runners knee. They always fixed it, but not for good. It always came back. Physiotherapists usually have more equipment like infra-red lamps and ultrasonic gizmos, but sometimes I suspect they just put you under those things so they can see another patient in the meantime. 

I've seen podiatrists to try to fix my knee for good. The first one said I had flat feet, and gave me some cheap orthotics. They cleared up my runners knee in no time but made me prone to turning my ankle, as it was like running in high heels. Given that experience, I did not fancy getting the £500 pair of orthotics or even the £125 pair. A couple of years ago I saw another podiatrist, who told me one of my legs was shorter than the other. I paid about £150 for a pair of custom made orthotics. I can't say it's really made a lot of difference, but I've cut down my running a lot because my knee is f*****.


----------



## vickster (23 Jun 2020)

Have you had your knee scanned?


----------



## Yellow Fang (24 Jun 2020)

vickster said:


> Have you had your knee scanned?


No, should I?


----------



## YellowV2 (24 Jun 2020)

Have you actually been to your GP? 
It's not the best idea to ask unqualified people on an Internet forum for advice, as I stated in my original post my Chiropractor actually advised me to see my GP when they weren't happy and wanted me to have an MRI scan and gave me a letter explaining. Your GP will be able to arrange a scan if necessary. 
Regarding footbeds, I know of at least two cyclists who had a bike fit from a reputable bike fitter who prescribed footbeds, to correct different leg length. After a while still not happy they saw another bike fitter who is also a qualified Physio and correctional exercise specialist, both legs the same length but both cyclists had a Pelvic tilt! Which was the problem and now ride pain free with no inserts/shims.


----------



## vickster (24 Jun 2020)

Yellow Fang said:


> No, should I?


Well it could show what the issue is with your knee


----------



## Electric_Andy (24 Jun 2020)

si_c said:


> It's frankly just bollocks from end to end and please don't delude yourself that it's not.


 That's your opinion, I have mine.


----------



## si_c (24 Jun 2020)

Electric_Andy said:


> That's your opinion, I have mine.


It's not opinion. Opinion is "Red bikes look nicer", for facts we look for evidence, and there is none for homeopathy or other pseudoscientific medical theories.


----------



## YellowV2 (24 Jun 2020)

Those of us who use Homeopathy and any other alternative medicine aren't really interested, if it works for us then that is enough evidence. 
You're opinion (and it is that) may be based on scientific evidence if you want to trust it. Who funds all the scientific research? Oh of course it's the large pharmaceutical companies. How do you know Homeopathy doesn't work, have you tried it, no of course not. You may find it just might work and that probably frightens you!


----------



## newfhouse (24 Jun 2020)

YellowV2 said:


> How do you know Homeopathy doesn't work


How does it work?


----------



## si_c (24 Jun 2020)

YellowV2 said:


> Those of us who use Homeopathy and any other alternative medicine aren't really interested, if it works for us then that is enough evidence.
> You're opinion (and it is that) may be based on scientific evidence if you want to trust it. Who funds all the scientific research? Oh of course it's the large pharmaceutical companies. How do you know Homeopathy doesn't work, have you tried it, no of course not. You may find it just might work and that probably frightens you!



FFS. You really are determined to push this aren't you.

Homeopathy "works" on the basis of like cures like, i.e. if you have diarrhea then you consume something that gives you diarrhea except in extreme dilute format. There are numerous studies, very few of which are funded by the pharmaceutical industry beyond the concept of "does this work, can we make money from it?" which they did decades ago and found to the contrary. You don't need to try it to know this, it's accepted by everyone except homeopaths and their dupes.

It absolutely does not work and if you had the slightest clue about how things are actually done you wouldn't keep spouting this nonsense. Don't push your ignorance onto others, it's dangerous.

Furthermore you keep hinting that the pharmaceutical companies are duplicitous and only out to make money yet you refuse to apply the same standards to the companies pushing these products. That's the very definition of double standards.


----------



## YellowV2 (24 Jun 2020)

si_c said:


> FFS. You really are determined to push this aren't you.
> 
> Homeopathy "works" on the basis of like cures like, i.e. if you have diarrhea then you consume something that gives you diarrhea except in extreme dilute format. There are numerous studies, very few of which are funded by the pharmaceutical industry beyond the concept of "does this work, can we make money from it?" which they did decades ago and found to the contrary. You don't need to try it to know this, it's accepted by everyone except homeopaths and their dupes.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure who you think you are but I'm not trying to push anything onto anyone. All I am doing is saying that numpties like you shouldn't be telling people not to try something.
It absolutely does work for those that use it and that is all I am saying. You are the one determined to push your belief.


----------



## si_c (24 Jun 2020)

YellowV2 said:


> I'm not sure who you think you are but I'm not trying to push anything onto anyone. All I am doing is saying that numpties like you shouldn't be telling people not to try something.
> It absolutely does work for those that use it and that is all I am saying. You are the one determined to push your belief.


I'm absolutely not a numpty and actually professionally qualified to understand how clinical trials work, and how we know what medical therapies do and don't work. You keep saying the same thing over and over again without evidencing your claims - in no small part because there is no evidence.

I am not pushing an agenda merely pointing out that you are advocating a remedy that doesn't work.


----------



## vickster (24 Jun 2020)

Placebo effect

Homeopathy


----------



## matticus (24 Jun 2020)

Does anyone have knowledge/opinions/superstition about Mctimoney chiros?


(their head office happens to be a few miles away #funfact)


----------



## YellowV2 (24 Jun 2020)

si_c said:


> I'm absolutely not a numpty and actually professionally qualified to understand how clinical trials work, and how we know what medical therapies do and don't work. You keep saying the same thing over and over again without evidencing your claims - in no small part because there is no evidence.
> 
> I am not pushing an agenda merely pointing out that you are advocating a remedy that doesn't work.


There you go again saying something doesn't work because that is whet you choose to believe, without trying it!
I will carry on saying to anyone who asks if Chiropractic or Homeopathy works, saying yes for me it does. YMMV.
FTFY!


----------



## si_c (24 Jun 2020)

YellowV2 said:


> There you go again saying something doesn't work because that is whet you choose to believe, without trying it!
> I will carry on saying to anyone who asks if Chiropractic or Homeopathy works, saying yes for me it does. YMMV.
> FTFY!


It's not what I choose to believe, it's what the evidence tells us. Just because you like it doesn't mean it works. I might want to beleive that red cars go faster, doesn't make it true either.

There is no two sides to the coin, there are facts and not-facts. Facts tell us that homeopathy and chiropractic don't work and can be dangerous.


----------



## Milkfloat (25 Jun 2020)

icowden said:


> To become a chiropractor you need to attend a 90 minute interview, sound convincing about your practice and pay the fee.



I have not checked the rest of your post, but this one line stands out as complete bollocks. To practice in the UK you need to be a member if the GCC which requires an approved chiropractic degree that usually takes 4 years.
https://www.gcc-uk.org/education-and-registration/becoming-a-chiropractor


----------



## YellowV2 (25 Jun 2020)

si_c said:


> It's not what I choose to believe, it's what the evidence tells us. Just because you like it doesn't mean it works. I might want to beleive that red cars go faster, doesn't make it true either.
> 
> There is no two sides to the coin, there are facts and not-facts. Facts tell us that homeopathy and chiropractic don't work and can be dangerous.


I imagine you work in the health sector or similar and that is why you are afraid of both of these practices. Of course there are two sides to every coin but have been indoctrinated. 
BTW certain GP's are now realising that alternative medicine can actually work. 
You keep spouting absolute Bollocks about about it being placebo, if it works then it does have effect.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (25 Jun 2020)

YellowV2 said:


> ...Of course there are two sides to every coin...



Regardless as to the precise subject at hand, this assertion is clearly false. 

There are emphatically not two sides to every coin.

The earth is not flat, perpetual motion machines are not possible, mental illness is not caused by possession by evil spirits.


----------



## newfhouse (25 Jun 2020)

YellowV2 said:


> I imagine you work in the health sector or similar and that is why you are afraid of both of these practices. Of course there are two sides to every coin but have been indoctrinated.
> BTW certain GP's are now realising that alternative medicine can actually work.
> You keep spouting absolute Bollocks about about it being placebo, if it works then it does have effect.


How does homeopathy work? Are you not even slightly curious? Perhaps if it does work and we can understand the mechanism we can make it even better. Or does knowledge somehow reduce the efficacy?


----------



## Electric_Andy (25 Jun 2020)

Cannabis is Homeopathic (although currently illegal in the most part) but has been shown to relieve symptoms in patients with MS


----------



## newfhouse (25 Jun 2020)

Electric_Andy said:


> Cannabis is Homeopathic


No it isn’t, unless you mean there are homeopathic dilutions available. They would be entirely legal anywhere for obvious reasons.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (25 Jun 2020)

Electric_Andy said:


> Cannabis is Homeopathic



Cannabis a natural substance with a number of pharmaceutically active constituents. 

These have been quite widely studied and some have been found to be efficacious in certain medical conditions. 

If I had a relevant condition I'd want it in a form that guaranteed the quality and correct dose. 

It's the antithesis of a homeopathic remedy. 

I don't think you've understood what homeopathy is.


----------



## MontyVeda (25 Jun 2020)

newfhouse said:


> How does homeopathy work? ...


well it's simple really...
*Water memory * is the purported ability of water to retain a memory of substances previously dissolved in it even after an arbitrary number of serial dilutions. It has been claimed to be a mechanism by which homeopathic remedies work, even when they are diluted to the point that no molecule of the original substance remains.

Water memory defies conventional scientific understanding of physical chemistry knowledge and is not accepted by the scientific community. In 1988, Jacques Benveniste published a study supporting a water memory effect amid controversy in _Nature_, accompanied by an editorial by _Nature'_s editor John Maddox urging readers to "suspend judgement" until the results can be replicated. In the years following publication, multiple supervised experiments were run by Benveniste's team, the United States Department of Defense, BBC's _Horizon_ programme, and other researchers, but no team has ever reproduced Benveniste's results in controlled conditions.

from wikipedia


----------



## matticus (25 Jun 2020)

If we talk about homeopathy too much in one place, does that stop it working?


----------



## newfhouse (25 Jun 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> well it's simple really...
> *Water memory * is the purported ability of water to retain a memory of substances previously dissolved in it even after an arbitrary number of serial dilutions. It has been claimed to be a mechanism by which homeopathic remedies work, even when they are diluted to the point that no molecule of the original substance remains.
> 
> Water memory defies conventional scientific understanding of physical chemistry knowledge and is not accepted by the scientific community. In 1988, Jacques Benveniste published a study supporting a water memory effect amid controversy in _Nature_, accompanied by an editorial by _Nature'_s editor John Maddox urging readers to "suspend judgement" until the results can be replicated. In the years following publication, multiple supervised experiments were run by Benveniste's team, the United States Department of Defense, BBC's _Horizon_ programme, and other researchers, but no team has ever reproduced Benveniste's results in controlled conditions.
> ...


Yeah, I know. I was gently attempting to suggest that proponents should do some research...


----------



## newfhouse (25 Jun 2020)

matticus said:


> If we talk about homeopathy too much in one place, does that stop it working?


I have a homeopathic cycle helmet. It’s never let me down.


----------



## MontyVeda (25 Jun 2020)

newfhouse said:


> Yeah, I know. I was gently attempting to suggest that proponents should do some research...


it was never going to happen... it's like asking a priest to show you the science that proves that god exists.


----------



## icowden (25 Jun 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> I have not checked the rest of your post, but this one line stands out as complete bollocks. To practice in the UK you need to be a member if the GCC which requires an approved chiropractic degree that usually takes 4 years.
> https://www.gcc-uk.org/education-and-registration/becoming-a-chiropractor


I sit corrected. I can't find the page I was looking at, but following your link it does appear that you need a degree from one of about 6 accredited institutions in order to be a practicing Chiropractor in the UK. It is regulated and has an associated Royal College. However this should not detract from the fact that the "art" of Chiropractic has its foundation in woo-woo rather than science.


----------



## icowden (25 Jun 2020)

YellowV2 said:


> You keep spouting absolute Bollocks about about it being placebo, if it works then it does have effect.



But to be science that effect has to be replicable, testable and the mechanism by which it works should be capable of being understood. Hence believing it works is not usually a good treatment.


----------



## Milkfloat (25 Jun 2020)

The way I look at it, my Heath Care Insurance was willing to pay for a Chiropractor when they are notoriously tight with going outside their network. On top of that I was referred to the Chiro by one of the top spinal surgeons in the UK. Albeit he ended up operating on me when it was clear that the Chiro was only giving me short term relief.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (25 Jun 2020)

I know little of Chiropractic.

It's referenced in Wiki as a pseudoscience, and amongst the references is this useful review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088539240700783X

It's sobering reading for anyone considering parting with their folding to a Chiropracter.

It does seem entirely at odds with UK universities offering degrees in the subject.


----------



## matticus (25 Jun 2020)

icowden said:


> "_You keep spouting absolute Bollocks about about it being placebo, if it works then it does have effect. _"
> 
> But to be science that effect has to be replicable, testable and the mechanism by which it works should be capable of being understood. Hence *believing it works is not usually a good treatment*.


Placebos are often a very good treatment (there has been a lot of science looking into this!)


----------



## newfhouse (25 Jun 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088539240700783X
> 
> It's sobering reading for anyone considering parting with their folding to a Chiropracter.


Thanks, I enjoyed that article. This made me smile:


> Chiropractic is based on a metaphysical epistemology that is not amenable to positivist research or experiment.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (25 Jun 2020)

Placebo is a fascinating subject.

People have even tested placebo operations, setting up sham knee ops(!)

https://www.painscience.com/biblio/...-placebo-surgery-for-knee-osteoarthritis.html

Turns out the surgery was pointless.

And not all placebos are equal. Placebo injections>Placebo topical creams>Placebo pills

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/27/not-all-fake-medicines-are-created-equal/

As so often is the case, the science turns out to be far more interesting than the pseudoscience.


----------



## vickster (25 Jun 2020)

matticus said:


> Placebos are often a very good treatment (there has been a lot of science looking into this!)


Indeed and most don’t deny that, but those supporting homeopathy don’t agree that it ‘working’ might be due solely to placebo effect


----------

