New Scientist has an interesting article about what chiropractic really is. I - like many people, including some practicing chiropractors if the article is to be believed - have always thought they sounded semi-reasonable for back pain, but am fairly freaked out by “preventative spinal manipulation”, and telling people to stop their cancer treatments. I’ve read claims of a similar divide in practicing osteopaths - some use bone and muscle manipulation to treat bone and muscle pain, and some claim that it cures diabetes…
(Also, testing that I can post here…)
2 responses so far ↓
1 devnull
// May 31, 2009 at 1:05 am
Which apparently I can. And comment too!
2 bigfrozenhead
// May 31, 2009 at 3:16 am
Chiropractors have done a pretty good job of seeming legitimate over the years–tending to avoid all the incense and crystals and trinkety nonsense that go along with many other “healing arts”. They tend to look much more professional, more like doctors offices than hippie-healer compounds. So much so, that quite a few health insurance policies will pay for chiropractic treatment.
Growing up, I always assumed that it was a legitimate practice. I had no idea about its pseudoscientific origins until I was in my early 20s. You hear about it from TV shows and movies, and we probably all have a few friends or family members who swear by their chiropractors.
Anecdotal evidence from my own experience: I’ve had “adjustments” done to my neck and spine. Not by chiropractors, but by trained massage therapists. These “adjustments” provide temporary relief from pain and stiffness, but they never feel like a “cure” for anything. The effects aren’t long term, and in fact rarely last for more that a few hours. It’s the same kind of relief I get from cracking my knuckles, just on a slightly larger scale.
But it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that there would be any kind of mechanism involved in these treatments to do anything for diabetes, cancer, impotence, or, apparently, idiocy.
You must log in to post a comment.