bone setting to improve equilization disorders

[The Chairman]

Again, I am no expert in ANY medical field... sick networks are my domain (pardon the pun). Many (if not most) problems that I encounter are self inflicted, and quite a few of them arise from techno-phobes trying to extend their grasp of what is happening. Nothing helps these people more than a generous dose of hope followed by wondrous helpings of success.

This phenomenon is single handedly driving the "supplement" industry. Ask any Shaklee or Amway devotee about "their" success with popping mega doses of those vitamins. Even faith healers rely on our ability to heal ourselves when our angst is fully dealt with.

While I am glad that your daughter can now equalize, I do not ascribe to the theory that spinal manipulation was the actual cure. I do believe that a more likely theory is that the good doctor was able to calm her fears down and increase her confidence that she could do it. Of course, scientific studies showing the other theory as true can change my mind. Until then, it appears that like snake oil, it's just the power of positive thinking that generated the results.

BTW, for what it's worth, I have helped a good number of students from other instructors who could NOT equalize at all. Patience and confidence building have always prevailed. I have yet to be skunked and have never needed the assistance of a doctor OR a chiropractor.

You say the proof is in the pudding... thats a pretty simplistic method of scientific reasoning. It would appear that you are telling me that the bowl is responsible for the pudding's existence and using the results to bolster your claim. I contend there are other theories as to how the pudding came about. Some are more accurate than others.

FWIW, there is no way for DocV to devine any other intent than what you posted. Don't say one thing and then expect us to interpret it differently for you. This is the same reasoning that leads you to think that the bowl is responsible for the pudding.

As for the difference in the insurance premiums... you know, I don't think faith healers have to pay much at all. Are you then infering that they must be next to perfect in how they heal people? Or could it be that their exposure to litigation is limited by the very nature of the ills they treat? IOW, a mistake during brain surgery would more likely have a greater fall out than a simple spinal manipulation.

Indeed, chiropractors are valid, viable and needed health care providers. This is not about them. This is about a claim that does not seem plausible or even reasonable. A few of us would like to see the results of any repeatable study to verify this implausible claim. Until then, I remain highly skeptical about any benefits to the eustachion tubes and the ability to "clear" them that might arise from spinal manipulation.

 

[russm]

"As for the difference in the insurance premiums... you know, I don't think faith healers have to pay much at all. Are you then infering that they must be next to perfect in how they heal people? Or could it be that their exposure to litigation is limited by the very nature of the ills they treat? IOW, a mistake during brain surgery would more likely have a greater fall out than a simple spinal manipulation. "

Netdoc,
In regards to insurance premiums, I was infering that chiropractic is safe as earlier in this thread it was alluding to the fact that is was not. I was also trying to show using an outside source( insurance premiums) that medicine is inherently unsafe when used for non traumatic injuries or illness. If a brain surgeon "screws up" during an operation, thats not due to bad medicine but a bad doctor. Otherwise, certainly surgery is much more dangerous than spinal manipulation. But, when you need it, at least it's available. People don't usually sue a doctor when during surgery he/she did all they could to save/help a patient. They sue when the doctor screws up. The obvious risk involved in any surgery is a given, no matter the doctors skill. Hence, all the paperwork that must be signed by the patient letting them know that basically, what is about to happen to them is risky. So is using invasive techniques for the more common illnesses. Ever read all the side effects that go along with any drug?
So, bottom line is, and my main point being, chiropractic is safe. Hopefully we can at least put that argument to rest.
Chiropractic is not based on faith, but science. The 3-4 years of chiropractic school (based on if you go year round or not) includes required courses that are almost identical to medical and osteopathic schools. I.E....pharmacology, biochemistry, anatomy, gynecology, obstetrics, diagnosis, geriatrics, pediatrics, physiology and radiology ( which is usually required every semester) amongst other courses. It is heavily referenced as to how the nervous system affects the different organs, tissues etc... If you severe the spinal cord at the neck for example, you lose the use of your legs, arms etc... Chiropractic is based upon what happens when a nerve is "pinched". If a nerve is totally cut, you get loss of use, but if it is only partially impended, then you get something much less, but problematic in any event.

Amway????

If millions of folks are getting healed through chiropractic, I think it's obvious where the pudding is coming from. I guess it is possible they are all being mislead ( people voted for Clinton twice so I guess it can happen) , but I can at least speak for myself as I have seen the results and there is no way they could have happened by a "different bowl". It goes way beyong coincidence.
Trust me when I say that I know all of everyones questions are very valid as I have asked the same ones myself. I just decided that I wanted to find out how I was able to get better by what was then, such an unusual method of treatment.

I know that if those who are skeptical spent two weeks in a chiropractors office as I did, they would walk away saying " wow...there is something to this!".

 

[The Chairman]

that insurance premiums have less to do with safety/reliability and more with exposure to liability. Using that bench mark to determine "safety" or even effectiveness is not only simplistic, but grossly misleading.

But, this is not about the usefulness of chiropractors... it never has been. That they benefit the public they serve is beyond question, and I grew up being seen by an osteopath as my primary GP, and have seen chiropractors on many occasions. It appears that you are assuming that I do not believe in chiropractics, when nothing could be further from the proof.

This is about the assertion that a particular regimen will cure a particular set of conditions. Those of us who are skeptical are having issues with spinal manipulation affecting nerves and tissues that reside in the skull. We would like some scientific proof for this contention, but I don't see it as forth coming. It would be like me boasting that I had saved countless computers from the Y2K bug... I updated quite a few of them in 1999 mind you. But almost ALL of it was to assuage the collective phobias of people who were petrified by what they did not understand. Yes, there were some real issues that were addressed on many levels. But for most computers, the patches and updates were mere placebos and they really needed nothing to continue into this century. While I did the updates at my client's requests, I made sure to point out that IMHO, they were not needed on the vast majority of PCs. Not everyone in my field held to the same ideology, (some even promoted the additional work) but that in itself does not invalidate the real need for network consultants. Believing that something will heal will make it work in many cases. Just make the scientific connection for this and we will be glad to believe.

 

[russm]

I gotcha NetDoc.



Wish I could help this along more but from a pure "technical" standpoint, my degree is in chemistry, not chiropractic, so as I said before, I'll let the docs sort this one out.

I do know what I have seen for myself and agree with you that chiropractic has many benefits. The full scope of what it can benefit I believe is the real question. I know that my brother (the M.D.) thought the idea of me being treated for high blood pressure by a D.C. was silly, but, hey....it worked!=-)

 

[Deep Lake]

Help!!!!!

My wife cannot equalize her right ear. For a couple of years she has had trouble in airplanes and driving over mountain passes. In July she took a OW class but could not go below 5 feet without extreme ear pain. Since then we have been to "diving ear doctors" and practiced all of the different equalization methods to no avail. Our next step was to look into a new procedure that has been done at Harvard. We are told that they have a fiber optic laser that can go up the Eustachian tube and burn out the restriction. Our doctor was unsure if this procedure is available to the general public yet.

My wife has used chiropractic care in the past with success for other health problems. This sounds like it would be worth a try.

Dan

 

[Wyno]

It would be good to see another person try chiropractic adjustments for equalizing problem.

Please keep us informed so we know if it works for your wife.