If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Rational Guy)   Trying to figure out which pseudoscientific alternative therapy is right for you? This flowchart may help you out   (crispian-jago.blogspot.com) divider line 95
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

7702 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Oct 2010 at 7:16 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-10-14 08:25:45 PM
I misread "Angel Therapy" on the right of the chart as "Anal Therapy." Wasn't I surprised to see it genuinely listed almost directly across from it on the left hand side.
 
2010-10-14 09:02:17 PM
Wasn't I surprised to see it genuinely listed almost directly across from it on the left hand side.

So it is. That's friggin' hilarious.
 
2010-10-14 09:03:11 PM
"Do you enjoy a good rub down?"

Yet, Tantric Goddess worship isn't mentioned.
 
2010-10-14 10:10:15 PM
Arse.
 
2010-10-14 10:12:21 PM
This is going on my office wall tomorrow.
 
2010-10-14 10:13:42 PM
Rolfing it is.
 
2010-10-14 10:53:20 PM
Sun God: Arse.

Apparently it involves dropping your kecks. I'm in.
 
2010-10-14 10:57:40 PM
"Wibble."
 
2010-10-14 11:03:44 PM
Obligatory Mitchell & Webb (pops)

I larfted at the "Insanity Level" part of the chart.

/friend is a major activist against alternative medicine and stuff like this
//this is going in his annual presentation on the subject
 
2010-10-14 11:18:46 PM
So I'm guessing a Brit made that.
 
2010-10-14 11:20:22 PM
Mobkey: Sun God: Arse.

Apparently it involves dropping your kecks. I'm in.


Nice weather we're having.
 
2010-10-15 12:45:21 AM
this chart is full of win. now if he had only written it in english instead of retard-slang.

/sigh, so close to perfect.
/ok, REALLY REALLY REALLY close to perfect
 
2010-10-15 01:11:54 AM
FishyFred: Obligatory Mitchell & Webb (pops)

I larfted at the "Insanity Level" part of the chart.

/friend is a major activist against alternative medicine and stuff like this
//this is going in his annual presentation on the subject


Even more obligatory Dara O'Brien (new window)
 
2010-10-15 03:15:40 AM
"fark'em--->vaccine denial"

comedy gold
 
2010-10-15 04:44:59 AM
But hasn't there been studies about placebo affects and all that stuff on how it can help someone? And that M*A*S*H episode!

/on the serious side, Big Pharma stuff doesn't help everyone and isn't the magic wand of "Fix All" that it's assumed to be
//If it helps you, go for it, but don't market that shiat as a cure all for everyone
 
2010-10-15 07:37:50 AM
This is how I balance my energy.
lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2010-10-15 07:54:31 AM
Hilarious and perfectly on-target, but I get the vibe this guy is the kind of douche that uses the word "woo" to belittle people's beliefs...

Fit right in on Fark, actually.
 
2010-10-15 08:06:58 AM
SpaceyCat: But hasn't there been studies about placebo affects and all that stuff on how it can help someone? And that M*A*S*H episode!

/on the serious side, Big Pharma stuff doesn't help everyone and isn't the magic wand of "Fix All" that it's assumed to be
//If it helps you, go for it, but don't market that shiat as a cure all for everyone


Sure. There's a lot of stuff that medical science has yet to understand. But there's a lot of stuff out there that science will NEVER understand because it's bullsh*t. Like Homeopathy.
 
2010-10-15 08:14:50 AM
*Follows flow chart out of curiosity*.... ends up at Rolfing (new window)


What the fark......
 
2010-10-15 08:24:50 AM
shivashakti: SpaceyCat: But hasn't there been studies about placebo affects and all that stuff on how it can help someone? And that M*A*S*H episode!

/on the serious side, Big Pharma stuff doesn't help everyone and isn't the magic wand of "Fix All" that it's assumed to be
//If it helps you, go for it, but don't market that shiat as a cure all for everyone

Sure. There's a lot of stuff that medical science has yet to understand. But there's a lot of stuff out there that science will NEVER understand because it's bullsh*t. Like Homeopathy.


The placebo effect would be better understood by the general public if it were called "the endorphin effect" Much as how global warming should be "Global climate disruption".
 
2010-10-15 08:30:16 AM
Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Hilarious and perfectly on-target, but I get the vibe this guy is the kind of douche that uses the word "woo" to belittle people's beliefs...

Fit right in on Fark, actually.


People who believe in woo deserve to have those beliefs belittled.
 
2010-10-15 08:52:46 AM
Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: "woo" to belittle people's beliefs...

If they didn't want to have their beliefs belittled, they wouldn't believe stupid shiat.

I'm opposed to belief, as a general rule. I don't, for example, believe in gravity. I accept the mountain of evidence that the force of gravity exists- saying I "believe" implies that I had a choice in the matter. I don't. All of the evidence supports gravity, and what I think on the subject is utterly irrelevant.

So: if you believe in something, you deserve to have your beliefs belittled, because you shouldn't believe in things to begin with.

SpaceyCat: placebo

The reason we test medicines against placebos is because placebos do work. This is well understood, even if the mechanism is unclear. It's likely a combination of a number of factors, one of which is the expectation of resolution.

If someone were to sell you a magical tiger repelling rock, a rational person would conclude that they're a con artist. Rocks can't repel tigers, unless you have a really strong throwing arm. The fact that there are no tigers in this climate doesn't mean that the con artist is magically honest because they've induced a placebo effect. They sold you something that doesn't actually do anything, and claimed that it does.
 
2010-10-15 09:11:39 AM
What, you mean magnet therapy isn't real? My world is falling apart! What about all the commercials for that magical wristband? They're lying? I'm shocked!

The "Fire" section had me laughing out loud. People who believe in ear candles kind of deserve their head set on fire.
 
2010-10-15 09:16:34 AM
t3knomanser: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: "woo" to belittle people's beliefs...

If they didn't want to have their beliefs belittled, they wouldn't believe stupid shiat.

I'm opposed to belief, as a general rule. I don't, for example, believe in gravity. I accept the mountain of evidence that the force of gravity exists- saying I "believe" implies that I had a choice in the matter. I don't. All of the evidence supports gravity, and what I think on the subject is utterly irrelevant.

So: if you believe in something, you deserve to have your beliefs belittled, because you shouldn't believe in things to begin with.

SpaceyCat: placebo

The reason we test medicines against placebos is because placebos do work. This is well understood, even if the mechanism is unclear. It's likely a combination of a number of factors, one of which is the expectation of resolution.

If someone were to sell you a magical tiger repelling rock, a rational person would conclude that they're a con artist. Rocks can't repel tigers, unless you have a really strong throwing arm. The fact that there are no tigers in this climate doesn't mean that the con artist is magically honest because they've induced a placebo effect. They sold you something that doesn't actually do anything, and claimed that it does.



/So you are saying, YOU BELEIVE IN NOTHING!!!!
//Nice Marmot
 
2010-10-15 09:34:34 AM
I tired ear candling once because my ear had so much waxy build up that not even ear drops was clearing it all out (shortly after a cold). Someone suggested I try it so I did, and it worked great for loosening up the ear wax though I was digging wax out of my ear for the rest of the day. The weirdest part was hearing the candle burn since the shape of the candle makes it amplified in your ear. Kind of unnerving.

Then I heard someone say that ear candles are great for helping with depression and anxiety, but I could for the life of me figure out how. I didn't feel less stress afterwards, just happy my ear was finally clearing. I asked if the were blowing smoke in my ear and I haven't heard form them sense.

/csb
 
2010-10-15 09:39:52 AM
Ah, the most socially acceptable quackery: chiropractic.
 
2010-10-15 09:40:44 AM
I loled. Based on this flow chart, I should get into either reiki or herbal medicine, depending on my mood. It seems to me that a 90-minute massage session would face either one of those.
 
2010-10-15 09:46:02 AM
I'm a cynic but I'm in love with a proponent of alternative therapies so I've grown to begrudgingly accept them.

Also, a lot of them involved being touched, so I don't really give a shiate about their scientific validity. I'm getting some skin.
 
2010-10-15 09:56:01 AM
Rusty Shackleford: "Wibble."

www.automation-drive.com

/hot...
 
2010-10-15 10:00:57 AM
Epicedion: Ah, the most socially acceptable quackery: chiropractic.

When the muscles in my back are all screwed up, nothing feels better than a massage followed by a good crack and then some TENS.

Don't believe in all the subluxation junk though.
 
2010-10-15 10:02:13 AM
PersistantRash: shivashakti: SpaceyCat: But hasn't there been studies about placebo affects and all that stuff on how it can help someone? And that M*A*S*H episode!

/on the serious side, Big Pharma stuff doesn't help everyone and isn't the magic wand of "Fix All" that it's assumed to be
//If it helps you, go for it, but don't market that shiat as a cure all for everyone

Sure. There's a lot of stuff that medical science has yet to understand. But there's a lot of stuff out there that science will NEVER understand because it's bullsh*t. Like Homeopathy.

The placebo effect would be better understood by the general public if it were called "the endorphin effect" Much as how global warming should be "Global climate disruption".


Migration Period.

or

Get the Fark away from the Shores Period.
 
2010-10-15 10:05:29 AM
I've had a few patients decide to treat their breast cancer with alternative medicine, they all died. Most realised too late that alternative medicine is a sham. It's distressing to see them come back with extensive metastatic disease and knowing that they missed their window for a cure or at least long term regression.
 
2010-10-15 10:10:20 AM
spigi: I've had a few patients decide to treat their breast cancer with alternative medicine, they all died. Most realised too late that alternative medicine is a sham. It's distressing to see them come back with extensive metastatic disease and knowing that they missed their window for a cure or at least long term regression.

You just described exactly the (recently deceased) wife of a good friend of mine. She was 45.

When people ask, "Where's the harm?" I tell them about this woman.
 
2010-10-15 10:12:11 AM
Hagbardr: Epicedion: Ah, the most socially acceptable quackery: chiropractic.

When the muscles in my back are all screwed up, nothing feels better than a massage followed by a good crack and then some TENS.

Don't believe in all the subluxation junk though.


An actual subluxated rib can really hurt.

Getting acupuncture to release a trigger point in the muscle is less painful that getting massage to release the knot in the muscle. Instead of pressing down really hard with fingers, just insert a tiny needle into the same spot and *zing* the whole muscle relaxes.
 
2010-10-15 10:17:29 AM
I once read an article discussing the growing popularity of alternative medicine which argued that people turn to alternative therapies simply to find the kind of care that's disappearing in the modern medical system.

Regardless of who foots the bill for medical care, patients are too often shunted through a horribly cold, uncaring bureaucracy with too little human interaction. The old family doctor who'd sit and talk to you about your troubles is pretty much a dinosaur.

So people shell out money - which is certainly their right - to practitioners who will give them an hour of undivided attention and care.

Which is fine. What bothers me is the intellectual laziness of the process. It's not "I'll go to aromatherapy because I like having a quiet hour in a dim room with a kind person who puts nice-smelling oils on me" it's a "cure."

Personally, now that I've got the money for it, I'm perfectly happy to shell out for a professional massage (JUST a massage, you perverts). It feels great, and it's a nice treat, but it's not a cure for anything.

I think cancer patients should have carte blanche to do anything that alleviates their suffering. If going to reiki or what have you helps mitigate the effects of chemo or even forget about fighting a horrible disease for half an hour or so, that's a victory. But it's not a cure.
 
2010-10-15 10:18:33 AM
spigi: I've had a few patients decide to treat their breast cancer with alternative medicine, they all died. Most realised too late that alternative medicine is a sham. It's distressing to see them come back with extensive metastatic disease and knowing that they missed their window for a cure or at least long term regression.

Uh, yeah. I know of many who have died from breast cancer with Western medicine as well; actually nearly every person that I know who has had it. This is probably the weakest example that one could use to show any type of significant difference.
 
2010-10-15 10:22:36 AM
pkellmey: spigi: I've had a few patients decide to treat their breast cancer with alternative medicine, they all died. Most realised too late that alternative medicine is a sham. It's distressing to see them come back with extensive metastatic disease and knowing that they missed their window for a cure or at least long term regression.

Uh, yeah. I know of many who have died from breast cancer with Western medicine as well; actually nearly every person that I know who has had it. This is probably the weakest example that one could use to show any type of significant difference.


So, you're advocating homeopathy, massage, etc to cure breast cancer?


/I really hope you're not because if you are you're killing people
//We need to work on treating the person and not just the disease but you still have to treat the farking disease first
 
2010-10-15 10:25:56 AM
Hagbardr: When the muscles in my back are all screwed up, nothing feels better than a massage followed by a good crack and then some TENS.

Don't believe in all the subluxation junk though.


Yeah, but what your chiropractor believes is what's important, considering he's the one manually manipulating your spine. They're made up of a large proportion of unscientific quacks. For people who are charged with improving your health, that's unacceptable.

From the wiki.

On subluxation:
A 2003 survey of North American chiropractors found that 88% wanted to retain the term vertebral subluxation complex, and that when asked to estimate the percent of disorders of internal organs (such as the heart, the lungs, or the stomach) that subluxation significantly contributes to, the mean response was 62%.

You can also get a general sense of chiropractors' acceptance of science-based medicine by looking at their views on vaccination:
The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractors Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease.

The Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination;[15] a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% against, vaccinating themselves or their children.


Some appear to be anti-fluoridation, as well.
 
2010-10-15 10:26:33 AM
Epicedion: Ah, the most socially acceptable quackery: chiropractic.

Yes, always go to doctor who will prescribe drugs followed by surgery first.
 
2010-10-15 10:28:41 AM
spigi: I've had a few patients decide to treat their breast cancer with alternative medicine, they all died. Most realised too late that alternative medicine is a sham. It's distressing to see them come back with extensive metastatic disease and knowing that they missed their window for a cure or at least long term regression.

We had a patient (I do radiation medicine as a physicist) who decided to go to Mexico for coffee enemas and prayer. Her stage II went to stage IV, so she did the logical thing and sued every American doctor who told her to get traditional treatment.
 
2010-10-15 10:32:29 AM
Epicedion: Ah, the most socially acceptable quackery: chiropractic.

That one's weird for me, because my wife had 3 separate doctors recommend chiropractic for her back.

I always thought chiropractors were quacks, but I also trust the advice of doctors.
 
2010-10-15 10:34:02 AM
stuhayes2010: Yes, always go to doctor who will prescribe drugs followed by surgery first.

For back pain, go to a doctor who'll give you a Tylenol and tell you to lie down and take it easy for a few days. I'm not hunting for the citation, but about the best treatment for back pain (not back injury) is time and rest.

Note that having some guy move your spine around with his hands does not qualify as "time" or "rest."
 
2010-10-15 10:36:23 AM
Fail in Human Form: So, you're advocating homeopathy, massage, etc to cure breast cancer?

Why assume that? I don't advocate alt therapies, however if it works by placebo for some, it's no different than many of our Western treated problems (like many cancers) that seem to have similar affects. My father's cancer doctor pretty much said, "From my experience with the hundreds of patients I've tried to save with my medicine from lung cancer, it appears to have similar results to prayer." Personally, my work with breast cancer patients appear to have similar stories from their doctors.
 
2010-10-15 10:37:58 AM
lexnaturalis: Epicedion: Ah, the most socially acceptable quackery: chiropractic.

That one's weird for me, because my wife had 3 separate doctors recommend chiropractic for her back.

I always thought chiropractors were quacks, but I also trust the advice of doctors.


Seems to be two groups of chiropractors, ones that think spinal adjustment will fix everything and ones that work primarily to correct people's posture and will tell people when their problem isn't actually related to their spine.
 
2010-10-15 10:39:04 AM
lexnaturalis: That one's weird for me, because my wife had 3 separate doctors recommend chiropractic for her back.

I always thought chiropractors were quacks, but I also trust the advice of doctors.


In general, doctors aren't all that scientific, themselves, and now that the AMA is legally obligated to stop calling chiropractic an "unscientific cult" due to an antitrust ruling, some are of course going to recommend it. Doctors have a weird relationship with science, in that most doctors don't get anywhere near it. But they do use guidelines and procedures that are developed by actual researchers who do science, in the way that mechanics probably don't really understand the science of combustion engines, but know how to use the work of those who do in order to fix them.
 
2010-10-15 10:39:34 AM
stuhayes2010: Yes, always go to doctor who will prescribe drugs followed by surgery first

Well, going to someone who's actually a doctor is a good first step.

lexnaturalis: That one's weird for me, because my wife had 3 separate doctors recommend chiropractic for her back

Manipulation of the muscles and bones of the back can help back issues. The problem is that chiropractic holds that misalignments of the spine are causes of disease and that these manipulations can cure other things. Which is patently false.

Also, massage therapy is just as good as chiropractic, and doesn't carry the same risks (chiropractic adjustments can cause damage to your spine). Of course, massage therapy has been invaded by much the same sort of woo about chakras and energy, etc.
 
2010-10-15 10:40:24 AM
pkellmey: Fail in Human Form: So, you're advocating homeopathy, massage, etc to cure breast cancer?

Why assume that? I don't advocate alt therapies, however if it works by placebo for some, it's no different than many of our Western treated problems (like many cancers) that seem to have similar affects. My father's cancer doctor pretty much said, "From my experience with the hundreds of patients I've tried to save with my medicine from lung cancer, it appears to have similar results to prayer." Personally, my work with breast cancer patients appear to have similar stories from their doctors.


Then find a different doctor. That's utterly appalling. He's essentially saying to go straight to palliative care.
 
2010-10-15 10:41:45 AM
pkellmey: spigi: I've had a few patients decide to treat their breast cancer with alternative medicine, they all died. Most realised too late that alternative medicine is a sham. It's distressing to see them come back with extensive metastatic disease and knowing that they missed their window for a cure or at least long term regression.

Uh, yeah. I know of many who have died from breast cancer with Western medicine as well; actually nearly every person that I know who has had it. This is probably the weakest example that one could use to show any type of significant difference.


I see, on average, about 10-20 patients a day (I'm a breast imager, so I see a lot) who have been treated for breast cancer and are many years out, in some cases decades. While it is certainly not true that every person diagnosed with breast cancer makes it past the five year mark, the overwhelming majority do. The key to long term survival is early detection and appropriate treatment.

I sincerely hope, for the sake of your acquaintances, you do not discourage them from seeking care from qualified medical professionals.
 
2010-10-15 10:43:03 AM
pkellmey: spigi: I've had a few patients decide to treat their breast cancer with alternative medicine, they all died. Most realised too late that alternative medicine is a sham. It's distressing to see them come back with extensive metastatic disease and knowing that they missed their window for a cure or at least long term regression.

Uh, yeah. I know of many who have died from breast cancer with Western medicine as well; actually nearly every person that I know who has had it. This is probably the weakest example that one could use to show any type of significant difference.


Breast cancer median life expectancy without treatment is 2.5 years.

With treatment, 5 year survivability is 85%, 10 year survivability is 76%.

So yeah, if my wife is diagnosed with breast cancer, guess which option I'll be advocating?
 
2010-10-15 10:47:40 AM
FunkOut: Seems to be two groups of chiropractors, ones that think spinal adjustment will fix everything and ones that work primarily to correct people's posture and will tell people when their problem isn't actually related to their spine.

Pretty much. The problem is that sorting them out is actually difficult, because as a group they have weird and potentially harmful beliefs mixed in with what actually might be useful, and employ very little in the way of research to separate the two.

If your GP told you to drink a pint of chicken blood to cure your headache, you'd probably ask him to produce some sort of evidence that this would actually work, and want to know what the risks are and so forth. You can do the same with Tylenol, and there are in fact studies to show that it works -- the benefits, the risks, et cetera.

If your chiropractor tells you he needs to manipulate your spine, in the same way you should probably ask him to produce some sort of evidence that this would actually work. The two problems inherent with this is that everyone, because chiropractic is so common, assumes that, like Tylenol, the evidence is cut and dry and easily available, even though it isn't. There's evidence that spinal manipulation works roughly as well as any other treatment (which in and of itself shows that treatment isn't all that useful for back pain), and is pretty useless for anything else. Add to that the inherent risks of spinal manipulation and you have a field that is high risk with low benefit, and so should be discounted automatically as acceptable.

But people love their quackery.
 
2010-10-15 10:51:14 AM
Epicedion: which in and of itself shows that treatment isn't all that useful for back pain

There was a study I recall that showed that simply jabbing needles in someone was more effective than a placebo, but that real acupuncture (where you target specific places) and shame acupuncture (where you just jab them in anywhere) were about equally effective. This was in the context of back pain.

Epicedion: But people love their quackery

People love their anecdotes. In any social circle, you can almost always find someone who feels that they benefited from visiting a chiropractor. That seems like really powerful evidence- we're conditioned to rely on the judgments and experiences of our social peers.

That's just the way our brains work.
 
2010-10-15 10:51:47 AM
Epicedion: The two problems inherent with this

Just one problem.

Well, there are probably others, but I just presented one.
 
2010-10-15 10:54:20 AM
Epicedion: In general, doctors aren't all that scientific, themselves, and now that the AMA is legally obligated to stop calling chiropractic an "unscientific cult" due to an antitrust ruling, some are of course going to recommend it. Doctors have a weird relationship with science, in that most doctors don't get anywhere near it. But they do use guidelines and procedures that are developed by actual researchers who do science, in the way that mechanics probably don't really understand the science of combustion engines, but know how to use the work of those who do in order to fix them.

That might be the reason. It was just weird that we talked to 3 separate doctors and they all said the same thing.

Of course, to nobody's great surprise, the chiropractor didn't really help all that much. We finally went to another doctor who prescribed prednisone, pain killers, and reset. That worked.
 
2010-10-15 10:58:28 AM
Needs more trepanation.
 
2010-10-15 10:59:59 AM
pkellmey: Uh, yeah. I know of many who have died from breast cancer with Western medicine as well; actually nearly every person that I know who has had it.

Wow. You are really unlucky. The survival rate for breast cancer (varies by stage obviously) is quite high.
 
2010-10-15 11:00:47 AM
pkellmey: Fail in Human Form: So, you're advocating homeopathy, massage, etc to cure breast cancer?

Why assume that? I don't advocate alt therapies, however if it works by placebo for some, it's no different than many of our Western treated problems (like many cancers) that seem to have similar affects. My father's cancer doctor pretty much said, "From my experience with the hundreds of patients I've tried to save with my medicine from lung cancer, it appears to have similar results to prayer." Personally, my work with breast cancer patients appear to have similar stories from their doctors.


On one hand I find that pretty shocking (that an oncologist would say that). On the other hand, a lot of lung cancers have a pretty dismal prognosis. In many cases, the goal of lung cancer treatment is to buy a little more time for the patient and to palliate some of the worse symptoms. However, if you are hearing similar things about breast cancer, then that's flat out wrong. You would be doing the breast cancer patients you work with a huge service if you could provide them with accurate information. I'd be happy to point you in the direction of some resources you can use. You could make a big difference.
 
2010-10-15 11:01:31 AM
lexnaturalis: That might be the reason. It was just weird that we talked to 3 separate doctors and they all said the same thing.

Of course, to nobody's great surprise, the chiropractor didn't really help all that much. We finally went to another doctor who prescribed prednisone, pain killers, and reset. That worked.


Aspirin-and-a-nap therapy wins again.

People are in the market for instant solutions, and lots of them don't buy the reality that sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.
 
2010-10-15 11:02:44 AM
lexnaturalis:

Of course, to nobody's great surprise, the chiropractor didn't really help all that much. We finally went to another doctor who prescribed prednisone, pain killers, and reset. That worked.

Wait, you had a problem with your back, and it took you four doctors before you tried turning it off and then turning it on again? That's step one of the flow chart.
 
2010-10-15 11:03:26 AM
mcjon01: Wait, you had a problem with your back, and it took you four doctors before you tried turning it off and then turning it on again? That's step one of the flow chart.

Try jiggling the mouse.
 
2010-10-15 11:04:00 AM
t3knomanser: Epicedion: which in and of itself shows that treatment isn't all that useful for back pain

There was a study I recall that showed that simply jabbing needles in someone was more effective than a placebo, but that real acupuncture (where you target specific places) and shame acupuncture (where you just jab them in anywhere) were about equally effective. This was in the context of back pain.


Putting the needle into any area where it hurts will cause the muscle to relax as well as releasing the natural painkillers. Acupuncturists often needle points that aren't the specifically outlined ones in the context of treating pain. There are specific spots that are trigger points for muscles and massage therapists use these areas. There's some other spots that cause interesting effects with the body's nervous and endocrine systems, though, unrelated to pain management.
 
2010-10-15 11:05:27 AM
FunkOut: lexnaturalis: Epicedion: Ah, the most socially acceptable quackery: chiropractic.

That one's weird for me, because my wife had 3 separate doctors recommend chiropractic for her back.

I always thought chiropractors were quacks, but I also trust the advice of doctors.

Seems to be two groups of chiropractors, ones that think spinal adjustment will fix everything and ones that work primarily to correct people's posture and will tell people when their problem isn't actually related to their spine.



This.

I was born with double scoliosis and walked with a cane for over a year when my back went out, and it's still horribly messed up. If it wasn't for a chiropractor I would be in constant pain and could barely walk. Also went when I injured my neck in a car accident. The results can be seen in my X-rays.

Chiropractic is fine if it's only to correct your spine (or joints in the case of my chiro, who also helps with a shoulder injury). But steer clear if you walk into an office and see crystals, etc. The holistic approach requires some faith. I prefer evidence.

And I'd wager that the main reason some doctors suggest a chiropractor is that your only other alternative is surgery. You don't want to smack a fly with a hammer. Not to mention the expense and risk.


namatad: this chart is full of win. now if he had only written it in english instead of retard-slang.

Oh, come on now, don't be an arse about it.
 
2010-10-15 11:06:22 AM
Epicedion: lexnaturalis: That might be the reason. It was just weird that we talked to 3 separate doctors and they all said the same thing.

Of course, to nobody's great surprise, the chiropractor didn't really help all that much. We finally went to another doctor who prescribed prednisone, pain killers, and reset. That worked.

Aspirin-and-a-nap therapy wins again.

People are in the market for instant solutions, and lots of them don't buy the reality that sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.


So an anti-inflamatory and a prescription pain killer (I assume vicodin or a knock off (hydrocodone)) is the same as an aspirin and a nap?
 
2010-10-15 11:07:51 AM
pkellmey: My father's cancer doctor pretty much said, "From my experience with the hundreds of patients I've tried to save with my medicine from lung cancer, it appears to have similar results to prayer."

Dude, you have somehow found yourself in a place where you are not only surrounded by a concentration of statistically unlikely low breast cancer survival rates, but a place that has also home to The Worst Oncologist In the World. Maybe those things are not unrelated?
 
2010-10-15 11:10:33 AM
pkellmey:

Uh, yeah. I know of many who have died from breast cancer with Western medicine as well; actually nearly every person that I know who has had it. This is probably the weakest example that one could use to show any type of significant difference.
(emphasis mine)

pkellmey, you use those words, I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Statistics, learn about it.
 
2010-10-15 11:15:32 AM
Fail in Human Form: So an anti-inflamatory and a prescription pain killer (I assume vicodin or a knock off (hydrocodone)) is the same as an aspirin and a nap?

Pretty close, relative to having some guy in a golf shirt shove parts of your spine around.
 
2010-10-15 11:20:07 AM
My neck was hurting badly to the point my ears were ringing. Went to chiropractor for first time ever. She started messing around and did something and I heard a pop (or crack). Neck instantly felt better. I was told the vertebra was out of alignment. I do not equate that with pseudoscience anymore than I would call physical therapy pseudoscience.
 
2010-10-15 11:21:39 AM
Zombalupagus: I was born with double scoliosis and walked with a cane for over a year when my back went out, and it's still horribly messed up. If it wasn't for a chiropractor I would be in constant pain and could barely walk. Also went when I injured my neck in a car accident. The results can be seen in my X-rays.

Chiropractic is fine if it's only to correct your spine (or joints in the case of my chiro, who also helps with a shoulder injury). But steer clear if you walk into an office and see crystals, etc. The holistic approach requires some faith. I prefer evidence.


If you look you can find anecdotes that chiropractic is responsible for causing permanent spinal damage. The question that needs to be asked is "is the risk worth potential benefits?" In your case things worked out, but what were the odds of it working out? What were the odds if you'd gone with some other treatment?

I'm glad things worked out for you, but saying that "it's fine for X" needs more qualification if you're going to recommend it to others, since statistics will eventually win out.
 
2010-10-15 11:27:39 AM
LindLTaylor: My neck was hurting badly to the point my ears were ringing. Went to chiropractor for first time ever. She started messing around and did something and I heard a pop (or crack). Neck instantly felt better. I was told the vertebra was out of alignment. I do not equate that with pseudoscience anymore than I would call physical therapy pseudoscience.

From the wiki:

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice posing as science, but which does not constitute or adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience has been characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.

Want to try again?
 
2010-10-15 11:39:48 AM
LindLTaylor: My neck was hurting badly to the point my ears were ringing. Went to chiropractor for first time ever. She started messing around and did something and I heard a pop (or crack). Neck instantly felt better. I was told the vertebra was out of alignment. I do not equate that with pseudoscience anymore than I would call physical therapy pseudoscience.

Compressed nerves can do some bizarre things. A lot of people's necks are screwed from sitting at a desk all day or spending hours driving.
 
2010-10-15 11:50:25 AM
What do you call alternate therapies that have been scientifically proven effective?

Modern medicine
 
2010-10-15 11:52:33 AM
threedingers: You just described exactly the (recently deceased) wife of a good friend of mine. She was 45.

When people ask, "Where's the harm?" I tell them about this woman.


You can also point them to whatstheharm.net (new window)
 
2010-10-15 12:01:33 PM
fark pseudoscience.
 
2010-10-15 12:03:53 PM
Ivo Shandor: threedingers: You just described exactly the (recently deceased) wife of a good friend of mine. She was 45.

When people ask, "Where's the harm?" I tell them about this woman.

You can also point them to whatstheharm.net (new window)


Ya, I've seen it. There is a disturbingly disproportionate number of Canadian stories there.

I'd love to see some stats though, instead of just a collection anecdotes (says the guy with an anecdote!).
 
2010-10-15 12:10:07 PM
GAT_00: So I'm guessing a Brit made that.

allo guvna what makes you think that old bean, pip pip cheerio, join me for a spot of tea, then?
 
2010-10-15 12:10:39 PM
I'm a little disappointed that you can't get to "Vaccine Rejection" through the "healed by God" route. Most of the vaccine opponents I've come across are fundies.
 
2010-10-15 12:12:48 PM
Note to the three chiropractors I foolishly tried over the years in search of back pain relief: If the first thing you want me to do is watch a video full of anecdotal cheerleading and junk science that explains how you aren't a quack... then I'm sorry - you're a quack.

Luckily, after 120 straight days of nightmare pain and not a single good night's sleep as I tried stretching, PT and the conservative approach, an excellent neurosurgeon went in and removed the portion of the disc that was pressing on the nerve before the loss of feeling in my leg could become permanent. Instant relief. Three years later and I still want to send the guy a thank you card every month. Back surgery - formerly a shot in the dark at best - has come a long way since they found a way to see images of soft tissue. Though I'm sure lots of guys still fark it up. Maybe I got lucky. I still feel like an idiot for letting some snake oil med school washout charge me $100 to stick his knee in my back after biting my tongue for the carnival act portion of the diagnosis (one shoulder is too low and this leg is a little shorter!). Desperation makes the mind weak I suppose.
 
2010-10-15 12:13:52 PM
I want the one with a happy ending.
 
2010-10-15 12:35:53 PM
Fail in Human Form: *Follows flow chart out of curiosity*.... ends up at Rolfing (new window)


What the fark......


"holistic system of soft tissue manipulation and movement education that organized the whole body in gravity"

Well with that many big words it can't be wrong.
 
2010-10-15 12:56:01 PM
StrangeQ: Fail in Human Form: *Follows flow chart out of curiosity*.... ends up at Rolfing (new window)


What the fark......

"holistic system of soft tissue manipulation and movement education that organized the whole body in gravity"

Well with that many big words it can't be wrong.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
Whole body in what now?
 
2010-10-15 01:32:20 PM
t3knomanser: stuhayes2010: Yes, always go to doctor who will prescribe drugs followed by surgery first

Well, going to someone who's actually a doctor is a good first step.

lexnaturalis: That one's weird for me, because my wife had 3 separate doctors recommend chiropractic for her back

Manipulation of the muscles and bones of the back can help back issues. The problem is that chiropractic holds that misalignments of the spine are causes of disease and that these manipulations can cure other things. Which is patently false.

Also, massage therapy is just as good as chiropractic, and doesn't carry the same risks (chiropractic adjustments can cause damage to your spine). Of course, massage therapy has been invaded by much the same sort of woo about chakras and energy, etc.


My last masseuse practically wanted to draw up a complete horoscope to help pick the right aromatherapy. I'm like, that one smells fine, I just want a massage.

\I regularly get fliers on my door for Rolfing - "the philosophy, science, and art of aligning the human body structure in spacetime and gravity". Doesn't sound made up at all!
 
2010-10-15 01:43:37 PM
StrangeQ: Fail in Human Form: *Follows flow chart out of curiosity*.... ends up at Rolfing (new window)


What the fark......

"holistic system of soft tissue manipulation and movement education that organized the whole body in gravity"

Well with that many big words it can't be wrong.


It reads a bit like the ones who are trying to sell useless overpriced tat to audiophiles, doesn't it?
 
2010-10-15 01:47:00 PM
Skirl Hutsenreiter: philosophy, science, and art

It's a philsophy, science, and art? Throw in a foreign language and a lit class and you've got a first semester college freshman's schedule.
 
2010-10-15 01:54:18 PM
Epicedion: Yeah, but what your chiropractor believes is what's important, considering he's the one manually manipulating your spine. They're made up of a large proportion of unscientific quacks. For people who are charged with improving your health, that's unacceptable.

The guy I see every couple months approaches it as a form of physical therapy. I actually signed a paper on my first visit explaining that the only condition his therapy treats is muscular and joint pain.
 
2010-10-15 02:37:09 PM
Gordon Bennett: StrangeQ: Fail in Human Form: *Follows flow chart out of curiosity*.... ends up at Rolfing (new window)


What the fark......

"holistic system of soft tissue manipulation and movement education that organized the whole body in gravity"

Well with that many big words it can't be wrong.

It reads a bit like the ones who are trying to sell useless overpriced tat to audiophiles, doesn't it?


You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Link (new window)


I'm in this industry, and I definately belive in the therapeutic power of massage. But it's therapy because you're kneading aching muscles and realigning poor posture, not because of subcellular alignments and all this nonsense.
 
2010-10-15 03:57:57 PM
Hagbardr: The guy I see every couple months approaches it as a form of physical therapy. I actually signed a paper on my first visit explaining that the only condition his therapy treats is muscular and joint pain. designed solely to limit the chiro's liability and satisfy the state law requiring him to disclose that he is not a medical doctor and has not been to medical school

fixed
 
2010-10-15 04:09:54 PM
JohnBigBootay: Hagbardr: The guy I see every couple months approaches it as a form of physical therapy. I actually signed a paper on my first visit explaining that the only condition his therapy treats is muscular and joint pain. designed solely to limit the chiro's liability and satisfy the state law requiring him to disclose that he is not a medical doctor and has not been to medical school

fixed


Yup. If it were only informative you wouldn't have to sign it.
 
2010-10-15 04:17:38 PM
Was at a party recently where a doctor was telling about a bike collision he saw at a recent race, and how he was all ready to help out before the medics beat him to it. Almost shot my drink through my nose when I asked what kind of doctor he was and he said "chiropractor".

/is that mean?
//csb
 
2010-10-15 04:22:11 PM
boredgrad: Was at a party recently where a doctor was telling about a bike collision he saw at a recent race, and how he was all ready to help out before the medics beat him to it. Almost shot my drink through my nose when I asked what kind of doctor he was and he said "chiropractor".

/is that mean?
//csb


"I got my doctorate in Art History!"

static.tvfanatic.com
 
2010-10-15 06:12:50 PM
Probably better for you than the shiat approved by the wonderful government organization called the FDA
 
2010-10-15 06:19:15 PM
soia: Probably better for you than the shiat approved by the wonderful government organization called the FDA

I say again, fark pseudoscience.
 
2010-10-15 07:45:21 PM
soia: Probably better for you than the shiat approved by the wonderful government organization called the FDA

This goes so far beyond [citation needed] as to require [you pulled this out of an ass that Mr. Goatse would find impressive].
 
2010-10-16 12:16:34 PM
Epicedion: Yup. If it were only informative you wouldn't have to sign it.

True. But 30 minutes of massage, a back cracking, and then some TENS beats the hell out of being zonked out on Vicodin or Flexeril when it comes to back pain.
 
2010-10-16 08:21:38 PM
Sigh.

For people that seem to be so science based there sure is a lot of negative anecdotes about chiropractic.

As for chiropractic not being safe, well that is untrue. Spinal Manipulative Therapy is performed by PTs, chiropractors, and medical doctors. Most of the reported adverse effects reported in the literature come from Europe where most manipulation is attributed to chiropractors, even if the individual isn't a chiropractor.

The largest scale study of stroke (the most serious adverse event associated with manipulation) and chiropractic was published in Spine 2009 and found no increased risk between manipulation, visits to chiropractors, and stroke compared to a similar cohort who visited medical doctors.

As for who is a doctor and who isn't. My diploma granted by a nationally accredited school has the words "Doctor of Chiropractic" on it, so I think you know where I stand. I don't really understand the attitude of only medical doctors should be called "doctor". Do you think doctors of osteopathy should be called doctor? They have the same scope of practice and education. How about doctors of physical therapy? Their programs are a mix of MD and chiropractic (DC) education with a limited scope similar to DCs.

Let me just state my opinion before I am called a quack: spinal manipulation helps with musculoskeletal conditions in most patients. It doesn't help everyone, and it doesn't help everything. I think chiropractors will be replaced by DPTs within 50 years unless they decide to 'cull the herd' and get rid of the quacks. I think chiropractic education needs a big overhaul and a residency program.

I hope some of you understand that not every chiropractor is a complete idiot.
 
2010-10-17 01:25:21 AM
91z4me: I hope some of you understand that not every chiropractor is a complete idiot.

No, just 62% of you.

The problem is not that chiropractic is worthless, but rather that it's built on fundamental concepts and principles that are deeply flawed at best, and complete fabrications at worst.

I'm sorry you chose a profession that's full of quacks, but until your professional organizations weed them out, dispense with the pseudoscience, and start relying on evidence-based medicine, your degree that was accredited by the same people who can't keep 62% of your peers from being quacks isn't a very convincing document.
 
2010-10-17 07:26:39 PM
Gordon Bennett:

Even more obligatory Dara O'Brien (new window)

Quoted for awesome
 
Displayed 95 of 95 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report