Indeed; it’s like being a doctor in unicorn studies. The very claim to having a doctorate therein indicates that you’re less knowledgeable than the layperson in that field.
Chiropractors often don’t refer to themselves as such, and much prefer “Doctor of chiropractic”. Check out chiro advertising and you’ll commonly see references to doctors and clinics; “chiropractor” or “D.C.” might appear in small type down at the bottom of the ad.
Similarly, naturopaths, homeopaths and other twilight practitioners seek out “doctorates” in their specialties and promote such degrees, even when they are obtained from dubious online mills and are not far removed from the qualifications of lawn doctors and rug doctors.
Anyone continues to say that something is quackery when actual studies have shown actual benefits in limited cases is just as much into woo as someone who thinks that chiropractic is perfect or can help with unrelated problems.
Skepticism is not a proxy for knowledge. Look at what the evidence says. If you don’t believe in woo, that’s what you believe. Period.
Saying you are “anti-” something means you are voicing an opinion. And this is a question of fact, not opinion.
My aunt and uncle have been swallowing codswallop from their chiropractor lately. The guy is selling them “deionized water” at markup and prescribing a weight reduction diet that sounds like 1 part commonsense nutrition and 3 parts woo. We were just visiting them this weekend and I was hard put to keep my mouth shut on the diet, especially when they were pitching it to us. Oh, add 1 part multi-level marketing to the mix, on that note.
Grrr…
Well woo is very low in calories…
Unrelated to what? The spine, they generally believe, is related to everything:
http://www.sherman.edu/home/vitalistic-philosophy.asp
Today’s chiropractors are more eager to treat people with back pain – or no medical problems at all – than cancer, but that’s driven by marketing and, maybe, legal considerations, not by the science.
To learn about the thin available science, go to this no-ax-to-grind web site and search on chiropractic:
Suppose that the existing low quality studies showing benefit in limited cases are valid, and ones going the other way are not. This I question, but just suppose it true. When new research finds better ways to treat a condition, the chiropractor still uses the old way. That’s quackery.
Who is this “anyone”? I count 1 out of 60-odd posts in this thread that states the equivalent of “chiropractic is quackery”. The rest, for the most part doubt specific chiro claims or give testimonials in support of effectiveness.
Skeptics (myself included) note that chiro manipulation seems to help some people with musculoskeletal pain (though it’s not demonstrably more effective than physical therapy or massage).
There is a considerable amount of chiro-quackery (i.e. attempts to treat internal medical complaints) for which adherents cite “actual studies”. The problem is that such publications generally involve small pilot studies involving limited numbers of participants and have poor methodology (lack of blinding, for instance). The “actual studies” may also be mispresented. For example, some chiros promote the idea that neck cracking lowers high blood pressure. What they don’t tell you is that this claim is based on a single small short-term study involving a specialized technique not performed by run-of-the-mill chiros.
Somewhere there may be patient who think forceful neck manipulation performed every few weeks or so to control hypertension is better and safer therapy than diet and/or anti-hypertensive medication. My reaction is, blurgh.
Hardly anyone is born that way. Some people do end up that way because of leg injuries. Very few actually have shortened legs; that generally requires something like an ankle fusion. Lots have altered gait, though, which is a pretty well-accepted cause of lumbar pain.