I’m used to the sad fact that sportswriters/sportscasters are generally clueless when it comes to health issues - a relatively important facet of sport since at any given time at least half of a team’s roster seems to be disabled, rehabbing, or “playing through pain”. Most of the remainder seem able to perform only through special treatments or supplements which on occasion are legal.
Which brings us to the dim bulb who wrote today’s N.Y. Times story on Thomas Jones, ex-running back of the Jets, now with Kansas City. Jones experienced mysterious breathing troubles during his 2000 rookie season, supposedly perplexing his physicians whose diagnoses included anxiety, asthma and “walking pneumonia” (but not the “boogie woogie flu”).
But ha! Jones got smart and saw a chiropractor, who “realigned his ribs, and his breathing returned to normal. More important, Jones began to examine the team doctors more closely, and he started to assemble a team of health specialists…The chiropractors, osteopaths and masseuses who continue to fine-tune his body.”
Dear Dumbass Reporter (so as not to embarrass you here, we’ll call you “Greg Bishop”): did it even occur to you for a moment to check with a health/medical reporter on whether it is possible to “realign” someone’s ribs via chiropractic adjustment (hard to imagine unless you busted them and they healed at a different angle, which might sting a bit), whether there exists a mechanism by which “misaligned” ribs impair breathing or repair of said “misalignment” might improve breathing (nope) or whether whatever problem Jones had resolved independent of his “adjustment” (i.e. correlation does not indicate causation, a concept of which you seem to have never heard)?
Indeed. Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but it’s fair to consider it as evidence when forming a hypothesis.
Anyway, what do you expect sports writers to write about? Sports just isn’t that complicated or unpredictable a topic, so they’ll glom onto just about anything to fill space, including some guy’s belief in chiro-jumbo.
I don’t see what was wrong with the original quote, “Correlation is not causation” is a perfectly legitimate statement because we all know what it means.
It is shorthand for
“don’t go assuming that just because you can establish correlation, you have also established a causal link, because you haven’t. By all means go on to formulate and test a hypothesis based on that observation and let me know the results. Then, depending on those results we may be better place to know exactly what is going on. Perhaps then you will be able to say that X causes Y and here is how. Or not…”
That is more accurate but a little less snappy. Perhaps we should all insert a “necessarily” into the original statement but I think it just makes it sound a little wussy.
And now I’ve just seen that I’ve misread the original statement and now look a little silly, no matter. I can use this edit to add that the article was indeed unmitigated balls from beginning to end.
I don’t think most people understand the medical controversies around chiropractors, so no, I’m sure the reporter did not check into those things. Jones told him his health improved after he saw a chiropractor and he that he still employs one, so the reporter worked it into the story. The worst part is that this could have been avoided by simple attribution: if he’d written “Jones said his breathing return to normal after a chiropractor realigned his ribs,” we get all the same information and the reporter does not endorse any claims regarding that type of therapy.
Also, boogie woogie flu is an alternative name for rocking pneumonia, not walking pneumonia. Please consult a rock and roll medical professional for more information.
Moderators, much like sports writers, should avoid writing about health issues. Boogie woogie flu is not and “alternative name” for rockin’ pneumonia. They are two different diseases, hence the lyrics “rockin’ pnemonia and the boogie woogie flu” (emphasis mine).
Basically, there are two types of chiropractors. There are ones that reasonably argue that if your back (or other parts of the body) hurts, manually moving the appropriate joints, muscles, and so on combined with other physical therapy may help to relieve or remove the pain. Then there’s the way chiropractic medicine began, which is basically that adjustments of the spine can cure what ails ya, whether it’s back pain or disease.
Well, beat me daddy eight to the bar. On second thought, don’t bother. “Correlation does not indicate causation” is a perfectly valid way of saying that correlation does not equal causation, which is certainly true and commenters #2 and 3 can bite me.
It is necessary for even sportswriters to have a little savvy about health issues, these days, what with all the stupid things athletes do to their bodies to gain a perceived edge. This includes not credulously reproducing whatever some dolt in a uniform says helped him without qualifying and/or checking it out. Will more athletes read this article and think that chiropractors are qualified to treat internal medical complaints? Or more general readers? What if the quoted athlete says he gets an extra step on the defender now that he takes 10,000 mg a day of Horny Kleptomania Weed, or regularly cleanses toxins from his bowels with enemas of 100% Colombian Coffee?
Hey, just write it up and get on to the next hot story, like George Steinbrenner’s underwear being donated to charity.
Okay, so the OP expects sports writers to do thorough research on various medical practices whenever he writes a story about the rehab of a particular athlete. The important part of the story is that he felt that that particular treatment worked and it’s left as an exercise to the reader if they want to pursue that treatment, just like when I’ve read about other athletes injecting sheep brain cells into their muscles or any countless other treatments.
Also, FTR, I have had “misalignment” of my ribs that has affected my breathing that has been improved by chiropractic manipulation. The terminology is unfortunate, but the the fact of the matter is that if your ribs are not moving properly, it can affect one’s breathing. In my case, in manifested as being unable to take deep breaths without some sharp pain roughly where the rib and the spine meet; as it healed, the pain would lessen or go away and I’d regain some capacity. As such, I can see that it’s entirely possible, based on my own experiences, that he could have had breathing problems that could have been improved by a competent chiropractor.
Yes, there are a lot of quack chiropractors out there who believe they can accomplish some silly things and they should be avoided, but considering that it’s an aside to the point of his article, which is about the recovery of a specific athlete I don’t see how it’s relevant that he should research the efficacy of the treatment. And anyone who blindly uses a treatment without researching it just because some random athlete did it deserves whatever they get. Yes, it very well could just be a coincidence, and if he were writing an article on a particular treatment that’s popular and it’s effectiveness and he didn’t do some medical research, then yes, he’d be an ass. Otherwise, you’re the ass for expecting him to fill any sports article that mentions chiropractors with some sort of silly disclaimer to satisfy.
Considering how often sports writers are called upon to write about athletes getting injured or having surgery and rehabilitating from injury, that’s not so unreasonable. They don’t have to learn how to do the procedure, just what it is. And chiropractors are not exactly obscure. But I agree it’s a minor part of the story.
I’m not sure what the reporter was supposed to write, this was, as far as I can tell a bio piece on Thomas Jones (I could be wrong, there is no link). Was he supposed to write how his independent research indicates that it didn 't happent he way Jones believes? I would find that pretty odd.
Again, I could be wrong because there is no link to the actual story.
But also, considering how well known chiropracty is, I’d think this would reduce the need for the author to expand on it since his audience is likely to already be aware of it and already have an opinion on the effectiveness of their treatments. I would agree that they should have more in depth knowledge of common procedures and should add information for uncommon ones, but considering that it is a minor part of the story, I just don’t see how it adds anything meaningful.
Yes, the pain itself was the result of a spasm, but the underlying cause was a result of an immobility. The difference I have experienced in this case is particularly that I COULDN’T take a deep breath because of limited mobility. Where, afterward, it was still painful because of the spasms, but the pain was reduced and the mobility was improved.
The problem is, I do believe that chiropractors have a higher incidence of quackery, whether it’s because a chiropractor has a hammer and sees everything as a nail or is intentionally being deceptive, so it’s something to watch out for. When a chiropractor says, for instance, that he can make your sinus infection go away, you should run away.
The difference, however, is that in my experience, my chiropractor is frank about what he can and cannot do, and when I consult him about a particular injury, he’ll tell me if it’s something he can help with or not, and will explain what he thinks the problem is and why what he’s doing will help. Sometimes he’ll say it’s not something he can help with at all.
I also don’t understand how you can say in one point that you feel better after the treatment and then go on to say it’s a scam. You can’t just go to a chiropractor with an injury and expect to come out completely healed. He can usually fix underlying mobility problems, but soft-tissue injuries and swelling will still remain and, if untreated, can cause mobility problems to return. It goes hand-in-hand with other treatments (icing, stretching, strengthening, etc.), not in place of, as many people seem to think.
I understand the plural of anecdote isn’t data, but as one particularly interesting point, in high school I injured my hip playing football. I went to the doctor, had it x-rayed and, barely able to walk, he put me on crutches and said I would probably be out for 2-3 weeks. I went to the chiropractor a day or two later, he adjusted it (and, believe me, it wasn’t pleasant), and I was able to walk out. It actually got quite a bit more sore over the next couple of days, but I was back out and practicing just a day or two later and was playing again that week.
I have a handful of other similar anecdotes, but my overall point is that I’ve generally found that I’m less prone to injury and recover more quickly when I have access to a competent chiropractor. Either way, I’m done with my spiel.
Blaster Master, there is a danger even your seemingly innocent anecdote. You end up giving support and legitimacy to all chiropractors. Others will not make the distinction you do and may well fall prey to the snake-oil merchants that the industry is riddled with.
Many people come out of those sessions feeling better, not surprising after such physical manipulation, but they then relapse soon after.
In your case the x-ray showed nothing definite (or else your doctor would’ve given you a specific diagnosis) and so all he could do was give a rough estimate of the time to take off (and he is going to err on the side of caution).
Your chiropractor was under no such obligation. A quick massage, a bit of magical suggestion and bingo! you are back on your feet and guess what? The injury was not as bad as your original doctor guessed at.
The explanation for this recovery could be an overly pessimistic and uncertain doctor plus normal sports massage, or the mystical ministrations of a chiropractor. The more exciting explanation is the latter one but I know which I consider more likely.
Short version: It’s rooted in a prescientific practice that thought the cause of all the body’s problems was a misalignment of various parts interrupting the body’s flow of energy. It’s vitalism. It’s based on the belief that by manipulating joints, you can free up the life energy around the body and hence cure diseases from asthma to cancer.
In modern practice, it’s a little more complicated. Chiropractors can be more or less aligned with this original principle. Some are basically just specialized physical therapists, whereas some are full out woo. There isn’t really a legitimate agency behind the field defining what’s legitimate treatment and what isn’t. It isn’t subject to that sort of scrutiny like actual medicine is. A lot of it is placebo - if the issue you’re having is vague like pain, having someone poking around at you can actually make you feel better.
So it’s a mixed bag. It’s based on nonsense, but some of those who don’t indulge in the nonsense may be able to treat certain problems relating to body pain.
Anyway… it’s not just sports writers here. Pretty much every story that 99% of media does is credulous towards bullshit claims. There’s almost no skepticism or fact checking shown by reporters anywhere.
Plus, there’s an issue of false balance - there’s this idea that if some quack is telling you that sticking a magical crystal up your ass will cure lung cancer, and the entire medical establishment says that’s nonsense, we should give equal treatment to both sides in the name of being fair and balanced.