Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!ems From: ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: Once again (natural <-> conventional) Message-ID: <1681@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 17:33:58 EDT Article-I.D.: amdahl.1681 Posted: Mon Jun 17 17:33:58 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 02:56:18 EDT References: <983@cbdkc1.UUCP> <450@cadre.ARPA> <1652@amdahl.UUCP> <452@cadre.ARPA> Distribution: na Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca Lines: 226 > In article <1652@amdahl.UUCP> ems@amdahl.UUCP writes: > > >I can say for myself that going to a chiropractor will > >fix the problem when I have a nerve pinch of the cervical > >nerves. (Somewhere arround C5 or C7. Hurts like the devil > >when the vertibrae munges the nerve.) ... > > The issue is not as simple as whether or not spinal manipulation "works" > (whatever that means: does it make you feel better? does it "cure" you?), I moves the offending vertebra off of the nerve that it is squashing. Like a stack of pennies with one shifted a bit to the side, slide it back into line and no more pressure on the nerve. I can feel the bone move to where it belongs. I can run my finger down my spinal column and feel the sideways displacement when it's out of whack. No big mystery as to what is wrong or what fixes it; or why. > a number of studies has shown that there is demonstrable relief of symptoms > following these procedures. The problem lies in our lack of understanding > as to why there is this effect ... et What lack of understanding? Simple physical presure on the nerve. Maybe you are refering to a much broader category of malady than simple pain in the neck? ... > The importance > in understanding the "whys" lies in the fact that in addition to the reported > successful treatments, there is a group of people in whom manipulation > results in serious and even permanent loss of some motor/sensory function > (possibly even paralysis). Because of this, the position of the organized > medical community is that risk/benefit ratio is too high to recommend/support > chiropractic treatment of injury and or pain. I havn't seen such concern expressed for the invasive treatment of laminaectomy, the traditional medical approach. (Though a physician did say that it shouldn't be done until I couldn't 'live with' the pain.) Why live with it, when I can fix it? (I have also found that sleeping on a thick pillow is the cause of the miss-alignment; and since going to a thin pillow a few years ago have had no problems.) > > Note that this is not the same as saying that there is "no benefit". The > benefit to some (even many), has been studied extensively (more so by this > medical community of whom you are so suspicious than by the chiropractic > industry), as has other techniques such as acupuncture. This research has > led to a greater understanding of the causes and management of pain and > from this, new treatments are likely to arise. Hopefully some of these > treatments will have a lower risk/benefit ratio than does spinal > manipulation. > I didn't say I was suspicious of the medical community. I said that my *FAITH* in them was destroyed. I no longer take on faith. I am skeptical, perhaps this implies suspicious to you. I hold the miracles worked by modern medicine in high regard. I just wish they would open there minds a bit more and not be so negative toward alternative medicine. > ... In the area of chronic pain, > especially, NO effective intervention may be found and treatment is shifted > toward altering the patient's ATTITUDE toward the chronic pain (with the > understanding that it is the PERCEPTION of the pain as well as the stimulus, > itself, which debilitates the patient. Provided, of course, that the pain is truly chronic. There are some folks with a 'pain in the neck' where a bone spur or similar anomaly is at fault and no amount of 'manipulation' will do a thing. I would rather go to an MD to have my spine manipulated. I would rather have the comfort of knowing that the other possibilities had been considered. I don't have that luxury at present because the medical profession continues to say it is not worth using this technique. > > The point, of course, is that it is not sufficient to be satisfied with > knowing how to treat someone without understanding why the treatment works. But, though not satisfied, we must continue to use those treatments which *DO* work even though we don't know why. ... long discussion of need to understand the mode of action of 'natural' treatments ommited ... > The attitude (and with some > justification), of the medical profession is that the practitioners of > chiropractic therapy do little in the way of purusing this type of self- > examination (largely because it would not be in their best intertests > to do so). > The Chiropractors I have gone to claim to know why spinal manipulation relieves pain. How do you know that it would not be in their best interests to research the mode of action? I would suggest that this is an example of the attitude problem the medical establishment has... > >There is a book I would like your comments on. It is > >'The Arthritics Cookbook'. It is written by an MD. > > ... > >I got the book. It worked for me. I can *RELIABLY* produce joint > >problems by eating very large amounts of beef. And just as > >reliably cure them by reducing beef consumption to less than > >1 pound per week. None of my family members has ever been > >counciled by a physician to look to diet to help arthritic problems. > > I can *RELIABLY* produce kidney failure by jogging too much. What > does that prove, that no one should jog? No. But that you should ask if someone whith kidney failure jogs too much. Prescribing pills won't fix it if you don't stop the cause; in your example jogging. In mine, diet. > The point is not that YOU > have observed something (although much information has come from > isolated observations of that sort), but whether or not I in Pittsburgh > can recommend a low beef diet to my patients on the basis of anecdotal > information. Obviously not. But just as obviously you can recommend that for some percentage of the population *DIET* has a corelation (though not necessarily causal or co-incident) relationship with arthritic problems. BTW, the premise of the Arthritics Cookbook is not the *BEEF* causes the problem, but that some food problem does. It is left to the reader to discover *WHICH SPECIFIC* foods that they are having a problem with. This is not that far from staid medical allergy theory. > ... long discussion of refering patients to 1500 medical journals > for self help, ommitted ... > > > ... re-discussion of rice, fish, veggy diet as arthritis 'cure' > > ommited ... > >The other point? That despite the fact that something can be > >so easily shown to work, the MD establishment turns a blind eye > >on both chiropractic technique and diet as medicine. > > Thats Bulltwinkies! Cute term. Not quite tactfull, but cute. > ... long discussion of billions being spent by medical industry for > research, ommitted ... Please, note that I am not a hard core 'naturalist'. I do believe that modern medicine works, most of the time. I have worked in the medical industry on the wards. I *DO NOT CONDEMN* MD's or medicine. My position is that there is something to be offered by 'natural' healers that MD's have missed. I would rather have my MD tell me to try changing my diet, rather than be told to take asprin and watch out for bleeding of the stomach; then discover a solution that works at the local book store. Maybe all those billions are being spent to prove that the world is flat. The dollar amount doesn't say much about what is being investigated, by whom, and with what preconceptions. > You will not find this volume of research being done at the chiropractic > centers of which you speak, (although I suspect a lot of business and > marketing research goes on there). Attitude problem? What attitude problem? At this point I should say something about glass houses, I suppose. There are practice building seminars for MDs. There are marketing seminars for MDs. There is at least one clinic I know of that sets a goal of turning the average patient in under a couple of minutes for higher profit. Perhaps the lower level of research is due to less cash to spend? > Again, the bottom line is that for > economic as well as legal and ethical reasons, we would be hard pressed > to justify the treatment of a particular illness based purely on anecdotal > information. But, also again, when many many people experience the same effect; perhaps the time has come to recognize this is something that needs to be accepted as valid treatment in need of research. > > > >So why hasn't this book had more impact? It is even written > >by an MD. Could it be that it flies in the face of established > >dogma, and so is not acceptable? > > Let's get our terms correct! You suspect adherence to dogma as a cause > for this malady, but it is dogma (adherence to an opinion or tenet without > justification), Yes, let's do get our terms correct: Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition; Dogma - 1) a doctrine; tenet; belief 2) doctrines, tenets, or beliefs, collectively 3) a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion 4) a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and authoritatively affirmed. (FYI, Doctrine has as the first definition: Something taught; teachings) This looks like what I meant all right, medical dogma would be the teachings of the medical establishment and formally and authoritatively affirmed. Nowhere in the definition do I find a mention of 'without justification'. The following is, upon inspection in light of the real meaning of dogma, not a response to my statement, rather to your interpretation. > of which you would like the medical profession to take note. > If anything, the "problem" is just the opposite. The practice of medicine > as it applies to the population at large should be based on a rigorous > understanding of the causes and treatments of disease (whenever possible), > and of the response of a significant proportion of the affected population > to the proposed therapy. Anything short of this would be a disservice > to the population to which we are responsible. > And ignoring treatments that work is not a disservice? > Or, perhaps, we could do away with our academic medical institutions and > train at Waldenbooks, instead. I could prescribe the "Jane Fonda Workout" > ($12.95), the "Scarsdale Diet" ($7.95) "Stalking the Wild Asparagus" > (now $3.50 in softcover) and recommend you watch "Good Morning America" > to get daily updates from their medical reporter... > This is again cute, and similarly not tactful. You have conveniently ignored the fact that the book in question was written by *AN MD*. This is not some flako granola groupy proposeing that veggies cure warts. This is an MD who has been treating his patients with a procedure that works in a large sample size. Please, read the book. Then comment. I am looking for informed explaination of the effect. If you want to claim that it doesn't exist without even looking at the book, fine. Does someone else out there have any insight? -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)