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: <1682@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 17:58:53 EDT Article-I.D.: amdahl.1682 Posted: Mon Jun 17 17:58:53 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 03:11:33 EDT References: <983@cbdkc1.UUCP> <450@cadre.ARPA> <1652@amdahl.UUCP> <453@cadre.ARPA> Distribution: na Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca Lines: 111 > >I can say for myself that going to a chiropractor will > >fix the problem when I have a nerve pinch of the cervical > >nerves. ... > > Cure cancer? I doubt it. Fix kidney problems? I'm > >skeptical. Stop a pain in the neck? 100% The medical approach? > >A laminectomy that costs about $1200 dollars and works in > >50% of cases with significant risk of paralisis to the patient. > > Here is an typical example of improper generalizations. In some > cases of cervical root compression, manipulation (whether by > a chiropractor or osteopath) is effective, in many others, it > isn't (I am a neurologist and see enough that chiropractors > fail OR MAKE A LOT WORSE to know). In addition, we have seen > 5 strokes in the last 2 years here which occured because of > dissection of the vertebral arteries (the lining of the arteries > tear loose) during chiropractic manipulation, leaving the patients > dead or severely brain damaged. A lot of chiropractors are smart > enough to refer patients that are clearly inappropriate, but most > don't seem to know. This is why I would rather not go to them for a treatment that I know works for me. I would rather go to an MD who had training in their methods. I would rather that the medical establishment recognize that they do have some things that work, adopt them, and let the quackish part die out. > If you limit your visits to one every two > years, the (unnatural) manipulation of your vertebrae probably > won't lead to increased cervical arthritis, but for those who > go in (as recommended by chiropractors) for frequent sessions > in my opinion are asking for real trouble. The neck was never > meant to be yanked around and cracked like they do it. Cure > cancer? diabetes? Chiropractors claim to be able to help > all of these conditions. Their theories are definitely > quackish. If they help you, it isn't because of the theory. > It certainly is logical that manipulating the neck might > unpinch a nerve, but that a pinched nerve to the kidney > is the cause of renal failure isn't reasonable, or demonstrable. > Next, laminectomy is vastly overdone. If patients went to a neurologist > first instead of an orthopedist or other surgical specialist, most > of them would never get operated on. Visiting a surgical specialist > first is asking for an operation, since that is their bag. > > >> It is a ridiculous waste of training to have MDs spending much time > >> on prevention, with the exception of some infectious disease specialists. > > > >My god, did you really post that? Yes, you did. What ever happened > >to 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'? Where would > >we be without the B vitamins added back to polished grain? No > >prevention? Welcome to the late 1700's. Beri-beri, scurvy, plague, > >polio, etc. No Thank You. > > I am not talking about biochemists, microbiologists, and other > medical scientists (many of whom hold MDs). I am talking about > MDs in every day clinical practice. I don't think there is > much they can do in the way of prevention, other than giving > children immunizations and certain other routine tests. You > can't smoke, drink to excess, overeat, and then go to your > doctor and say "why didn't you prevent my heart attack?" > Most of the current health problems in America are due to > personal life style and aging, neither of which an MD has > much power over at this time. And that is the point of much of the 'natural' approach. That the practitioner has no control, but can educate the patient to live a better lifestyle as a preventative measure. Perhaps we are ignoring prevention for too many. > > >There is a book I would like your comments on. It is > >'The Arthritics Cookbook'. It is written by an MD. > >I have forgotten his name, but he was of Chinese extraction. > > ... discussion of effective use of methods from book, ommited ... > > I haven't seen the book (I have little interest in arthritis). > Such a claim can be easily substantiated experimentally; > why hasn't it been? The MD in question claimed to have used the method on his patients with great success. I doubt that he did the clasic double blind study, but he seemed well aware of the need for testing on large populations to establish causality. > ... long discussion of arthritis variety, causes, and cures, and > request for tests substantiating claim, ommited ... > ... similar discussion of skeptical value ommited ... > > I'm not saying this doesn't work for you, just that > you have no justification for generalizing until you > have performed the experiments. I have performed as much experiment as I am capable of. That is I have tested the method on myself, and recomended it to friends. It works for me. It has worked for all of those who have reported results to me (about 4). There are another 8-10 who have not reported results. I don't know if they even read the book. The MD who came up with this tried it on his patients with good success. This is hardly an unbiased test, however. My question is basically the same as yours. Given the evident promise from anecdotal evidence, why havn't the tests been done, or if done - publicised? The medical community has the research dollars. Could it be that no drug company will fund the research because this won't sell drugs; and that no MD will champion an unfavorable cause for government funding? I don't know. Is there an arthritis specialist on the net who can take the time to read The Arthritics Cookbook and comment? -- 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)