Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cadre.ARPA
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!sm
From: sm@cadre.ARPA (Sean McLinden)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Once again (natural <-> conventional)
Message-ID: <459@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 09:51:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadre.459
Posted: Wed Jun 19 09:51:48 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Jun-85 11:09:52 EDT
References: <983@cbdkc1.UUCP> <450@cadre.ARPA> <1652@amdahl.UUCP> <452@cadre.ARPA> <1681@amdahl.UUCP>
Reply-To: sm@cadre.ARPA (Sean McLinden)
Distribution: na
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 83

In article <1681@amdahl.UUCP> ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) writes:
>> 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.

In your case, perhaps. But a lot of people "feel" better after spinal
manipulation when nerve root compression was not an issue. There are other
effects, including endorphin mediated pain relief, which are involved,
here. Did you have x-rays, a myelogram, neurophysiology studies, to determine
it was nerve compression, or was that obvious to you.


>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.)

Read the note by Gordon Banks. Most neurologists I know would not immediately
recommend laminectomy and most would ask you about your sleeping and work
habits.

>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.

>...  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.

There are physical medicine and rehabilitation medicine specialists who
ARE M.D.s and who do use techniques such as those you are so fond of. But
these people are also trained to recognize when physical manipulation was
not appropriate treatment.

>... Nowhere in the definition [of dogma] do I find a
>mention of 'without justification'.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. First definition point c.
Your dictionary must be for people who need less of an understanding
in order to make their point.

> [Regarding book on Arthirtis and diet]:  You have
>conveniently ignored the fact that the book in question was
>written by *AN MD*. 

You who claim to be a skeptic should appreciate the value of looking
at more than one source. Most professions (including medicine) support
a host of refereed publications in which clinical and experimental
data can be critically reviewed. Of course, one could always get around
this review by writing a book. This is not to say that NO good ideas
are found in books, many are. But in this society health care is a
billion-dollar business and publishers (and M.D.s) are a part of that
business. The criteria for publication of a "health" book are not
nearly as stringent as those for refereed journals (in fact, in contrast
to the policy of these journals, many publishers actually INVITE any
M.D. with an opinion to publish it). The fact that a book was written
by *AN MD* means nothing to me. Many MDs have supported untenable
hypotheses (some have championed them). The quality professional submits
his/her idea to be objectively evaluated by his/her peers. 

If this book helped you, fine, all the better. The author may, in fact,
be totally correct. I was not arguing with your right to accept or refuse
any treatment plan that you wanted, but the point that you were trying
to make, that organized medicine is systematically rejecting ideas that
are at odds with its pracitices, is clearly untrue. What IS true is that
considerable scrutiny is applied before new practices are accepted as
current therapy. The medical profession has made enough mistakes in the
past to show that this approach is the wisest.

S. McLinden