Are chiropractors physicians?

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
...

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

I just wanted to compliment you on the site and donations to Doctors Without
Borders is always in order. A friend of mine, a replantation plastic surgeon
specializing in hands, works with them, and did 6 weeks in Iraq helping
people.

Well I can see you claim to be a moron so I don't think this argument needs
to proceed further..

Did you know that there is penalties subject to imprisonment for
impersonating a doctor in most countries?

"Mark" wrote in message
om...
"Gymmie Bob" wrote in message
...
No, but I bet you don't change your patients oil either.

Of course not: I make no claims about being a mechanic, you see.


"Mark" wrote in message
m...
"Gymmie Bob" wrote in message
...
Yeah, I had a massage once and I have to go back every years to keep
it
up
too.
Maybe I was being taken advantage of.

Come to think of it...my doctor wants me to come back every year for
a
check
up...and there is nothing wrong with me at all.

Another poor attack from ignorance.


Annual health maintenance visits are a lot different from weekly
"adjustments" that purport to help the "adjusted" "maintain optimal
spinal health". Does the chiro check stool for occult blood? Does he
screen for high cholesterol? Does he do a Pap smear or a breast exam
(he better not, as a matter of fact)?

Mark, MD

I can prove you're a moron though. It's all right here.

"Mark" wrote in message
om...
"David" wrote in message
link.net...
Still waiting for any of you conv jokers to post anything {studies} that
shows UT to not work. You sure make a lot of noise about it. You talk
big,
but you cannot back it up.
Once again, post some of your precious studies, showing that UT will not
cure.


Logic 101, Genius: You can't prove a negative proposition.

If you're so gung-ho that UT works, come up with a citation or two.

BTW, I bet you can't prove that whistling at the moon doesn't cure cancer


Mark, MD

We're not worthly..........We're not worthly..........We're not
worthly..........We're not worthly..........We're not worthly..........


"Orac" wrote in message
news
In article . net,
"David" wrote:

"Orac" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Chotii" wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Funny how you keeping calling what I say "BS", yet you offer no
proof
that
I
am incorrect.

Except multiple firsthand accounts.

Really? What first-hand accounts? Be specific, please.


But I guess personal experience doesn't
mean anything to you?

It does, but one has to know its proper place within the hierarchy of
evidence. Alties don't.

You are a BULL**** ARTIST. You claimed that you wrote and published.
That is
BULL****. You never published anything unless you call you postings to
Usenet "publishing".

LOL! I'll make the same offer I've made others who doubted my
credentials: E-mail me privately and perhaps I'll send you a reprint or
two, or perhaps I'll send you a link to a Medline search on me. Or would
you prefer a scanned copy of my medical degree?

I know I must be getting to you when you go so far out of your way to
try to discredit me. You're finally losing it. It didn't take long, did
it?


And yet you are still here blathering on as though
anyone should believe you. You are not a Doctor, though you claim to be.
I hope you get caught and go to prison.

Why don't you report me to the authorities for impersonating a doctor,
then? If you do, it'll be too bad that I won't be able to see the look
on your face when the cops tell you the truth. It would be most amusing.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

You don't exist either!

Such horse****!

PLONK

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

"Chotii" wrote in message
...
(...)

Show us the published data. "First-hand accounts" are anecdotes.

I am afraid that these "Personal experiences" do not mean anything to
me.
I
do not find the reporter (angela) trust-worthy.

I'm quite aware that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

With all do respect, you don't act like you really understand this.

On the other hand, I see you making claims about chiropractors that are
sweeping and overgeneralising. Absolutely, some of them are absolute
nutcases, making absurd claims to be able to do things they *can't* do.
Like cure a heart attack. That's why phrases like 'caveat emptor'
exist.
That doesn't mean they're all nutcases, nor that they all make such
claims.

--angela

The problem is chiropractic is that theoretical framework that it is built
on is wrong. Sublaxations do not exist. So if their entire system is based
on a flawed system, why would you think any of them are any good?

You should try reading "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to
Fraud"
by Robert Park. Excellent book about beliefs gone haywire and how to find
them. BTW, I don't recall if chiropractic is mentioned by name in the
book.
But it is a good overview of bad science.

Two websites (www.quackwatch.com and www.chirobase.com) both provide good
information about chiropractic.

Jeff

Show the world the double blind peer reviewed study that proves water is
wet!

Bye Moron

PLONK

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

"Chotii" wrote in message
...
(...)

I'm quite aware that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

With all do respect, you don't act like you really understand this.

I do understand it. That doesn't mean that just because I have never
been
part of a study, wherein I was randomly assigned to have back/neck pain
treated by medications/rest, or chiropractic adjustment, that my own
personal experiences, or the observed experiences of people in my life,
mean
nothing to me. I realise they mean nothing to *you*. But why would they?

Why should they?

On the other hand, I see you making claims about chiropractors that
are
sweeping and overgeneralising. Absolutely, some of them are absolute
nutcases, making absurd claims to be able to do things they *can't*
do.
Like cure a heart attack. That's why phrases like 'caveat emptor'
exist.
That doesn't mean they're all nutcases, nor that they all make such
claims.

--angela

The problem is chiropractic is that theoretical framework that it is
built
on is wrong. Sublaxations do not exist. So if their entire system is
based
on a flawed system, why would you think any of them are any good?

If I get my shoulder or my hip joint knocked out of place, nobody in
their
right mind would suggest any other course of treatment but that the ball
should be slipped back into the socket. If such joints can become
misaligned through trauma, why is it so impossible to believe that other
joints, such as vertebral or pelvis joints, can similarly become
misaligned
through trauma - childbirth, or the impact of a car crash or a football
tackle, and so on? But ah, no: "subluxations do not exist". Period.
Ever.
Regardless of circumstance. Right?

Show me the peer-reviewed study that shows that chiropractors, when
examining the same patients, come to the same conclusions about where the
su
bluxations are.

Show me the peer-reviewed study that shows that you can see subluxations
on
X-Ray, CT-scan or MRI.

When you are able to show me these things, I will be more inclined to
beleive that subluxations exist.


After my daughter was born 6 weeks ago, I found I could not lie flat on
my
back without pain. Something was wrong in my pelvis or sacrum. I didn't
know
what, but it hurt. I went to my chiropractor, he made one adjustment
that
day, and another the next. I could lie flat without much discomfort
*immediately* after the first adjustment; completely without pain after
the
second. After the second adjustment he said "See you back in a month."
No
requirement that I come in three times a week for the rest of my life.
We
addressed the immediate problem and let my body sort out the rest. Which
it
did.

You could have gotton the exact same treatement from a physical therapist.
Because the chiropractor was able to adjust your back does not mean
subluxations exist. If you go and read my previous posts about
chiropractors, you will see that I have often said that chiropractic does
work on back pain. Howver, that does not make their theories correct or
make
them any better than PTs or other health care providers or make them
phsyicans.

With personal experiences like this, I don't care if it's hogwash, snake
oil, poppycock, horsefeathers, or plain and simple placebo: lack of
pain -
and not having to take drugs to achieve that state - is good.

I agree. That does not make chiropractors physicians or their theory right
either. Or mean that they aren't quacks. Chiropractic has been proven to
treat back pain. That's it. Not asthma or ADHD or other things the quacks
claim to treat.

And I don't
need a study to tell me my pain was all in my head, or an MD to tell me
to
take muscle-relaxers indefinitely, or to just learn to live with it. Not
when I can at least *try* to address specific problems more directly.

--angela

But you do need proof that their underlying theories are correct. There is
plenty of proof that they aren't correct.

Jeff

In article ,
"Gymmie Bob" wrote:

We're not worthly..........We're not worthly..........We're not
worthly..........We're not worthly..........We're not worthly..........

Well, actually....no, you're not.

[Snip]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
"David" wrote in message
link.net...

(...)

The problem is that your "science" fails all too often. Science is NOT the
only or the best way.

But medicine has its base in reality, not some stupid theory that has no
basis is science or reality.

Medicine is not perfect. But not being perfect does not make chiropractic
better or even worthwhile. IMHO, we would be better off without chiropractic
at all.

Jeff

TO test.

"David" wrote in message link.net...
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
...

Orac, under his real name, was published in January, May, August and
September of 2003, for starters.


Yes, he is.


BTW, I found his pic on line.

Correct, his pic is on-line.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/



Thank you, but he still is a Usenet phantom without direction to those
articles. Are they available on-line? Where, under what name?

If Orac want his name out there, he'd have posted it. I recall
reading somewhere in this thread that he is willing to reveal his
identity more discretely by email.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

"Mark Probert" wrote in message .net...
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
...

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

I just wanted to compliment you on the site and donations to Doctors Without
Borders is always in order. A friend of mine, a replantation plastic surgeon
specializing in hands, works with them, and did 6 weeks in Iraq helping
people.

Thanks for the compliment (bow).

Your friend should get the greater commendation, imho.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com