Chiropractor near Belfast?

star1_2

I've read this thread with interest - I was a very skeptical of Chiropractic - until a number of years ago - I was persuaded to have a treatment to fix a minor back-ache, which I knew would have "fixed its self" in a couple of days. To my surprise the effect was almost instant, and something that would have taken days to resolve itself was fixed in minutes. (Like many things in life, differing types of treatment can help differing conditions/people).

I personally don't think slagging off and categorizing Chiropractic as "a placebo" achieves anything - for many it can really help.

Convential medicine can be fine when drugs and treatments are appropriately tested and prescribed. But before anyone on this thread - claims that convential medicine is the "answer" and is safer/better than alternative offerings less we forget - disasters such as Thalidomide? and lesser known drugs that were launched claiming various benefits and then were later withdrawn due to deaths attributed to them - such as - Cerivastatin (Baycol), Rofecoxib (Vioxx), Fen – phen, (some as reciently as afew years ago !!)

spaceraiders

Girlzmum wrote: »

All I said was it worked for me - the OP asked for recommendations and I gave mine. I didn't claim to make scientific claims, I haven't conducted a large scale experiment but I do have an open mind

Just so you know, "open mind" means to consider all evidence even if it goes against what you believe is true, not they you're willing to just believe anything with no evidence. I know a fair amount about chiro and the lack of evidence it works on the things it claims to. If evidence appeared, I would believe in chiro.

when it comes to the body and how to treat illnesses.
I could tell if the medical treatment worked for me, I was still in serious pain, I still required medication, the treatment didn't work for me.

There are many many kinds of treatments that lasted hundreds of years with millions people thinking they worked (look up blood letting). Only once proper tests were conducted can we discover if things work. You're naive if you think you are immune to the way your brain can trick you and you don't need to rely on proper testing.

I asked if you had medical training because if you did you would know that what works for one person may not work for another, it may work but to varying degrees of success, however, that does not mean it should be discounted as a possible treatment.

This kind of result would appear in proper experiments and I don't see how you can deny my factual information purely because I haven't had medical training. I'm not even going to ask if you've had medical training because it is not relevant. Facts are facts; it doesn't matter who says them.

Have you actually read about the theory behind chiro, all the things it is meant to treat and how they think it works? It's completely implausible and neglects all medical knowledge from the last hundred years. Many chiros don't believe you need vaccinations and encourage people not to take shots (which we know work). The whole chiro industry is anti-science.

I tried physiotherapy and many other treatments and found they did not help me.
It may well be a placebo, it was not in my case, but if it works, which it did for me,

You do not know that it was the chiro that helped you. Your back could have became better by itself. I'll say it again: sometimes cancer just disappears. You could have just been someone whose back problem went away at the same time as getting chiro and now you think the chiro did it. Then you tell your friends. Then they benefit from a increased placebo effect when they see a chiro. Then they tell their friends etc.

Only a proper test can show if chiro works. Your anecdotes are not useful for this.

then I'd rather spend my money on that than to wreck my liver taking endless amounts of paracetamol and codiene. I know they have been proven to work but they have also been proven to be highly addictive and damaging with long term use.

Tell that to the chiros who do not conduct studys into how cracking peoples spines can hurt them. Spine manipulations has been linked to increased chance of stroke. At least we know certain drugs work and can weigh up the pros and cons.

spaceraiders

star1 wrote: »

I've read this thread with interest - I was a very skeptical of Chiropractic - until a number of years ago - I was persuaded to have a treatment to fix a minor back-ache, which I knew would have "fixed its self" in a couple of days. To my surprise the effect was almost instant, and something that would have taken days to resolve itself was fixed in minutes. (Like many things in life, differing types of treatment can help differing conditions/people).

Back-ache is well known to come and ago and can be hugely influenced by your belief a treatment works. Your case is very unconvincing. Like I keep saying, read the large scale studies.

I personally don't think slagging off and categorizing Chiropractic as "a placebo" achieves anything - for many it can really help.

If you looking into the chiro, herbal, homeopath etc. industry, you'll see they're mostly against conventional medicine (i.e. medicine that works) and they refuse to take evidence into account while taking money from people. People can actually die by not receiving the care they need. People are also losing money to treatments that don't work. This is why it's a big deal if it's just a placebo.

Convential medicine can be fine when drugs and treatments are appropriately tested and prescribed. But before anyone on this thread - claims that convential medicine is the "answer" and is safer/better than alternative offerings less we forget - disasters such as Thalidomide? and lesser known drugs that were launched claiming various benefits and then were later withdrawn due to deaths attributed to them - such as - Cerivastatin (Baycol), Rofecoxib (Vioxx), Fen – phen, (some as reciently as afew years ago !!)

How do you think problems with things like Thalidomide and Vioxx were discovered in the first place? With large scale test and analysis. The safety tests and criteria is always improving for real medicine. The industries I mentioned above do no investigation into their side-effects or benefits. Herbal treatments have killed people before: someone has went into a coma after having chiro, a baby died only being treated with homeopathy etc. These may be anecdotes, but it's a double standard to say drugs are somehow bad because we know of their side-effect whereas many of these alternative treatments have unknown cons.

star1_2

Spaceraider - I'm not really sure why you like to launch into rather hostile attacks to anyone who doesn’t share your opinion of "alternative healthcare being a farce" .... if you took the time to read my posting and the sentiment within, you'd understand that I believe that convential and alternative medicine have their respective place for certain individuals and certain conditions, alternative and convential alike .... and should be used on a case by case basis where appropriate .... Regarding your response - I'm afraid I have to correct you (or help you by explaining) with/on almost every statement you chose to paraphrase ....

a) Regarding large scale case studies ....

It’s a fact the world wide drugs industry is worth millions, and millions are spent on trials, it's a fact that despite these tests/trials - many well known medial disasters have occurred (such as Thalidomide etc), the money spent on these trials and money used to help influence the regulatory bodies at the time, meant these drugs/treatments gained regulatory approval (when clearly they shouldn’t). It's also a fact that many other side effects of many convential drugs are not so well publicised. Drug companies cover themselves by including comprehensive instruction/warnings in packets - why do you think this is? - perhaps the products may not be as "sound" as the "head-line claims" that the drug or treatment is promoted to cure?

Lets turn to alternative medicine .... It's "fact" that alternative medicine is not a big "money earner" for any one company (or group of companies) or bodies (unlike drugs etc) - therefore it should come as no surprise to note - that there's no substantial funding or money spent on tests and trials !! - this gos to explain your repeated concerns related to the lack of evidence attributed to trials/tests etc. – how ever hard you look - you won't find any - as no one will financially back one - as it wouldn't be in any one persons commercial interest to do so !!

b) again the point has been missed, convential and alternative medicine can help differing individuals for differing conditions (horses for courses!!). Conventional medicine has provided some fantastic treatments and cures for conditions, diseases, via treatment and inoculations, pain relief and infection treatment, medical procedure/treatment used in operations etc .... and I’d be the first to list how these have helped those I’ve known .... but again (I feel like I’m repeating myself), the treatment should be prescribed where/when appropriate to the right individual under the appropriate circumstances - to make a sweeping statement that claims [sic] "by not administering conventional treatment the patient is being put at risk", can easily be questioned/debated when you consider the "problems and (known) side-effects that many medicines introduce"

(repeating myself again) …. Assessment of Treatment should be on a case by case basis – for example (as this is particularly relevant) to continually prescribe a back suffer pain-killers, only goes to “mask” the pain, and does not attempt to provide a resolution, or a constructive approach to alleviating the pain …. For example, if the front wheels on your car were misaligned would you keep forcing the steering wheel to correct the steering, and keep replacing the tyres with new ones (as the others would have gone bald on the edge through the miss-alignment) – no !! – you would get the steering re-aligned and the wheels balanced ! (wouldn’t you?) – prevention and addressing the problem with any type of prescriptive treatment/care is preferable to just giving a patient drugs, for which a dependency related immunity would develop/become apparent anyway …. then what do you offer as the solution (when the pain killers have stopped working and have no effect)?

c) skipping over the issues where conventional medicine testing has gone badly would give a slanted and incorrect view "that conventional medicine is well tested and provides the best treatment", you seam to suggest that testing helped stop issues with Thalidomide and Vioxx - but it was infact a failaure in the testing by the drugs companies and the regulatory bodies in their management of this process - that has cost people their lives and created the disabilities we see today. Testing over the years has become better, but serious issues still remain - in 2004 Rofecoxib was withdrawn as it was attributed to a significant increase in the incidence of heart attacks/strokes, it had apparently undergone rigorous testing and was launched just before 2000, 80 million people were taking it! In another case, Bayer withdrew Cerivastatin in 2001 because regulatory bodies directly attributed its use to over 50 deaths and the serious (but non fatal) breakdown of sketal mussel in almost 500 people.... I could go on .... but I’m sure you get the message ....

I’m not claiming that alternative medicine is the answer and I’m not saying it's without a level of risk (re-read my posting, I did'nt make any such claims), but nor should the "safety" of a conventional medicine be assumed, just because it's in shiny packet, has undergone trials and sort regulatory approval, as v.recient history has taught us - these trials/approvals "can" be flawed.

So to summarize (and possibly to repeat myself again !) I believe that differing treatments (conventional and alternative alike), suit differing individuals with differing conditions.

Before you decide to paraphrase this posting in your next response - perhaps you'll see that I’m looking at this argument from both sides !! and if you choose to - please comment "correctly" and formulate a "ballanced" arguement that deals with the "facts" (good and bad) for both convential and alternative. :cool:

spaceraiders

star1 wrote: »

Spaceraider - I'm not really sure why you like to launch into rather hostile attacks to anyone who doesn’t share your opinion of "alternative healthcare being a farce" .... if you took the time to read my posting and the sentiment within, you'd understand that I believe that convential and alternative medicine have their respective place for certain individuals and certain conditions, alternative and convential alike .... and should be used on a case by case basis where appropriate ....
Regarding your response - I'm afraid I have to correct you on almost every statement you chose to paraphrase ....

Point taken. I'm not intending to be hostile but I'm am very passionate about this topic. :-)

a) Regarding large scale case studies ....

It’s a fact the world wide drugs industry is worth millions, and millions are spent on trials, it's a fact that despite these tests/trials - many well known medial disasters have occurred (such as Thalomide etc), the money spent on these trials and money used to help influence the regulatory bodies at the time, meant these drugs/treatments gained regulatory approval (when clearly they shouldn’t). It's also a fact that many other side effects of many convential drugs are not so well publicised. Drug companies cover themselves by including comprehensive instruction/warnings in packets - why do you think this is? - perhaps the products may not be as "sound" as the "head-line claims" that the drug or treatment is promoted to cure?

I'm not sure what your point is. I agree trials won't discover everything every time, but the more we know the better. There's always room for corruption in any system, but on the whole the current one works well and the scandals you refer to are rare and far between.

Lets turn to the poor relation .... It's "fact" that alternative medicine is not a big "money earner" for any one company (or group of companies) or bodies (unlike drugs etc) -

The alternative medicine industry is worth billions in the UK. The fact they don't have to do any research, spend money manufacturing drugs or equipment, hirer expensive medical doctors etc. means they turn a huge profit. Homeopaths, chiropractors etc. form large organisations and it's in their best interest to suppress anything negative about their field such as their treatments not working or having risks.

therefore it should come as no surprise to note - that there's no substantial funding or money spent on tests and trials !! - this gos to explain your repeated concerns related to the lack of evidence attributed to trials/tests etc. – how ever hard you look - you won't find any - as no one will financially back one - as it wouldn't be in any one persons commercial interest to do so !!

I don't think you've really looked into this. The government, universities and other interested parties do research into alternative medicine all the time. If one of these things was found to work well, it would be a cheap way to treat lots of problems and make a profit. This site has thousands of alternative medicine trials on it:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=+site:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+pubmed+alternative+medicine

Most alternative medicines have been subject to large trials already and have been found not to work so are not used by conventional medicine.

b) again the point has been missed, convential and alternative medicine can help differing individuals for differing conditions (horses for courses!!). Conventional medicine has provided some fantastic treatments and cures for conditions, diseases, via treatment and inoculations, pain relief and infection treatment, medical procedure/treatment used in operations etc .... and I’d be the first to list how these have helped those I’ve known .... but again (I feel like I’m repeating myself), the treatment should be prescribed where/when appropriate to the right individual under the appropriate circumstances - to make a sweeping statement that claims [sic] "by not administering conventional treatment the patient is being put at risk", can easily be questioned/debated when you consider the "problems and (known) side-effects that many medicines introduce"

I recommend treatments where you have weighed up the pros and cons. For alternative medicines, we know most of them do not work and some of them have unknown cons as well.

(repeating myself again) …. Assessment of Treatment should be on a case by case basis – for example (as this is particularly relevant) to continually prescribe a back suffer pain-killers, only goes to “mask” the pain, and does not attempt to provide a resolution, or a constructive approach to alleviating the pain …. For example, if the front wheels on your car were misaligned would you keep forcing the steering wheel to correct the steering, and keep replacing the tyres with new ones (as the others would have gone bald on the edge through the miss-alignment) – no !! – you would get the steering re-aligned and the wheels balanced ! (wouldn’t you?) – prevention and addressing the problem with any type of prescriptive treatment/care is preferable to just giving a patient drugs, for which a dependency related immunity would develop/become apparent anyway …. then what do you offer as the solution (when the pain killers have stopped working and have no effect)?

I'd recommend listening to your doctor who will know the best course of action based on evidence. I don't see how going to people who have no proof their treatment is effective is a good idea.

c) skipping over the issues where conventional medicine testing has gone badly would give a slanted and incorrect view "that convention medicine is well tested and provides the best treatment", testing over the years has become better, but serious issues still remain - in 2004 Rofecoxib was withdrawn as it was attributed to a significant increase in the incidence of heart attacks/strokes, it had apparently undergone rigorous testing and was launched just before 2000, 80 million people were taking it! In another case, Bayer withdrew Cerivastatin in 2001 because regulatory bodies directly attributed its use to over 50 deaths and the serious (but non fatal) breakdown of sketal mussel in almost 500 people.... I could go on .... but I’m sure you get the message .... I’m not claiming that alternative medicine is the answer and I’m not saying it's without a level of risk (re-read my posting, I did'nt make any such claims),
but nor should the "safety" of a conventional medicine be assumed, just because it's in shiny packet, has undergone trials and sort regulatory approval, as v.recient history has taught us - these trials/approvals "can" be flawed.

I don't understand your point. I'm not saying all drugs are safe. I'm saying let's find out what works and what the risks are and make decisions from there. Alternative medicine generally fails here as it 1) is shown not to work and 2) any risk is with no benefit.

So to summarize (and possibly to repeat myself again !) I believe that differing treatments (conventional and alternative alike), suit differing individuals with differing conditions.

Before you decide to paraphrase this posting in your next response - perhaps you'll see that I’m looking at this argument from both sides !! and if you choose to - please comment "correctly" and formulate a "ballanced" arguement that deals with the "facts" (good and bad) for both convential and alternative. :cool:

[/quote]

I don't understand why you're characterising me as not reading what you're writing. I've quoted you where appropriate. You wouldn't need to repeat yourself if your points were clear and concise; I don't understand why you keep giving me examples of cases where drugs have side-effects. I also don't understand why you don't think I'm being "balanced" just because I haven't said anything good about alternative medicine; refute statements I've said if you believe them to be false.

star1_2

I think it's fair to summarize that everyone can hold a differing opinion, as you mentioned your passionate about your stance (i.e. you feel that conventional medicine is for you - as you feel that scientific basis supports its claims), you've noted that my stance is wider (that I feel both complement one another, and a choice of what can be used - when the case suits), and for others - it must be recognized that they don't like/agree with convential medicine and are very happy with what alternative medicine offers for them) ..... we all have opinions in life, let’s respect everyone’s right to hold that opinions for the reasons they choose to ….

Case studies/drug companies - I have personal experience and benefit financially from the money that drugs companies spend on the "promotion machine", so I’m hardly going to (blatently) "bite the hand that partially feeds me", but the practices that are used and the money that’s spent - never ceases to amaze me - stories of cover-ups and the publishing of "selected results" are more frequent than the general public are aware. I'm not saying the industry is totally corrupt, far from it - the drugs co's have produced numerous fantastic life saving products and medicines that can improve quality of life and save lives - but it should be noted millions are spent on trials to launch products with the intention of making their owners vast fortunes - it's very easy in a close-knit industry (where the major players all work together) to be selective about what’s published (and what's not), and to slant results, therefore don't always believe what you read (and assume all is ok, in what you don't read) .... occasionally, a small proportion of these true stories emerge, but money can frequently be used to help dilute the bad-press they may generate.

The testing, launch and promotion of alternative medicines is of course less controlled and pretty much down to governmental organizations, there are no major players in the production of alternative medicines - so no one (or small collection) or companies tests/promotes and launches alternative products in the same way as the drugs companies, nor backs them financially. The money spent on testing alternative medicines is a small fraction compared to that of the drugs companies (I’ll see if I can find this out later from the drugs industry itself - as I’m curious to check this out), as we all know "money talks".

Alternative medicines/therapies alone are often not the answer, and a limited number have caused issues (I’ll be the first to agree), but their (careful) use has to be put into context, in the same way use of convential medicines and treatments need to be carefully implemented, and after assessment- I would say that convential should be the first stop in most/majority of cases/situations, and others looked at when / where necessary, when either others have failed, stopped working or where convential medicines side effects have been looked at. (medical disclaimer - of course, seek professional opinion for your specific condition!)

Anyway - my reference to specific recent cases, just goes to illustrate some issues in the industry - I’m just showing (with supported fact), that not all is good with convential medicine industry.

Lastly - I’m sure you've realized that I’m not a (total) convert to the "alternative medicine machine", but nor do I blindly believe what’s produced by the "convernial medicine machine". Everyone has the right to "weigh up" what suits them, and combined with diagnosis and a proper plan, should undertake what suits and has been assessed to be beneficial to them. I just urge anyone to not blindly read or act upon one view/opinion, and should realize sometimes these reports are slanted/selectively published, because of the money/machine that operates behind the scenes. Do we all believe statics that are published? – No !, it’s common knowledge that organizations/politicians and companies slant and show what suits their cause/argument, the drugs industry is no different! – so read, digest, evaluate and understand the full picture (that’s all I’m saying).

mini-me66

Just wanted to clarify a couple of comments - i cant give you exact statistics im afraid!!!

The incidence of a stroke following manip is minimal, usually the person would have had blood deficiency to the brain anyway and could have had a stroke 2 days later so although it is a risk, prob less than walking along the street!!

In terms of painkillers etc masking pain - a lot of time people have pain as the muscles spasm and then you dont move, movement helps a lot, therefore lowering the levels of pain can allow people to move and therefore help resolve the problem. Also some pain relief has anti-inflammatory effects which can keep the problem form getting worse, or meds that dull down the nerve impulses so allow people to get moving. Yes it would be ideal not to use them long term, they are important to use initially.

Chiro/manips (whoever does them be it physio/osteopath) do have a short term result due to the release of gas and possibly a release of endorphins (natural pain relief). This may do the trick and allow someone to feel better as they get moving. There are people however who say they see a chiroprator every month for many many years to 'manage' their malalignment. Have they ever thought whats causing that malalignment and fixed that??

Although im open to all treatments, i have experience in resolving problems within a few weeks that the chiro hasnt in years....and it happens a lot more than you may think.

Anyway, hope some of that info helps a bit.

Girlzmum

spaceraiders wrote: »

You do not know that it was the chiro that helped you. Your back could have became better by itself. I'll say it again: sometimes cancer just disappears. You could have just been someone whose back problem went away at the same time as getting chiro and now you think the chiro did it. Then you tell your friends. Then they benefit from a increased placebo effect when they see a chiro. Then they tell their friends etc.

Only a proper test can show if chiro works. Your anecdotes are not useful for this.

I know my own body. I am very sure that you know nothing of my body and I'd love to know how you can claim to know my body better than I do - otherwise how can you know that the chiropractor didn't help me at all. You put my back problems down to stress, they were a physical problem caused by a car accident, not stress. I did not decide I had back problems, I went through several operations, years of investigations, physio and long term drug use, while the painkillers helped with the pain, as I have already said, I do not consider long term drug use to be an option. Constantly telling me that I am telling stories that are unreliable will not change my mind or my opinion, I know if my pain has gone away, I know if I have gained long term relief from my problems - how can you tell me this is all in my mind?

spaceraiders

star1 wrote: »

I think it's fair to summarize that everyone can hold a differing opinion, as you mentioned your passionate about your stance (i.e. you feel that conventional medicine is for you - as you feel that scientific basis supports its claims)...

I agree that people can do whatever they like, think what they like and that (a small amount) of corruption exists in the drugs industry. I'd prefer things if people looked towards evidence to make decisions. I completely disagree about your points about the alternative medicine industry not having enough money to do research; I gave you a link to thousands of studies that you didn't respond to.

spaceraiders

Girlzmum wrote: »

I know my own body. I am very sure that you know nothing of my body and I'd love to know how you can claim to know my body better than I do - otherwise how can you know that the chiropractor didn't help me at all. You put my back problems down to stress, they were a physical problem caused by a car accident, not stress. I did not decide I had back problems, I went through several operations, years of investigations, physio and long term drug use, while the painkillers helped with the pain, as I have already said, I do not consider long term drug use to be an option. Constantly telling me that I am telling stories that are unreliable will not change my mind or my opinion, I know if my pain has gone away, I know if I have gained long term relief from my problems - how can you tell me this is all in my mind?

The following are very well known and researched ways our brains fool us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

This includes me and you. You are not immune to your brain tricking you.

This is why we do, for example, randomised double blind placebo controlled tests. Each of these things provides safe guards against the biases linked above; your test was neither randomised, double blind or placebo controlled. We don't just test something on one person and ask them how they feel because the number of ways this is inaccurate is enormous. Read here for further information about standards of medical evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

You can be as melodramatic as you want, but your evidence is utterly unreliable. Would you take a vaccination shot that was tried on just one person or just because a group of people tried it and said it seemed to work?

I urge you to read about bloodletting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting

"Bloodletting ... was a tremendously popular medical practice from antiquity up to the late 19th century, a time span of almost 2,000 years. ... In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the historical use of bloodletting was harmful to patients."

If millions of people used bloodletting for 2000 years thinking it worked when it was actually harming them, what makes you think you can magically tell whether a treatments works or not? Discovering what treatments work and what their risks are is hard and cannot be done with personal testing.